THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECTReport Card: Idaho FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: B- Even though Idaho's economy isn't booming (prices for agricultural exports to Asia have dipped), revenues and expenditures are in line. The state has had trouble evaluating the fiscal effects of mandatory prison sentencing, and thus underestimated its prison budget by about 4 percent in fiscal year 1997, but the overall impact has not been too serious. The state has continued to contribute to its rainy day fund, though it remains about 2.5 percent of general fund expenditures. Idaho's investment policies have been so conservative as to deprive citizens of the benefits of potentially higher returns. But legislation was passed last session that should provide a broader range of investment options. For debt, the state's financial byword is "pay as you go," evidenced, in part, by the fact that it has no general obligation debt whatsoever. The state is weak when it comes to cost accounting. Virtually the only agencies that utilize it do so because of federal grant requirements. Long-term revenue and expenditure projections are not done routinely. Long-term financial planning just doesn't seem to fit into the Idaho ethos. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: B- Idaho's capital planning process is solid and careful, and includes a six-year plan for future projects. By necessity, the state has aggressive management control of new projects, including a computer tracking effort and contracts that contain carefully spelled-out cost limits. "We don't have a big enough contingency fund that we could afford cost overruns," says Brad Foltman, the budget bureau chief. The state boasts particular skill in converting existing facilities to new uses. An obsolete boiler plant is now being used for state office space, for example, and a psychiatric hospital was turned into a medium-security correctional facility. But maintenance is a problem. "I think our maintenance effort should be 2.5 percent of asset value," Foltman says, "and we're not anywhere close to that. Funding in the maintenance area leaves a lot to be desired." Fortunately, the state's relatively new lottery is providing some cash for maintenance. HUMAN RESOURCES: C The recurrent problem for Idaho personnel management is lack of planning. Agencies rarely think ahead about positions they'll need to have filled, and if those jobs need scheduled tests, it can take as long as a few months to get a list of candidates. Training is also spotty, and vulnerable to legislative cost-cutting. "There may be managers who have never had any training," says Richard Hutchison, the state personnel director. Managers are gaining more flexibility as the state cuts down the number of classifications from 1,700 a few years ago to 1,400 now, with a goal of 1,200 in the foreseeable future. For hard-to-fill positions (notably in information technology), managers can hire on the spot—without testing—if they find a good candidate. Agencies can distribute raises as they see fit. But that positive element is diminished by the fact that the agencies can spend only what the legislature provides. It doesn't provide very well. In 1997, the state authorized a 2 percent increase for its employees, but then failed to fund it (as long as they weren't funding it, they might as well have been more generous). In 1998, the state did fund raises of 5 percent. "This year was a makeup for the previous year," says Hutchison. "It was very demoralizing." MANAGING FOR RESULTS: C- The Idaho legislature passed a bill in 1993 mandating strategic planning and performance reporting for all agencies. This was the legislative equivalent of giving a teenager a car without a steering wheel. Some strategic planning takes place in all agencies, but there's almost no guidance or central direction provided. No statewide plans or goals exist. Performance reports are submitted each year with budget requests, but the quality of the data and many of the measurements could use improvement. More successful has been the establishment of the Office of Performance Evaluations, which is well respected in Idaho and performs a few potent performance audits each year, though it has a long list of requests for more. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: D+ There is no chief information officer in Idaho, although there is a centralized agency, the Information Technology Resource Management Council, which sets policy and standards for IT. Standardization is slowly coming, but completion of consistent rules is still a year away. Meanwhile, agencies have started to prepare strategic information technology plans, but there are huge gaps in the capacity to do that effectively. The centralized human resources technology maintained by the state provides little information that is useful to agency managers. It cannot produce reports that are customized to their needs. In terms of the state's centralized accounting systems, there are ways that agencies can access useful information, but the process required to do so can be laborious and time-consuming. In general, Idaho agencies find sharing information to be a difficult chore. Sending e-mail can require a phone call first to get the e-mail address. "You have people with databases that are five or 10 years old," says one information technology official, "and just sharing information is problematic. Or they're not trained. Or they'll send you something and you'll run it on your database program and it doesn't work." AVERAGE GRADE: C
GOVERNORSMain introduction page | Governing home page
Copyright © 1999, Congressional
Quarterly, Inc. |