-
Using Performance Information for Budgeting:
Clarifying the Framework and Investigating Recent State
Experience
Philip G. Joyce*
Susan Sieg**
*Associate Professor of Public Administration, The George
Washington University, 302 Monroe Hall, 2115 G St., NW, Washington,
DC 20052.
**Analyst, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC,
20515.
Prepared for the 2000 Symposium of the Center for Accountability
and Performance of the American Society for Public Administration,
held at the George Washington University, Washington, D.C.,
February 11 and 12, 2000. Data collected for research reported in
the paper was supported by a grant from the Pew Charitable Trusts
to the Alan K. Campbell Public Affairs Institute at the Maxwell
School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University. The
paper itself was supported by a grant from PricewaterhouseCoopers.
Not to be cited without permission of the authors. The views
expressed in this paper are those of the authors and should not be
interpreted as those of the Congressional Budget Office. The
authors appreciate the helpful comments of Kathryn Newcomer ad
Michele Moser on an earlier draft of this paper.
-
2
Using Performance Information for Budgeting: Clarifying the
Framework and Investigating Recent State Experience
Philip G. Joyce and Susan Sieg
Abstract
The 1990s witnessed a resurgence of the effort to introduce more
performance information into the budget processes of many
governments across the world. In the United States, this has
manifested itself in moves toward performance-based budgeting in
the national government as well as in state and local governments.
Despite these efforts and numerous attempts to study these new
reforms, a specific and clear framework that integrates performance
information into the budget process has been elusive.
In particular, much of the extant literature on
performance-based budgeting focuses almost exclusively on the use
of performance information by elected officials to make macro-level
resource allocation decisions. While this is certainly a relevant
focus, it is not a complete one. Such a narrow view of performance
measurement and budgeting runs a great risk of oversimplifying a
very complex system. This paper argues that the more important (and
complete) question concerns the extent to which performance
information is available and used at each stage of the budget
processbudget preparation, budget approval, budget execution, and
audit and evaluation. By framing the question in this way, the
researcher may be able to identify a great many more subtle
differences from one place (agency, state, local government) to
another.
After suggesting this more complete framework for consideration
of the availability and use of performance information for
budgeting, the paper uses 1998 data on state governments collected
by the Government Performance Project (a joint effort of Syracuse
University and Governing magazine, funded by the Pew Charitable
Trusts) to attempt to determine the extent of availability and use
of performance information in the states. The paper finds that
strategic planning is widespread, although the incidence of
agency-level planning is greater than that of statewide planning.
Further, almost half of the states have made significant progress
in developing cost accounting systems. While two-thirds of the
states have outcome measures, only 10 of them were using these
measures to set targets for performance. Finally, the availability
and use of performance information in the budget process is greater
at the agency level than it is in the central budget offices or
(particularly) in the agencies.
The paper argues that scholars should consider studying
performance-based budgeting by focusing more attention on analysis
of agencies or policy areas, and less attention exclusively on
centralized institutions. Changing the research focus in this way
would provide a more complete picture of the availability and use
of performance information for budgeting. It might prevent scholars
and practitioners from reaching erroneous conclusions concerning
the effect of these reforms. Through broadening the scope of
research we are more likely to discover how much progress has been
made, and how much work remains to be done.
-
3
Using Performance Information for Budgeting: Clarifying the
Framework and Investigating Recent State Experience
Performance budgeting. Performance funding. Performance-based
budgeting. Budgeting for
results. Connecting resources with results. Performance
management. Managing for results.
There seem to be as many ways of describing the reforms
attempting to connect performance
information with the allocation and management of resources as
there are reform efforts
themselves. The level of performance-related activity should, on
the one hand, be encouraging
to those who wish to see more systematic use of such information
for budgeting. On the other
hand, however, there is a disturbing lack of clarity here. Is
there any difference between
budgeting for results and connecting resources with results? Is
managing for results about
management, while budgeting for results is about budgeting? Isnt
budgeting part of
management (or is it that management is part of budgeting?)?
What is the difference (if any)
between performance budgeting, performance-based budgeting, and
performance funding?
The risk of all of this activity coupled with the imprecise use
of language is that no one
would really know a performance-based budget (or whatever) if he
or she saw one.
Researchers are collecting a lot of information, and more is
being added all the time, on the
creation and use of performance information in various locations
for various purposes. But if
someone wanted to know (as the readers of this paper might)
about the status of performance-
based budgeting in the states (or in local governments, or in
federal agencies, or in the world)
the problem for the researcher would not be limited to the
daunting task of collecting data to
answer the question. It would extend to the problem of defining
the question itself. In 1969,
Aaron Wildavsky offered his famous criticism of a past reform,
by noting that no one knows
-
4
how to do program budgeting (Wildavsky, 1969). If he were alive
today, he might say about
the present reform that no one agrees on how to define
performance-based budgeting. We
would submit that the failure to establish a clear, agreed-upon
definition is a substantial barrier to
successful research or successful implementation.
What is the point of all this? This paper will argue that we
need to embrace a broader, more
precise framework in which to consider performance-based
budgeting in order to understand
how it is currently or could be used to change the terms of
budgetary debate. After presenting
some background information on past efforts to introduce more
performance information into the
budget process and summarizing past research on current efforts,
the paper will present this new
framework, which focuses on two dimensionsthe availability and
use of performance
informationin all stages of the budget process. Data will then
be reported that will attempt to
discern how the states compared to each other based on
information collected in 1998. Finally,
we will suggest what we view as the most appropriate way to
proceed in future research.
PAST EFFORTS TO CONNECT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT AND
BUDGETING
It is not necessary here to detail the many past efforts to
connect performance measures to
the budget process; the latest wave is a logical follow-on to
many previous efforts to insert more
performance information into budget processes, at all levels of
government. Because
government resource allocation is an unambiguously important
area of inquiry, the budget
process has been the subject of many reform efforts. These
include:
early 20th century efforts to introduce greater control to
budgeting as a counter to corrupt policies, mainly centered in
cities dominated by political machines. The so-called executive
budget movement of the 1900s through 1920s is most characteristic
of these reform efforts. In fact, by 1920, twenty-three states
provided for an executive budget (Burkhead, 1956).
-
5
attempts to introduce greater efficiency into budgeting, by
focusing on less costly ways of organizing for work and of
delivering outputs. For example, performance budgeting, which came
out of the Hoover Commission, called for better techniques of work
measurement, thus helping managers to evaluate the efficiency of
various methods of delivering outputs (Schick, 1966).
initiatives to make the budget process more focused on the
results obtained from the expenditure of money for government
activities, rather than on the expenditures or activities
themselves. Perhaps the most famous of these was program budgeting
(of which the federal effort, the Planning Programming Budgeting
System, was a specific example), but zero-based budgeting fits
under this heading as well (Schick, 1971; Congressional Budget
Office, 1993).
