The nonpartisan Urban Institute publishes studies, reports, and books on timely topics worthy of public consideration. The views expressed are those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Urban Institute, its trustees, or its funders.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
In 1998, the Urban Institute received grants from the Smith Richardson and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundations to support a survey of state performance management practices, or governing–for–results. Project reports, Making Results–Based State Government Work, Governing–for–Results in the States: Ten Lessons, and States, Citizens and Local Performance Management, are available from the Urban Institute Press or on The Urban Institute Web site, www.urban.org.
The objective of the project was to document and learn about performance management techniques being used by the states. Project team members whose work is reflected in this document include Blaine Liner, project director, Harry Hatry, Elisa Vinson, Pat Dusenbury, Ryan Allen, and Scott Bryant from the Urban Institute; Ron Snell and Jennifer Grooters from the National Conference of State Legislatures; and Wilson Campbell and Jay Fountain from the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. The Smith Richardson and Alfred P. Sloan Foundation provided financial assistance to undertake this work.
The National Conference of State Legislatures assisted the project team in assembling materials and in site visits to Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon and Texas, where more than 350 state and local officials and citizens representing more than 150 organizations and agencies were involved in discussions about governing–for–results experiences in those states. Dozens of administrators from other states also helped by explaining their states' approaches.
Contents
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview
Chapter 2: The Governing–for–Results System
Integrated Planning and Performance Management
Combining Strategic Planning and Performance Measurement
Aligning Planning and Performance Measurement
Vertical Alignment of Planning
Vertical Alignment of Performance Measurement
Change and Alignment
Troubleshooting Alignment Problems
Citizen Participation
Accountability and Credibility
Florida Program Budgeting
In Summary
Chapter 3: Strategic Planning in the Governing-for-Results System
The State Plan—The Governing-for-Results Engine
Developing the State Plan
Guiding Agency Plans
Providing a Framework for Collaboration
Communicating with Citizens
Maintaining the State Plan
Agency Strategic Plans
Developing Agency Strategic Plans
Aligning State and Agency Plans
Connecting with the Budget
Operational Plans
In Summary
Chapter 4: Performance Budgeting—The Rubber Meets the Road
Benefits of Performance Budgeting
Enhanced Program Evaluation
Identifying Opportunities for Multiagency Coordination
Improved Communication with Citizens
Mid-Course Adjustments by Mid-Level Management
Implementing Performance Budgeting
Establishing the Foundation
Agreeing on Clear Definitions
Providing for Training and Technical Assistance
Fitting into the Legislative Structure
Developing Consensus on Outcomes
The Expense of Performance Budgeting
In Summary
Chapter 5: Performance Contracting
Implementing Performance Contracting
Preparing Performance Contracts
Developing Performance Indicators
Applying Performance Standards
Determining Payment
Reporting Results for Better Collaboration
In Summary
Chapter 6: Promoting Local Governing–for–Results
Encouraging Results–Based Local Government Practices
Mandates—Shifting Focus to Outcomes
Incentives and Assistance
The Technical Assistance Difference
Public Information Empowering Citizens
Multi–Tool Approaches
Encouraging Local Governments to Use Performance Measurement to Communicate with Citizens
Leading by Example
Providing Technical Assistance
Mandating Performance Reports
In Summary
Chapter 7: Unresolved and Evolving Issues and Trends
Aligning Federal, State, and Local Performance Measurement
Adjusting Performance Targets for Degree of Difficulty
Providing Incentives and Rewards to Individuals and Agencies
Investing in Governing-for-Results
Communicating Performance Results
Interactions between Citizens and Government
Appendix: Governing–for–Results Web Sites of Note
Endnotes
Chapter 1: Introduction and Overview
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. The Urban Institute's work on this project has been supported by grants from the Smith Richardson Foundation and the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation.
| The term governing-for-results refers to the system of spending and measuring results of spending whereby a government, both the executive and legislative branches, focuses decisions and activities on the benefits, as well as costs, and outputs, of government activities and actions. This means maximizing the quality of services and programs to the government's citizens and developing proper ways to measure outcomes of those services and programs, especially in the opinion of customers. |
Interviews and focus groups confirmed the perception that government is paying increasing attention to results. Why? The motivations given were both numerous and diverse. Table 1.1 lists five goals that appear to be the most important motivations for the public sector’s embrace of governing–for– results techniques along with the internal and external factors driving that movement.
These goals are not new, although they may have gained immediacy in recent years. The idea of governing for results and the desire for greater efficiency and accountability have long been with us. One thing that has changed, however, is our capacity to measure and track results. Important advances that are giving government the tools it needs to focus on results include
- computerization of records,
- database management software that can handle very large files,
- statistical techniques that help identify the underlying factors contributing to a problem, and
- the Internet.
It would be hard to overstate the contribution that advances in information technology and data management are making to implementation. Government is now able to do what many in government have long wanted to do— focus on results. The Internet is emerging as a powerful tool for informing citizens about government performance. A recent survey found that citizens believe the most important benefit of "e–government" (government information and services made available online) is making government more accountable to citizens (Council for Excellence in Government 2000).
