CONNECTICUT GENERAL ASSEMBLY

LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM REVIEW AND INVESTIGATIONS COMMITTEE

The Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee is a joint, bipartisan, statutory committee of the Connecticut General Assembly. It was established in 1972 to evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness, and statutory compliance of selected state agencies and programs, recommending remedies where needed. In 1975, the General Assembly expanded the committee's function to include investigations, and during the 1977 session added responsibility for "sunset" (automatic program termination) performance reviews. The committee was given authority to raise and report bills in 1985.

The program review committee is composed of 12 members. The president pro tempore of the Senate, the Senate minority leader, the speaker of the house, and the House minority leader each appoint three members.

2007-2008 Committee Members

Committee Staff

Carrie Vibert, Director

Catherine M. Conlin, Chief Analyst

Jill Jensen, Chief Analyst

Brian R. Beisel, Principal Analyst

Michelle Castillo, Principal Analyst

Maryellen Duffy, Principal Analyst

Miriam P. Kluger, Principal Analyst

Anne E. McAloon, Principal Analyst

Scott M. Simoneau, Principal Analyst

Michelle Riordan, Legislative Analyst II

Janelle Sagness, Legislative Analyst II

Bonnine T. Labbadia, Executive Secretary

Project Staff

Catherine M. Conlin

Julia Thomson-Philbrook, Legislative Fellow

Legislative Program Review

& Investigations Committee

State Long-Term Planning

December 2007

State Long-term Planning

Executive Summary

Introduction ………. 1

Purpose, Focus and Methods ………. 1

Report Format ………. 3

I. What is Long-Term and Strategic Planning? ………. 5

Why do Long-Term and Strategic Planning? ………. 7

What States Conduct Long-Term and Strategic Planning? ………. 8

What do Long-Term and Strategic Planning Projects Have in Common? ………. 8

II. What are the Models of State Long-Term Planning? ………. 11

Summary of Models ………. 11

What Makes for Project Success? ………. 17

Location and Authority ………. 17

Oversight Body ………. 17

Vision and Goals ………. 18

Measuring Progress ………. 18

Public Reporting ………. 19

Best Practices ………. 20

III. How Have We Done It? ………. 21

Rise of Long-Term Planning in Connecticut ………. 21

Historical Timeline ………. 22

1970s and 1980s ………. 23

1990s to Present ………. 24

IV. How Do We Do It Now? ………. 27

Connecticut's Current Planning Landscape ………. 27

State's Capacity for Planning ………. 28

Legislative Efforts ………. 32

Survey Results ………. 33

V. What's Wrong With the Way We Do It? ………. 35

Findings ………. 35

How Can We Do it Better? ………. 36

Creation of an Oversight Body ………. 36

Major Council Duties ………. 37

Location, Structure, and Staffing ………. 39

Rationale ………. 40

Transparency and Accountability ………. 41

Appendices

Introduction

State Long-Term Planning

Purpose

In early 2007, nonprofit groups, including Connecticut Voices for Children, requested that the program review committee examine the state's structure and process for conducting long-term planning. This request stemmed from the stated perception that Connecticut does not emphasize foresight and a proactive approach to establishing public policy, but rather focuses on reacting to crises.

The Governing Performance Project, which periodically grades states in four different categories based on several factors, also reinforced this perception. The project issued Connecticut a C- rating in 2005 in the information category, which includes each state's comprehensive and long-term planning capabilities. Only two states were issued a lower rating in that category. (See Appendix A for a summary of the project and a listing of grades by state.) In response to these perceptions, the committee authorized a study to examine the state's long-term planning efforts.

Focus of Study

The committee approved a scope of study that focuses on how effective the state's long-term planning process is and how it can be improved. For the purposes of the study, long-term planning is defined as “a comprehensive plan for five years or more that outlines broad long-range goals and objectives for the state, and is a strategic plan that measures progress and assesses how state agencies are meeting those broad goals.” As opposed to plans developed by individual agencies, in this study long-term and strategic planning means a comprehensive process that establishes a broad vision for the future of the state and its residents. Thus, the terms “long-term” and “strategic” planning will be used interchangeably to refer to the dynamic practice of determining where the state wants to be and how it will get there, and measuring progress toward achieving the desired outcomes.

Excluded from the focus of this study are a discussion of Regional Planning Organizations, and any detailed analysis of the State Plan of Conservation and Development. Both of these are covered in a separate 2007 committee study on Connecticut's Regional Planning Organizations.

Methods

Committee staff first developed a list of questions to frame and guide the study, and uses the questions as the organizational framework for the Findings and Recommendations chapter of the report. The questions staff developed are:

Program review staff met with current and former personnel from various state agencies, including the Office of Policy and Management, the primary planning agency in state government. Staff also interviewed representatives of academia, relevant nonprofit groups – including Voices for Children, the United Way of Connecticut, 1,000 Friends, and the Hartford Foundation for Public Giving – and associations representing business, including the Connecticut Economic Research Council (CERC).

Staff also researched the way other states conduct long-term and strategic planning. Some states were suggested by experts as models in the planning area, and others were chosen because of geographical proximity to Connecticut. Telephone interviews were conducted with representatives from planning agencies in those states as well as national associations and advocacy groups. Committee staff gathered information regarding the organizational and governance structures of long-term and strategic planning groups in other states, as well as what and how goals are set. When it was available, quantitative data about staff and funding were also collected.

The study examined historical efforts undertaken to conduct comprehensive planning in Connecticut and the results, and committee staff also inventoried current state agency planning efforts. Further, a number of questions related to state long-term planning efforts were included in a survey sent to municipal chief elected officers as part of the committee's study on Regional Planning Organizations, and the results are presented in Table IV-1 in Chapter Four.

