A common problem for states is that often more than one program in an agency—and/or more than one state agency—provides services relating to the same outcomes. For example, many state programs in multiple agencies, including programs within depart- ments of health, social services, education, and corrections, address substance abuse and juvenile delinquency. Each agency tackles a part of the problem, and from a differ- ent perspective. Another example is teenage pregnancy. Numerous state agencies, many local agencies, and the private sector—including social service agencies, health agencies, education agencies, churches, and parents—play roles in addressing teenage pregnancy.
Some states have considered making organizational changes to bring together such programs. However, in most instances, reorganization does not solve this problem. Most programs have multiple outcomes, which no single organizational structure can sort out without some degree of overlap.
Another problem reported by the states is that programs with overlapping outcome indicators are likely to impose different and conflicting requirements on grantees and contractors from whom they require data. Data users can become confused by different
variations of related outcome measurements. Agencies will need to establish ways to coor- dinate data collection efforts to avoid confusion and to reduce the cost of data gathering.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : A central state agency, such as an office of management and budget,
should periodically examine state agencies’ missions and outcome statements and identify related, over- lapping responsibilities for important state outcomes. One of these agencies should be assigned as the “lead” agency for each outcome. This agency would have the responsibility of coordinating the selection of outcome indicators and service delivery activities.
Such coordination among agencies and their programs should help reduce major overlaps and unnecessary expense—and also enable the agencies and programs to share experiences, successes, and problems in both measuring outcomes and delivering services. A working group or oversight group might be established to identify outcome indicators common to the programs and to help establish how data would be collected and who would do it. Such efforts, however, should not inhibit individual agencies and their programs from using variations of, or additional, outcome indicators that they believe are appropriate. In some instances, joint action, and perhaps joint solicitations for service delivery, might be prepared to simultaneously serve the needs of more than one program.
The Oregon Progress Board and operating agencies developed a report, the Blue Book, that identifies which agencies can affect the values of each of the state’s outcome indicators (called “benchmarks” by the Board). The report identifies the “primary” state agencies, a lead agency for the benchmark indicator, and agencies that have “secondary” linkages.16
The Oregon Department of Housing and Community Services started integrating its food bank program with other programs (such as schools and the Department of Agriculture) that shared the common goal of feeding needy people. As a result, the food banks now have access to three times the food they had before.
Minnesota holds meetings of top-level agency officials on specific problem areas common across particular agencies. For example, the Minnesota Department of Corrections has an internal team approach, focusing on specific objectives and then determining what is measurable. This creates a cross-team effort to help break down divisional walls. The team draws on examples and ideas from other departments, encouraging individuals to focus on the concepts and approach of performance measurement as applied to their own operations and reducing the perceived threat of such measurement.
In 2000, the New Mexico Senate required, as part of the state’s annual agency strategic planning process, that strategic plan performance indicators “be coordinated among the state agency on aging, human services department, department of health, and the children, youth and families department.”
This concern about multiple agencies having overlapping responsibility for outcomes seems almost certain to become important for both the legislature and the executive branch in states applying governing-for-results principles. This has been evident in budget deliberations.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : State governments and their agencies should consider forming “performance partnerships” among different agencies, different levels of government, and, as appro- priate, the private sector.17
For example, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, in addressing its air quality activities, found that intra-agency partnerships could most effectively control pollution when a number of its own components, including its permitting, moni- toring, and enforcement offices, could work in greater concert. Overlapping outcomes of the component bureaus and divisions provided the motivation and structure for the partnerships.
Oregon created a “Community Solutions Team.” Such teams are intended to reach out to those who have an active role in achieving the desired result. For example, for its school- to-jobs programs, the business community was asked to promise jobs to students who complete the program.
Iowa has established “Enterprise Planning Teams” (EPTs) in each of the governor’s six key policy areas (education, health care, environment, workforce and economy, safe communities, and accountable government). The EPTs report on their progress in monthly meetings with the governor, the lieutenant governor, and the heads of agencies that contribute to each policy area. Every third month, the meeting addresses the key perfor- mance indicators that the team had chosen to monitor.
Outcome overlap is an important issue that inevitably will arise in a governing- for-results environment. The concept of “performance partnerships” seems a reasonably attractive approach for dealing with this issue. Because improving outcomes often requires actions by many organizations, states should consider forming partnerships with other levels of government and with elements of the private sector. Outcome values, in such situations,
are in effect the responsibility of multiple programs, multiple agencies, multiple govern- ments, and multiple sectors. While it is important that individual state agencies and their
programs single out their own contributions and be held accountable for those contributions to overall state outcomes, it is also important that state governments and their citizens recognize that overall responsibility is often shared. The higher-level government (in this case, the state) needs to overcome any temptation to “supervise” the effort rather than making the joint effort a true partnership.
A number of state managers expressed considerable concern over a closely related issue: certain programs’ inability to show significant improvements in statewide outcomes, over which agency managers felt they had limited control (given their programs’ limited resources). The agency managers pointed out that they often were able to serve only a small portion of the state’s total need with the resources available. This was the case in programs such as those aimed at reducing juvenile delinquency, drug abuse, child abuse, and teenage pregnancy.
17 Here “private sector” is not meant to include private organizations working under contract with the state. The nature of that relationship is discussed later in the section on performance contracting.
States need the aggregate data, which represent the statewide need and which, when tracked over time, indicate the extent of the state’s progress in meeting that need. States also need to track how well their programs are addressing the parts of the problem that they can affect, such as the outcomes for those clients that the program attempts to help. The program clearly has responsibility for the latter but probably has much more limited responsibility for the statewide outcomes.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : State program managers should attempt to track both aggregated
statewide outcomes and outcomes for those areas their programs have resources to address. State elected officials need to recognize that while their program managers have considerable control over the latter, they are likely to have only limited control over statewide outcomes.