THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT Managing for Results 50-State Average Grade: C+ Some world-weary government managers fear that the managing-for-results thrust is just another fad, destined to make a few consultants rich and then fade away. Just a few years ago, one state budget director (now in another position) maintained that the folks who supported this movement had been prattling away worthlessly for 20 years, “except for the ones who are dead now.” Of course, it’s too soon to label the series of experiments in performance-based government an unqualified success (and, in fact, there have been dozens of false starts, misplaced expectations and outright failures). But more and more states are deciding to hold themselves accountable for the results produced by the dollars they spend every year. Strategic planning, performance measurement, benchmarking and performance-based budgeting are all in use in a growing number of places, though the way the terms are defined varies widely. Even long-time holdouts such as Arkansas are gingerly putting their toes in the water. “Too often government looks at itself through a magic mirror...” begins a report prepared by the state’s legislative staff. “We fail to ask, ‘What results have been accomplished?’ It’s time that we change.” Based on private-sector advice, Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee is recommending that the state adopt performance-based budgeting and performance-based pay. Obviously, the state is years away from making such techniques part of its managerial routine. But it’s starting. In fact, of the 50 states, only Alabama appears to be ignoring the trend altogether. Four years ago, its legislature requested some pilot efforts from the executive branch, and these were duly prepared. But the legislature has paid little attention to them. From there, the quality of effort varies. Idaho, North Dakota and Connecticut have made trial runs but are in a kind of limbo right now. Indiana, Vermont and Illinois have pockets of excellence among their agencies, and are struggling to bring the rest along. At the other end of the spectrum are Virginia, Missouri, Washington and a few others, where managing for results is an integral part of government. The definition of an ideal results-oriented system is, unfortunately, yet to be written. The very concept is still evolving, and many different approaches have a reasonable chance of success—and of spreading to other states. A number of states, for example, put a wide array of performance measures in the budget document, and that certainly seems like a laudable strategy. But it isn’t the only strategy. You could search South Carolina’s budget all day and find no reference to performance measurement. Still, South Carolina has developed impressive performance reports at the agency level, and holds agency heads personally accountable for achieving goals. Oregon has worked diligently to create statewide benchmarks, while Arizona has taken a bottom-up approach, creating strategic plans for individual programs, and is just now beginning to manufacture an overriding state plan. Then, there are states, including Kansas and California, that have powerful performance audits of individual agencies or programs. Whatever approach is taken, however, there’s a real hazard in the assumption that time-consuming measurement systems inexorably lead to tangible benefits. Simply measuring outcomes is worthless if nobody uses the outcomes to manage. The best strategic plan has roughly as much value as a map in the glove compartment: Unless you actually use it for guidance, you’re going to wind up lost in a scary corner of town. In some states, there’s still a contingent of legislators who don’t believe in strategic planning altogether; they remain convinced that government’s role is to react, not to predict the future. Elsewhere, the obstacle isn’t a suspicion of the tool’s usefulness but a fear of how the data might be used—to shift the precarious balance of power in government, either between parties or between the executive and legislative branches. It’s no surprise that two of the national leaders in this area, Missouri and Virginia, are strong-governor states where the administration can launch much of the effort on its own authority. The legislative branch doesn’t have to be an obstacle. In both Kentucky and Louisiana, legislative leaders have recognized that managing for results can provide them with powerful information and help them do their jobs better. Kentucky recently enacted major reforms in criminal justice legislation—an area in which lawmakers frequently pass bills motivated by little more than the picture of a few bloody corpses on the nightly news. But Kentucky’s process didn’t focus on headlines this time. Rather, it zeroed in on “planning, state needs and state-determined goals,” in the words of Bill Hintze, the deputy state budget director. It hasn’t been that simple elsewhere. In Maine, the legislature directed a move toward a performance-based budget system. Then, in a manner reminiscent of Dr. Frankenstein when he saw what he had wrought, many legislators wanted to destroy their own creation. “They saw it as an invasion of their legislative authority,” says one government official. Newer plans are far less ambitious. North Dakota had a similar experience. “Legislators are skeptical,” says one budget analyst, “because the agencies are making their own measures and setting their own goals. We’ve tried to explain to them that they could be setting goals and creating measures themselves, but they haven’t taken the time to figure out how to do it.” In North Carolina, some legislators fret that if performance measures demonstrate a program is working well, there will be too strong an inclination to give it more money. “They’re suspicious of anything that could increase government spending,” says Ran Coble, executive director of the North Carolina Center for Public Policy Research. One final obstacle to buy-in is the idea that performance measurement information can be formulaic; that measurements—especially if they’re put in the budget document—will somehow wind up driving government policy. This assumption is wrong. At their best, good performance measurements, like solid strategic planning, merely provide guides for the political process. It’s like the map in the glove compartment. Just because it shows a superhighway connecting New York and Los Angeles, that doesn’t mean you have to take it. You can still choose to drive on back roads through New Mexico and Arizona. Just don’t run out of gas in the desert. Main introduction page | Governing home page Copyright © 1999, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing and City & State are registered trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.