When the staff presented the briefing information to the committee in September, members asked staff to organize a forum inviting representatives from other states that might be considered models in conducting state planning. The forum was to allow committee members to hear first-hand how other states engage in this process and what the benefits and drawbacks are.

The committee held such a forum on November 8, 2007 and participants were:

The material covered in the forum largely provides the framework for answering the questions of the study, and also forms the basis of much of the recommendations in this report. The forum helped the program review committee lay out a model for how Connecticut might implement a state planning process, and what resources it would take to do that.

Report Format

The report contains five chapters. Chapter One addresses some of the global questions around the definitions of long-term and strategic planning in state government, and the recent melding of the two into a dynamic process. The chapter also explains the reasons why states should engage in a comprehensive planning process. Chapter Two describes some of the recent models of state planning efforts and some of the characteristics of those structures. In addition, the chapter also describes what the best practices for state planning efforts appear to be. Chapter Three includes a summarized chronology of Connecticut's planning efforts through the years. Chapter Four provides some analysis of what the state's planning efforts currently are, and how those efforts are deficient. An inventory of plans currently developed by state and quasi-public agencies is contained in Appendix B.

Finally, Chapter Five contains a synopsis of the committee's findings arrived at during the course of the study, and four major recommendation areas including: the creation of an oversight council; the location, organization, and functions of the council and its staff; linking efforts to performance and accountability efforts already underway; and requiring certain transparency and accountability measures to be adopted.

Agency Response

It is the policy of the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee to provide agencies included in the scope of the review with the opportunity to comment on the committee findings and recommendations prior to the publication of a study in final form. The Office of Policy and Management was sent a copy of the report for comment but chose not to respond.

Chapter One

What is Long-Term and Strategic Planning?

Strategic planning is different from long-term planning, although the terms are used interchangeably. Strategic planning tends to involve an analysis that assesses the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (also known as a SWOT analysis) to a state, government, or organization. This type of planning emphasizes the evaluation of state goals, establishes desired outcomes, considers a wide range of policy choices to achieve those outcomes, and identifies measures, or benchmarks, to gauge progress.¹

It is easier to say what long-term planning is not, rather than what it is. While it generally creates a vision, and establishes long-range goals for what a desired future might be, it typically does not offer guidance for how an organization might achieve certain goals nor does it provide a framework for evaluating policies or programs or dealing with reduced budgets.² Further, long-term planning may set overall priorities for a state but it is not generally used for decision-making at the state government level. Strategic planning, on the other hand, is often tied to results-based, or performance, budgeting.

Long-term planning emphasizes data collection, but largely to forecast needs. For example, a department might determine from data projections that the number of clients will double in the next ten years. Rarely will long-term planning alone seek to evaluate programs, departments, or agencies. Long-term plans tend to assume that programs will continue, and that budget appropriations will expand according to economic conditions over time. While many states, including Connecticut, require several agencies to develop long-term plans, it is not clear that alternative policy choices are considered in the planning process.³

Long-term planning itself is not enough to achieve desired outcomes or avoid the actual cost of bad results. Rather, action steps, or strategies, and measuring progress should reinforce long-term planning. In combination with performance measurement, long-term planning becomes known as long-term and strategic planning. Increasingly, states are linking the two into one process. A state's long-range planning efforts establish a vision and overarching goals for its residents, and strategic planning creates an implementation roadmap for agencies and programs to achieve those goals. Data collection is important to the process, both broadly, in order to properly forecast trends, as well as more targeted, to track progress toward goals.

Thus, strategic planning is a relatively recent phenomenon in state government, and has become part of a continuous process known as “governing for results”,⁴ or “results-based accountability”.⁵ The governing for results approach uses a four-step process as outlined below. While the steps below are written to apply to individual agencies, their application can be transferred to a planning process for state government.

Strategic planning is therefore more closely linked to performance measurement and public decision-making than is long-term planning. The following chart outlines the interconnectedness of each step in the planning process, and the necessity of continuous updates to strategic plans.

Figure I-1. State Planning in “Governing for Results” Context

Why Do Long-Term and Strategic Planning?

Review of public policy and public administration literature, as well as consultations with experts, reveals two central interpretations of the benefits of long-term and strategic planning: the pursuit of preferred futures, and the avoidance of the cost of bad results.

The Preferred Futures Approach

This approach argues that long-term planning allows public policymakers to choose their preferred future for the state.⁶ While reactionary governance presupposes that policymakers have little or no control over future problems and successes, proactive governance assumes that present decisions and policy choices shape the future.

This approach places a strong emphasis on data collection to forecast state trends over time. It also assumes that policymakers can agree on an overarching vision for the state, and on the policies required to realize that vision.

Avoiding The Cost of Bad Results

According to this approach, the cost of bad results is the product of reactionary governance.⁷ This approach assumes that poor policy decisions, or a lack of decisions altogether, lead to expensive political crises, although putting a price tag on errors in policy or program choices is difficult. The cost of bad results, like the preferred futures, also assumes that policymakers can shape the state's future, though it is more closely tied to budgetary consequences.

This approach also places a strong emphasis on data collection, but not simply for forecasting purposes. The approach analyzes programs and policies according to results, which are measured through data. The cost of bad results also assumes that policymakers are willing to invest in programs and policies that will not necessarily show results prior to the next election cycle.

