Informed Consent:

Advice for State and Local Leaders

 On Implementing Results-Based

 Decisionmaking

By Sara D. Watson

 

 

Prepared for

THE FINANCE PROJECT

1000 Vermont Ave., NW

Washington, D.C.  20005

(202) 628-4200

Fax: (202) 628-4205

 

 

Funded by the National Governors’ Association

Center for Best Practices

through a grant from the

U.S.  Department of Health and Human Services

Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation

 

© 2000 The Finance Project

Acknowledgements

This guide was produced with the support of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, through funding to the National Governors’ Association, Center for Best Practice.  The author gratefully acknowledges the ideas and support of Ann Segal and Martha Moorehouse of USDHHS; Evelyn Ganzglass and Helene Stebbins of NGA; and Cheryl D. Hayes and Barry Van Lare of The Finance Project. 

In addition, the following people generously gave of their time and expertise to provide the advice in this publication, and to share their comments and suggestions on the draft guide.  Many thanks go to them for their hard work to improve the lives of children and families, and their willingness to share their insights.  In particular, the author wishes to acknowledge Mark Friedman for his ground-breaking work in this field; and Cornelius Hogan for his leadership at the state, national and international level.  

State Leaders:

Peter Beeson – Administrator, Strategic Management Services Division, Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services

Juanita Blount-Clark – Director, Division of Children and Family Services, Georgia Department of Human Services

Neil Bryant – State Senator, Oregon State Legislature

John Dorman – Director, Office of State Planning, North Carolina

Edward Harmeyer – Deputy Director, Office of Statewide Performance Review, Illinois

Richard Larison – Director, Office of Statewide Performance Review, Illinois

David Murphey – Senior Policy Analyst, Vermont Agency of Human Services

Cheryl Mitchell – Deputy Director, Vermont Agency of Human Services

Sandra Moore – Executive Director, Family Investment Trust, Missouri

Jessie Rasmussen – Director, Iowa Department of Human Services

Steve Renne – Deputy Director, Missouri Department of Social Services

Kenneth Seeley – Director, Colorado Foundation for Children and Families

Gary Stangler – Director, Missouri Department of Social Services

Jeffrey Tryens – Executive Director, Oregon Progress Board

Martha Wellman – Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability, Florida

Sandra Wilkie – Senior Policy Analyst, Family Investment Trust, Missouri 

Local Leaders:

Phyllis Becker – Communities in Schools, Missouri

Jane Campbell – County Commissioner, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Susanne Daily – Assistant County Administrator and Executive Director, Office of Children and Family First, Montgomery County, Ohio

Tana Ebbole – Executive Director, West Palm Beach County Children’s Services Council, Florida

Sara Hoffman – Assistant County Administrator, Contra Costa County, California

Molly Irvin – Evaluation and Assessment Manager, Family and Children First Council, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Richard (Jake) Jacobsen – Director of Social Services, Mecklenburg  County, North Carolina

Thomas Kelley – Assistant Director, Office of Family and Children First, Montgomery County, Ohio

William Laaninen – Staff Director, Skagit County Community Network, Washington

Christina Linville – Deputy County Administrator, Contra Costa County, California

Michael Monteith – Assistant City Manager, Hampton, Virginia

Bette Meyers – Deputy Administrator, Health and Human Services, Cuyahoga County, Ohio

John Skidmore – Assistant Director, Department of Social Services, Mecklenburg County, North Carolina

Robert Stoughton – Research Administrator, Office of Family and Children First, Montgomery County, Ohio

Alexandra Turk – Director, Budget and Management, Cuyahoga County, Ohio 

Cross-site Leaders:

Ira Barbell – Senior Associate, Annie E.  Casey Foundation (who suggested the title)

Robert Behn – Director, The Governors Center at Duke University, Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy

Susan Christie – Director of Organization and Professional Development, American Public Human Services Association

Judy Chynoweth – Executive Director, Foundation Consortium

Mark Friedman – Director, Fiscal Policy Studies Institute

Beverly Godwin – Director, National Partnership for Reinventing Government

Cornelius Hogan – consultant, Annie E. Casey Foundation/former director, Vermont Agency of Human Services

Anne Kubisch – Co-director, The Aspen Institute Roundtable on Comprehensive Community Initiatives

Lizbeth Leeson – consultant, Community Based Innovations, Michigan

Shelley Metzenbaum – Director, Performance Management Program, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University

Jolie Bain Pillsbury – consultant, Sherbrooke Consulting

Connie Revell – Director, Community Choices 2010, Washington /former director of Oregon Options

Phyllis Rozansky – Director, Pathways

Jonathan Walters – special reporter, Governing magazine 

Preface

Across the nation and across the world, the concept of using results to drive and measure success in supports for children and families is taking hold.  From the most senior leaders to service providers, teachers, advocates,  and others, this massive shift in thinking and working has begun to permeate the structures that support children and families to have the best possible outcomes.

The National Governors’ Association has taken a leading role in assisting its members design and implement results-based decisionmaking systems across a variety of policy areas.  Since the mid-1990s, The Finance Project has been a leader in this field by conceptualizing and developing materials that present a framework for results-based planning, budgeting, management and accountability – what we term “results-based decisionmaking” – and that begin the shift from theory to practice.  

Both organizations are pleased to continue this tradition with a new wave of publications that reflect the hard-won experiences and lessons learned of veterans in the field.  The newest one is Informed Consent: Advice for State and Local Leaders in Implementing Results-Based Decisionmaking, by Sara Watson.  This paper was prepared with support from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services/Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, through a grant to the National Governors’ Association Center for Best Practices.  Evelyn Ganzglass and Helene Stebbins at NGA were instrumental in bringing this project to fruition.  In addition to this full-length version published by TFP,  a shorter version will be published jointly by NGA and TFP.

This guide gives targeted, strategic advice on implementing different approaches to results-based decisionmaking.  It aims to help state and local leaders answer questions such as “should we do this?” “can we do this?” “how do we do this?” “how long will it take?” and “what can we expect?”  It discusses using results (and all variations thereof) to develop an agenda to improve the lives of children and families; to align resources to support that agenda; to align management practices and organizational cultures with that agenda; and to measure performance and hold organizations and individuals accountable for improvement.  It also provides suggestions for eliciting the support of key stakeholders, such as executive and legislative branch officials, the media, and communities.  It goes beyond descriptions of state and local experiences, to draw the political and strategic lessons that can help state and local leaders avoid pitfalls and move ahead.

The guide is based on extensive interviews and discussions with over 50 leaders in the field, including those working across sites and in national, state and local leadership positions.  We are grateful to these individuals for generously sharing their insights and ideas.

We hope this guide is useful to those who are pushing forward and those who are just trying to hold onto hard-won gains; those who are in visible positions of leadership and those who are the behind-the-scenes heroes.   Their wisdom and hard work will help us all move towards better lives for children and families. 

Cheryl D. Hayes

Executive Director

Executive Summary

Should we do it?  Can we do it?  How do we do it?  How long will it take?  How do we win people over? What will we get out of it?  And what do we risk?   State and local leaders are asking these questions as they consider or implement a shift to using results to change the way states and communities support families – what this guide terms “results-based decisionmaking.”  The guide aims to help these leaders make informed decisions about moving to results-based decisionmaking, based on the advice of people who have led these and other change processes.  It is not a step-by-step cookbook, as every state and locality needs to design its own system.  But it does provide some advice and insights on avoiding common pitfalls, preparing key constituencies, and how to move forward.   

