| LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Section 2. Recommendations for Strategic Planning
-
The state legislature and/or governor should require each agency to prepare
and maintain a strategic plan.
-
Strategic plans should be linked to the budgeting process and to capital
expenditure requests
-
State agencies should develop annual action plans to implement the strategic
plan.
-
Strategic plans should be made available to the audiences that helped prepare
them and to citizens throughout the state.
-
The legislature and Governor should encourage agencies to use strategic
planning to rethink their service delivery approaches and to innovate.
-
Agencies should seek input from the legislature for their strategic plans;
legislative staff should review draft strategic plans and provide recommendations
to the agencies that prepared them.
Section 3. Recommendations for Performance-Based Budgeting
-
Budget requests should be justified on the outcomes sought, even if only
qualitatively.
-
State agencies should begin to develop ways to systematically analyze outcome
data.
-
State legislative staff should review outcome information provided by the
executive branch and provide summary highlights to legislative committees.
-
A cross index should be developed by executive and legislative staff to
identify different agencies and programs that contribute to the same outcomes.
-
Program managers should provide out-year estimates for outcomes expected
to occur in years beyond the budget year.
Section 4. Recommendations for Agency and Employee Incentives
-
States should emphasize non-monetary incentives.
-
States should provide greater latitude to agencies that consistently achieving
or exceeding desired outcomes.
-
States should use outcome data to compare service delivery units, to reward
high-performing ones, and to question important shortfalls and unusually
high outcomes.
-
To demonstrate the importance of results information, legislators should
review agency performance information, such as during budget appropriations
reviews.
-
Agency managers should review performance reports in "How Are We Doing?"
sessions, identify what is or is not working well, and initiate improvement
plans if needed.
-
State officials should avoid punitive action when outcomes fall short of
expectations and should first seek explanations.
Section 5. Recommendations for Performance Contracting
-
State agencies should use performance-based contracts with local service
providers and include performance indicators that are in the agency's outcome
measurement system.
-
When initiating performance contracting, provider representatives should
be asked to help identify the performance indicators to use.
-
Training and technical assistance should be provided to state personnel
and to the provider community on the performance contracting process.
-
Payment schedules should be linked to performance where practical. The
legislature should consider including a hold-harmless clause for the first
year of performance contracting of a service.
-
State agencies should obtain needed outcome-related data from providers;
subsequently, they should give providers regular feedback on the outcome
indicators, including how other providers, providing similar services,
have done.
-
Past performance should be used as a major factor in later awards.
-
Providers who do not meet performance targets should provide reasons and
submit planned remedies for improving.
-
State agencies should consider providing outcome information relating to
specific providers to the public.
-
State agencies that use performance contracts should standardize their
language and formats and provide training to help providers understand
them.
Section 6. Recommendations for Interfacing With Local Government
-
State agencies should require local public agencies they fund to collect
needed outcome information or at least cooperate in its collection.
-
States should consider the following approaches:
-
Provide monetary incentives to local governments as "seed money" for implementing
and reporting outcome information to their citizens;
-
Provide support for technical assistance and training to local governments;
provide support to local government for implementing comparative performance
measurement consortia;
-
Support efforts to identify "best practices" in local service delivery;
-
Encourage local agencies to develop "citizen charters" that specify levels-of-service
and outcomes that customers can expect from particular citizen services;
-
Report data publicly on individual outcome indicators for each state-supported
local government service;
-
Provide recognition awards based on outcomes achieved to the "top performers"
and to the "most improved" local government agencies.
Section 7. Recommendations for Communication With Citizens
-
States should prepare an annual "State-of-the-State" report that focuses
on outcomes and what has, and has not, been accomplished.
-
Each state agency should issue an annual report on its accomplishments,
focusing on outcomes.
-
Reports to citizens should contain breakout information on outcomes for
each community (e.g., each county and, perhaps, each major city).
-
State agencies should form performance partnerships that include citizen
representation. These partnerships should choose the outcome indicators
that should be tracked, set performance targets for the near future, and
identify the responsibilities of each partner in achieving the outcomes.
-
State agencies should consider using "citizen charters" to identify the
service levels and service quality that agency customers can expect to
receive; make these obligations readily accessible to customers, and subsequently
report on achievement of these obligations.
-
States should obtain feedback from citizens and customers about their satisfaction
with state services and seek suggestions for improvements.
-
States should include achievement of outcomes, such as customer satisfaction,
as a significant part of the criteria for selecting winners of performance
incentives.
-
Agencies should post their latest performance reports at locations where
customers are served.
Section 8. Recommendations for Using and Improving the Use of Performance
Information
-
Agencies should provide breakout data, such as outcomes by key demographic
characteristics, by location within the state (such as by county or region),
and by specific operating unit (such as each facility, each park, each
local office, each prison, each state hospital, etc.).
-
Agencies should provide explanatory information along with their performance
reports, especially for poorer than anticipated outcomes.
-
Operating managers should obtain and review performance reports on a regular
basis throughout the year, such as at least quarterly.
-
State agencies should compare performance data for individual organizational
units, identify problems with low performing units, and target resources
where they are most needed.