Other Approaches

There are several other perceived advantages to long-term and strategic planning, particularly as part of a strategic management process. Long-term and strategic planning helps smaller states, which are more vulnerable to external influences, adapt to shifts in national and international political and economic climates.⁸ Strategic planning results in more focused discussions between policymakers and administrators and improved coordination among departments. Further, because strategic planning links budgets to outcomes, it helps to identify squandered resources, such as duplicate programs.

Long-term and strategic planning encourages governments to adapt to rapidly changing environments.⁹ First, it helps establish funding priorities during fiscally constrained periods. Second, it creates more accountable and transparent government. Finally, it allows the citizenry to see more clearly where state tax dollars are being spent and provides an opportunity for greater citizen participation in decision making.

What States Conduct Long-Term and Strategic Planning?

States began to consider planning an important government function in the mid-twentieth century.¹⁰ Some think long-term planning has its roots in infrastructure projects where plans had to be developed to satisfy the financing requirements of bonding and other long-term debt. In the early 1970s, the growing popularity of comprehensive long-term planning is evident in the sheer number of such endeavors initiated in the early 1970s.¹¹ Many of these were citizen or private sector initiatives.

Long-term planning projects fell out of favor in the mid-1980s, perhaps due to the discontinuation of federal funds available to the states for planning purposes. By the 1990s, increased attention to budget constraints and a perception of bloated bureaucracies resulted in scarce resources for planning. However, strategic management,¹² traditionally reserved for the private sector, was increasingly applied to public sector bureaucracies.

By the late 1990s, many states were again conducting long-term planning projects. Pioneers include Oregon, which began the Oregon Progress Board in 1989, and Utah, which launched Utah Tomorrow in 1990. By 2000, all of the New England states had initiated, with varying degrees of success, a long-term planning project. Increasingly, states are concentrating on strategic planning as part of governing for results, rather than the traditional plans, which were simply long term.

What do Long-Term and Strategic Planning Projects Have in Common?

This study analyzes long-term and strategic planning projects in New England and in a few other states. While a more detailed analysis of the projects may be found in Chapter Two, a few generalizations about 15 long-term and strategic planning projects in New England and other states are discussed below.

General Purpose

Although states may choose different models to create their planning projects, all of them have the same broad purposes. These are to: assess the current landscape of the state; forecast the consequences of state and national trends; identify the state's preferred future; and determine a course of action to reach it.¹³

Goals or Outcome Areas

The state planning projects reviewed by committee staff have anywhere from three to 13 stated outcomes. In general, the outcomes identified by planning projects may be organized into three broad categories: the physical environment; social services; and the economy.

Physical environment. The physical environment category includes outcomes such as smart growth, conservation of natural resources, and preserving cultural and historic sites, as well as open space, improving water and air quality, and the maintenance of a “traditional way of life” (Maine). Several of these outcomes are also measured by performance indicators in strategic planning projects. The physical environment is popular with the states for a number of reasons – it is readily identifiable by its physical nature; its progress has long been required to be measured by the federal Environmental Protection Agency; and it arguably has the greatest local impact on everyday life.

Social and human services. The social services category includes outcomes in areas such as housing, health, public safety, and lowering crime, as well as improving the standard of living, raising incomes, and “quality of life” (New Hampshire, Maine). Virginia and Utah both include a government outcome, which emphasizes transparency and accountability; New Jersey also desires “public service efficiency”.

Economy and economic development. The economy category includes outcomes such as economic development, growth, education, job creation, and transportation. In general, this is the driving category for long-term and strategic planning projects in many states.

Oversight or Governance Structure

The oversight committees for long-term and strategic planning projects have memberships that range from 13 (Utah Tomorrow) to 60 (Envision Utah). In general, all models have an oversight committee. The only exceptions are found within a state agency hybrid model, which emphasizes results-based budgeting (Maryland, Washington).

Membership composition on oversight committees is a combination of public, private, and citizen representatives. Public members are representatives from state agencies and legislative leaders. Sometimes, there are regional or municipal representatives as well (Rhode Island, Oregon). In state agency models, the governor is generally chair, although this is the case with many public-private joint commissions as well. Private members include business leaders and lobbyists. Citizen members come from a variety of backgrounds, but usually have experience in either the private, nonprofit, or public spheres.

Chapter Two

What are the Models of State Long-Term Planning?

State long-term planning initiatives experienced a jump in popularity in the 1970s, perhaps due to federal government emphasis on planning and citizen input for funding purposes. By the 1980s¹⁴ the attention to planning appeared to have waned. Since the early 1990s, however, there has been renewed interest in both long-term and strategic planning, and several initiatives have cropped up across state governments. These recent long-term and strategic planning initiatives are in response to the rapid demographic and economic changes of the past two decades. As well, increasingly constrained state revenues have forced state governments to establish a better way of making funding decisions.

This chapter reviews the models of long-term and strategic planning as they have existed in Connecticut and New England. In addition, the chapter examines best practices, identified through interviews and literature reviews, in other select states. (See Table II-1). With a few exceptions, the examples of planning models used here are those initiated since the 1990s.

Summary of Models

The executive branch spearheaded the majority of state long-term and strategic planning projects, although some are created jointly with the legislature or private groups.¹⁵ Most are established as ad hoc or provisional commissions, but reports are submitted to the governor during the same term. Most also have an oversight entity like a board, council, or committee -- made up of public and private members -- which performs oversight functions. Responsibility for the appointment of the committee members varies according to the model.

In general, there are four commonly used models of state long-term and strategic planning,¹⁶ although as with many paradigms, often the differences are not all that clear-cut, and hybrids and mixtures exist. The models are:

Specific, policy-oriented long-term planning projects, university-based models, and regional planning projects (i.e., across state lines), are three other models examined here.

However, these types of projects are not formal models because they generally do not involve comprehensive planning at the state level.