Before launching into advice on how to do results-based decisionmaking,  a common first question is whether this latest reform will last longer than many similar-sounding predecessors.  There is considerable optimism that this approach will endure, because the public is demanding a higher level of accountability than ever before;  there is more precedence, in welfare reform, education and other policy areas; policymakers have learned from past initiatives, and the dramatic changes in information technology mean it is more feasible simply to collect and analyze the necessary data. 

Initial Decisions

The guide provides advice on a number of initial decisions or considerations as leaders implement their own results-based decisionmaking system: 

• Structure:  There are a number of options for structuring the overall approach.  Some states focus on inter-agency changes that can affect core functions but may not emphasize significant community involvement or cross-agency results.  Other states have focused on empowering community collaboratives to take responsibility for cross-agency results.  Still others have organized their approach around individual populations, such as young children.  Each method has advantages and disadvantages. 

• Rationale and risks for state and local leaders:  There seem to be three main reasons why state and local leaders pursue results-based decisionmaking.  They believe it will improve the lives of children and families; it responds to voters’ demands for results; and/or it fits with their own beliefs about improving government and communities’ support for children and families.  At the same time, there are also three main risks to pursuing this path:  Leaders may be criticized for revealing or achieving poor results; inevitably, someone, somewhere will make mistakes in implementing this new way of work; and investing in this effort, as with any other initiative, creates at least a short-term opportunity cost  (however, advocates would also state that improved results eventually frees up resources).  

• Leadership:  One of the most universal conclusions from people experienced in RBD is that it will succeed only with sustained leadership from the most senior levels.  Advice on what to do in the absence of complete support and commitment focuses on “starting where you are” – for example, if leadership exists on the county level, start there. 

• Initial focus: Deciding where to start also comes down to the advice from Washington state’s Joe Dear of  “Use what you have.  Start where you are.  Do what you can.”  Some recommend starting where there is a crisis, others on where there are successes on which to build. 

• All at once, or phasing it in?:  Another common question is whether to jump in to the RBD “pool” with both feet, or start with one toe at a time.  States and localities have pursued both paths. 

• Bottom-line advice:  Experienced leaders from many perspectives provided a set of advice to help initiatives start well and avoid getting bogged down: 

1.      Introduction

This guide was born out of a deep desire on the part of people implementing and supporting results-based decisionmaking systems across the country – and indeed across the world – to gather “lessons learned” on how to do it, and what to expect.  Implementing results-based decisionmaking (RBD) is still a grand experiment.  No nation, state or locality has a complete system in operation, and indeed only a few places have gone through a full accountability cycle of measuring performance and making changes based on performance.  However leaders in many places have begun to make profound changes in the ways that governments and communities support families and in the ways they are responsible for performance.  There are success stories and rueful stories – victories and mistakes.  There is much to learn about, and learn from, in steering a true course to using results. Before launching into a discussion of how to do results-based decisionmaking, some introductory remarks may be helpful. 

First, a definition: in this guide, “results-based decisionmaking” is a short-hand phrase for a wide variety of approaches to focus on results, rather than activities, as the goal of public acts and expenditures.[1] The exact design can take a number of forms, but here it encompasses choosing a set of results and planning supports and services to achieve those results; allocating resources as needed to achieve results; managing public and private supports and services in ways that promote achievement of results and encourage workers to take responsibility for their performance; and being responsible for improving performance over time.  The structure has some fundamental elements, such as a commitment to use results to improve, not just to plan or budget; and a linked agreement to allow people who are responsible for results more discretion and autonomy in exchange for more responsibility for performance.

The audience for this guide is state and local officials who are trying to develop or strengthen their results-based decisionmaking systems.  While communities and neighborhood leaders are crucial parts of these systems, this guide focuses on the concerns of these appointed and elected public leaders. 

The purpose of this guide is to give strategic advice about what to expect and how to successfully design and implement results-based decisionmaking systems.  Much has been written about the obstacles and challenges to using RBD, as well as how to design and measure specific indicators.  This guide goes beyond obstacles to give some advice on how to overcome them.  It also goes beyond a discussion on measuring indicators to discuss how to use them to improve performance.  It is designed to help leaders make informed decisions about how much to invest in these ideas, what they can expect to gain and what they risk by doing so.  While the guide focuses on RBD for systems serving children and families, the advice applies across other policy areas as well.  This guide also assumes that readers are already familiar with the basic language, theory and rationale for results-based decisionmaking – they have taken “Outcomes 101” – and are looking for informed advice on what to do – and expect – next. 

The advice in this guide is not dependent on a state or locality adopting a particular results framework.  It does not describe the different approaches taken by states and localities in any detail, since there are many such studies.[2] It does assume that any results-based decisionmaking system has some common elements, such as those listed above. 

The section below describes several different approaches to using results-based decisionmaking, but two variations in particular stand out.  Making the best use of these approaches will be a recurring theme.  Some initiatives emphasize changing formal state or county agency structures to focus on results and then to use them for planning, budgeting and management purposes.  This approach tends to treat agencies as separate entities, sets agency-specific measures as the targets for change, and is less focused on community mobilization and involvement.  The second approach strongly emphasizes mobilizing communities to take a more active role in improving results for children, youth and families.  It often starts with a state-wide list of results and includes a state or county structure that enables agencies to work across boundaries.  However, most of these initiatives involve smaller, “side” funds rather than the major agency operations and budgets.

This guide is written from the standpoint that an effective results-based decisionmaking system combines the best of the various reform approaches.  However, the advice here applies regardless of the exact structure.

This is not a cookbook or a step-by-step guidebook, but a compendium of advice drawn from experience or best strategic thinking.  It is based on dozens of interviews and document reviews from people who are implementing these ideas across the country, and across the world.[3] While each place is unique, the concerns and strategies are similar, from Tillamook, Oregon; to New York City; to Oslo, Norway. 

This guide is organized into four major parts.  This introduction concludes with some definitions used in the guide, as well as a brief discussion of why the current wave of results-based decisionmaking reforms is expected to endure longer than many of its predecessors.  The second part gives some overall advice about structuring a results-based decisionmaking system.  The third part looks at how to lay the groundwork for results-based decisionmaking with specific constituency groups, such as the media, auditors and legislators.  The fourth part gives suggestions for implementing four distinct (but overlapping) phases of results-based decisionmaking: strategic planning, resource allocation, management/administration and culture and accountability/responsibility. 

2.      Definitions

Every organization that is pursuing results-based decisionmaking uses its own jargon and framework.  To streamline the writing of this guide and promote clarity, it is helpful to define the terms used here (this terminology is based on the framework first developed by Mark Friedman).[4] Other terms, such as strategies or activities, have their commonly understood meaning. 

• Result: A broad condition of well-being for children, adults, families, or communities, sometimes also known as an outcome.  To prevent repetition of “results, indicators and performance measures,” this guide will also use “result” as an umbrella term covering all three terms when appropriate.  (examples: all children born healthy, youth becoming productive adults, supportive communities)

• Indicator: A measure which helps quantify the achievement of the desired result for community-wide populations.  These measures are usually so broad that progress requires actions across agencies and systems.  (examples: rates of low-birthweight births, youth graduating from high school, family income)

• Performance measure: A measure which helps quantify movement towards the indicator for specific target populations, or one that measures the level of activity, efficiency, capacity or quality of a service or intervention.  The latter are also called measures of process, activity or effort.  These measures can be affected by individual organizations or actors.  Some measures can be either indicators or performance measures, depending on the number of people included in the data (those in one program or across a state), and how the measures are used (to hold one agency accountable, or mobilize a whole community).  (examples: academic achievement among students in a program aimed to boost achievement, number of participants in such a program)

• Accountability[5]: Having some responsibility for taking actions to improve results, indicators and/or performance measures, with some consequences for performance.