Current efforts to manage for results are a logical successor to
these past reforms. Perhaps
most closely identified in this country with the entrepreneurial
management movement
popularized in the book Reinventing Government (Osborne and
Gaebler, 1992), this movement
argues for a movement toward outcome-based budgets and away from
a self-conscious focus
on inputs. Reformers specifically decry the tendency of budget
processes to focus on the
allocation of resources to serve the narrow interest of
legislative constituencies rather than the
broader public interest. The concern over pork which is behind
the move to give Governors,
and then the President, a form of line-item veto authority,
results from a concern that legislators,
left to their own devices, do not budget in a manner that
reflects the broader public interest
(Abney and Lauth, 1985; Joyce and Reischauer, 1997).
Several summary observations can be made about the history of
budget reform:
Generally, the ambitions of budget reforms have often
outstripped the analytic and information management capacity of
government agencies.
Lack of leadership support in both the executive and legislative
branches, as well as unclear or conflicting expectations, has
allowed reform efforts to falter.
Rational, planning-based systems have not replaced, nor can they
be expected to replace, the political process which makes resource
allocation decisions in a complex environment of competing
interests (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government
Accountability, 1997).
-
6
CURRENT RESEARCH IN PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING The 1990s have
seen a renaissance of performance-based reforms in the United
States. These
are not only the logical successors of past reforms in this
country, but are part of an international
trend that is consistent with the new public management
movement. Australia, New Zealand,
and Great Britain are most often cited as exemplars of this
reform movement (Premchand, 1999).
In state and local governments in the United States, the general
movement toward more
performance measurement has often been coupled with benchmarking
efforts or with efforts to
report on service efforts and accomplishments. In the federal
government, the movement is
most closely associated with the Government Performance and
Results Act. (Joyce, 1999).
A number of efforts have been made in the 1990s to review the
current state of performance-
based budgeting in the states. A 1993 study of performance
measures in the federal government
included case studies of two states, and noted that state and
local government use of performance
measures concentrated heavily on activities rather than results,
and that there were only tenuous
links between performance information and resource allocation
decisions. The author stated that
performance measures are used much more extensively in carrying
out the budget than in
preparing it (Joyce, 1993). Similarly, case studies of five
performance-based government efforts
by Broom and McGuire found that agency managers, legislators,
stakeholders and citizens were
using the products of performance based systems. Unable to draw
a clear link between
performance information and resource allocation decisions, the
authors were optimistic that
performance information would gain wider use in budget and
policy decision-making mainly
because performance-based efforts are being sustained, nurtured
and refined (Broom and
McGuire, 1995). Researchers have also reported on efforts in
individual states, such as
-
7
California (Office of the Legislative Analyst, 1993), Florida
(Office of Program Policy Analysis
and Government Accountability, 1997), and Oregon (Oregon
Progress Board, 1994).
Other studies have focused on comparing various performance
measurement practices across
all 50 states. The most long-established of these is Lees
evaluation of state budgeting practices,
which has been ongoing since 1970. Lee, surveying state budget
offices, focuses on the use of
program analysis in state budgeting, focusing in particular on
central budget office and
legislative practices in use of such techniques as effectiveness
analysis and productivity
analysis. Lee finds that productivity and effectiveness measures
(which show increasing
prominence in budget documents) will be revised when funding
levels change, indicating that
states recognize that expected results must be kept in balance
with available funding. Yet Lees
most current survey results (from 1995) indicate that executives
are relying less on productivity
analysis in making resource allocation decisions. Further, Lee
notes that states have not
developed accounting systems that track the costs of providing
services or performing work,
noting that states have identified few incentives to devise such
systems (Lee, 1997).
In addition, the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and
Government Accountability
(OPPAGA) identified three uses for performance information: a
management tool to improve
program effectiveness through long-range planning and goal
setting; a policy/budget influence
tool; and a budget tool to be used as a basis for budget
decisions. In its in-depth study of five
states and survey of these and the remaining 45 states, OPPAGA
notes that there are benefits to
be found in any implementation of performance-based efforts.
State agencies reported a greater
focus on results, opportunities for re-engineering and a
heightened sense of mission. (OPPAGA,
1997)
-
8
More recently, a survey was conducted of state legislative and
executive budget officers
concerning performance-based legislative requirements in the
states. The authors of the article
define performance-based budgeting as a budget system requiring
strategic planning for agency
mission, goals and objectives, and a process that requests
quantifiable data that provides
meaningful information about program outcomes. (Note,
significantly, that this definition says
nothing about use of measures for management or budgeting.) This
study determines the legal or
administrative requirements for the states to conduct
performance-based budgeting as defined
above. The survey finds that 31 states (62%) have legislation
that requires performance-based
budgeting. Approximately 16 states (32%) have some form of
performance-based budgeting
instituted by administrative requirements such as budgeting
instructions or guidelines. Only
three states have no mandate whatsoever to conduct
performance-based budgeting. The authors
find that while states are requiring performance information in
budget submissions, the
effectiveness and contribution of performance measures to the
budget process in the states
remains unclear. Most states recognize the incremental nature of
development and
implementation of performance measurement systems as well as
their integration into the
budgetary decision-making process. (Melkers & Willoughby,
1998)
Finally, a recent survey of performance budgeting and
performance funding in all 50
states (Jordan and Hackbart, 1998) looked at performance
measurement both during the budget
preparation process (performance budgeting) and during the
budget approval process
(performance funding). The authors find that 34 states use some
form of performance budgeting
(29 of these say that performance measures affect the Governors
recommendations in some
way), while only 13 use some form of performance funding. Only
10 states indicated that they
both used performance budgeting and performance funding.
-
9
Most current research into the status of performance information
in the states, then, has been
based on case studies of the most well-known state initiatives,
or on surveys of state budget
offices. No matter the source, the overwhelming conclusion is
that performance measurement is
gaining in popularity, but its usefulness is still in question.
Most scholars suggest that
performance information may be best suited for support of
managerial decision-making.
(Melkers & Willoughby, 1998; Joyce, 1997). These studies
underscore the rather preliminary
nature of state performance-based budgeting efforts. They point
to the increased use of
legislative requirements in providing the basis for
performance-based budgeting. Further, they
tend to support the notion that there is still a great deal of
variation among the states in the
presence of performance information and the use of this
information for budgeting.