Table 1.1 lists government–wide motivations for implementing governing–for–results. Similar forces are at work within agencies and departments. Internally, performance measurement is proving to be a valuable management tool for a range of processes, from program planning to employee evaluation. Externally, performance indicators are providing a common language for communication among policymakers—including the legislature—and with citizens/customers.
We found instances in which one management–oriented administrator had implemented governing–for–results practices in a single agency or department that stood out as a performance–oriented island in a sea of state agencies. Clearly, it is possible for a manager who wants to do a better job to apply results–based practices at the program level. However, results–based governance is more powerful and more likely to survive changes in personnel or administrations if it is recognized and approached as a government–wide system.
Table 1.1
Motivations Behind Governing For Results
|
GOAL |
ORGANIZATIONAL FACTORS:
(Internal to government) |
POLITICAL FACTORS:
(External to government) |
|
Increase government accountability and efficiency |
- Policymakers’ dissatisfaction with the quality and cost of service
- Budget constraints creating the need to improve resource allocation
- Increasing competition among service providers — increasing privatization and use of sub-contractors
|
- Citizens’ dissatisfaction with the quality and cost of service
- Tax rebellion, rejection of bond referendums, imposition of term limits, and other votes of "no confidence"
- Citizen demands for greater accountability and efficiency — "government to be run like a business"
|
|
More effective Mandates and quality controls |
- Resistance, resentment of traditional mandates
- Preference for mandating results instead of operating procedures
- Trend toward decentralized service provision
|
- Opposition to regulation and a preference for information to help guide consumer choice
- Complaints that "one size does not fit all"
|
|
Strengthen public participation |
- Increased use of strategic planning with community involvement; citizen committees
|
- Better-educated citizens demanding opportunities to participate in policy debates.
- Success of participatory programs like community policing
|
|
Improve communication |
- Increased complexity of government programs and issues places greater demands upon communication
|
- Increasing ethnic diversity complicates service delivery for a public-sector committed to equality and creates a greater need for clarity in communicating
|
|
Inform policy discussions |
- Provide a basis and justification for politically difficult decisions
|
- Advocacy groups demand information and want to present their own data
|
The early development of governing–for–results techniques and practices evolved more from independent invention than from cookbooks or established standards of practice. Some of the good inventions are borrowed— from other states, localities, federal efforts, or the private sector, usually with a few improvements or modifications to fit the local culture of process, procedure, and decision–making. Both the National Association of State Budget Officers and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board have provided information on governing–for–results practices and standards.
We believe there is an emerging consensus on what a system of governing for results should look like; that is, how the different components work together and reinforce one another. Still, it is important to acknowledge up-front that a model governing–for–results system is very much a work in progress.
We did not find a completely implemented governing–for–results system in any state that we visited, and within states, there was great variation from agency to agency. We did, however, find a great interest in what such a system might be, and this report represents an effort to move that dialogue ahead. It describes a model governing–for–results system that takes the best practices and lessons learned from the most advanced efforts in states that are leaders in the governing–for–results movement.
Among the states we visited, Oregon has used its governing–for–results system effectively to promote collaboration across government agencies, while Texas and Florida have made great progress in performance budgeting. North Carolina agencies are using performance measurement to oversee local government delivery of state services, and Minnesota has supported local government use of performance measurement. Missouri, Maine, Virginia, North Dakota, and other states not visited also contributed examples of progressive governing–for–results efforts to the model, which also draws upon the innovative work of the Minnesota Citizen’s League.
The governing–for–results system described in this report blends strategic planning, performance measurement, and citizen participation. Strategic planning looks forward to define what should be done, while performance measurement looks backward to assess what has been done. When used in concert, strategic planning and performance measurement support a system of performance management. Citizen participation elevates the governing–for–results model from a system promoting greater efficiency in
operations and resource allocations to a system for more responsive government.
Generally, the components of a governing-for-results system are in place, but the connections are not always being made. Making the connections requires sharing information.
- Information is the lifeblood of the governing–for–results system, and the capacity to manage large amounts of information is vital to its implementation.
- Performance indicators provide the information. For the governing–for–results system to work, the performance indicators must be credible, accessible, and timely.
This report, like the governing–for–results system that it describes, is outcome–oriented and focuses on what can and should be achieved. Examples are included to illustrate (1) how state and local governments are moving toward results–based governance and (2) what has and what has not worked. It is important to emphasize that we are not suggesting the creation of a new system. Instead, the model governing-for-results system calls for links and interactions among planning, performance measurement, and citizen participation to strengthen those activities. The report is structured as follows.
- Chapter 2 describes the governing–for–results system components—how strategic planning and performance measurement are integrated into a performance management system and, with citizen participation, form the governing–for–results system.
- Chapter 3 describes the role of strategic planning in the governing–for–results system.
- Chapter 4 addresses performance budgeting—the interface between governing–for–results performance management and resource allocation.
- Chapter 5 focuses on performance contracting—how government can use the governing–for–results system to enhance the effectiveness of service contracting.
- Chapter 6 looks at citizen participation and the use of governing–for–results at the local level; it considers how state action can encourage local governments to use results–based governance
- Chapter 7 summarizes progress to date and describes several current and unresolved issues affecting governing–for–results systems.
- The appendix lists relevant Web sites developed by six states in their governing-for-results experience.
This report is available in its entirety in the Portable Document Format (PDF), which many find convenient when printing.
