Budgeting for results

by Kristina Rasmussen I’m generally a fan of “performance budgeting” systems — they sure beat mindlessly growing last year’s budget without reference to goals or outcomes. When I’ve looked at good governance initiatives at the federal level, my two main criticisms have been that standards all too often 1) get set  low; and 2) encourage more government, not...

by Kristina Rasmussen

I’m generally a fan of “performance budgeting” systems — they sure beat mindlessly growing last year’s budget without reference to goals or outcomes.

When I’ve looked at good governance initiatives at the federal level, my two main criticisms have been that standards all too often 1) get set  low; and 2) encourage more government, not less.

It looks like those problems could be present within  the new Illinois Budgeting for Results Commission. The Commission is supposed to be:

…a tool to help government agencies set priorities, meet goals, deliver excellent services and achieve the best value possible to taxpayers. Illinois is the first state to establish the Budgeting for Results process into law to help government agencies set priorities, meet their goals and deliver the best value of government to taxpayers. The law requires the commission submit a report by Nov. 1, of each year with recommendations on how to improve Illinois’ budget process by examining expenditures, spending reductions, available revenue and budgeting goals.

A good thing, right? But take a closer look at the Commission’s first report:

The Commission began by reviewing the Governor’s priorities and decided to turn these priority areas into action-oriented Results. During this review, Commissioners debated the role of goals and sub-goals and ultimately determined that the Commission could not offer detailed goals and sub-goals at this time.

They want more data:

The Commission finds that, until better performance data about state spending and programs is collected and analyzed, it is premature to recommend specific allocations of projected revenue across Result areas. Appropriate allocation across Result areas will require a complete, detailed and metrics-based assessment of all programs’ effectiveness. Additionally, all goals and sub-goals must be fully developed before meaningful allocation recommendations can be made.

I understand the need for more metrics info, but it could be years before they get it.

I am, however, hopeful for timely and useful information out of the new “Strategic Management Accountability Reporting Tool.” Being developed by UIS Professor (and Institute academic advisory board member) Patrick Mullen:

SMART involves a 10-part questionnaire that is completed by GOMB analysts with agency input. The questionnaire asks weighted yes and no questions; the scores received are tallied and the program is rated on its effectiveness. SMART evaluations, coupled with policy considerations, are used to determine resource allocations as GOMB prepares the Governor’s budget proposal. SMART is another tool that will allow GOMB to more efficiently monitor performance management.

But if this draft goal is indicative of what more we can expect out of the Commission, I’m concerned about its potential to offer up the laser-focused prioritization and direction the state budget desperately needs:

• Illinois’ economy provides sufficient opportunities for residents to achieve economic well-being.
  • Jobs pay wages and benefits sufficient that every household with at least one worker has the opportunity experience an acceptable quality of life.

And I’m not sure what this goal even means (not my typo):

• Reduce the number of food insecure households is reduced

We’ll wait and see how the Commission’s work in incorporated into the governor’s fiscal year 2013 budget when it is unveiled this spring. Fingers crossed my fears prove unfounded.