• Community collaborative: A community-based group that has some authority to make decisions about supports for children and families, and some accountability for improved status of children and families.  This term is meant to encompass community-based groups that have both formal and informal status.

• Results-based decisionmaking: The process of using results, indicators and performance measures to improve child and family well-being.  Includes using these for strategic planning; aligning resources; changing organizational management and culture; and accountability.

3.      Déjà vu All Over Again?

Finally, before launching into a description of how to implement results-based decisionmaking, it may be helpful to answer a key question.  Many leaders who are trying to implement results-based decisionmaking have encountered skeptics who have seen other performance management trends come­—and go.  Variously titled Total Quality Management, Performance-Based Budgeting, Management By Objective, or other names, this latest round of work follows a significant history of similarly-sounding efforts.  One of the first questions they need to answer – for themselves as well as for their critics – is whether this latest wave of reforms will last longer than the many initiatives that have preceded it.  After all, as William Faulkner said, “The past isn’t dead – it isn’t even past.”

Fortunately, there is considerable reason for optimism that this approach will be different.  Jonathan Walters, a reporter for Governing magazine states flatly, “even though arguing the pros and cons of performance measurement is lots of fun, and even though you’ve been subjected to countless, cascading come-and-go measurement fads for the past 30 years, this time it’s a moot point.  Chances are that when performance measurement rolls your way, it won’t be an optional exercise.”[6] While it will surely be refined and “tweaked” along the way, the core ideas seem here to stay.  The reasons for this optimism include: 

•  Public demand for accountability: State and local leaders note a heightened level of public expectation for knowing what they are accomplishing with public funds.  This is markedly different from previous decades, and has even spread to other countries that have traditionally funded social services based on moral rather than effectiveness imperatives.  Martha Wellman from Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability notes that “some agencies believed that they would never get another drop of revenue unless they could show the results of their program.” As Sid Gardner points out, two-thirds of workers have some connection between their pay and performance, and they have come to expect this of the others.[7]

• Emphasis on a change in status or condition: This focus on results is different from many other initiatives because it has at its center an emphasis on an end result – a better environment and improvements in the status of children and families.  Although other efforts, such as Performance-Based Budgeting, sounded similar, looking beneath the labels often revealed that the focus was still on measures of activity or process, rather than result. 

• Precedents: There are now several major national programs or reform movements that may help spread the idea of results-based decisionmaking.  Welfare reform (and related programs, such as the Workforce Investment Act) is encouraging one large public system to re-invent itself to measure progress based on results, to re-think the mission of its employees, and to take responsibility for performance.  The entire system of public education is also undergoing a similar transformation, over a longer period of time.  Having effected these reforms in a few systems, leaders may be more able to spread these changes to others. 

•  Experience over time: There is some evidence that enough people are accumulating enough knowledge and experience to help these ideas “stick.” Many reforms require continued exposure to the ideas over time, and this latest round of efforts to use results may find more fertile ground because of past attempts at reform.  It remains to be seen if the country has yet reached what Malcolm Gladwell calls a “tipping point,”[8] where ideas truly catch fire, but they are certainly being proposed and considered in a variety of venues. 

•  Privatization of public services: Another major difference in the public sector environment between now and the last wave of performance reforms is the privatization of public services.  To take the chances necessary for success, people must be motivated to be more productive, and they must have the freedom to act accordingly.  Privatization usually means competition, which inspires motivation for change.  This has been a key factor in eliciting public employee union support for results-based decisionmaking.  Privatization also sometimes provides opportunities to allow the freedoms necessary to pursue better performance, without having to take the time to change rigid public procurement, personnel and other regulations. 

•  New faces in government: These ideas are also starting to permeate through the graduate schools and work environments that prepare public officials and leaders.  While there is mixed opinion about the impact of term limits, one possibility is that it will enable people to earn elected offices who expect to have good information, who have experience with being held accountable for performance, and who would come to expect the same of public systems.

• Better data systems: Finally, data collection capacity has increased dramatically, enabling states and localities to collect and analyze more data and turn it around quickly to front-line workers and communities.  This has allowed more people to see the value of the data in evaluating their own community’s situation and their own work.  Providing this data on a local and quick turn-around basis has “let a genie out of the bottle” that will not go back in. 

One can still be skeptical about the power of results to overcome decades – even centuries – of entrenched thinking about how public systems and communities can support families.  And indeed, moving to results-based decisionmaking alone is not sufficient to improve results.  But the appeal of the new ideas and the changing circumstances give hope that this is one reform movement that can make a difference. 

B.   Focus on community mobilization: This approach to RBD emphasizes moving responsibility for results from centralized, formal agencies to communities.  It often involves a state-wide organization that brings public and private leaders together to pursue cross-agency work to move towards state-wide results.  It also involves establishing community collaboratives (composed of leaders from many different sectors of the community) that are supported in taking a more active role in decisions about public funds and private actions to help families.  Vermont, Missouri, Maryland, Washington and Oregon have established strong community collaboratives and given them resources to fund services and/or recommend policy changes to move towards better results. 

This community-focused approach to RBD, as it is often currently implemented, has some limitations.  It usually focuses less on changing mainstream agency policies and sources of funds, and as a result local implementers – especially local government officials – are often in the position of being expected to change major results with tiny amounts of money and little authority.  It can be extremely difficult and contentious to determine which leaders, organizations, governmental entities or others at the community level should be given this new responsibility – the county, school district, city, an entirely new jurisdiction, etc.  – and how they coordinate with existing governmental structures.  Leaders are also facing a difficult struggle to keep communities engaged in this difficult work. Juanita Blount-Clark, director of Georgia’s Division of Children and Family Services, says “It’s a race to keep the community volunteers going long enough to see changes in results.” Each of the states that has pursued this approach has also been faced the dilemma of asking communities for a level of accountability that formal state agencies have not yet achieved. 

However, this approach does take advantage of the increasing recognition of the importance of communities in supporting families.  Many agency leaders have come to recognize that agencies are not the sole or even the major factor in improving child and family results in many communities.  For example, improving agency performance is a usually necessary but almost never sufficient step to reducing teen pregnancy, etc.  Each of the states using a strong community-focused approach to RBD can point to examples where community collaboratives have contributed to improved results for specific populations, and a few, such as Vermont, have even seen changes in results for statewide populations. 

As stated above, both of these approaches address important issues in improving the results of children and families; the key is using the best of both.  For example, Missouri has developed “Show Me Results” covering all aspects of the quality of life.  It has also developed a state-wide network of local collaborations, Caring Communities, which has developed “Core Results” for families and children.  Leaders in both initiatives are now examining how the Caring Communities’ community-wide strategies, Core Results, Show Me Results and state agency objectives all fit together (see appendix 1). 

C.  Focus on specific populations: Other places have taken a different tack, focusing on cross-agency and community mobilization work but for selected populations.  Three examples are North Carolina’s Smart Start (a major initiative of Governor Hunt), California’s Proposition 10 (a public ballot initiative), and Florida’s School Readiness Councils (enacted by the legislature).  All set state-wide results and create local groups charged with improving results at the community level.  This approach to RBD has the advantage of focusing on a specific population, and riding a wave of public interest in that population.  However, all of these are relatively new, so it is yet to be seen how they impact significant results for state-wide populations. 

