THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT How the Grading Was Done The primary goal of the Government Performance Project was to combine the academic skills of the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University with the journalistic capabilities at Governing to create an accurate appraisal of management practices in the 50 states. The first decision was to split public management into five categories: finance, capital management, human resources, managing for results, and information technology. We chose to exclude roads and bridges from capital management because many of the decisions about them are federally dictated, and focused on states' other assets, primarily buildings, such as offices and prisons. Then, after a great deal of research--including multiple meetings with experts in all five disciplines, as well as a pilot project that involved four states--about 35 criteria were established to use in evaluating how well the states did in each category. With those criteria in mind, massive surveys were sent to all 50 states, asking them to provide not just single-word responses but extended explanations and piles of supporting documents. Faculty members and graduate students at the Maxwell School pored over these surveys and supplements, explored additional materials, and came to preliminary conclusions. In the areas of financial management and human resources, advanced statistical methods were used so that one factor could be weighted against another. For example, in a state that makes accurate revenue and spending estimates and has a solid structural balance, the presence of a rainy day fund was not as important as in one that periodically teeters on the brink of insolvency. Finally, numerous in-person interviews were conducted by the Governing staff, not just with the people who filled out the surveys but with many others in and out of state government. Interviews were conducted with legislative aides, auditors, controllers and citizen groups. Rating agencies, including Moody's, Fitch, and Standard & Poor's, were consulted as well. Data were obtained from the National Association of State Budget Officers, the Government Finance Officers Association, the National Conference of State Legislatures and other state government-related organizations. This approach allowed for constant updating of facts (surveys came in months before conclusions were drawn), correcting of errors, understanding the reasons behind trends, and providing context for the information. One important factor that weighed into the evaluations was momentum. Some states might be weak in a particular area, but show remarkable improvement over where they stood just a few years ago. Exploring the attempts a state makes to improve itself can alter the picture entirely, and in many cases altered the evaluation. The actual grades represent an effort to refine all this information into a single, simple, report-card-like evaluation for each category, based on a consensus among the academics and journalists involved in the project. Might some of the grades be too high? Too low? Of course. But none were reached without extended discussion and deliberation. Equally important, the Government Performance Project will be revisiting the 50 states two years from now, so improvements can be noted then. The conclusions reached are linked inextricably to the criteria upon which the project was based. So, in the interest of full disclosure, here are the criteria. The logic and assumptions behind most should be abundantly clear. If the questions sometimes appear to be simple and blunt, the answers were treated with case-by-case subtlety. Efforts were made to understand why states did poorly or well in each instance, and those reasons were also taken into account. FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 1) Have the state's forecasts of revenue and expenditure been accurate? 2) Over the course of recent years, has the state had a structural balance between ongoing revenues and expenditures? 3) Does the state have any countercyclical planning devices such as rainy day funds? How much money is in them? How are they used? 4) Does the state adopt its budget on time? 5) What kind of investment and cash management policies does the state have? Do these tend to produce an appropriate balance between high return and avoidance of risk? 6) Does the state prudently manage its long-term debt? 7) Does the state have audited financial statements? Are they done in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles? Was the audit qualified? If so, were the qualifications material? 8) To what extent does the state use cost accounting to gauge the cost of delivering programs or services? 9) Is there an appropriate balance between expenditure control and flexibility for managers in pursuit of their objectives? 10) Apart from its annual report, does the state have timely, accurate and useful financial reporting? 11) Is there a multi-year perspective on budgeting and the future fiscal impact of state actions? Is it taken seriously? 12) How effectively does the state manage contracts for goods and services? 13) Does the state have devices in place to ensure that budgets reflect policy priorities? CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 1) How does the state establish its priorities for building? Is the process careful and de-politicized? How well do state officials track the progress of capital projects? 2) Does the state have--and utilize--appropriate information to justify capital purchases? 3) How well does the state integrate planning for its capital budget with planning for its operating budget? Are the costs and savings from capital plans taken into account in making operating plans? 4) Does the state plan for routine and major maintenance, or at least have information about needs? Does it follow through? In the absence of plans, how good a job does the state do at maintaining its assets? HUMAN RESOURCES 1) Does the state have clear personnel policies and procedures? To what extent do those procedures limit its abilities to manage its workforce? 2) To what extent does the state do workforce planning and strategic analysis of future needs? 3) How quickly can agencies hire new employees? Do managers have appropriate authority to make hiring decisions? 4) How well does the state maintain and develop an appropriate mix of skills among employees, through training and other efforts? 5) Does the state motivate and reward employees through pay and other incentives? Can it reward superior performance? 6) Does the state have flexibility to discipline and terminate unproductive employees? MANAGING FOR RESULTS 1) Does the state have a strategic plan? Do its agencies have plans? If so, are they effectively used? 2) Are citizens, unions, businesses and other stakeholders involved in the development of strategic plans? 3) To what extent has the state developed and used performance indicators and evaluative data by which progress toward results can be measured? Is it relying on measures of output, such as employee workload, or is it moving toward outcome measures that track results? 4) How effectively are performance measures used for policy making, management and evaluation of the government's progress toward its goals? 5) Are performance results communicated to citizens, elected officials and any other stakeholders? If so, how often? INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY 1) Are enterprise-wide technology systems available to help managers? Do they provide the kind of data managers need? 2) Is there an effective mix of central coordination and agency control of information technology? 3) Does the state have a multi-year information technology planning process in place? How effectively is it used? 4) How quickly and easily can agencies procure the goods and services to meet their information technology needs? 5) What kind of effort goes into training IT staff and end users? 6) Does the state require cost-benefit analysis, return on investment or any other measure of value for its information technology projects? Does it follow through to see if promised benefits are delivered? 7) How well are information technology systems--notably Web sites--utilized to transmit information to citizens and other stakeholders? How well is the Internet used to allow citizens to conduct transactions with the state. 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.