You wanted to know if the Kentucky legislature uses the Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center's reports when preparing the budget.

SUMMARY

The Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center's reports seem to have generally caused legislators and executive branch officials to discuss the long-term implications of state policies and programs more than did before. The legislature created the center in 1992 specifically for this broad purpose. But the reports seem to have had a more direct and concrete effect on the way the executive branch prepares the budget and formulates policies.

These conclusions are based on anecdotal accounts and personal observations provided by the center's executive director and the state's former deputy budget director. The center does not systematically track the extent to which its reports influence or change the way the state prepares budgets and makes policies.

The governor and the center's board seem to account for much of the impact the center appears to have had on state policy making. The governor and several cabinet secretaries came into office in 1996 after having read the center's reports, including one that predicted a long-term structural deficit.

At the governor's behest, the state's budget office began analyzing expenditures and revenue trends for future years. Several secretaries used the reports' findings and recommendations to develop their legislative agenda.

The composition of the center's 21-member board also affects the way the center's reports are received by policy makers and the public. Although the center is a legislative branch agency with legislators serving on its board, the board includes executive branch officials and members of the public appointed by the governor and a legislative commission. This hybrid structure provides a common meeting ground that encourages long-term thinking, the center's executive director speculated.

The legislature's appropriations and revenue committees do not seem to use the Center's reports as much as executive branch agencies. For example, they seem to ask the agencies few questions about how their budgets address the trends the center's reports identified. The law requires the agencies to respond to these reports separately and in the budget documents. Some of the reports have allowed legislators to debate issues that were too controversial for them to raise and debate on their own.

KENTUCKY LONG-TERM POLICY RESEARCH CENTER

The legislature established the center in 1992 specifically to encourage long-range policy planning and analysis. The center does this by submitting reports and studies that cause government agencies and legislative committees to think differently about the issues and problems they address. Its 21-member board consists of legislators, executive branch officials, and public members appointed by the governor and the bipartisan Legislative Research Commission (LRC).

The reports and studies identify emerging issues, monitor and assess trends, and measure the state's progress toward meeting 26 long-term goals. The law requires the governor and the LRC to refer the studies to the appropriate agencies and committees, respectively. The agencies and committees then have 60 days to explain how they will respond to the reports' findings and recommendations. The agencies' budget documents must also show how the agencies will address the trends and their long-term implications (Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 7B. 070).

BUDGETING

The center's reports and studies seem to have changed the way the governor's budget office prepares the budget but not the way the legislature's appropriations and revenue committees review it. The center's executive director, Michael Childress, attributed the difference between the two branches to the fact that the current governor and several of his appointees used the center's reports to shape several policy initiatives.

Former deputy budget director Ron Carson agreed. Carson left his post in 1999 after serving 27 years in the budget office (He also serves on the center's board. ) Governor-elect Brown brought up a recently completed center report projecting a structural budget deficit when he first met with his budget officials in 1996. These officials subsequently created an internal "structural budget analysis" that projected and analyzed expenditures for future years.

The legislature's appropriations and revenue committees seem to make little use of the information contained in budget documents discussing how agencies intend to address long-term trends the center identifies. They have not, for example, used the information to ask follow-up questions about how agencies' budget priorities address the trends. This may be due to the reports themselves, which tend to cover a wide range of issues in a way that makes it easy for agencies to show how they are addressing the trends, Childress explained.

The committees' response to the trend reports also reflects the decision the center and the LRC made about how they would enforce the requirement that agency budgets address the trends. The LRC writes the instructions for how agencies must present their budgets. The instructions include how agencies must address the trends. The LRC and the center decided not to press the agencies too hard on this point, fearing a backlash and recognizing how difficult it is to change the way people think and behave, Childress stated.

POLICY MAKING

The center's reports have affected the way executive branch officials make policy. In 1997, the governor based proposed legislation recasting the state's higher education system on a report the center did about the system, Childress and Carson stated. Before 1997, the state did little or no long-range planning, Carson added.

Other executive branch officials have embraced the reports. In 1996, the newly appointed cabinet secretaries for education and workforce development had "consumed" the trend reports before taking office and required their senior subordinates to make the them a part of their jobs, Childress stated.

The center's reports have also spotlighted controversial long-term problems elected officials were reluctant to raise on their own. For example, legislators, the farm bureau, and others strongly criticized the center when it predicted a significant long-term decline in the amount of burley tobacco the state's farmers could grow. But in doing so, it provided political cover for legislators and allowed them to openly discuss alternatives to tobacco, Childress explained.

JR: ts