D.  Legislative or executive branch structure: Another way to approach institutionalizing results-based decisionmaking is to emphasize legislative or executive branch leadership initially.  While ultimately both branches will need to use results in order to incorporate them into decisions that effect significant and enduring changes, the initial focus can come from either side.  While putting these requirements in statute can give them an institutional basis, they can also establish rules that are difficult to change with new developments and new information.[11] At the same time, in order to alter major allocations of resources, the legislature must be involved.

Therefore, most places have started with executive branch leadership, either in partnership or with the encouragement of the legislative branch.  In Illinois, several legislators drafted legislation requiring the use of results in agency decisions but put it aside once they saw agencies following this path on their own.  In Washington State, legislation creating a community-focused results-based decisionmaking system has institutionalized an effort that could have been lost over changes in political leadership; however, it also codified a variety of requirements that have been challenging to follow.  Several states, such as Missouri, started with executive branch leadership and only later codified or attempted to codify general requirements into legislative statute.

What is encouraging about all of these approaches to implementing RBD is the potential for them to learn from each other, and to grow towards each other.  Juanita Blount-Clark, who is now a state agency division director and was formerly the head of the cross-agency Family Policy Council, has been a leader in implementing both a agency-focused and a community-collaborative-focused approach.  She emphasizes the need to integrate them and use the best of each. 

2.      Rationale and Risks For State and Local Leaders

Once a leader understands the basic structure, the first questions are, do we really want to do this? Why bother? Why go through the hassle and risk of pursuing this new system? Leaders who are considering how to enact or strengthen a results-based decisionmaking approach will need to consider what they want (and can expect) to achieve by pursuing this path, and what they risk by doing so.  Any effort to change the status quo will encounter resistance, and any effort expended on this initiative has opportunity costs.  While many sources list general descriptions of what one could hope to gain by pursuing RBD, as well as the cautions about implementing it, this section focuses on the political gains and risks that might be expected.  

What could a state or city/county leader expect to gain by pursuing results-based decisionmaking?  

There seem to be three main reasons why leaders pursue results-based decisionmaking.  While there can be quick successes, leaders need to bear in mind that implementing RBD is a long-term process. 

• It will address the public’s demand for better results for children and families.  While many people seem content with the country’s overall condition, there are certain areas that continue to capture the public’s attention, such as crime and education.  Significant improvements in these areas can help leaders gain public support.  For example, police departments in many cities, including Boston, New York and Long Beach, CA, have explicitly credited their use of RBD systems with contributing to significant declines in the rates of a variety of serious crimes.  While many factors may have been involved in the decline, there is support for linking reduced crime rates with their efforts to measure results and align resources to support those results.

As another example, a variety of state and local school systems have used RBD systems as a tool to improve educational achievement.  Texas leaders have publicized the state school system’s focus on results, and the new superintendent in Montgomery County, Maryland (population 800,000) has staked his reputation on a highly publicized initiative to “Build a System of Shared Accountability.” In particular, this superintendent sees the system as a way to focus attention on specific subgroups of students, especially racial minorities, in order to improve their test scores.

• It will satisfy the public’s demand for government to work in new ways, and for government and communities to work together more effectively.  While standard political advice suggests avoiding specific achievement targets, dates, and lines of responsibility, results accountability requires it.  As Robert Behn notes in a forthcoming book, “Clarifying objectives is managerially sound but politically irrational…From experience, elected officials have learned that they can win more praise, support and votes by being fuzzy about what results government will produce then they can by being specific.”[12]

Moving to results-based decisionmaking flies in the face of this conventional wisdom.  Leaders must be prepared for the inevitability that initial measurements of child and family well-being will show deficiencies.  While waiting for actual results to improve, many leaders have found public support for demonstrable efforts to improve public systems in ways that make sense.  In short, there may be public support just for measuring and reporting the numbers, even if the numbers themselves are not good news. 

When Portland, Oregon mayor Vera Katz announced at a meeting of the U.S.  Conference of Mayors that she would produce a city-wide report card on the status of children and families, she was greeted with disbelief.  Many mayors were concerned that she would be criticized for numbers that largely reflected factors outside her control and before her tenure.  But she replied that she felt voters would support her efforts to know and publicize performance, while giving her time to improve them.  And  indeed, in her re-election campaign after the report card was released, there was some concern over the numbers, but voters strongly supported the production of the report card.  By the next campaign, however, she will likely be expected to show meaningful improvements.  The trick will be to determine and convince the public as to what improvements are reasonably within the scope of city programs. 

Many observers of emerging efforts to use results believe that it can also encourage – even compel – individuals and agencies to collaborate when they had been resolutely independent.  The results effort in Vermont brought the Agency of Human Services and the Department of Education together, and a new joint legislative committee in Maryland has brought child- and family-serving agencies to testify jointly on what the state needs to do to ensure that all children arrive at school ready to learn. 

• It resonates with their own beliefs about how to support children and families.  For a number of politicians, these ideas resonate with their own personal beliefs about the role of government and community, and how both can most constructively support a better society.  These ideas provide possible avenues to respond to their dissatisfaction with public processes and governance.  This rationale necessarily complements the other two; using RBD is a long-term process which may not cause immediate improvements in the life situations of children and families and which will almost certainly generate controversy.  Policymakers, therefore, need to believe in this process and be willing to stand on their belief that this is a better way.  While some leaders will pick the fruit of these trees, some plant the orchard even while knowing that others may reap the harvest.  When Rick Larison, the director of Illinois Governor George Ryan‘s Office of Statewide Performance Review, was asked why the Governor supported a new state-wide initiative to use results, he replied, “The Governor has a long history of being a state official.  He wants his legacy to be change in the long-term operation of government.  Of course, he wants the government’s interaction with the ‘man in the street’ to improve in the short term, but he’s also willing to plant the apple tree, knowing that he might not reap all of the apples.”

What does a state or local leader risk by pursuing results-based decisionmaking?

Pursuing results-based decisionmaking requires using up a certain amount of political and other resources, and it entails risk.  These risks generally fall into three categories; much of the remainder of this guide discusses ways to minimize these risks. 

• Criticism for poor results.  As discussed above, reporting on specific results is inherently risky.  If the numbers look bad, leaders can be criticized for poor performance.  If they look too good, leaders can be criticized either for not analyzing the data on under-performing populations, or for adjusting statistics, or for setting standards too low.  Ultimately, most leaders will need to show improved performance to win continued support.  However, an effective results-based decisionmaking system has a number of elements that can help build the support necessary to withstand the inevitable setbacks.  One is obtaining buy-in from a variety of stakeholders on both the process of RBD and the strategies chosen to achieve the desired results.  If the relevant parties agree to take a particular course, it’s harder to blame one leader exclusively for slow progress towards the destination.  A second element is shared responsibility between peer organizations and between higher levels of government and communities for progress on outcomes.  While public officials will always retain ultimate responsibility for public efforts, partnering with communities helps increase their sense of ownership of the course chosen and progress made. 