-
State managers should use their outcome measures to help test new practices
and policies by measuring conditions "before vs. after" a change, or by
randomly assigning the program's workload to "comparison groups."
-
Agency managers should use their regular outcome data for tracking low
performing programs and activities. Low performing programs should be asked
to provide improvement plans and should be tracked closely until consistent
improvements occur.
Section 9. Recommendations for Improving Implementation
-
The legislature, top state executives, and agency officials should plan
for at least three-to-five years for full implementation of a performance
measurement system.
-
Officials should include indicators of potential important side effects.
-
The legislature and governor's office should allow agencies to change performance
indicators and targets when justified, such as because of major changes
in policies or funding or improved indicators.
-
A central state agency should periodically examine the missions and outcome
statements of state agencies to look for agencies that share responsibility
for outcomes and have overlapping responsibilities.
-
State agencies with common outcomes should form "performance partnerships,"
perhaps also including in the partnerships relevant local agencies or private
organizations.
-
State program managers should track both aggregated statewide outcomes
and that segment of these outcomes over which they have more direct control
(e.g.., the outcomes for the clients that they actually were able served).
Section 10. Recommendations for Improving the "Technical" Side of
Performance Measurement
-
A central state agency should thoroughly define the categories of performance
indicators-outputs, intermediate outcomes, and end outcomes-to promote
understanding of the significance of each indicator. Agencies should group
their indicators by these categories.
-
State agencies and their programs should clearly and thoroughly define
each individual indicator to promote understanding of what each indicator
measures.
-
The governor's office and the legislature as well as program managers should
help select outcomes and indicators. The outcomes sought by a new program
should be identified when the program is established.
-
Training should be provided to all parties involved in how to select outcomes
and indicators.
-
Customer feedback should be sought to identify customer satisfaction with
services and to identify changes in their condition that indicate improvements
in customer outcomes. Such information should be linked to information
on the type and amount of service.
-
Agencies should conduct post-service follow-up surveys for programs intended
to sustain long term improvements - in order to identify whether benefits
are lasting.
Section 11. Recommendations for Analysis of the Information: The
Need for Explanations
-
Agencies should provide explanations to the legislature and governor's
office for substantial variances from targeted levels of performance.
-
Agencies should consider categorizing their outcome indicators as to how
much influence the agency has over the results. Categories might be: "substantial
influence," "some influence," and "little influence."
-
State agencies should develop corrective action plans for correcting performance
deficiencies identified by the latest performance report.
-
Agencies should establish procedures for "quick-response-evaluations,"
to identify the reasons for service performance problems.
-
State agencies should sponsor in-depth evaluations for major program issues.
The agencies should annually prepare evaluation plans, prioritizing their
evaluation needs relative to their evaluation resources.
-
Legislative audit agencies should use agency performance data to help them
in their evaluations of state programs.
-
Operating agencies should produce clear, concise, visually attractive reports
on the outcomes of major legislative initiatives.
Section 12. Recommendations for Training and Technical Assistance
Needs
-
The state legislature and the executive branch should encourage operating
agencies to provide training to their managers and staffs in results-based
performance management and how to use the information to improve programs.
-
The legislature should provide initial funding for training on results-based
performance management; however, later on, the training should be funded
out of each organization's own budget.
-
Each state's basic management/supervisory courses should include training
in performance management, including outcome measurement and the use of
outcome information.
-
Staff that have had experience with successful implementation of performance
management in state agenices should be used as a training resource.
-
Training opportunities should be provided to legislators and their staffs
on "legislating-for-results." Training curricula and materials need to
be developed.
Section 13. Recommendations for Data Quality Control
-
State agencies and their programs should have primary responsibility for
data quality and should report annually on their steps to assure data quality.
-
The executive branch, and each agency, should establish a quality control
process for performance information.
-
An organization external to the executive branch, perhaps a state audit
or legislative office, should "certify" that the data and data gathering
processes for key performance indicators are accurate, at least on samples
of agency indicators.
Section 14. Recommendations Regarding Some Special Issues for the
Legislature
-
For new programs, the legislature should require that programs establish
performance indicators. Fiscal committees should regularly review their
outcomes.
-
The legislature should cross-reference agency programs against outcome
indicators to show each agency's role in achieving the outcomes. When multiple
agencies share responsibility for an outcome, a primary/coordinating agency
should be identified.
-
The legislature should identify outcome indicators for which it needs data
and make sure that agencies provide timely and accurate information for
those indicators.
-
The legislature should ask each agency, as part of its annual performance
reports, to describe what is being done to assure data accuracy.
-
The legislature should ask an external office, such as the State Auditor
Office, to report annually on a sample of performance indicators to ascertain
whether the data are credible.
-
Legislative analysts should examine outcome information received from the
executive branch each year and highlight and interpret key information
for legislators.
-
The legislature should request agencies to explain why actual values for
outcome indicators are substantially worse or substantially better than
what had been projected.
-
Legislators should receive at least brief training on the state's performance
measurement process, including what types of information it can and should
expect, how the information can be used, and what its limitations are.
New legislator should receive such training as soon as possible.
|
