THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECTReport Card: Connecticut FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: C- Growth of revenues has been strong in Connecticut lately, while expenditures have been restrained. The state has paid off nearly $1 billion in notes incurred when it had an accumulated deficit in 1991. It has also built up its rainy day fund to 5 percent. But there are still deeply worrisome signs. The state budget uses a dubious accounting practice of recognizing expenditures only when they're paid, but accruing revenues before they actually come in. If you look at its financial reports, which use generally accepted accounting principles and adjust for timing differences, you find that the deficit actually grew to $694 million in fiscal year 1998. Meanwhile, tax cuts that seem to be supported by a good economy may make for problems in future years. Budgetary flexibility is not a strong point here. If an agency wants to move dollars between accounts, it has to get approval from the state budget office and a finance advisory committee. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: C+ The state and its agencies create five-year capital plans (though the state only publishes two years' worth at a time). Capital projects are tracked primarily at the agency level, but the Department of Public Works provides some oversight. In years past, Connecticut had problems bringing in projects on time and on budget; it has improved in that regard. Legislators have become more restrained about adding pet projects to the capital plan. Of course, the capital planning process didn't play much of a role in the recent decision to spend heavily on a new stadium for the New England Patriots. "The priorities of the day rule, rather than the plan," says one state capitol observer. Some state officials complain that agencies aren't keeping up with deferred maintenance and routine maintenance needs. Others respond that, in the words of one budget officer, "the state is better off than it was four years ago." But nobody really knows because Connecticut doesn't keep very good track of its maintenance needs, and there is no centralized asset management system. HUMAN RESOURCES: C- Connecticut's personnel system still has some 2,600 classification titles, and unions have opposed efforts to reduce that number. Meanwhile, policies and procedures can be confusing. "They're all over the place...not very clear in terms of where you can go to get them," says a personnel services manager. The state is trying to alter the role of the personnel department, using its analysts as consultants to agencies, rather than as enforcers maintaining a complex system. Agencies do have considerable control in hiring, and limited certified lists have largely been abandoned in favor of lists that include anyone with appropriate qualifications. The state is shifting away from written tests for promotion. Managers also can promote workers to a higher class if they are working at that level. The hiring process is slowed down some by a requirement that agencies consider re-hiring people who have been laid off by the state before hiring from the outside. And termination for poor performance can be an arduous process here—easily taking a year, with grievances delaying the process still more. The state has done virtually no workforce planning, and an unintegrated human resources computer system doesn't provide much useful data. MANAGING FOR RESULTS: D+ Nine agencies in Connecticut—including some of the largest—have started developing strategic plans and are trying to link the planning and budgeting processes. Others will follow. That's good news, but the state still seems ambivalent about managing for results. It has no enterprise-wide strategic plan. It passed legislation in 1995 mandating performance measures, but only a small pilot effort has begun, and the legislature hasn't expressed interest in the idea. A bill requiring strategic planning and creating a legislative panel to review performance measures died last year. The Rowland administration lost momentum by ignoring worthwhile efforts in this direction made by the previous governor. The Connecticut Progress Council, a bipartisan planning and benchmarking effort, was started in the early 1990s, but its goals were regarded by many as "pie in the sky." In any case, it was chaired by Governor Rowland's political adversary, the former lieutenant governor, and that was the last nail in its coffin. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: D+ IT in Connecticut is about to change drastically. The state is currently in the process of outsourcing its entire executive-branch technology effort. "This outsourcing opportunity has been held out as a way to correct some of the deficiencies you see," says Robert Dixon, the state's director of IT planning. Those deficiencies are considerable. Most agencies do not have computer applications available to assist in program management. Telecommunications is fragmented, hard to manage and hard to use predictably. Connecticut is behind other states in getting commodity items onto master contracts, and it can take several years to complete the process of procuring major new systems. There are a variety of e-mail systems in place that do not link up with each other very effectively. On the positive side, the state has started producing IT strategic plans, makes reasonable efforts at training, and is doing a decent if not outstanding job of conveying information via the Internet. AVERAGE GRADE: C-
GOVERNORMain introduction page | Governing home page
Copyright © 1999, Congressional
Quarterly, Inc. |