Public-Private Joint Commission Model

This model operates outside of the formal government structure, although occasionally it may have some power over decision-making through enabling legislation. In addition, state agencies may provide staff. Along with the state agency model, this is the most common model found in New England and other selected states. Connecticut's Progress Council, which was established in 1993 and issued an initial report in January 1995 (although now defunct), is an example of a public-private joint commission.

If the commission derives from the executive branch, the private sector, or a combination thereof, the governor is generally responsible for the bulk of appointments to the oversight committee. If the commission derives jointly from legislative leadership and the executive branch, they tend to share appointment responsibilities.

The number of commission members varies greatly in the public-private joint commission model, from 19 in Minnesota (its planning initiative was entitled Minnesota Milestones) to 60 in Utah (where the planning model is known as Envision Utah, replacing Utah Tomorrow). When Connecticut's Progress Council was active, it had 27 members. In general, public-private joint commissions tend to have the greatest number of oversight body members of all the models examined here. Membership is usually composed of the governor, legislative leaders, private sector representatives, and other unaffiliated citizens.

The majority of public-private joint commissions have little or no interaction with, or authority over, governmental agencies in their respective states and little or no formal influence on public decision-making.

Citizen Commission Model

The citizen commission model operates with less connection to state government than the joint public/private commission. The citizen commission model was popular during the first wave of long-term planning projects in the 1970s, and few examples currently exist.

The citizen commissions have oversight committees, and may or may not produce formal reports that are distributed to decision makers in attempts to influence policy. One hybrid example of this model is the 1,000 Friends movement.¹⁷ Begun in Oregon in 1975, there are chapters of 1,000 Friends across the United States, including Connecticut. The organization collects data and forecasts trends, prepares press releases, and lobbies decision-makers for organization-supported policies.

While some citizen commission models successfully influence policy, the focus of this study is to examine long-term and strategic planning efforts carried out by state-sponsored entities. Thus, the citizen commission model was not explored in any great depth.

State Agency Model

As stated above, the state agency model is one of the two most common models in New England, and other selected states. The state agency model operates within the formal government structure, usually within a larger state planning or policy office.

Most of the appointment responsibility for oversight committees in state agency models rests with the governor. However, in a few instances, legislative and executive leaders share committee appointments. The size of the committee is generally smaller than those of public-private commissions, averaging around 20 members. Members may include the governor, legislative leaders, agency commissioners, municipal or regional government representatives, private sector leaders, and citizen representatives. In New Jersey, the State Planning Commission's enabling legislation requires the governor to nominate at least one professional planner.

State agency models generally have more interaction with other state agencies than do public-private commissions. In Maine, New Hampshire, and New Jersey, agencies are required to submit plans to the oversight committees, which then review them and make suggestions. In Rhode Island, submission of plans by municipal governments is required as well. However, in Oregon, the committee merely tracks agency progress but does not review plans, and in Utah, the now defunct Utah Tomorrow committee relied on voluntary agency compliance. (In Connecticut, the state agency designated in statute as the planning entity is the Office of Policy and Management. Its historical and current roles are discussed in the next two chapters).

The state agency model is also the preferred model for projects that focus on results-based budgeting. These are usually initiated by the executive branch. In general, these types of projects emphasize data collection in order to allocate resources, and do not necessarily have oversight committees. This association to both the governor and the budget gives these projects great influence over state agencies. However, they do not engage in strategic planning as it was described in the introduction. Two prominent examples of the state agency model are Maryland's StateStat, which Governor O'Malley is set to launch by the end of 2007, and Washington's GMAP (Government Management Accountability & Performance), which Governor Gregoire initiated in early 2005.

The state agency model has formal influence on public decision making. This is because the enabling legislation usually incorporates official duties, such as coordination among departments, into the state agency functions. However, it is unclear how this formal influence functions in practice.

Legislative Agency Model

The legislative planning model operates within the legislature, sometimes as a standing or interim committee. There are very few examples of legislative agency models and only one current example, the Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center (LTPRC). The center, created by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1993, is actually a hybrid: it is an instrument of the Kentucky General Assembly and is attached organizationally to the legislature, although the governor has some appointment responsibility. The LTPRC also submits reports to both the legislative and executive branches. However, it is a planning structure often referenced as a model by experts and the literature, and is therefore the example used here for the legislative agency model and in later chapters of this report.

The oversight board of directors for the Kentucky LTPRC is composed of 21 members, including four executive and six legislative branch representatives and 11 members representing academia, local government, nonprofit organizations, and the private sector.

The center has a “think-tank” approach. Its stated mission is “to illuminate the long-range implications of current policies, emerging issues, and trends influencing [Kentucky's] future.”¹⁸ LTPRC works with other state agencies when research overlaps, but there is no authority over state agency plans or operations and little or no formal influence on public decision-making.

Specific Policy-Oriented Projects

Policy-oriented projects are those that develop long-term and/or strategic plans around a specified policy area. For example, Connecticut's Conservation and Development Plan is a policy-oriented project. Other examples are the Child Poverty and Prevention Plan, and the state's Long-term Care Plan.

Connecticut appears to favor this approach (See Chapters Three and Four). For example, the state adopted legislation in 2007 requiring the Department of Economic and Community Development (DECD), in collaboration with a number of other state agencies, to develop an economic development strategic plan (P.A. 07-239). The legislature also established a Blue Ribbon Commission to develop and implement a strategic master plan for higher education (P.A. 07-3).