• Mistakes made in implementing results-based decisionmaking.  Adopting RBD generally needs to involve more freedom from rules and regulations in exchange for more responsibility for results.  Yet one person’s hoary regulation is another person’s cherished protection against past or anticipated grievous errors or injustices.  Determining how and how much to increase flexibility is a trial-and-error process.  Inevitably, the people involved in this movement – from governors to front-line workers to community collaboratives – will make mistakes.  As Robert Behn points out, asking someone to excel at both accountability for process (meeting all financing rules and other regulations) and accountability for results is like expecting someone to be both a top scholar and a top athlete – some people can do both perfectly, but most mortals cannot.[13]

Strategies to reduce this risk include anticipating these errors as much as possible, knowing which types are more or less acceptable, and involving potential and actual critics early.  For example, it may be more forgivable to fund a program that is shown to be ineffective than it is to exclude certain groups from services.  It is also important to bear in mind that results can be misused, and RBD needs to be accompanied by certain safeguards: “The shift to results-based accountability cannot be allowed to substitute for rock-bottom safeguards against fraud, abuse, poor services and inequities or discrimination based on race, gender, disability or ethnic background.” [14]

The discussion below on the media and communications strategies addresses how to buttress the initiative against inevitable mistakes and criticism.  While some leaders have found the media to be unrelenting critics, others have had success with bringing editors and reporters on board early in the process and keeping them informed in order to elicit more favorable coverage. 

• Opportunity cost.  Implementing RBD successfully takes considerable political capital and other resources.  If leaders decide to pursue this path, they will use up a certain amount of time, resources and energy that cannot be focused elsewhere.  Also, people – public managers, workers, community volunteers, the media – have only so much time and energy to understand and cope with change.  Asking them to institute these changes may mean delaying or foregoing other initiatives.  Leaders need to make a conscious choice about the value of RBD and how it ranks with other goals.  However, what makes this course of action so appealing is that implementing RBD can have wide-ranging impacts and improve virtually every sector of public and private life. 

Based on these benefits and risks, leaders need to decide if they are willing to invest in RBD, if this is the right time, and how to structure their initiative to maximize the chances of success.  The advice in this guide is designed to help them make these informed decisions.  

3.      Leadership 

Every guidebook says that using results effectively requires leadership.  But what if all of the right people aren’t in place?  

One of the most universal conclusions about using results effectively is that it requires people in key positions, from the state to the community level, who believe in this process and have the personal and technical skills to carry it out.  Certainly some of the most successful initiatives, such as those in Oregon, Texas, Vermont and Missouri, have had such leaders in the governor’s office, key agencies, and neighborhoods.  However, many other places may have senior and local leaders who do not choose results-based decisionmaking as one of their priorities, or elected or appointed supporters may transition out of office.  In these places, leaders may wish to implement RBD but are unsure if they should make do with what they have, or wait until a more propitious time.  How can they decide what to do?

The prevailing advice is to start where the leadership does exist – leadership with sufficient capacity not only to set results, but to take action to improve them.  As Jolie Bain Pillsbury puts it, “start wherever you are.”  If leadership exists at the state level, start there.  If county or city leaders are excited, move ahead with implementing these ideas at that level.  For example, Mecklenberg County, North Carolina, has created a results-driven system at the county level that has effected real change in how leaders measure success and plan resources.  One caveat has been that instituting RBD cannot be solely a grass-roots movement.  While efforts that focus only on agency change will miss the power of communities to change people’s lives, efforts that try to effect change solely from the community level may also encounter significant obstacles.  In order for RBD to succeed with significant numbers of families, it must involve more than small, token pots of resources and the attention only of community volunteers.  It must involve support from public organizations.  However, organizations at the city, county or state level can make significant strides forward, even if they do not yet have the support of the higher levels of government. 

4.      Initial Focus 

Using RBD seems to be a huge undertaking.  How can the state or county decide where to start?  

Shifting to results-based decisionmaking may seem overwhelming at first.  So many elements need to be aligned, and so many constituencies need to be included in the discussions and decisions.  States and localities may consider a variety of ways to start this process – focusing on one population, or one agency, or one geographic area.  The “bottom line” advice seems to be to “start where the opportunities are.”  As Joe Dear (chief of staff to Washington Governor Gary Locke) put it, “Use what you have.  Start where you are.  Do what you can.”[15]

In terms of which opportunities to pursue, there are two sets of advice.  One, espoused by Connie Revell of Washington state, is to find a “good news” story – an outcome that is improving – and figure out how to spread credit for it and build on it.

The other advice is to find a “bad news” story.  Mark Friedman points out that what motivates change is dissatisfaction with the status quo, so he recommends looking where there is significant dissatisfaction to motivate action.  Similarly, Jeff Tryens of the Oregon Progress Board suggests three criteria to use in deciding where to focus initial efforts: 

• Room for improvement – choose an area where the results are poor and likely to respond to change.

• Public interest and key leadership – choose an area where there is significant public interest in improvement, and where there is sufficient leadership to carry out the plan of action.

• Some agreement on effective strategies – it is also helpful if there is some clear indication on what strategies will be effective – and/or if it is possible to develop community consensus on what to do.

Using these criteria, Tillamook County in Oregon focused its initial efforts on teen pregnancy.  Local leaders were shocked to find they had one of the highest rates in the state, the public was passionate about this issue, and while there was no single strategy, there was support for a variety of approaches.  Focusing on this one problem helped dramatically reduce their teen pregnancy rates. 

5.      All At Once, or Phasing It In? 

Should the state or local leadership start the RBD initiative all at once, or phase it in over time?  

Like a swimmer trying to decide whether it’s better to enter a cold pool one toe at a time or by jumping off the diving board, states and localities need to decide whether to enact RBD across an entire state or region at once, or phase it in.  There are two very different schools of thought on this topic, and plenty of examples on both sides.  Florida chose a phased-in approach for its agency-focused system, allowing two volunteer agencies to start and then adding others.  Martha Wellman of the Florida Legislature’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability says the phased-in approach made the whole measurement approval process more manageable and enabled agency, governor’s office, and legislative staff to learn from their earlier experiences with RBD.  In addition, some agencies simply were not as prepared with the data and other infrastructure necessary to participate successfully, and this gave them time to build that capacity. 

However, leaders in other places are equally adamant that they needed to do it all at once, or the process would have taken too long.  Also, they feared that some agencies would set up endless appeals to delay implementation, because the data are too hard to collect (“you can’t measure what I do”), because there are special demands on the agency that would impede its ability to comply with these new requirements, or because of other arguments.  Texas and Louisiana are two states that started their agency focus all at once and leaders there maintain that this was the right approach for them. 

The same logic applies if states and localities are using other structures for results-based decisionmaking – for example, Washington state and Oregon created a state-wide network of community collaboratives all at once, while Georgia and Missouri have grown their networks over time.  The advantage of the former approach is that it creates a presence that is harder to eliminate, but it does strain resources and require tremendous commitment to build capacity over a large area all at once. 

Bottom-Line Advice

1. Start with a vision specifically stated in terms of results for children and families.  While this may seem obvious, many results initiatives seem to start with a vision of improved process or streamlined government operations or single agency performance, rather than a larger vision of improving the lives of children and families.  While all of these are important, they are all means to an end to improvements in children and family lives.  In interviews, many people said that having this vision is a great help in bringing group discussions back to the focus of their work, and in encouraging reluctant participants.  While people may disagree about the ideal structure for government operations, there is less disagreement about the ideal status for children and families (healthy, successful, caring, etc.).  While a focus on process does not necessarily compel great changes, a focus on children and families can and has inspired great work. 

2. Move rapidly beyond the initial vision and mission stages by building on what already exists.  A related issue is how much time to spend developing the vision and mission for this type of initiative, and how quickly to try and move to making decisions and acting on them.  While standard procedures for creating new initiatives start with developing a group vision for change, this stage can take up long periods of time and lose people in the process.  One piece of advice is to acknowledge the need to start with this step, but take advantage of what others have done, both within the state or county and beyond.  Use “visions” developed by comparable initiatives, as well as lists of key indicators developed by other states.  Jonathan Walters points out that a common mistake is believing that each place is so unique that it cannot use what others have already done.  The basic desires for child and family well-being are very similar across states and even countries.  Groups can move relatively quickly to the decision and action phases, while reserving the option of reviewing their mission selection later.  The chairman of the Montgomery County (OH) Family and Children First Council, Brother Raymond Fitz, followed this path, developing a county-wide set of results in less than three months.  By keeping the list as a working draft, he was able to move the group along quickly to taking action to improve the results.