In our view, the current cross-sectional studies, while they
have contributed greatly to our
understanding of the rather embryonic efforts toward increasing
the use of performance
information in budget processes, tend to have at least two
limitations. First, they rely on a
narrow definition of performance-based budgeting that is limited
to a discussion of legislative
requirements (Melkers and Willoughby, 1998) executive branch
review (Lee, 1997; Jordan and
Hackbart, 1998) or the outcome of legislative resource
allocation (Jordan and Hackbart, 1998;
and to some extent Lee, 1997), and do not give as much emphasis
to other stages of the budget
process, in particular agency budget preparation and
(particularly) execution. Second, because
they tend to rely on individual (or sometimes two) survey
responses, they can yield unreliable
results that are heavily influenced by the biases and
interpretations of a limited number of
survey respondents.
-
10
A MORE DETAILED LOOK AT PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE BUDGET
PROCESS
As noted above, the basic underlying problem with the existing
evaluation of performance-
based budgeting involves the lack of clarity. It seems that
while everyone wants to do
performance-based budgeting, and many people study it, there is
not general agreement on what
it is. Our first challenge, therefore, is to try to introduce
some greater clarity into the debate by
providing a more detailed framework for consideration of
performance-based budgeting. After
establishing this new framework, we will test for the extent to
which performance-based
budgeting is being practiced by looking at results of surveys
and other data collected from the 50
states in the latter half of 1998.
Why a new framework? In our view, more clarity and nuance is in
order precisely because
the old definition(s) have degenerated to the point where they
have become all things to all
people. As noted above, there are a number of different terms
that are used to describe the
connection of performance information, on the one hand, and
government resources, on the
other. We will attempt to clarify this situation somewhat by
adopting a scheme that will permit a
more comprehensive view of the relationship of performance
information to the budget process.
There are, in our view, two dimensions to this new typology.
First, it must account for multiple
activities, including strategic planning, performance
measurement and cost accounting. These
activities, in our view, comprise the successful building blocks
for the use of performance
information in the budget process. Second, it must account for
activities that occur at different
stages of the budget process, and focus on both availability and
use of performance measures, as
opposed to focusing on availability in agencies and use only
during executive review and budget
approval.
-
11
For our purposes, performance-based budgeting, rather than
representing a black and
white concept, is a continuum that involves the availability and
use of performance information
at each of the various stages of the budget processbudget
preparation, budget approval, budget
execution, and audit and evaluation. Even within some of these
stages, there can be numerous
manifestations of performance-based budgeting. During budget
preparation, for example, it is
necessary to focus both on agency-level budgeting and central
office review and
recommendation. In budget approval, it is essential to
investigate both legislative activity and
gubernatorial decisions on spending bills (whether to sign or
veto, the use of line-item vetoes,
etc.). In a given government, performance-based budgeting may
manifest itself at some stages of
the budget process, but not others. This is why, in our view, it
is essential to capture the full
range of possible uses when evaluating the progress that a given
entity has made in
performance-based budgeting. Evaluating some stages but not
others risks reaching
incomplete or misleading conclusions, which may overstate
accomplishments in some settings
while underestimating reform efforts in others.
BUILDING BLOCKS FOR USING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FOR
BUDGETING
The successful use of performance information for budgeting
takes a long time to take hold
and has many obstacles to overcome in the public sector. There
are at least four prerequisites to
successful use of performance information at any stage of the
budget process: (Joyce, 1999)
1. Public entities need to know what they are supposed to
accomplish. This is often quite
difficult for public agencies, because they exist in an
environment where a great many
legitimate actors are attempting to influence their activities.
Thus, the effort to engage in
-
12
strategic planning (preferably government-wide), to the extent
that it enables decisions to
be made that establish the strategic direction for the
government, is crucial.
2. Valid measures of performance need to exist. This is also
quite difficult for public sector
entities, since, it is hard to measure outcomes, and easier it
to measure outputs. Further,
the more one starts to move toward measuring outcomes, the more
public entities may
legitimately question whether they may be held accountable for
achieving results that are
partly (or even mostly) outside of their control.
3. Accurate measures of cost need to be developed. Connecting
resources with results
implies knowing how much it costs to deliver a given level of
outcome. Most public
agencies cannot even tell you how much it costs to deliver an
output, in particular
because of the problems with allocating indirect costs. Agencies
or governments that are
heavily involved with user fees may be better able to identify
costs, because they have
greater incentives and external pressures to do so.
4. Finally, cost and performance information need to be brought
together for budgeting
decisions. The problem here is that there is no simple decision
rule, at least at a macro
level. It is perhaps intuitively appealing to argue for taking
money from those who do
badly (that is, those who fail to meet performance targets) and
giving more money to
those who do well. While this may sound good in theory, however,
it doesnt specify the
causal link between the money and the result. In fact, sorting
out the contribution of
funding versus other factors would require a full-blown program
evaluation. Further, the
use of performance information for budgeting implies that
budgetary actors have the
incentives to use information, which is by no means clear in
many cases. In fact, the
-
13
incentive question is probably the most important one to focus
on in determining the
possibility that performance information will actually be used
as an input into decisions.
Understanding performance-based budgeting requires that we
determine the extent to which
the preceding building blocks may be present in a particular
government (or government agency)
at a particular time. They are building blocks in the sense that
the failure to identify a strategic
direction imperils the development of appropriate performance
measures, and the lack of
appropriate measures of performance and cost undermines the
appropriate use of information for
budgeting purposes.
DEVELOPING A TYPOLOGYAVAILABILITY AND USE OF MEASURES AT
DIFFERENT STAGES OF THE BUDGET CYCLE
Most past research into performance-based budgeting has focused
not on the budget
process as a whole, but on selected parts of the budget process.
The primary question that has
tended to occupy researchers concerns the extent to which
performance information is used by
elected officials to make budget decisions, both in the
executive and in the legislative process.
But this is a limited scope of inquiry, focusing on only part of
the budget process. Performance
information may be used in important ways at other stages of the
processagency budget
preparation, budget execution, and audit and evaluationas
well.
Further, the ultimate question about how much the budget process
is performance-based
involves two subquestions. The first is about the availability
of information. Therefore, the
focus on the extent to which governments and government agencies
produce valid and reliable
information on both performance and cost is an appropriate part
of the answer to the budgeting
question. In addition, since this information is arguably being
provided in some context, the
availability question also must address the extent to which this
performance information is
-
14
consistent with the strategic goals of the agency or government.
Having information does not
guarantee its use, but it is a necessary prerequisite. A second
crucial link between performance
and the budget, then, involves the obvious focus on the extent
to which performance information
actually enters into decisions involving the allocation and
management of resources use of
performance information.
What is the difference between the framework offered here and
the current emphasis on
performance measurement and budgeting? Put simply, current
studies tend to look at availability
at one stage of the process (budget preparationdo agencies or
budget offices have performance
measures?) and use at another stage (budget approvaldo
legislatures use them in the
appropriations process?). They almost completely ignore, at
least as part of budgeting, questions
of budget execution or audit/evaluation. They also tend to
de-emphasize actual use in budget
preparation (particularly at the agency level) or (perhaps most
surprisingly) availability for
budget approval. The question that preoccupies researchers ishow
much are the Governor
and/or the legislature using performance information to make
budget decisions, as opposed to
making decisions based on (gasp!) narrow parochial concerns? If
the answer is (as it usually
is)not much, then the performance-based reform is declared to be
the second coming of PPBS:
Another failureNext!