Policy-oriented projects may adopt any of the four formal models, but tend to be either state agency or public-private partnerships. They also generally have oversight committees, although membership composition depends on the model. For example, New York's Project 2015 requires commissioners to work collaboratively as well as independently to prepare agencies for the significant demographic changes forecasted in that state. However, there is little or no input from outside government.

Some public-private partnerships encompass several policy areas, but fall short of being comprehensive state plans. For example, Enterprise Florida covers most policy areas related to economic development (e.g., technology, education, and quality of life). The Florida model has both public and private members on their committees. The Child Poverty and Prevention Council in Connecticut has both types of members as well.

Policy-oriented plans generally assume, even require, state agency and municipal/regional government cooperation, and the intent is to have some formal influence over public policy decisions. However, it is unclear how this influence plays out in practice. For example, in Connecticut, the Conservation and Development Plan is supposed to be the guiding document for state and local development. However, while the law requires sizable state projects to be consistent with the plan, bond monies may still be allocated even if inconsistencies exist.

University-Based Model

The university-based planning project may either be undertaken because of a direct mandate from state government, or it may be connected to a research facility with a particular interest in long-term and strategic planning, or policy questions. The North Carolina Progress Board, formerly within the Department of Administration, is in the process of transferring to the University of North Carolina. It will be attached to the University's Board of Governors, although it is unclear if the board will act as an oversight committee.

At the University of Minnesota, the Hubert Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs includes a regional planning and policy research area. Scholars seek state and federal grants to pursue projects focused largely on economic development and transportation. According to the institute's website, state government has occasionally modified policy in response to program reports,¹⁹ although it is unclear how much interaction actually occurs with the executive or legislative branches.

University-based planning projects often do not cost the state significantly, although because they rely heavily on state funding, they risk questions about impartiality. However, the access to experts and other resources make this option very attractive.

Regional Planning Projects

Regional planning projects typically involve one or a few policy areas that cross state boundaries in terms of impact or concern. The New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission is an example of where several states get together to plan for water resources for more than just one jurisdiction. This is an illustration of a successful (i.e., active and producing results) ongoing regional approach. Connecticut statutes are rife with references to New England compacts for a wide variety of policy areas, from public safety and corrections to higher education. These statutes often resulted from federal mandates of the late 1960s, but often the mandated compacts became inactive after a period of time. One that is now inactive, but is still referenced in state statutes, is the New England Interstate Planning Compact.

Another, more recent, regional approach to planning around a policy area is the action plan on climate change. The concept for the plan came from the New England Governors and Eastern Canadian Premiers at the group's 2001 annual meeting. The group first developed a plan, and that spurred Connecticut to pass legislation (P.A. 04-252) requiring Connecticut to develop its own Climate Change Action Plan, which was completed in 2005, and covers 15 years -- from 2005 to 2020.

Probably one of the most influential and well-known regional approaches to planning (and measuring progress) is the Southern Growth Policies Board (SGPB). A consortium of 13 southern states and Puerto Rico, it was organized to promote the South as place to live and work. The efforts of the SGPB go beyond one policy area. SGPB recognizes “the important links between quality of life issues – those things that make a community best – and regional prosperity”.²⁰ One exercise the SGPB performs is to establish 15 “quality of life” indicators and measure progress in achieving them through a “community index.”

It is noteworthy that -- based on longevity and producing results-- the more successful regional approaches appear to be those that are not mandated by the federal government, but those that take root because of common interests.

What Makes for Planning Project Success?

Best Practices

For this analysis, committee staff spoke with experts in the field, consulted literature, and examined data from long-term and strategic planning initiatives in Connecticut, New England, and other selected states. Regardless of the model, there are some overarching aspects of long-term and strategic planning projects that lead to success. Table II-2 at the end of the chapter summarizes the best practices identified in the study.

Location and authority. In general, experts in academia, national organizations, and in Connecticut agencies point out that committed leadership from both the executive and legislative branches is important for success. Examination of the projects in this study shows that when planning projects are led solely by the executive branch, they rarely survive changes in administration. Further, legislative commitment and participation is important for implementation of the plan, and funding of the plan's priorities.

Planning projects need to have “teeth”, that is, formal influence on public decision-making. Further, there needs to be some reason for state agencies to “buy-in” to the planning effort, whether that is tied to agency funding, a publicly stated commitment from agency leadership, or some other method. If there is no requirement for commitment to the plan or a cultural environment that embraces the need to direct their activities to the plan's goals, agencies may go through the motions, but implementation will be difficult. When planning projects resemble advisory boards, enthusiasm and interest tend to wane.

Oversight membership. Whatever structure is chosen for oversight – for example, a board of directors, or a steering committee – the more successful ones appear to have a manageable membership size. The number of members should be limited to 20 or fewer. Larger groups either tend to become unwieldy or members believe their influence is weak. Often these larger groups end up splitting into subcommittees, making coordination difficult. This may result in a “right hand doesn't know what the left is doing” situation. For example, the Connecticut Progress Council had five subcommittees and there was little cross-participation among the sub-groups. Large committee memberships may also result in uneven participation and scheduling difficulties.

Establishing a vision and setting goals. Once a planning body has been formed, the first action step is to create a vision of what is desired for the state's residents in the future. For example, the vision statement for Utah Tomorrow contained 11 broad concepts of well-being for that state's populace including to “educate [its] citizens by providing an environment that supports life-long learning and occupational skills and that enables Utahns of all ages to reach potential as productive and responsible individuals.”²¹ Some states planning efforts solicit input from the citizenry on what the vision or “preferred future” should be, while others do not.

Once a vision has been adopted, a set of meaningful long-range goals and objectives can be established – a road map on how the vision will be achieved. Goals, as Utah puts it, are the general ends toward which the state directs its efforts. Typically, they address the primary issues facing a state within broad groupings of common concern, such as preserving open space.

