 |
|
||
Virginia Results
By
John M. Kamensky
Ever hear of the “Government Performance and Results Act of 2003?” While 2003 was the tenth anniversary of the Federal GPRA, it was the first year for Virginia’s GPRA. For the past decade, the state of Virginia has been steadily building a managing for results framework and last year’s law is the beginning of the institutionalization of this bipartisan framework.
Herb Hill, associate director of Virginia’s Department of Planning and Budget, says the state has been developing a four-part performance management system that includes: strategic planning, performance budgeting, performance measurement, and program evaluation. This began as a “good government” effort in 1995 under Republican Governor George Allen with agency-level strategic planning efforts. These efforts were seen as uneven, so the new law now requires strategic plans from agencies to be submitted in advance of their budget requests, and it also creates a Council on Virginia’s Future to manage a broader, longer term performance framework, along with associated measures of outcomes. Democratic Governor Mark Warner is leveraging this “supply” of performance information by requiring each of his department and agency heads to develop and sign performance agreements reflecting their individual commitments toward achieving state priorities.
The Virginia approach seems to be based on the lessons learned from the federal “managing for results” efforts, as well as best practices in other states. How Virginia has packaged the various pieces seems to be fairly innovative.
What Are the Key Elements of the Virginia performance management system?
Statewide Long-Term Vision. The Council on Virginia’s Future is comprised of 18 members, chaired by the Governor. It includes key legislative leaders, such as the Speaker and appropriations committee chairs, as well a five citizen members. The Council is staffed by the Department of Planning and Budget and is responsible for the overall performance management system, called the “Roadmap.” It recommends guiding principles for the system, recommends long-term objectives, and monitors progress. It submits an annual “balanced accountability scorecard,” the first of which is due November 1, 2004. Interestingly, one of the key advocates for the creation of this council was the Virginia Chamber of Commerce – a strong advocate for good government!
Statewide Quality of Life Indicators. The Council is just beginning its efforts, but it has been able to rely upon a pre-existing framework of quality of life indicators that have been collected for several years by the state’s planning and budget office. This 9-part framework (which includes categories such as “community,” “economy,” and “education”) covers about 40 key metrics (for example, under “economy,” it includes per capita personal income, the unemployment rate, and the number of new companies per 1000 employees). The metrics cover several years of data and compares Virginia with other states, where possible.
Virginia’s statewide indicators approach is not unlike a similar effort being pursued nationally by Comptroller General David Walker, as reported in my March 2003 e-column!
Agency-Level Strategic Plans. Virginia has 10 Cabinets and about 100 other agencies, including institutions of higher education. The new law requires agencies to submit their plans along with their budget requests to the legislature and says “committees shall consider strategic plan and performance measurement results” in their deliberations. While strategic planning was required in the past, the new legislation, with specific mandated components, suggests a phased-in approach, with one-third of all agencies delivering their plans annually. While the governor may decide to implement the new requirements with a larger portion of the agencies much sooner, their first plans are due beginning December 31, 2003.
One agency that has posted its plan is the Virginia Department of Transportation, (VDOT) which has developed a statewide approach looking out to the year 2025, with more immediate, detailed plans in different regions of the state.
Agency-Level Performance Reporting. The state planning and budget office has been requiring all agencies to report their performance, as well. It created a website “Virginia Results,” where each agency posts its mission statement, key activities, intended customers, 3-5 key measures, and their performance. For example the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control is responsible not only for selling alcohol, it is responsible for ensuring underage minors cannot buy alcohol in private stores, bars, or restaurants. A focus on this seems to make a difference; in 1998, 40 percent of privately licensed retailers were selling to underage minors; by 2003 that had dropped to 15 percent. The “Virginia Results” site also provides training materials as well as an overview of the state’s performance management framework.
Some agencies have gone farther. For example VDOT has created a site that allows citizens to see the same performance information that the department uses itself to track progress on road projects. This “Dashboard” allows citizens to look at the status of construction contracts in their community, the progress, and the associated costs . . . and if they are on time and on budget. As VDOT Commissioner Philip Shucet notes, “the Dashboard is showing us that we do a better job of keeping them on budget than on time, so we’ll work harder at being on time.”
Linking Agency-Level Performance to Budget. Right now, Mr. Hill observes, the link between agency performance plans to their budgets isn’t as strong as it will be in the next budget cycle (2006-2008). He says “until you get the people who set the budget priorities together with the people who do the planning, you have two separate processes. . . who knows how they’re resolved?” He sees the Council on Virginia’s Future as the bridge, especially since it includes representatives from both perspectives. This approach seems to be based on lessons learned from the experiences of other states who attempted broad state goal-setting in recent years, where the legislature was not a full partner, and they had difficulties in sustaining their pioneering efforts over time.
Linking Performance to Accountability for Action. Governor Warner recently began requiring Executive Agreements between himself and his appointees, and he meets with them twice a year to learn about their progress towards the commitments they agreed upon. This process is modeled on pilot efforts in the federal government in the 1990s.
To date, all ten cabinet secretaries and about 60 agency heads have negotiated Executive Agreements with Governor Warner. Performance information from these agreements is reported twice a year, with cabinet secretaries tracking the performance of their respective agency heads. The Executive Agreements have two components, one is programmatic, the other is related to having the appropriate management capacity in place (the Governor’s Management Standards are very much like the federal President’s Management Agenda). The Virginia Results reporting system and the Executive Agreements system are being merged, and both are being aligned with the long-term plan being developed by the Council on Virginia’s Future as well as the budget process. So, over the next few years, the various components of the performance management system will be more tightly aligned.
* * *
In summary, Virginia seems to be building the infrastructure for a robust managing for results system that engages key stakeholders, links to budget, and creates a link to the accountability of key political leaders. How this infrastructure is implemented over the next couple of years will be an interesting story to watch --will it drive performance to new levels? Or will it devolve into a ponderous compliance exercise? The difference between the two scenarios, Harvard’s Dr. Bob Behn likes to observe, depends on leadership.