But, in our view, such a narrow view of performance measurement
and budgeting runs a
great risk of oversimplifying a very complex system. The real
questionmuch messieris: To
what extent is performance information available and used at
each stage of the budget process
budget preparation, budget approval, budget execution, and audit
and evaluation? By framing
the question in this way, the researcher may be able to identify
a great many more subtle
difference from one place (agency, state, local government) to
another.
-
15
How would performance information be manifested at different
stages of the process? Table
1 presents a typology dividing performance information into its
two componentsavailability
and useat each of the four stages of the budget process. Note
that at the first stagebudget
preparationperformance information could be available or used
either in the process of an
agency building its budget to present to the budget office, or
within the budget office while
analyzing the budget. In the budget approval stage, it could
involve the relevant committees, the
entire legislature, or the chief executive. In budget execution,
it could involve the agency
carrying out the budget, using the discretion provided for it in
appropriation acts. For audit and
evaluation, the question ishow does performance information
enter into either internal or
external evaluations of an agency or governments programs?
There are two important things to note about this typology. The
first is that there are clearly
a great many possible decision points in the budget process. The
second is that, at each one of
these decision points, the twin questions of availability and
use are both equally relevant. It
would be quite possible for a given state (or agency) to have or
make use of performance
information in one stage of the process, quite independent of
what might happen at other stages
of the process. For example, agencies might make substantial use
of performance information in
building the budget, while other actors (central budget offices,
legislatures) make little or no use
of that information in subsequent stages. Conversely, the
absence of performance concerns in
preparation and approval would not prevent a given agency from
using its discretion to execute
its budget by considering the effects of different execution
strategies on its goals and objectives.
The point is that often performance-based budgeting suffers from
an overly narrow
definition. If we ask only the questiondoes the legislature or
the chief executive actually
allocate resources based on considerations of performance, we
run the risk of missing other
-
16
applications altogether. This focus would fail to recognize that
important decisions that affect
resource allocation occur at all stages of the classic budget
process. Performance-based
budgeting is not just (as sometimes seems to be suggested) about
whether the chief executive or
legislature stops engaging in pork barreling behavior, instead
allocating resources in a more
rational manner. It is also about (to name two) whether agencies
use performance information
in managing their budgets, and whether auditors ask performance
questions in evaluating
programs. If we do not embrace this broader set of questions, we
run the risk of prematurely
stifling progress, if (as some of the previous studies have
suggested) the most important evidence
of increasing use of performance measures in the budget process
is found at the budget execution
and evaluation stage.
If these are the important questions to ask, and we are to focus
on them at different stages of
the budget process, it is reasonable to ask what we know about
current practice that can answer
the questionto what extent are governments currently providing
and using performance
information in the budget process? Below, we attempt to make
some progress in answering that
question by using recent information from the 50 state
governments.
USING PERFORMANCE INFORMATION FOR BUDGETING IN THE STATESAN
INITIAL INQUIRY
The states have been at the center of the movement to connect
budgeting and performance
for more than 30 years. As noted above, there is no shortage of
studies on the current
manifestations of these performance-based efforts. Recently, the
Maxwell School of Citizenship
and Public Affairs at Syracuse University, in conjunction with
Governing magazine, collected
extensive data on the availability and use of performance
information in the 50 states
(Governing, 1999). These data were collected as part of an
effort, funded by the Pew Charitable
-
17
Trusts, to gauge the extent to which the states were actively
engaged in efforts to manage for
results, which was one of five management areas on which the
states were surveyed. Data were
collected from exhaustive surveys filled out by 49 of the 50
states, in addition to a number of
follow-up interviews that were conducted by Governing
journalists in each state. (See Box 1 for
a discussion of the methodology underlying the results reported
in Tables 2 through 5 of this
paper.)
For our purposes, this data collection effort allows us at least
a partial answer to the
questionhow much progress have states made at having information
available for budgeting,
and then actually using that information in the budget process?
In this analysis, we will focus
on four sub-questions:
What is the status of strategic planning in the states?
To what extent does the state track the cost of service
provision?
To what extent does the state measure performance?
If the state measures cost and performance, how is this
information used?
-
18
Box 1Data
The data reported in this paper were collected by the Maxwell
School of Citizenship and
Public Affairs at Syracuse University and Governing magazine as
a part of the Government
Performance Project (GPP). The GPP is a collaborative
academic/journalistic effort funded by
the Pew Charitable Trusts, designed to evaluate management in
state governments, local
governments, and federal agencies. In 1998, the first year of
this research focused, in part on the
50 state governments. This effort involved a number of different
data collection techniques.
First, surveys were sent to the state budget office of each
state in the Spring of 1998 requesting
responses to a number of questions in five management
areasfinancial management, human
resource management, capital management, information technology
management, and managing
for results. Second, various public documents, such as strategic
plans and audits, were requested
from each state. In addition, follow-up telephone interviews of
executive and legislative officials
(including budget officials, agency personnel, and legislators)
were conducted in an effort to
augment the data collected from other sources. The data that are
presented here represent the
categorization of the authors based on data collected as part of
the survey (in particular, the
managing for results and financial management portions),
published documents, and transcripts
of telephone interviews that were conducted as a part of the
study.
-
19
What is the relationship between these building blocks and the
two important questions
availability of measures and use of measuresthat we noted
earlier? Referring back to Table 1,
it is important to note that the first three of these questions
(about strategic planning,
performance measurement, and cost accounting) are largely
questions about the availability of
performance information, while the fourth, which would assume
the availability of these
performance data, asks how the information actually influences
decisions about the allocation
and management of resources. To the extent that we can evaluate
the states on each of these four
dimensions, we can gain a more thorough understanding of the
extent to which performance
information is both available and used at the different stages
of the budget process. In other
words, we can use data collected on actual availability and use
to attempt to fill in the cells of
Table 1 for each states, in order to determine the extent of
performance-based budgeting in a
given location.
AVAILABILITY STRATEGIC PLANNING Strategic planning is the
process of deciding on objectives of the organization, changes
in
these objectives, the resources used to attain these objectives,
and the policies that are to govern
the acquisition, use and disposition of these resources
(Anthony, 1965). As such, strategic
planning involves several components:
A statement of mission and/or vision,
Goals that are derived from the mission,
Objectives that operationalize the goals,
Measurements of performance to determine progress toward goals
and objectives.
-
20
The data from the surveys reported in Table 2 indicates that
strategic planning is occurring at
either the agency level or statewide in every state.