Then objectives or clear targets for action can be developed. These should be achievable and ones where progress can be measured. For example, reducing the poverty rate among children to a certain level, or cleaning rivers to a specific standard would be measurable objectives.

Measuring progress. It is important to measure progress at achieving the objectives and hence reaching the goals. Without that, the plan is a policy briefing document and not a process for implementing action. The literature review and interviews with experts conducted by committee staff stress the importance of appropriate indicators for performance measurement. The wrong indicators can skew results, with possibly dire consequences for a results-based budgeting process.

Making the progress measurement step manageable is just as important as selecting the right indicators. There cannot be so many benchmarks or performance measurements that agencies become overwhelmed, or that “measuring progress” becomes more important than the agency's “core business”. Either of these scenarios will lead to frustration and stall the planning process. The Connecticut Progress Council called for over 300 benchmarks to be reported, while the Oregon Progress Board has 91 benchmarks, which may still be too many.

Further, the planning process should not call for extensive data that are not already collected or reported. While it is an arguable point, it appears that the more successful projects use readily available data, and not sophisticated and esoteric statistics or measurements. The objective is not to establish another data collection system, but instead to find a way to coordinate and assemble the information that is already available so that it can be used at a state level to evaluate progress toward the overarching goals.

Public reporting. State plans should be comprehensive in nature, and not merely policy-oriented. While policy-oriented projects are good bases from which to start, successful long-term and strategic plans incorporate one vision and specific outcomes, which reach across policy spheres and state agencies, into one document.

But comprehensive planning should not mean the production of a long document. If a state's long-term plan is viewed as the first step in a process to manage agency performance and results, it need be no more than a few pages that provides broad goals about where the state wants to be and select priority areas for policy attention. Then a strategic plan can be developed, outlining which agencies are responsible for what and by when, and holding agencies accountable for implementing the plan and achieving results.

Ideally, results tied to the plan should be available in a simple format on a well-publicized website so there is transparency and accountability to state residents. Virginia Performs is a good example of public access via the Internet to a wealth of information on the state's future goals and how well the state is performing in meeting them.

Chapter Three

How Have We Done It?

History of Long-Term Planning in Connecticut

The state of Connecticut has a long history of planning. This chapter outlines the important initiatives that resulted in either comprehensive or policy-oriented long-term plans for the state. The chapter summarizes the state's efforts beginning in 1939 with the creation of the Connecticut Development Commission (CDC), and ends with a brief synopsis of the most recent legislation passed in the 2007 session. (See Figure III-1 for a planning timeline). The summary emphasizes Connecticut's experience with long-term planning in the past 20 years. The current planning landscape within the state agencies and an analysis of the current plans is covered in Chapter Four.

The Rise of Long-Term Planning in Connecticut

The Connecticut Development Commission was created by the legislature in 1939. By the mid-1940s, the 11-member commission had a professional planning staff. The CDC experienced another growth spurt in the 1950s, with the committed support of the executive and legislative branches. According to a former high-level staffer, three events led to this growth.²⁵ These were the:

The first two events illustrated the need for comprehensive state planning, while the latter provided the resources required to fund planning projects. Committed leadership in Connecticut ensured that projects were mandated.

In combination, these three events led to an expansion of CDC staff, as well as to an increase in CDC authority. These increased responsibilities included the identification and administration of “logical economic and planning regions of the state”, and the provision of support to municipalities in the development of their local plans. However, much of the planning remained municipal or regional in scope, and state agencies, while required to provide information, were not bound by the decisions of CDC. Thus, the plans were not comprehensive, and there was no mechanism to mandate implementation.

In the 1960s, CDC launched the Connecticut Interregional Planning Program (CIPP). This was Connecticut's first comprehensive planning initiative, and its oversight committee included representatives from all the state agencies. CIPP published the first statewide long-term plan in 1966. The publication consisted of six separate reports entitled: Goals for Connecticut; Transportation; The Green Land; The Economy; Urban Development; and Connecticut: Choices for Action. The reports used data to project population growth and related needs, including education, housing, and land use. The final report, Connecticut: Choices for Action, argued that planning is necessary to ensure that growth not create “blights on landscapes”. The report also expressed a desire to maintain Connecticut's rural character. Finally, the report urged the state to adopt an implementation mechanism to ensure that goals would be realized. However, such a mechanism never materialized.

The 1970s & 1980s

In 1967, the legislature created the State Planning Council (SPC). The council was chaired by the governor, and sought to coordinate planning across state agencies. The CDC and CIPP projects were merged into the SPC, and the council staff for the new division was called the Office of State Planning in the Department of Finance and Control. The SPC is an example of the state agency model, because the council was within the executive branch, and had little contact with legislators. The SPC and its staff in the Office of State Planning published the first Conservation and Development plan in the early 1970s.

The office was renamed the Planning Section of the Planning and Budgeting Division in 1971, and absorbed into the Department of Finance and Control. This was an effort by both the governor and the department commissioner to link planning and budgeting. Had it succeeded, it would have been Connecticut's first attempt at strategic planning. However, after an administration change in 1975, the Planning Section was moved to the Department of Planning and Energy Policy, and plans were never linked with budget considerations. The section was moved again in 1977 to the newly created Office of Policy Management. Over this time period, the planning section became increasingly focused on the provision of human services, to the detriment of economic planning. This was in part due to attrition of qualified economists from the department.²⁶

By the late 1970s, state government interest in long-term planning had declined precipitously. While state law still required periodic updates to the Conservation and Development plan, the lack of incentives for municipal and regional compliance was a detriment. The State Planning Council adopted a “show and tell” atmosphere without mandatory participation from agency leaders²⁷. Probably a more significant drawback was the elimination of the federal 701 grants, cutting off a major source of financial support for state planning activities.

