Assistance
Needs
12
On-the-job training is
essential, but more formal
training and occasional
technical assistance usually
are also needed to enable
personnel to implement
successful governing-for-
results practices.
Such efforts, however, have reached only small proportions of state management personnel. States have primarily left it to the state agencies to meet their own training needs using their existing budgets. Some agencies have contracted with consultants to provide nec- essary training.
The need for training does not end with initial implementation of a performance man- agement process. Personnel turnover occurs and new performance management approaches appear, for which agency personnel need training.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : The state legislature and the executive branch should encourage oper-
ating agencies to provide training in results-based performance management to a substantial proportion of operating agency management/supervisory staff. This training should include key “technical” issues (e.g., distinguishing outputs from outcomes, and the pros and cons of the various types of data collec- tion procedures, such as customer surveys and trained-observer ratings). The training should also address how to use outcome information to improve programs.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : The legislature should consider initially providing agencies with supple-
mental funds for manager training. However, in later years, such training can be treated as a basic part of managerial work and, as with other staff training, be funded out of each organization’s budget. Agencies should be encouraged to provide such training.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Training in performance management should be included in the state’s
basic management/supervisory courses. Most, if not all, supervisory courses should include a compo- nent that discusses performance management, including outcome measurement and the use of out- come information.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Formal training can usually be obtained from universities and consultant
firms for a fee. An option is to use staff who have been through a successful implementation effort else- where in the state government, whether in their own or other departments, to provide ongoing training.
In the mid-1990s, Oregon used its own staff to provide training and technical assistance to other state agencies, with considerable success. The Texas LBJ course described above has used instructors loaned by state agencies for a specified amount of time to conduct training.
Perhaps just as important as providing training to executive branch personnel is making it available to legislators and their staffs. Training is needed to help them interpret the infor- mation they receive and learn how to use it to inform policy and appropriation efforts.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : Training opportunities should be provided to legislators and their staffs
on “legislating-for-results.” Training curricula and materials need to be developed.
The Minnesota example cited above is one of the few that we found of legislative per- sonnel, in this case legislative staff, being provided formal training opportunities. In Florida, OPPAGA, a legislative office, has conducted several training sessions for legislative staff and members. A special curriculum for legislators, and a parallel curriculum for legislative staff—curricula that can be adapted by all states—should be developed.
1
O
nce performance data begin to be used for major purposes, such as making resource allocation, budget, and policy decisions, users become very concerned about the accuracy and reli- ability of that data. Outcome information tends to be considerably more uncertain than activity and cost data—and is typically more widely disseminated outside the agency and to the public and media. Thus, achieving a reasonable degree of accuracy is a major concern. As agency program managers begin to find outcome data useful in making program decisions throughout the year, they will be motivated to seek accurate data.Who should be responsible for quality control? State govern- ments have a number of options. Independent audits are highly desir- able, but state audit agencies do not have resources to audit the large quantities of outcome data coming from state agencies and their programs. State audit agencies, at best, are likely to be able to audit only a small portion of the outcome data in any given year. In most states, these organizations do not have much experience auditing outcome information, since historically their main focus has been financial data and management or organizational issues.
R E C O M M E N D A T I O N : State agencies and those of their programs
responsible for providing performance data should be assigned the primary responsibility for data quality. To encourage accuracy, agencies and their programs should report annually on the steps they are taking for data quality