View Research by Author - Elisa Vinson

Citation URL: http://www.urban.org/ElisaVinson

The purpose of this report is to identify good practices and lessons learned by states that have moved ahead in governing-for-results and to provide recommendations for improving those efforts. This document is a compilation of findings about the state of the art and the practice of governing-for-results.

The Urban Institute's Governing–for–Results and Accountability Project team conducted extensive discussions and interviews with elected and appointed officials in Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, and with a number of agency directors from other states. Additionally, focus groups and small discussion sessions were held with citizens and citizen representatives in all five study states.

Localities are where priorities must be set and solutions owned and implemented. State-initiated efforts need to consciously encourage localities to adopt or adapt statewide measures of progress and to incorporate these measures in their own strategic planning. States have the resources and bear the full burden of accountability; they also have the capacity to resolve policy barriers that may impede local progress. Wherever they are initiated, results-and-indicators frameworks can provide the glue to create—not mandate—equitable state and local partnerships.

This brief, the first in its series, defines the practice of governing-for-results and lists the factors that compelled state governments to implement it. It cites successful private-sector management practices, the devolution of responsibility from the federal level to the state and local, the push for citizen involvement in government, and assorted technological breakthroughs as the primary impetus for more results-focused state governing. Also, the authors present the proven benefits of governing-for-results: improved accountability and resource allocation, enhanced effectiveness of government services, increased flexibility for service managers, and better technical training.

Performance contracting, long used in such government services as highway maintenance and solid waste management, is becoming increasingly attractive to state human services agencies. Often frustrated by declining performance, rising costs, or both, they want to pay for results, not activities. Six agencies that have adopted performance contracting are described here: Oklahoma’s Community Rehabilitation Services Unit, North Carolina’s Division of Social Services, Illinois’s Department of Children and Family Services, Florida’s Department of Children and Families, Minnesota’s Refugee Services Section, and Maine’s Department of Human Services.

Return to list of authors