Statewide
Strategic planning at the statewide level comes in two flavors.
The first form, a consensus-
based plan, involves a mix of public input as well as executive
and legislative agreement.
According to the survey results, as many as 14 states use this
type of statewide strategic planning
model. In the second form, found in 11 states, the Executive
simply presents a statement of
policy goals, which may include strategic or performance
components.
Consensus-Based Plans
The most familiar of the 14 states using this model include
Oregon (Oregon Benchmarks,)
Minnesota (Minnesota Milestones,) Utah (Utah Tomorrow), Florida,
and North Carolina. One
would assume that plans such as this may have more permanence
than simple policy statements
from the Executive, but this is not the case. In each of the
high-profile states mentioned above,
there have been setbacks:
The original Oregon Benchmarks project suffered from a lack of
correlation between performance in the agencies and the statewide
benchmarks. Many of the original benchmarks have been eliminated;
the current Oregon Shines II document has been scaled back to
include 92 benchmarks that are outcome based.
The Minnesota Milestones project, started in 1991, includes 20
state goals with 70 indicators. The project fell on hard times
after a critical legislative audit led state leaders to run away
from it rather than correct it. The goal-setting exercise that was
part of the original project has been discontinued. Agencies were
required to tie budgets to Milestones in the 94-95 biennium, that
requirement was subsequently eliminated.
Utah Tomorrow originated in the legislature, and was originally
designed to encourage the legislature to think in broader,
long-range terms. The project is still having trouble deciding
whether it should be a statewide plan or a summation of
-
21
agency strategic plans. In 1997, Utah Tomorrows goals failed to
pass in the legislature, so in 1998, Utah Tomorrow didnt even come
up for a vote.
In Florida, the Commission on Government Accountability to the
People (the GAP Commission), which was charged with setting
statewide benchmarks for performance, lost its funding from the
state legislature during 1998.
North Carolinas statewide plan has a cross-agency perspective in
10 policy areas; the state has 10,000 measures of performance. A
philosophical shift in the legislature (Democrat to Republican) has
slowed down progress in improving the quality of the state plan.
Several attempts at an Oregon-style Progress Board have failed due
to a lack of institutionalization no one knows whether it is an arm
of the Executive, the legislature, or an outside agency. Most
telling, however, in a recent $150 million budget reduction, the
Governor suggested across-the-board cuts rather than reductions
based on the states strategic plan and agency performance
information.
Executive Policy Statement
The second statewide strategic planning model consists of an
Executive statement often
coming as part of the annual budget address. It is questionable,
in many cases, whether these
statements constitute a strategic plan. Often agency leaders are
left with broad statements such
as run government like a business or smaller smarter government
rather than a specific set of
goals and objectives under which to plan operations. Virginia, a
leader in strategic planning and
performance measurement, seems to be thriving under this
arrangement. The governor issues a
statewide executive plan; the state notes that term limitations
on the governor (who can only
serve one term) do not allow enough time to build broad public
support for a statewide plan.
Agency Level
Without exception, strategic planning is occurring in at least
some agencies in each state.
Many states follow a traditional strategic planning model,
creating mission statements, goals and
objectives, and designing performance measures. Other states use
different names annual
performance plans, business plans, vision and values statements.
The essence, however, is the
-
22
same: managers are being asked to thoughtfully analyze their
reason for being, and to plan
operations to effectively meet the needs of their
customers/clients/stakeholders in the context of
the overall agency mission.
While strategic planning at the agency level is widespread
across the states, i.e., almost
everyone is doing it somewhere, within the states the story is
not quite as positive. A number of
states, including Connecticut, North Dakota and Arkansas are
piloting strategic planning in
selected agencies. Other states, including Colorado, Illinois,
Massachusetts and Pennsylvania,
ask, rather than require agencies to engage in the process. The
quality of the agency plans in
these instances varies greatly depending often on the commitment
of agency leaders. In these
states, strategic planning is hardly widespread, and depending
on the political climate, expanding
in some states and contracting (or at least stagnating) in
others.
AVAILABILITY COST ACCOUNTING For managing for results programs
to achieve their highest usefulness, performance
information must be combined with cost information to determine
the tradeoff between marginal
dollars spent and marginal results achieved. Evaluating the
trade-off between the outcomes of
one program against another must be done with the understanding
of the unit costs of the
services related to each outcome measure. Table 3 reports that
about half of the states have
made some attempt at developing a statewide cost accounting
system (or at least some
approximation).
Types of Cost Allocation
Theoretically, any state receiving federal funding is required
to have an indirect cost
allocation program in place. Generally, this means that states
calculate an overhead rate that
-
23
includes fringe benefits and other direct overhead costs. This
rate is then applied to the direct
costs incurred on federally funded programs. While this
procedure meets federal standards, it is
incomplete for the purposes of determining the true cost of
services.
A number of states noted that cost allocation is occurring as
required by OMB Circular A-87.
Thirteen states made specific mention of indirect cost
allocation, numerous others noted that cost
allocation may be occurring within the agencies, but no specific
details were included. A
number of states are also beginning to develop activity-based
costing programs. This is a more
sophisticated mechanism that attempts to measure the full cost
of resources consumed in the
delivery of a particular service, including allocations for
fringe benefits and overhead costs as
well as allocations for other indirect costs.
Five states responded that activity-based costing is being
piloted in a subset of state agencies.
Texas noted that it is trying now to determine marginal costs of
activities, and expects to present
this information with its outcome measures. New Jersey has a
well-developed program for
analyzing cost per unit, and has used this information in
privatization decisions, and for
benchmarking selected services with other states. Six states
made note of other costing
programs: Colorado has started a fee evaluation program to
determine whether fees charged are
based on the full cost of activities, Hawaii will present
full-cost prototype budgets for three
departments in FY 2001, Missouri is beginning a program review
process to perform cost-benefit
analyses on state programs, Montana and Minnesota reported use
of project accounting, and
Pennsylvania uses a Planning Programming Budgeting System that
categorizes expenditures by
cost function.
-
24
Most importantly, no state has implemented activity-based
costing (or anything like it)
statewide. The states that are most accomplished are still in
the pilot stages. Texas notes that
one pilot agency, after completion of the pilot phase, is
implementing activity-based costing
agency-wide. Another notes that ABC is a good management tool
which can be used to achieve
higher efficiencies.
AVAILABILITY PERFORMANCE MEASURES Performance measures have come
a long way since the performance budgeting days of the
1950s. While measures of output and efficiency continue to show
up in reports, states are
striving to add measurements of outcome. While Table 4 reports
virtually all states (Alabama
and Arkansas are the exceptions) have input and output measures,
only, about two-thirds (32
states) indicate that outcome measures are available. It should
be noted, however, that the states
citing that outcome measures were available needed to meet a
fairly minimal standard in order to
appear in this category. That is, they needed to report that
they had at least one measure of an
outcome. Only 2 statesAlabama and Arkansasreported minimal or no
use of
performance measures. The meaningfulness of the measures needs
to be questioned as well.