In 1976, under the Ella Grasso Administration, a statutory Commission on Connecticut's Future was established, similar to groups created in 25 other states during the early to mid-1970s. Legislation in the late 1970s and early 1980s placed the commission within the Office of Policy and Management and expanded the membership from 7 to 11 members. The commission was required to engage in forecasting, suggest preferred futures for the state, and raise awareness and concern about the state's direction among Connecticut residents. The commission was also required to submit an annual report to the governor and the General Assembly. While the commission was reestablished under the Connecticut Sunset Law, it never was really active, and in 1989, the legislature eliminated the commission and transferred its duties to the Department of Economic and Community Development. The statutory function still exists, but DECD does not actively fulfill the requirements, according to DECD staff, partly due to lack of funding.

By the late 1980s, the popularity of long-term planning was waning. Legislative and executive commitment to long-term planning projects lacked enthusiasm and energy, allowing them to fall behind. As discussed in Chapter Two, the state agency model allows successive administrations to cut funding and reduce interest in long-term planning without formal opposition. This is precisely what occurred in Connecticut.

The 1990s to Present

The early 1990s briefly saw a renewed interest in long-term planning projects under Governor Weicker's administration. Following the lead of other states, particularly Oregon and Utah, Governor Weicker initiated the Connecticut Progress Council (CPC) in 1993. To emphasize the administration's commitment to the council, Weicker appointed Lieutenant Governor Eunice Groark to the council, and she was elected co-chair.

Legislative leaders were also strongly supportive of the project, passing legislation that established the council, and appointing legislators in powerful committee roles who also had a firm belief in state planning and performance measurement. The Progress Council was an example of a public-private joint commission, with six executive branch members, 10 legislative members, and 12 members from private entities or business (6 appointed by legislative leaders and 6 by the governor).

The CPC separated into five subcommittees by areas of concern: 1) family and community; 2) education; 3) health and environment; 4) media; and 5) the economy. Members were assigned to sub-committees based on subject matter, and each then developed a set of benchmarks for the area. By the time the statutorily mandated report was released in January 1995, there were over 300 benchmarks included. However, the report did not include an implementation plan or outline any overall strategies for achievement.

While the council is still referenced in statute, CPC did not survive the change in administration in 1995, and, although OPM was supposed to report biennially on state agencies' progress towards the benchmarks, little or no activity has occurred since. There may be several reasons for this including the low priority given to comprehensive planning and/or performance measurement as a state government responsibility, and perhaps the accompanying lack of resources at OPM allocated to perform those functions.

Interviews with some former council members, as well as council staff, indicate that the council was arguably “too political” and did not adequately solicit opinions from outside the government sector. There was also little or no communication across sub-committees, reflecting Connecticut's tendency to compartmentalize plans and policies. The sheer number of benchmarks was also problematic. Further, former members of the council recall that measuring progress against the benchmarks was limited due to a lack of available data. However, the exercise did encourage state agencies to coordinate programs and goals around the five common areas of concern. Another positive aspect was that the council was staffed by both executive and legislative branch agencies.

The Weicker Administration also placed a strong emphasis on planning and performance measurement within the Office of Policy and Management. The agency was staffed by 227 full-time employees in 1993 (about double the 131 staff persons it had in FY 06). OPM included a division, headed by an undersecretary, devoted to management and performance measurement. The 1993 legislation establishing the Connecticut Progress Council also required all budgeted state agencies to develop goals, objectives, and measures to submit to OPM for its review. The OPM staff was statutorily required to measure progress against the council-established benchmarks, but as noted above, that has never been implemented.

Also in 1993, the legislature mandated the Connecticut Economic Conference Board,²⁸ along with DECD and the University of Connecticut, to create a Connecticut Competitiveness Index (P.A. 93-210). The index was supposed to monitor state policies that encouraged or discouraged economic development in Connecticut, and use a computer economic modeling system to arrive at scores. This was the first of Connecticut's many policy-oriented projects. However, while an index was published in 1994, the board and the index, both still referenced in statute, are essentially defunct. The stated reason is that funding was not provided to fulfill the mandated responsibilities.

The Rowland Administration did not place a similar emphasis on centralized planning or performance measurement. Instead it promoted a decentralized “business planning” approach, where agencies were to plan around their core “business” operations. The Department of Administrative Services (DAS), for example, was reorganized along “business centers”, and created an agency motto “With us, you're in business.” DAS continues to help agencies with planning, but with a decidedly business approach.

The most recent spate of single-issue, policy-oriented planning projects likely began with the release of the 1999 Connecticut Strategic Economic Framework, commonly known as the “Gallis Report.” The report, commissioned by the Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21^st Century, argued that Connecticut would suffer dire economic consequences if the state did not improve its modes of transportation.

The Gallis report led to the creation of the Transportation Strategy Board (TSB), which is required by law to examine public and mass transportation, and port and railroad usage, as alternatives to interstate maintenance and highway construction, which have always been the primary emphasis of the state Department of Transportation. The TSB has released two reports, the first in 2002 and the second in early 2007. Unfortunately, the TSB is not a state agency and has no mechanism to enforce implementation, leading critics to charge that the board has no teeth. It is also a compartmentalized plan, although it does consider other policy areas, such as housing, in its recommendations.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed legislation requiring the establishment of an Innovation Network for Economic Development. The DECD commissioner -- along with the chairpersons of Connecticut Innovations, Inc. (CII) and the Connecticut Development Authority (CDA), the president of the University of Connecticut (UConn), in consultation with the Governor's Competitiveness Council,²⁹ and other leaders in education, higher education and workforce development -- were to develop recommendations for an implementation plan and budget to establish such a network. The act also permitted the agencies to use up to $10 million of their existing resources for plan implementation and to leverage private investment. The group did submit a framework for a plan containing six recommendations, and UConn and CII have allocated some funding, but no implementation plan was produced.

