2002 NLPES-Fall Training Conference Notes
Roundtable: Lessons Learned from Performance Measurement Systems
Facilitator: Judy Zelio
Facilitator Zelio started by asking participants to note what they were interested in gaining from the roundtable discussion. Participants hailed from three states: Florida, Hawaii, and Arizona.
The participant from Florida prefaced by noting that Florida has had performance-based budgeting (PBB) since 1994 but that it is moving away from PBB to zero-based budgeting. She was interested in knowing what other states are doing.
The participant from Hawaii noted that Hawaii has had PBB "on the books" for about 30 years but has not used it, explaining that there is no systematic examination of performance. He further noted that there is so little awareness of PBB in the state, that a candidate running for the governor's office suggested she would introduce PBB to state government, not knowing that it technically already exists. The participant was interested in the role of certification of performance measures.
The participants from Arizona noted that performance measurement, as a part of strategic plans was first introduced in 1993 as session law and formalized in statute in 1997. However, they added that performance measurement has not really been linked to budget decisions. The Arizonans wanted to know what factors help make PBB work.
Facilitator Zelio observed that there appears to be an underlying theme of gaps-in use and knowledge. She asked the participants why they think that is.
Participants suggested such factors as lack of widespread knowledge, lack of acceptance or understanding, lack of full support and/or implementation of the system, and political changes.
The Florida participant explained Florida's original PBB system never turned out the way it was envisioned. In the pilot stage, two agencies received incentives for good performance initially but that ended. She observed that poor performance actually ended up being rewarded with more money, since agencies were able to justify the need for more money to improve performance-again, not what had been envisioned with the system. She pointed out that the state's PBB system was established under a different administration-both the governor and the legislators that ushered the system in are gone, the latter mostly having been term-limited out of office.
The Florida participant stated that two years ago the Florida Legislature approved zero-based budgeting, but they never took PBB off the books. She noted that because last year was the first of having both budget systems and because of the severe cuts engendered by the budget situation, it is too soon to tell how this dual-system existence works. She remarked, however, that agencies are puzzled and further indicated that most agencies are rather passive and taking a wait-and-see stance.
Faciliator Zelio asked how difficult it is for agency managers to "buy in."
The participant from Florida said it varies. Some managers thought it was silly. Some already had a performance-based system in place to use as a management tool, so it was easy for them. Others embraced the new system so fully, they went overboard and exhausted too many resources. She also noted the pitfalls of having performance measures that are too long-term and not useful or realistic on a day-to-day basis. She indicated that no manager will buy in if s/he does not find the measures useful to manage.
One of the Arizona participants asked Facilitator Zelio where PBB is working. Zelio identified Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, although she noted she may have to reconsider Florida now in light of the Florida participant's comments! Zelio further explained that she has observed a general trend in most states that have introduced PBB: usually there is an initial flurry of activity that is followed by some degree of inertia. The inertia, Zelio noted, tends to stem from information overload, although sometimes, as the Florida participant described, political reasons, such as changes in administrations, affect the health of the system.
The Hawaii participant posited that the only thing that will allow a PBB system to work is incentives-positive or negative. He also asked of the Florida participant whether agencies have embraced PBB as a result of leadership understanding the PBB's usefulness, or whether certain agencies are more conducive to PBB. The Florida participant responded that leadership's responsiveness was the prevailing factor.
In Florida, the question with zero-based-budgeting is, "Can this function be privatized?"
Facilitator Zelio asked what, if any, impact performance contracting has had or could have on PBB, but the participants were not familiar enough with performance contracting to hazard an answer. Nevertheless, the participants used the question as a springboard to discuss PBB and privatization, with mixed observations of mandating contractors to monitor performance measures.
One of the Arizona participants asked Facilitator Zelio about the status of the Legislating for Results project, on which NCSL is partnering with the Urban Institute. Zelio stated that Harry Hatry of the Urban Institute is putting together educational materials, namely briefs, to encourage legislators to use performance data to make budget decisions and that he is seeking examples centered on different topics. The committee working on the project is planning to circulate the briefs to interested parties and is open to feedback.
 2002
Fall Training Conference Notes
|