Only ten of the states with measuresFlorida, Iowa, Maryland,
Minnesota, Mississippi,
Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Virginia, and Washingtonreport that they
set targets for performance
using those measures.
Table 5 presents, in part, information on availability of
measure at different stages of the
budget process. Almost all states reported that measures were
available during some stage of
the budget process. In 43 states, survey respondents reported
that either some or many
measures were available in state agencies. Most of these states
reported some use in agencies;
only 13 reported that many measures were available. In almost
all states, outcome measures
-
25
for at least some agencies were available in the central budget
office for budget review.
Somewhat fewer states (38) reported the availability of measures
during the process of
legislative approval. In these latter two cases (budget office
review and legislative approval) the
data are substantially limited by the lack of good information
on the extent of availability.
Location and Type
Every state that uses measures does so at the agency level; two
states (Maryland and
Oklahoma) reported that they would be adding them to the
planning process for FY 99. Some
states with a statewide planning document include measures of
progress at the statewide level as
well; these include Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Minnesota,
Missouri, Nebraska, North Carolina,
Oregon, Texas, Utah, and Virginia. Three statesConnecticut,
North Dakota, and Ohioreport
that they are piloting the use of performance measures in order
to learn from the experiences of
the pilot agencies. Louisiana, on the other hand, chose to
implement strategic planning and
performance measurement for all executive agencies in the space
of one year.
Many respondents noted that the success of measuring performance
lies in leadership from
the top. If the Executive and leaders in the Legislature
recognize the value of measuring
performance, agencies are much more focused in their measurement
efforts. If one branch or the
other is uninterested, the movement tends to collapse. In
Louisiana, for example, performance
standards and appropriations are enacted into legislation; there
is agreement in the leadership of
both houses, the appropriation committee and the governor that
planning and performance
measures are important for making allocation decisions.
On the other hand, several states have passed legislation
requiring strategic planning and
performance measurement, but have not followed through in any
formal way. Rhode Island
-
26
passed legislation requiring performance measures. In response,
the state Budget Office includes
measures in the budget for informational purposes, but has no
idea how the legislature intends to
use the information. In Mississippi, twenty-one agencies are
required to submit performance
targets with appropriation requests; agencies created their own
measures at the outset, but neither
branch is pushing lethargic agencies to improve the quality of
their measures.
USE OF PERFORMANCE INFORMATION IN THE BUDGET PROCESS States do
not in general report many effects of performance information on
macro-budget
decision making. As Table 5 indicates, most states report that
performance information is used
at the agency level; we do not have any good information,
however, on the extent to which this
use affects resource allocation in the agencies. Turning to use
of measures by the central budget
office, in only four statesMissouri, Texas, Louisiana, and
Virginiais the use of performance
measures by the budget office extensive; 19 other states report
some use. As might be
expected, there is even less use of performance information in
state legislatures. Only in
Louisiana does there appear to be extensive legislative use of
performance information. In 10
other states, measures are used by the legislature for some
decisions. However, many
respondents noted that the presence of performance information
is changing the tone of the
debate rather than questioning the nature of the expenditure,
lawmakers are asking for outcome
expectations if an expenditure is approved.
What is the reason for this relative paucity of use in the
legislative process? Reportedly,
most state legislatures look skeptically at performance
information coming from Executive
agencies. Many in state legislatures believe that the process of
measuring performance is still
too new to be relied on for resource allocation. Still other
state legislators are unwilling to forgo
-
27
parochial interests to make allocation decisions on performance
alone. Performance information
is of interest often when legislators need to report
accomplishments to their constituents at home.
One of the major problems most frequently cited has to do with
quality of data. While states
report that they include outcome/output measures in the budget
document, in some (many) cases,
there is no data available with which to report actual
performance. In states that had data to back
up their measures, one theme ran through many of the interviews:
the legislature fails to use
performance measures in many budgetary decisions because of its
suspicion about the quality of
the data being presented. Some states are addressing the problem
by expanding the program
evaluation responsibilities of the legislative audit bureaus to
include auditing of performance
information. Others rely on the agencies to police the data
themselves.
In still other cases, legislatures were reported to be skeptical
of measures because they had
no input in the process that created the measures in the first
place. States where the legislature
and the executive branch worked together to determine measures
seem to be farther ahead in
using those measures for both managerial and budgetary
decision-making. Louisiana and
Maryland, relative neophytes in the managing for results
movement, have benefited from support
from both the legislature and Executive from the very beginning
of the program. These states
expect that the legislature will be highly receptive to the
performance information submitted with
budget requests.
Another concern apparent in many states involves the question of
rewards and punishment.
Neither the executive branch nor the legislature seems sure how
to react if agencies meet or fail
to meet their targets. Louisiana has adopted a 5% rule if
agencies come in over or under by 5%
or more of performance targets a legislative review is
triggered. The state, however, has not
-
28
determined what actions might be taken as a result of the
review. Do agencies get to keep any
savings for other uses if they exceed their performance targets?
Or do they come under greater
scrutiny because the targets they set were too low? Do agencies
that fail to meet targets get
additional funding to do better, or do they get funding reduced
as punishment? Virginia is
piloting an incentive program where good performance is rewarded
with the ability to carry
over funds.
The nature of the debate is changing, though slowly. In many
appropriations committees,
rather than questioning the details of an expenditure,
legislators are asking what performance
improvements can be expected with the additional expenditure.
This is often the exception
rather than the rule within states, but the majority of states
report that legislators are using
performance information to enrich the mix of information
considered when making budget
allocation decisions. Concerns remain, though, in both
legislative and executive branches that
correct outcome measures can be determined. For this reason,
legislators are loath to give up the
close control of the line-item budget.
Almost unanimously, states that have performance measures in
place cite their highest and
best use (currently) as a support for management decision-making
in the agencies. Almost every
state can tell a story of programmatic changes that have been
made as a result of performance
information. This information, however, is very anecdotal; the
fact that states can tell stories
about particular incidents of performance-based management does
not tell us anything about
how widespread this practice is. This finding, however, is of
significance because it occurs in
the budget execution process, and seems to be quite independent
of legislative and central budget
office macro-level decisions. It thus serves as a crucial point
at which to judge the use of
performance information in the budget process. To the extent
that agencies are using
-
29
performance information to manage, this can be an important
indication of progress; one that
would be missed, for example, if one focused only on the
legislature.