3. Treat results-based decisionmaking as a better way of doing the existing work, not just another process added to the existing ones.  As long as RBD is seen as a separate way of making decisions, allocating resources, etc., on top of the current processes, it will feel like a burden, a temporary fix and an ineffective use of energy and attention.  While political decisions will never be made solely on the basis of results, RBD needs to be viewed as a better way of doing the existing work, rather than simply as another set of procedures to follow and reports to file.

4. Don’t make organizational changes until and unless there is a compelling need.  One common strategy to emphasize collaborative work to improve results is to change organizational arrangements to encourage people and institutions to work together more closely.  Yet one of the most resounding pieces of advice, born out of hard-won experience, is not to spend time on making these types of changes, until initiative leaders have gone as far as they could within existing structures.  Con Hogan, former director of Vermont’s Agency of Human Services, points out that organizational changes require work on everything from office space to stationery to new supervisory relationships that can sap crucial energy away from the ultimate purpose of the re-organization.  Creating these new relationships and new hierarchies can generate so much resistance that leaders cannot even get to the stage of using results.  In the jargon of facilitation, leaders can be forced to spend so much time “forming, storming and norming” that they do not reach the “performing” stage. 

5. Recognize that changes in results are more than the sum of changes in performance measures.  All of the individual programs that society could possibly support are not enough to effect changes in the broad results, across large populations.  This society is engaged in a constant assessment about what interventions will have payoffs beyond the immediate measures of improvement.  An old analogy for this dynamic is “stone soup,” a newer one is “broken windows,”[16] and the latest term is “the tipping point.”[17]  The idea in all of these is that small steps can have a larger impact than just the sums of their individual changes.  In the broken windows scenario, political scientists found that fixing small problems, such as graffiti on the New York City subway, ultimately led to reductions in bigger problems, such as crime.  One key to successfully using limited resources to leverage larger changes is choosing what small changes – performance measures – will led to bigger effects.

6. All parties must have something to gain – and something at risk.  In order for a results-based decisionmaking system to succeed, both those who “oversee” the results and those expected to produce them need to have something to gain, and something at risk.  As Jolie Bain Pillsbury points out, too often all of the risk is borne by the results producers, with no exposure for the ones overseeing the process.  The Oklahoma Department of Rehabilitation Services has developed a strong performance contracting system with its vendors working to help people with physical and mental disabilities obtain and keep jobs.  The agency pays vendors a percentage of its per-client cost according to the following scale:

• Determination of need – 10% of bid

• Vocational preparation – 10%

• Job placement – 10%

• Four week of job retention – 20%

• Stabilization on the job – 20%

• Consumer rehabilitated – 30%

Part of what has made the program so popular with vendors as well as agency staff is that the state agency “risks” at least something by paying vendors for services before it knows if those services will pay    off in job placements.[18] The same dynamic needs to exist when a state is “contracting” with a community collaborative for results – instead of expecting the community to bear all the risk for intractable problems, the state needs to bear some of the risk by providing necessary infrastructure, data, resources and other support. 

7. Start with the available data and build from there.  One of the knottiest problems in using results is the need for accurate, timely data on the status of children and families.  And different types of data are required – data that describe the overall condition of children across a state or county, as well as data that track the contributions and performance of individual programs and providers.  Gary Stangler, director of the Missouri Department of Social Services, describes data as a “mirror” that when held up to communities inspires them to action.  Sara Hoffman, the Assistant Administrator for Contra Costa County, California, points out that until data can show that using results improves the lives of children and families, these initiatives are solely dependent on rhetoric and personalities for public support -- “like Blanche DuBois, we’re ‘dependent on the kindness of strangers.’”

Yet, few data collection systems have been set up to collect results data, to collect data across systems to give a more complete picture, or to provide analyses within the three to six months that service providers need to make rapid adjustments.  While RBD cannot succeed without good data, a common issue is the delay caused by trying to achieve optimal data collection.  Again the advice here echoes the Nike slogan – “just do it,” or “start with what you have.”  RBD initiatives can start with the populations, or the issues, for which there are data, and build capacity for collecting more powerful variables over time.  In Iowa, the new director of the agency of human services, Jessie Rasmussen, is starting with pilot initiatives for small groups of families where performance data will be hand-collected if necessary.  Vermont has pioneered making results data available at the community level, on the internet – without massive changes in their systems or technology.

8. Take small steps at a brisk pace.  Leaders trying to choose a course of action are often faced with contradictory aphorisms.  In this case, the dilemma might be summed up as between “a journey of a 1,000 miles starts with a single step” and “you can’t jump a chasm in two steps.”  Should initiative leaders aim for large, institutional changes that set a precedent, or smaller changes over time? While each state or county will need to make its own decisions, the preponderance of advice seems to be, in the words of Jessie Rasmussen, “small steps at a brisk pace.” Mark Friedman echoes this idea, emphasizing that change comes less often through a “big bang,” than through the many smaller, everyday interactions between people – between governors and agency heads, supervisor and employees, workers and families, neighbors and friends.  The section below on changing management culture will explore this idea in more detail. 

9. Focus can be more powerful than money.  Another common assumption is that improving results must require swift reallocation of significant funds.  There is no doubt that some of the infrastructure work necessary to implement RBD requires immediate resources.  And, improving results will ultimately require aligning resources to support those results.  However, veterans of this process point out that too often an early focus on money is unnecessary and can create tensions and divisions that threaten the success of the initiative.  Vermont’s Con Hogan and Cheryl Mitchell emphasize that what has changed outcomes in that state is not so much new or re-aligned money but more a constant focus on how each person’s or organization’s work contributes to the chosen results.  They maintain that consistently focusing on how each legislator, employee and community member contributes to the results has made a major impact on the results themselves.  Just as the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle says that simply measuring something disturbs it, Vermont’s leaders maintain that asking the question has an effect on the answer.

Looking to the Next Election: How Far Can A State or City/County Go in Three Years?

Common sense dictates that results and systems that have taken decades to develop will not be changed overnight.  However, most leaders of this movement – governors, city/county officials and grass-roots advocates – need to be able to demonstrate some progress within two to three years, in order to maintain public support.  More specifically, elected officials, often with four-year terms, want to have some specific accomplishments they can use as part of their next campaigns.  This is especially true if they were elected on a platform of improvements in the status of children and families or increased government accountability. 

Of course, exactly how far one can go depends on a variety of factors: past history, current leadership, and willingness to invest time, political capital and other resources.  However, advice from people who have created these initiatives and thought through this question suggests that leaders can expect visible progress in a number of areas:

 

1. State or county-wide vision for results: Leaders can substantially complete a process to elicit public input into, and support for, at least an initial set of results that reflect the overall vision for the initiative.  While some ground-breaking states took several years to complete this pains-taking process, other places can build on their work and accomplish this in less time. 

