Results-Based
Government
Taxpayers
should insist that government programs accomplish
what they're set up to do. Measuring results is a
powerful tool for holding agencies accountable.
Results
matter… or at least that they should.
Especially
when it comes to tax dollars and public
expenditures.
Increasingly, taxpayers are demanding
results and performance in return for their
hard-earned dollars.
Ideally,
keeping taxes low and reeling in spending would
control the size and scope of government. But a
results-based approach to government can achieve
the same goal. Requiring
all government agencies, big and small, to
demonstrate success and justify what they spend
will separate effective and useful programs from
programs that are ineffective, or even wasteful.
Measuring
results
gives taxpayers a powerful tool to monitor how our
money is spent, and to hopefully keep taxes low.
The
Commonwealth has made some progress in this
direction over the last few years.
The Roadmap for
Virginia
’s
Future holds promise, but its effectiveness for
change has yet to be determined.
And there were some successes in the most
recent legislative session. A bill carried by Sen.
Jay O’Brien, R-Clifton, implemented
performance-based budgeting for drug and alcohol
treatment as well as job training programs —
essentially requiring agencies to fund only those
programs that can demonstrate results and stop
funding those that don’t or can’t.
The
O'Brien bill is
a step in the right direction but should be
expanded to cover even more programs this year.
In addition, Executive Order 67, which
mirrored unsuccessful legislation to bring real
budget reform to
Virginia
offered by Del. Gary Reese, R-Oak Hill, also holds
much promise to bring real budget and spending
reform to the Commonwealth.
However, this executive order has yet to be
“activated.”
These
are nice steps, but to move to the next level of
efficiency, each and every activity the state
undertakes should be reviewed to ensure they are
producing intended results.
Additionally, agencies should be forced to
show how each activity is directly related to its
core mission, goals, and the Commonwealth’s
priorities. If
they can’t do all of these things, it is a clear
signal that we need to ask why the activity or
service is being done, and paid for by taxpayers,
in the first place.
To
determine
what works and what doesn’t, a top-down review
of current programs should be done to evaluate
effectiveness and efficiency.
California is using a similar approach to
tackle its massive deficit: A review of the
state’s prison system led by former Republican
Gov. George Deukmejian yielded 239 recommendations
for improvements. Texas
has used this review system for years, abolishing
44 agencies, consolidating another 11, and saving
over $2.4 billion.
Florida
,
which also has demanded results from agencies, was
able to return more than $1 billion to taxpayers
this year. Even
the federal government has taken action: In the
FY05 budget, a similar performance review
eliminated 13 federal programs, saving over $1
billion.
Every
agency, program, and activity should be evaluated
on three factors: performance, relevance, and
management efficiency.
Performance is easy to understand and see
— is the program or activity having a positive
impact or not? Relevance
is a little trickier.
Is the program a priority against other
competing needs, or is it duplicative of other
government programs?
Finally, management efficiency looks at the
operations to see if there is another way of doing
things, including public-private partnerships or
privatization.
A
program not meeting the first criteria,
performance, should be terminated and its funding
allocated to other programs in its mission area
that can produce results.
A program not meeting the second criteria,
relevance, should be suspended:
The program may be worthy or beneficial,
but there just are not enough resources to fund
all of the "nice idea" programs and
maintain the "vital imperative"
programs. Finally,
a program not meeting the third criteria,
efficiency, should be reformed immediately and
cost savings from improved management should
either be reallocated to that program or allocated
to other important programs.
Debates
on taxes and spending are divisive.
However, we can all agree that if the
Commonwealth does choose to spend money, it should
at least be able to show progress towards a goal,
to demonstrate that positive change is being made,
and to ensure that our tax dollars are being used
effectively and efficiently.
Chances
are slim that a member in the General Assembly or
the Warner administration would stand up and say
they’re not for performance and results — that
they don’t want to make sure our tax dollars are
spent effectively.
Over
time, putting results and performance first will
make the Commonwealth more efficient, but more
importantly, more effective.
A results-based approach is the most
successful way to keep spending down and taxes
low. It will halt Ineffective
and wasteful spending, shrink the reach of
government and lower the demand for future taxes.
We
can’t afford not to put performance first.
--
July 26, 2004
|