It is important to note that the data collected as part of the
Maxwell School/Governing study
necessarily (because of resource constraints) relied on survey
responses and interviews that
focused on centralized budget institutions (the central budget
office, legislative committees, etc.)
rather than state agencies. This accounts for the paucity of
data on agency budget preparation,
on budget execution, and on audit and evaluation. As noted
earlier, a thorough understanding of
performance budgeting would necessitate more information on
availability and use of measures
during these parts of the process as well. For this reason, it
is difficult to draw complete
conclusions that would enable us to test the full dimension of
availability and use discussed in
the framework presented in Table 1.
CONCLUSIONWHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE DIRECTION FOR FUTURE
RESEARCH?
Where do we go from here? As we noted above, while the data that
we have presented
enable us to shed some light on state practices, there are
important limitations to the data which
limit their usefulness in evaluating the use of performance
information at all stages of the budget
process. There is a particular dearth of good data on
agency-level use of performance
information to allocate resources, and on use of performance
measures for audit and evaluation.
One of the basic problems with extant research is that it may
focus on the wrong unit of analysis.
Focusing on the state, for example, almost necessarily leads to
a focus on centralized
institutions (the central budget office, the legislature) within
the state. This, as we have noted,
provides an incomplete picture of both the availability and the
use of performance measures in
the budget process.
-
30
While there is a possibility that this centralized approach may
lead to a false positive (a
conclusion that there is more performance information finding
its way into the budget process
than is in fact the case), the greater probability is that it
leads to a false negative. That is, if the
conclusion is that the central budget office does not use
performance information in putting the
Governors budget together, and the legislature does not use it
in the appropriations process, the
ultimate conclusion is that there is no performance-based
budgeting in the state. What if,
however, a given state agency was using its discretion to
allocate its resources among agency
subunits on the basis of which type of allocation would best fit
with the strategic needs of the
agency? What if the state auditor routinely asked questions
about program outcomes, instead of
questions about financial compliance? And what if performance
and cost information were
found to be available at different stages of the process, but
simply not used? We would argue
that each of these latter cases should be acknowledged as
evidence of performance-based
budgeting, which has the goal of having more performance
information available and used in the
budget process. If we view performance-based budgeting as a
continuous, rather than a
dichotomous, variable, it should convince us that it needs to be
investigated in all of its rich
detail in order to understand its true implications.
In his 1997 book, The Tides of Reform, Paul Light argues that
the problem with public sector
reforms is not that there are too few of them, but too many
(Light, 1997). Reforms are not
permitted to germinate and bear fruit before they are
prematurely declared to be failures. Seen in
this context, we would argue that it is crucial to view
performance-based budgeting reforms
through a wide, rather than a narrow lens. If we focus only on
centralized institutionssuch as
the central budget office and legislative bodiesas our
barometers of success, we may miss a lot
of potentially encouraging developments. We may also be looking
in the wrong placewhy
-
31
would we expect a legislative body to use performance
information for budgeting unless this
information actually exists?
We would encourage scholars who are studying the relationships
between performance
information and budgeting to eschew the kind of narrow,
cross-sectional results that are often
presented (indeed, some of which have been presented in this
paper), in deference to a research
model that puts the agency or the policy area within a
government at the center. The question
will then becometo what extent is performance information
available and used in budgeting
for (agency X or policy Y) at each stage of the budget process?
In our view, it is through
broadening the scope of our research that we will discover how
much progress has been made,
and how much work remains to be done.
-
32
Bibliography
Abney, G. and T. Lauth, The Line Item Veto in the States: An
Instrument of Fiscal Restraint or an Instrument of Partisanship?,
Public Administration Review
Anthony, R. N. (1965). Planning and Control Systems: A Framework
for Analysis. Boston: Harvard University.
Botner, S. B. (1985). The Use of Budgeting/Management Tools by
State Governments. Public Administration Review, 45(5),
616-620.
Broom, C. A. and L. McGuire (1995). Performance-Based Government
Models: Building a Track Record. Public Budgeting and Finance,
15(4), 3-17.
Burkhead, J. (1956). Government Budgeting. New York, NY: John
Wiley & Sons.
Governing. Grading the States (March 1999). Joyce, P. (1993).
Using Performance Measures in the Federal Budget Process .
Washington,
DC: Congressional Budget Office.
Joyce, P. G. (1997) Using Performance Measures for Budgeting: A
New Beat, or Is It the Same Old Tune? in Kathryn Newcomer, ed.,
Using Performance Measures for Public and Nonprofit Programs (San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass), pp. 45-61.
Joyce, P.G., and R.D. Reischauer (1997), The Federal Line-Item
Veto: What is it and What Will It Do?, Public Administration Review
57: pp. 95-104.
Joyce, P.G., (1999) Performance-Based Budgeting, in Roy Meyers,
ed., Handbook of Government Budgeting (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass),
pp. 597-619.
Key, V. O. Jr,. (1940). The Lack of a Budgetary Theory. American
Political Science Review(December), 1137-1144.
Lee, R. D., Jr. (1997). A Quarter Century of State Budgeting
Practices. Public Administration Review, 57(2), 133-140.
Lewis, V. B. (1952). Toward a Theory of Budgeting. Public
Administration Review, 12(Winter), 42-54.
Light, Paul (1997). The Tides of Reform: Making Government Work
(New Haven: Yale University Press).
Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (1998). The State of the
States: Performance-Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50.
Public Administration Review, 58(1), 66-73.
Oregon Progress Board, Oregon Benchmarks: Standards for
Measuring Statewide Progress and Institutional Performance.
Portland: Oregon Progress Board, 1994.
-
33
Rubin, I. (1991). Budgeting for Our Times: Target Base
Budgeting. Public Budgeting and Finance(Fall), 5-14.
Schick, A. (1966). The Road to PPB: The Stages of Budget Reform.
Public Administration Review, 26(4), 243-258.
Schick, A. (1971). Budget Innovation in the States. Washington,
DC: The Brookings Institution.
State of California, Office of the Legislative Analyst.
Performance Budgeting: Reshaping the States Budget Process.
Sacramento: Office of the Legislative Analyst, 1993.
State of Florida. Office of Program Performance and Government
Accountability (1997). Performance-Based Program Budgeting in
Context: History and Comparison . Tallahassee, FL: Office of
Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability.
Wildavsky, A. (1969) Rescuing Policy Analysis from PPBS. Public
Administration Review 29.