2. Data on the status of children and families: Even with imperfect data systems, states and counties can develop “report cards” that reflect the status of children and families – in absolute terms and in comparison with other geographic areas.  This gives a baseline by which to measure future progress, and it demonstrates a public commitment to responsibility for performance.  Beyond these basic data,  leaders can produce information on how resources are aligned to support specific populations or results (a children and family budget).  Many states and counties have attempted these; many are available on the websites listed at the end.  Montgomery County, Ohio started producing annual data for 15 children and family results – even though in some cases the data are incomplete or show worsening results over time, publishing the data is a major step forward.[19]

3. Results accountability for specific systems.  Within this period of time, it is also possible to establish sets of accountability measures – results, indicators, performance measures – for specific agencies, systems or populations.  If there is strong support within those entities, it may be possible to create an entire accountability cycle – setting results, implementing strategies, measuring results, taking action – within this period of time for very specific groups.  Some states have pursued the creation of local collaboratives to assume more responsibility for results.  With sufficient resources, states can create local collaboratives or endow existing groups with some form of these new responsibilities, but it will probably take longer than two to three years before they can take on responsibility for performance.

4. Improved results for specific populations.  .  The most impressive accomplishment, of course, is demonstrated improvements in the knowledge, skills, behavior or status of children and families.  If leaders focus their attention on a particular population, in an environment where the results are poor, interest intense and strategies promising, they can expect to see some changes in smaller results within two to three years.  One key to ensuring that even limited improvements are seen as successes, instead of falling short of larger goals, is not to over-promise.  An intense intervention can expect to see significant changes with a small population, or a broader intervention can expect to see smaller changes within a large population.  But absent major changes, luck and resources, it will take longer than two to three years to see significant improvements in a large number of people.  A second key is placing new data in the context of past performance, so that small improvements – or even reductions in the rate at which performance is worsening – is viewed accurately. 

States and counties have made different choices about where to place their initial emphasis.  Some have pursued an agency focus exclusively, others have tried to create accountability systems for specific services or populations.  Each will need to decide where is the best opportunity to establish a foothold in climbing this mountain – where is the best combination of room for improvement, public interest and promising strategies – that will build public support. 

Once there are chosen results and desired strategies, a next phase is to start to align resources with the desired results (and other measures) to support the strategies and activities necessary to achieve those results.  This dimension of RBD can take place at many levels – from small community-based projects to entire state budgets.  When the latest round of using results started in the mid-to-late 1980s, there was some hope that a results framework could be used to transform the formal public budget systems.  Ideally, executive and legislative budgets would be developed based on desired results and effective performance, rather than on what was funded last year or what is politically popular.  This has proved to be immensely difficult, however, and most places now aim for more incremental changes.  As Ron Snell of the National Conference of State Legislatures commented, “Thinking that managing by results would solve the budgeting problems of the early 1990s was the wrong road.  What we have found is that results do enrich the policy and budgeting debate.”[34] Therefore, rather than aiming for objective results to replace subjective politics in budgetary decisions, most leaders are aiming to use results to inform and affect the budget debate. 

Short of allocating the entire budgets of large programs to certain results, there are a variety of steps that states and communities can take to align resources to support results.  These steps can be more formal or informal, and address smaller parts of larger budgets, or larger parts of smaller budgets.  People who have worked through attempts to shift decisions about resources to focus on results offer some advice about how to encourage this change:

1. Develop children and family budgets to show how resources support results.  While there will probably always be a need for program budgets, new tools that show how resources contribute to improved results can help ask and answer these questions effectively.[35]  These budgets show how existing fund allocations line up with selected results.  While governors and legislatures do not (yet) develop new budgets in this way, they do help point out how the government is (or is not) allocating its resources according to its stated results.  These budgets generally take one or both of two forms.  The first is a list of results, with programs and their associated budgets assigned to each.  This lines up total budget with the outcomes, but does not recognize that any one program is likely to contribute to more than one result.  Another version is to use a “check box” format to show how each program contributes to one or more result.  These two together can help a state or locality show how its resources align with its chosen results.  (There are two other theoretically possible but seldom-used formats.  One is to allocate a program’s dollars to every result it influences, which means counting the same funds multiple times.  The second is to allocate portions of each program’s budget to the result it supports.  This prevents double-counting but requires making some seemingly arbitrary decisions.)

2. Change the budgeting conversation rather than the budgeting rules.  Rather than attempting to change the formal budgeting process, which generates resistance from those who are trained in and supportive of that process, leaders have focused on changing the conversations within the executive branch, and between the executive branch and the legislative branch.  Simply asking questions about performance, without trying to formally tie dollars to data, can help agencies focus on being able to produce better answers about performance. 

• Change the questions asked at every step.  All of the interactions in state and local budgeting processes are opportunities to have these conversations.  Governors talk to agency leaders, agency leaders talk to their middle managers, managers talk to front-line workers, agency staff talk to community members, agency officials talk to legislators and legislative staff, budget staff talk to program staff.  If each of these interactions focuses on how funds can support better results, it will change how participants think about their impact on results.  As part of routine evaluations at the Vermont Agency of Human Services, employees are asked how their work contributes to the state-wide results.  Former AHS director Con Hogan is convinced that it is this focus, rather than formal legislative budget process changes, that has helped the state improve the status of its children and families.

• Use results in budgeting conversations within the executive branch.  A few states and localities have begun asking program staff to justify their funding requests in terms of results-based performance.  In Illinois, when the governor sits down with agency directors to develop the budget requests, part of the conversation is the agency’s performance on results and indicators.  While the final decisions are not yet tied solely to performance, this does serve to convey how serious the governor is about performance and to start to use results to make resource decisions. 

• Use results in budgeting conversations between the executive and legislative branches.  Formal legislative budgeting processes have as yet changed little in terms of their use of results to make funding decisions.  However, as with the executive branch, elected officials are beginning to ask questions about agency performance on results and indicators.  Sandra Moore of Missouri’s Family Investment Trust points out that state agency budget requests must include an assessment of the item’s impact on the state’s “Show Me Results.” Again, while legislators may still make the final decisions based on a variety of factors, having legislators and other elected officials ask for the information and having agencies offer it even when not asked, helps to introduce results into the decisions. 

3. Take specific steps short of complete decategorization with mainstream funds.  Completely eliminating budgeting rules is probably not realistic, given the deep-rooted support for many categorical programs.  But there are steps leaders can take short of eliminating cherished protections.  One is to allow savings from improved results to be used for prevention of those “bad” results.  Another is to combine similar funds into one pool – but too often these strategies only end up combining prevention funds that were fairly flexible and appropriately allocated in the first place and don’t include the remediation funds that have the most restrictions.  A third step is to allow funds to be rolled over from one fiscal year to the next, as Iowa Decategorization Boards allow.  This simple (but difficult, since it is prohibited by many state constitutions) step would provide more flexibility in directing budget resources towards improving results.

4. Try using small amounts of mainstream funds as specific incentives for improvement.  While making the budget of an entire program contingent on better results may be difficult, it is often possible to allocate a small portion based on performance.  Martha Wellman of the Florida Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability points out that even small amounts of money can leverage significant performance improvements.  Last year the Texas legislature used a small portion of the higher education budget to allocate $1.5 million to institutions whose performance meet or exceeded standards, and $0.5 million to institutions whose performance improved.  While it is a small percentage of the overall budget, the action seems to be significant enough to capture the attention of the higher education system.

5. Align smaller budgets with results.  Apart from the process of establishing large agency or local budgets, staff within agencies are also starting to allocate funds based on desired results. This is happening both within agencies, and as agencies pass funds onto local collaboratives, for their decisions about how to achieve results on a local basis.  Over the past decade, the Vermont Agency of Human Services has shifted its funding to emphasize prevention services in the area of its priority results – and it has seen those results improve substantially.[36] Missouri has decategorized and combined funds from eight different state agencies and shifted them to local collaboratives to spend according to their desired results – the state budget for this Caring Communities initiative was approximately $22 million in FY 2000.