A renewed emphasis on the state's Conservation and Development Plan and the calls for “smart growth” prompted Governor Rell, in 2006, to issue Executive Order #15, which created the Office of Responsible Growth within the Office of Policy Management. The legislature issued its stamp of approval by codifying aspects of the order in the 2007 legislative session (P.A. 07-239). The act creates a Responsible Growth Task Force, which is required to “identify responsible growth criteria to help guide the state's future investment decisions, study land use laws, policies and programs.” It also offers incentives to municipalities that conform to the Conservation and Development Plan, and withholds funding for those that do not.

Public Act 07-239 also requires DECD, in consultation with the heads of nine state or quasi-public agencies (and others if the DECD commissioner wishes) to prepare an economic strategic plan for the state. Another act passed by the legislature during the 2007 session (P.A. 07-3), created a Blue Ribbon Commission to develop and implement a strategic plan for higher education. These two legislatively required strategic plans will be discussed further in Chapter Four (see page 32).

All of these recent initiatives, while laudable, maintain the state's compartmentalized approach to planning, as discussed in the next chapter. These are policy-oriented, single-issue projects, not comprehensive state planning. While some of the laws require collaboration among involved agencies, and there is more emphasis on longer-term planning and measurement (P.A. 07-3), it is unclear how that coordination or implementation will occur.

Chapter Four

How Do We Do It Now?

Connecticut's Current Planning Landscape

State planning occurs in Connecticut, but it is not the comprehensive or broad strategic planning that sets long-term goals to navigate Connecticut state government toward a preferred future for all Connecticut residents. Instead, the list of dozens of plans contained in Appendix B illustrates the compartmentalized, duplicative, inefficient, and single-issue oriented nature of current state-level planning.

Committee staff reviewed state statutes as well as the websites of all state government and quasi public agencies to inventory current planning efforts in Connecticut. Staff found more than 50 plans are in existence,³⁰ and categorized these plans into 14 different areas, including environmental protection, information technology, education, public health, and human services.

In conducting this inventory, staff determined there are two major drivers of current planning efforts -- federal funding requirements or state legislative mandates. As the appendix indicates, there are 20 plans developed in order to receive federal funding, while about half (24) of the plans have been mandated by the state legislature over the years; the remainder may be required by executive order, or the requirement is unclear.

The federal requirements generally do not call for plans that are strategic in nature, but rather submissions from state agencies on how the program or grant funding will be spent. On the other hand, the statutory requirements for planning are put in place when the General Assembly identifies a planning gap or void, and passes legislation seeking a remedy through a mandated plan in a particular area. However, there is no comprehensive oversight of any of this planning causing duplication to exist, while in other areas, the statutory requirements for certain plans are essentially ignored.

This decentralized planning approach meets few of the desired goals set forth in Chapter One as to why a state should conduct long-term and strategic planning. Neither does it accomplish much of what is described in earlier chapters regarding some of the models and best practices. Rather, Connecticut continues a “silo” or individual agency approach to planning that fails to connect the dots, establish overarching goals that the plans would achieve, or put in place any framework to ensure implementation or measure progress.

State's Capacity for Planning

Organizational structure. The state's capacity for doing comprehensive planning has been declining. As Chapter Three indicated, there have been times when Connecticut placed a greater emphasis on centralized and comprehensive planning, either through a public-private partnership model, like the Connecticut Progress Council, or through the state agency model, like the Office of Policy and Management (OPM). However, that focus has weakened and in 2003, with the state budget crisis calling for reduction of the state government workforce through early retirements, layoffs, and bumping (transfers within a collective bargaining unit), comprehensive planning functions in OPM almost ceased.

The Policy Development and Planning Division (PDPD) within OPM is the designated lead area in state government for comprehensive state planning. The mission of the division states it performs such functions as:

As discussed below, carrying out the responsibilities of the division is hampered by: a lack of staffing; a focus that is targeted to single policy areas; and a fragmentation of state planning responsibilities to other parts of the agency. The policy development and planning division has 21 staff, but this a substantial decline in positions from 1993, when OPM was more active in comprehensive planning. Further, the division recently reorganized into three distinct areas, as shown in Figure IV-1, but there is an emphasis on planning only for some state agencies rather than all state residents. For example, “asset management” is concerned with state facilities planning (e.g., state property management) while the energy section “provides general oversight regarding energy usage and management of energy costs in state [owned] facilities.”

The Health and Human Services section plays an important role in planning in one area -- long-term care for the elderly and disabled – and in January 2007 issued a new plan (updated and revised from the 2004 plan). The unit has other responsibilities as well as planning, such as administering the long-term care partnership that promotes the purchase of long-term care insurance, and managing and overseeing human service contracting.

In 2005, the General Assembly passed the Justice Planning Act (P.A. 05-249), which split the Policy and Planning Division and created a separate OPM division dedicated solely to criminal justice planning, effective July 1, 2006. The division is required to conduct planning around criminal and juvenile justice issues, but it is also mandated to perform ongoing tracking and monthly reporting of the state's prison population. Although the legislation is aimed at strengthening planning around a single policy area, it further fragments efforts at comprehensive planning.