-
34
Table 1
Dimensions of Performance Measurement in the Budget Process
Stage of Budget Process Measures Available: Use of Measures to:
Budget Preparation: Agency Level
= Agency strategic planning and performance planning
= Cost accounting = Performance (outcome)
measures
= Make tradeoffs between agency subunits to allocate funds
strategically
= Build budget justification for submission to central budget
office
= Determine overlapping services within agency
Budget Preparation: Central Budget Office
= Governmentwide strategic planning and performance planning
= Cost accounting = Performance (outcome)
measures
= Make tradeoffs between agencies to allocate funds
strategically
= Build budget justification for submission to legislative
body
= Determine overlapping services between agencies
Budget Approval: Legislative
= Performance measures, accurate cost estimates, and
strategic/performance plans included with budget justifications
= Compare costs to marginal effects on performance during
legislative funding process
= Make performance expectations clear as part of budget
allocation
Budget Approval Chief Executive
= Implications of legislatively-approved budget for achieving
government strategic objectives
= Make decisions on signature, veto, or line item veto/reduction
informed by performance implications
Budget Execution = Agency and governmentwide
strategic plans = Performance (outcome)
measures = Cost accounting
= Use spending discretion and flexibility to allocate funds in
line with strategic priorities and consistent with achievement of
agency performance goals
Audit and Evaluation = Agency strategic goals
= Actual performance data = Cost accounting information
= Shift focus of audits/evaluations to include performance
questions, rather than only financial compliance
-
35
Table 2:
Strategic Planning in the States
----------Statewide ----------- Consensus-based Governor's
Policy Agency Neither
AL X AK X6 AZ X AR X -- pilot CA X CO X6- spotty CT X6 - 9
pilots DE X1 X FL X X GA X X HI X X ID X IL X6 IN X2 X7 IA X KS X6
KY X X LA X10 X ME X11 X MD X MA X3 MI X MN X X6 - spotty MS X MO X
X MT X NE X X NV X NH X NJ X X NM X NY X NC X X ND X - pilot 1994
14 agys OH X X OK X - 5/70 agys OR X X PA X4 X6 - few RI X6 - few
SC X7 SD X TN X X
-
36
Table 2 Continued ----------Statewide ----------- Consensus-
based Governor's
Policy Agency Neither
TX X X UT X X VT X VA X5 X WA X WV X X8 WI X9 WY X X
1 Governor issues annual policy memo 2 Executive vision
statement guides agencies 3 Governor sets goals for upcoming year 4
Governor sets out mission and goals in Executive Budget 5 Governor
sets out Executive Plan 6 Agency strategic plans not required, but
prepared anyway 7 Agencies prepare annual performance plan that
outlines goals and objectives 8 Agencies prepare goals and a plan
for accomplishing the goals 9 Agencies prepare business plans that
focus on efficiency rather than results of service 10 Statewide
strategic plan limited to two policy areas 11 Statewide vision and
values statement
-
37
Table 3:
Use of Cost Information in the States
Indirect Cost
Activity Based
No Central IT Support for
Allocation Costing Other System Cost AccountingAL X X AK X AZ X
X AR X X1
CA X CO X2 CT X DE X FL X GA X HI X3 ID X X IL X X IN X IA X4 KS
X KY X LA X ME X MD X X1
MA X X MI X MN X6 X1
MS X MO X5 X MT X6 NE X NV X NH X NJ X X NM X X1
NY X NC X ND X OH X OK X X1
OR X X PA X7 X RI X SC X1
SD X TN X8 X
-
38
Table 3 Continued
Indirect
Cost Activity Based No Central IT Support for
Allocation Costing Other System Cost AccountingTX X4 UT X VT X
VA X4 WA X X WV X X1
WI X4 WY X
1 Cost accounting performed in some agencies 2 Fee evaluation
program will determine if fees are based on full cost of activities
3 Full-cost prototype budgets for three departments due FY 2001 4
Activity based costing in pilot stage 5 Program review process will
perform cost/benefit analyses on state programs 6 Project
Accounting 7 Modified PPBS system 8 Implementing in 50% of state
departments
-
39
Table 4:
Location and Quality of Measures
---Location of Measures--- -------------------Type of
Measures------------------- Agency Statewide Outcome Input/Output
Minimal/None Set targets?
AL X X AK X X AZ X X X AR X CA X CO X X CT X1 X X DE X X X FL X
X X X X GA X X X X HI X X X ID X X X IL X X X IN X X X IA X X X X
KS X X X KY X X X X LA X X X ME X X X MD X3 X X X MA X X X MI X X X
MN X X X X X MS X X X MO X X X X X MT X X NE X X X X NV X X NH X X
NJ X X NM X X NY X X NC X X X X ND X1 X X OH X1 X X X OK X3 X X OR
X X X X X PA X X RI X X X SC X X SD X X TN X X
-
40
Table 4 Continued
---Location of Measures--- -------------------Type of
Measures------------------- Agency Statewide Outcome Input/Output
Minimal/None Set targets?
TX X X X X UT X X X X VT X X X VA X X X X X WA X X X X WV X X4
WI X X X WY X X
1 Pilot program to develop performance measures 2 Legislature is
considering performance information as additional source of
information 3 Beginning in FY 99 4 Measures are of client impact
rather than broader outcomes
-
41
Table 5:
Availability and Use of Performance Information in the
States
--------Agency --------- --Central Budget Office--
-------Legislature------ Budget Prep/Execution Budget Approval
Budget Approval ---------Audit--------- Available Used Available
Used Available Used Available Used
AL few no yes low yes low no AK some yes yes low yes low no AZ
some yes yes some yes low AR none no no CA CO some yes yes low yes
low CT some yes yes low yes low DE some yes yes some yes some FL
some yes yes low yes low GA some yes yes some no HI some yes yes
low 1 no ID some yes yes low yes low no IL some yes yes low yes low
IN some yes yes low 1 IA many yes yes some yes low no KS some yes
yes some yes low KY some yes yes some 2 yes LA many yes yes high
yes high yes ME many yes yes some yes some no MD many yes yes some
yes some no MA few yes yes low yes low MI some yes yes some yes
some yes MN some yes yes low yes low yes MS some yes yes low yes
some MO many yes yes high yes some MT few yes yes low yes low NE
some yes yes low 2 NV some yes yes some yes some yes NH few no yes
low 2 NJ some yes yes some 2 NM some yes yes low yes low no NY some
no no no NC many yes yes low yes low ND some yes yes low yes low OH
some yes yes low yes low OK few yes yes some yes low no OR many yes
yes some yes some PA many yes yes low yes low yes RI some yes yes
some yes low
-
42
Table 5 Continued --------Agency --------- --Central Budget
Office-- -------Legislature------ Budget Prep/Execution Budget
Approval Budget Approval ---------Audit--------- Available Used
Available Used Available Used Available Used
SC some yes yes some 2 SD some no yes low yes low TN some yes
yes low no no TX many yes yes high yes some yes UT some yes yes
some yes low VT many yes yes some yes low VA many yes yes high yes
some yes WA many yes yes some yes low WV many yes yes some yes low
WI some yes yes low yes low yes WY few no yes low yes low
1: No indication that the legislature gets the information 2: No
information about availability or use in the legislature