6. Make room for varied strategies, including no- and low-cost ones.  When deciding what strategies should be supported to accomplish the desired results, it is important to make room for different ideas.  Too often, state and local groups think that they need to endorse only one strategy; forcing this decision causes more controversy than necessary.  But a variety of places – from Tillamook County, Oregon, to Mecklenberg County, North Carolina – have found that people will be most energized to help if they can pursues strategies they believe in.  Rather than allocating funds for one approach to reduce teen pregnancy, the Tillamook County Commission on Children and Families endorsed several complementary strategies organizations could support, including abstinence, sex education, after-school programs, mentoring and youth employment programs.  Some of them didn’t cost anything, but all of them addressed an established factor in reducing teen pregnancy, and county leaders believe all of them played a part in their dramatic improvements in that result.

7. Show auditing, budgeting and finance people the advantages of aligning resources with results.  As described above, while program staff often see the immediate benefits of a focus on results and an increase in front-line flexibility, finance staff often do not.  They are asked to change a fundamental orientation, increase their workload, and increase their personal and professional risk – without an immediate motivation to change.  Giving them a reason to change can help increase their willingness to take the necessary risks.

8. Form a core group that can start the movement.  Many places have found it helpful to start with a core group that can start the shift to results-based decisionmaking.  This can be especially helpful in the budgeting arena.  Iowa has created a core group of legislators from the key budget and finance committees who are willing to take the time to learn about results-based decisionmaking and consider how it can impact the legislative process.  In Washington state, staff at the Family Policy Council found state auditing staff who were enthusiastic about a results-focused approach and would take the time to work with local collaboratives to fit their work with auditing rules.

Bibliography

Bardach, Eugene. Getting Agencies to Work Together: The Practice and Theory of Managerial Craftsmanship.  Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, 1998.

Behn, Robert. Rethinking Democratic Accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press, forthcoming.  

Behn, Robert and Peter Kant. “Strategies for Avoiding the Pitfalls of Performance Contracting,” Public Productivity & Management Review, vol.  22, no. 4, June 1999. 

Behn, Robert. “The Wrong Way to Motivate,” Governing, December 1994. 

Behn, Robert, Leadership Counts: Lessons for Public Managers from the Massachusetts Welfare, Training and Employment Program.  Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1991. 

Center for the Study of Social Policy. Beyond Lists: Moving to Results-Based Accountability.  Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, August 1996 (draft).  

Child Trends. Children and Welfare Reform: A Guide to Evaluating the Effects of State Welfare Policies on Children. Washington, DC: author, 1999.  

Connell, James and Anne Kubisch. "Applying a Theory of Change Approach to the Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Initiatives: Progress, Prospects and Problems," in Karen Fulbright-Anderson, Anne Kubisch and James Connell, eds., New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives, Volume 2: Theory, Measurement and Analysis. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1998. 

Friedman, Mark. A Strategy Map for Results-Based Budgeting. Washington, DC: The Finance Project, September 1996. 

Friedman, Mark. A Guide to Developing and Using Performance Measures in Results-Based Budgeting. Washington, DC: The Finance Project, 1997.  

Friedman, Mark. Trading Outcome Accountability for Fund Flexibility. Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, no date. 

Gardner, Sid. “Moving Toward Outcomes: An Overview of the State of the Art and Key Lessons for Agencies,” Fullerton, CA: Center for Collaboration for Children, October 1996.  

Gardner, Sid. Beyond Collaboration to Results: Hard Choices in the Future of Services for Children and Families.  Fullerton, CA: Center for Collaboration for Children, January 1996. 

Gladwell, Malcolm. The Tipping Point: How Little Things Can Make a Big Difference. New York: Little, Brown and Company, 2000.  

Hatry, Harry.  Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press, 1999.  

Hogan, Cornelius and David Murphey. Towards an “Economics of Prevention”: Illustrations from Vermont’s Experience.  Washington, DC: The Finance Project, 2000.  

Kagan, Sharon, L.  “Making Assessment Count…What Matters?” Young Children, March 2000. 

Kaplan, Robert and David Norton. The Balanced Scorecard: Translating Strategy Into Action. Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 1996.  

Kelling, George, Catherine Coles, and James Q. Wilson. Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities. New York: Free Press, 1998.  

Liner, Blaine and Elisa Vinson. Will States Meet the Challenge? Washington, DC: The Urban Institute, June 1999.  

Melaville, Atelia. A Guide to Selecting Results and Indicators. Washington, DC: The Finance Project, May 1997. 

Montgomery County Council Family and Children First Council, 1999 Report to the Community on Outcomes and Indicators. Dayton, Ohio: author, 1999.  

Pratt, Clara et al. Building Results: From Wellness Goals to Positive Outcomes for Oregon's Children, Youth and Families. Salem, OR: Oregon Commission on Children and Families, 1997. 

Robison, Susan. Improving the Well-Being of Children and Families: A Results Toolkit for State Legislators (draft). Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures, forthcoming.  

Schechtman, Morris. Working Without a Net: How to Survive & Thrive In Today’s High Risk Business World. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1996.  

Schorr, Lisbeth, with Frank Farrow, David Hornbeck and Sara Watson. The Case for Shifting to Results-Based Accountability, Washington, DC: Center for the Study of Social Policy, 1995. 

The Finance Project. Building Strong Communities: Crafting a Legislative Foundation. Washington, DC: The Finance Project, 1996.  

Trott, Charles and John Baj. Building State Systems Based on Performance: The Workforce Development Experience, A Guide for States. Washington, D.C.: National Governors' Association, 1996. 

Vinson, Elisa. Performance Contracting in Six State Human Service Agencies. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, September 1999.  

Weiss, Carol. "Nothing As Practical As Good Theory: Exploring Theory-Based Evaluation for Comprehensive Community Initiatives for Children and Families," in James Connell, Anne Kubisch, Lisbeth Schorr and Carol Weiss, eds., New Approaches to Evaluating Community Initiatives: Concepts, Methods and Contexts. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, 1995.

Websites

The Finance Project: www.financeproject.org. Information and materials on reform of family and children’s services, including results-based decisionmaking. 

Fiscal Policy Studies Institute www.resultsaccountability.org. Information and materials on results-based budgeting and accountability. 

Results and Performance Accountability Guide www.raguide.org.  Online guide to results and performance accountability. 

Government Accounting Standards Board: www.seagov.org. Initiative to change government accounting standards to support managing for results. 

National Partnership for Reinventing Government: www.npr.gov. Vice President Gore’s initiative to reform the federal government, including using results-based decisionmaking.  

State and Local:

Charlotte, North Carolina: www.charmeck.nc.us 

Contra Costa County, California Children’s Report Card: www.cccoe.k12.ca.us 

Florida’s Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability: www.oppaga.state.fl.us/government/ 

Iowa’s Budgeting for Results initiative: www.state.ia.us/government/dom/results_main_page.html 

Louisiana’s Performance Accountability System (LaPAS): www.doa.state.la.us/opb/lapas/lapas.html 

Nebraska state government: www.hhss.state.ne.org 

Oklahoma's Milestone (Results Based Contracting) Payment System: www.milestonemanagement.com. 

Oregon Progress Board: www.econ.state.or.us/opb/index.htm 

Portland - Multnomah (OR) Progress Board: http://www.p-m-benchmarks.org/tblcnts.html 

Virginia’s Performance-Based Budgeting System: www.state.va.us/dpb/pm/perfmeas.htm