You asked for the history of the Connecticut Progress Council.

SUMMARY

PA 93-387 created the 28-member Connecticut Progress Council as a permanent body charged with preparing and revising a long-range planning tool state agencies could use to develop their budgets. The tool consisted of a vision and a series of benchmarks, statistical indicators designed to measure progress toward realizing the vision. The act required the council to report to the legislature and the Office of Policy and Management (OPM). Although the act requires the council to revise the benchmarks every two years, it has not done so. A 1999 study by the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee staff noted that the council "for all practical purposes has stopped functioning. "

The council consisted of executive branch officials, legislative leaders, and representatives of private and nonprofit organizations appointed by the governor and legislative leaders. It began meeting in the fall of 1993, issued its preliminary report to the legislature and OPM in June 1994, and issued its final report in January 1995. The council established benchmarks in a wide range of areas, including health and the environment, education, and the economy.

PA 95-232 required the OPM secretary to submit a plan for using the council's benchmarks to develop the state's budget, beginning with the FY 1997-99 budget. However, it appears that the benchmarks have played little, if any, role in the budget-making process.

PA 93-387

Council Structure

Under PA 93-387, the council consists of the lieutenant governor; the OPM secretary; the transportation, education, income maintenance, and economic development commissioners; the six top legislative leaders or their designees; the chairmen and ranking members of the Planning and Development Committee; and representatives of specified private and nonprofit groups appointed by the governor and legislative leaders. The governor appointed representatives of a medical services provider, a major university, a nonprofit organization, a state employees' union, an environmental organization, and a business research organization. The legislative leaders appointed representatives of a nonprofit municipal research organization, a state-sponsored economic advisory body, a major labor union, a manufacturer, a service business, and a financial service company.

Purpose

The act required that the policy and evaluation tool establish a long-range vision for the state and benchmarks to measure progress toward achieving that vision. The vision had to address areas of state concern, including education, health, transportation, housing, environmental quality, water supply, food production, economic development, criminal justice, energy resources, human resources and services, and natural and cultural resources.

Public Hearings

The act required the council to hold hearings on the vision and the benchmarks and to report to the legislature by February 1, 1994. The report was required to describe the council's activities and make recommendations regarding the vision and benchmarks. The act required the council to submit benchmarks to the legislature and OPM by July 1, 1994 and every two years thereafter for use in developing and reviewing the budget.

Agency Performance

Under PA 92-8 (CGS Sec. 4-67m), OPM must annually report to the legislature on agencies' goals, objectives, and outcome measures. PA 93-387 amended this provision to require that reports issued starting in 1995 evaluate the agencies' progress in meeting the benchmarks established by the council.

A more detailed summary of PA 93-387 is available on OLR's Website at http: //www. cga. state. ct. us/olr/.

COUNCIL PROCEEDINGS

At the council's initial meeting on September 28, 1993, Lieutenant Governor Eunice Groark and Rep. Jefferson Davis were chosen as chair and vice-chair, respectively, of the council. The council broke up into five committees: Health and Environment, Education, Economy, Community, and Media. The four theme committees (all but the Media Committee) held meetings throughout October and drafted a vision and goals for their areas of responsibility in November 1993.

In November 1993, the chairs of the theme committees and the
certain members of the full council met as a vision committee
to review the theme committees' work and draft a vision for the
state. The draft vision statement was put out for public comment and redrafted in November and December. This discussion draft included a vision statement and goals in five areas: the economy; individuals, families, and the community; education; health; the environment; and the economy.

In January 1994, the council held public hearings at seven locations across the state. In June 1994, the council submitted its preliminary report to OPM and the legislature. The preliminary report included common values, statewide goals, and specific goals and benchmarks for the five areas addressed in the discussion draft.

FINAL REPORT

The council issued its final report in January 1995. The report established goals for the five areas and over 300 specific benchmarks to measure progress in meeting the goals. Among the goals were that:

1. Connecticut children will have permanent, stable environments, free from harm and enabling them to achieve their full potential;

2. the state's residents will not live in poverty;

3. all children will start school ready to learn;

4. all residents, regardless of their economic status or geographical locations, will have equal and equitable access to, and choice among a wide range of innovative and high-quality educational institutions, programs, resources, and technologies;

5. all state residents will enjoy complete physical, mental, and social well-being;

6. all state residents will be safe from injury and violence in homes and communities;

7. state residents and private entities will practice an environmental ethic that is based on an understanding of their environment, their own dependence on it, and their actions affect it;

8. no segment of the state's population will bear a disproportionate share of the risks and consequences of environmental pollution or be denied to equal access to environmental benefits;

9. the state would have a superior infrastructure for
transporting people, goods, services, information, and energy; and

10. Connecticut will have an economic base that readily adapts to change.

For each of these goals the council established specific benchmarks. In most cases, the council set specific benchmarks for 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015. These included quantitative benchmarks for:

1. the availability and affordability of child care;

2. the percentage of residents living above the federal poverty rate;

3. the percentage of students passing the three components of the Connecticut Mastery Test, by gender, race, and poverty status;

4. the high school drop-out rate;

5. the infant mortality rate, by race;

6. the percentage of low birth weight babies;

7. the percentage of students receiving environmental education training;

8. the reduction in nitrogen pollution of Long Island Sound;

9. job growth; and

10. the proportion of firms training over half of their staff at least 20 hours per year in work skills or processes.

SUBSEQUENT DEVELOPMENTS

As noted above, PA 93-387 required OPM to include evaluate the agencies' progress in meeting the benchmarks in an annual report to the legislature, issued pursuant to PA 92-8, starting in 1995. We have not been able to locate a 1995 report. While the report submitted on March 5, 1996 referenced PA 93-387, it did not discuss the benchmarks. The report instead describes OPM's efforts in promoting "business planning", which OPM stated would "prove to be a more effective means to achieve the objectives of PA 92-8". That month, OPM issued a strategic business planning guide for state agencies. The 1998 report to the legislature (we have not been able to locate the 1997 report) focuses on strategic business planning. The report contains detailed performance measures and benchmarks for four agencies, as well as for purchases of social services from private vendors across agencies. However, the report does not appear to address the benchmarks established by the council. We have not been able to locate any subsequent reports.

PA 95-232 required the OPM secretary to submit a plan for using the council's benchmarks to develop the state's budget beginning with the FY 1997-99 biennial budget. The secretary had to submit the plan to the Appropriations and Planning and Development committees and the council by February 1, 1996.

OPM subsequently instructed agencies to incorporate performance measures to some extent in their budget requests and projections for development of the 1995-1997 budget. Such measures come from the council's benchmarks as well as from the OPM's 1994 report on "Agency Performance Measures". OPM asked the agencies to (1) identify by program the benchmarks that related to issues within their purview, (2) indicate the latest available data and statistical targets related to their benchmarks and (3) include a limited number of performance measures as part of their budget requests. According to OPM and Office of Fiscal Analysis staff, the benchmarks have subsequently played little role in the budget process. OPM staff noted that the vision contained in the council's final report has been incorporated in the state Plan of Conservation and Development, as have several of the council's benchmarks.

KEM: eh