State Planning Efforts

Introduction

In early 2007, non-profit 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 focuses on reacting to crises.

As reported in the committee September briefing, the Governing Performance Project¹, which periodically grades states in four different categories based on several factors, 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.

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 planning 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.

Methodology. Committee staff first developed a list of questions to frame and guide the study, including:

The briefing report addressed many of the questions and the findings in those areas are recapped in this report. When the staff presented the briefing information to the committee, members asked staff to organize a forum inviting representatives from other states that might be considered models in conducting state planning. The forum could provide committee members with first-hand information about 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 at the forum largely provides the framework for answering the last three questions of the study, and formed the basis of much of the recommendations in this report. This report lays out a model for how Connecticut might implement a state planning process, and what resources it would take to do that. The findings and recommendations are contained in the following section.

Section I

Findings and Recommendations

Why should a state engage in such comprehensive planning? The literature and planning experts offer two major reasons – to set a direction for a preferred future for the state's residents and to avoid the costs of bad results that can occur when a state haphazardly develops and implements policies and programs with no overall goals or plan in place.

How should a state conduct comprehensive planning? There are a number of models that are commonly used to conduct state long-term and strategic planning, although as with many public sector paradigms, often the differences are not that clear cut, and hybrids and mixtures exist. The most common models are:

Other, less common models include policy-oriented long-term planning projects, university-based models, and regional planning projects that cross state lines, like the Southern Growth Policies Board that includes 16 Southern states.

Planning in Connecticut

How does Connecticut conduct planning? Many of the findings about how Connecticut conducts planning are recapped from the September briefing report. State planning occurs, but it is not the comprehensive or broad strategic planning that sets long-term goals to navigate Connecticut the state or state government toward a preferred future for all Connecticut residents. Instead, dozens of plans are produced by many state departments and quasi-public agencies illustrating that Connecticut has a decentralized, silo-approach to planning that can be duplicative, inefficient, and focuses on single issues rather than on an overarching direction. Many of these plans could be useful if oversight of development and implementation were concentrated in one area, that that the plans were moving in a similar direction toward a common goal or outcome.

Committee staff identified approximately 80 different plans produced by different state and quasi-public agencies (Appendix B of September briefing) and determined there are two major drivers of current state planning efforts -- federal funding requirements or state legislative mandates. The federal requirements generally do not call for plans that are strategic in nature, but for submissions from state agencies on how the program or grant funding will be spent. On the other hand, the state 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 does not meet either of the desired outcomes of comprehensive planning – moving toward the preferred future for the state and avoiding bad results in both financial and policy areas. 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.

Connecticut's Planning Capacity

The state's capacity -- designated staffing, organizational structure, data collection and analysis -- for conducting comprehensive planning has been declining. Although 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), the executive branch has not placed a high priority on comprehensive planning since the Weicker Administration of the early to mid-1990s.

In 1999, when OPM did a survey to determine the status of strategic planning and performance measurement in government in all 65 state budgeted agencies, it found that 30 agencies produce what the agencies characterize as a strategic plan. Upon on closer examination, OPM found that only five agencies actually produce a plan that could be called strategic.

The state's ability to conduct state planning was further weakened in 2003. The budget crisis at the time called for reduction of the state government workforce through early retirements, layoffs and bumping (transfers within a collective bargaining unit). As a result, comprehensive planning functions in the Office of Policy and Management -- the state's major planning agency -- almost ceased.

Not only has OPM planning staff been declining, but broad-based planning is hampered by the lack of planners in state government overall. As indicated in the briefing, there are 23 different job classifications for planning functions within state government; however, only 12 of those classes are staffed. Thus, program review staff finds that of the thousands of state government employees in classified service in Connecticut, fewer than 100 people are predominantly planners. And, while 21 of those positions are in the Office of Policy and Management, many others are in agencies that emphasize physical or project planning such as occurs in the Department of Transportation.

The Policy Development and Planning Division (PDPD) within OPM is the designated lead in state government for comprehensive state planning. But, as pointed out in the briefing, 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 state planning. Further, the division was recently reorganized into three distinct areas, as shown in Figure I-1, but there is an emphasis on planning for specific areas rather than broad policy planning for 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.”

Legislation passed in 2005 carved out criminal justice planning, which had been part of the PDPD, and created a separate OPM division dedicated solely to criminal justice planning, effective July 1, 2006. Although the legislation is aimed at strengthening planning around a single policy area, it further fragments efforts at comprehensive planning. Also, since September 11, 2001, disaster planning of all types – from broad homeland security issues to preparing for a pandemic flu -- has required great attention as well as financial resources.

Further, the state's major planning efforts currently focus on the state conservation and development plan, which is, by law, the guiding document for land use and development in the state. It is supposed to steer decisions at the local, regional and state levels. That planning effort, also carried out by the Office of Policy and Management, receives more staffing emphasis than do other planning functions within the agency. Yet, despite its importance and the staffing allocated to it, the conservation and development plan is focused on how the state and its localities should make decisions on its physical resources, like land, the environment, transportation networks, housing, and other real or tangible property.

However, there seems to be no similar emphasis for planning for human resources, like setting overarching goals for education, training the state's workforce for a global economy, improving the health status of Connecticut residents, and the like. Without a guiding document for framing human capital decisions, there is an imbalance weighted toward the physical nature of the state. Further, no link can be made as to how planning for both physical and human resources can set a path for the state's future.

Neither is there a convergence of all the specific policy planning -- to oversee all the disparate plans created in the various agencies to cull out what might be common among them, or to assess whether they are directed toward the state's overarching goals. In fact, the statutory requirements, in place since 1993 -- requiring that agencies develop goals, objectives, and outcome measures and submit them to the OPM for review and to evaluate progress against benchmarks – are essentially ignored.

Attempts are being made to “coordinate policy development and capital planning in an effort to utilize state expertise and financial resources” (Executive Order #15, October 2006) through the Interagency Steering Council. The Council has established two work groups: 1) a policy workgroup that is comprised of deputy commissioners responsible for developing responsible growth policies, standards, and criteria; and 2) a project review workgroup comprised of planning staff from the agencies to develop a streamlined process to review projects to ensure they meet responsible growth standards. However, given the agencies represented, and the statement in the executive order, the focus will still be limited to coordination of physical planning.

Legislative Efforts

As discussed earlier, much of the planning that is currently done in Connecticut is in response to state legislative mandates. When the legislature identifies a gap in a planning area, it often passes legislation requiring that a planning process or document be developed to address that gap. The most recent significant legislative actions occurred during this past session. Public Act 07-239 expands, and codifies in statute, the responsible growth initiatives in the governor's executive order. In addition, it requires the Department of Economic and Community Development, 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. There was no additional funding appropriated to DECD to develop the economic strategic plan required, although the department is currently hiring a consultant through a request for proposal (RFP) process to assist with this effort.

Also during this past session, the legislature created a blue ribbon commission to develop and implement a strategic plan for higher education (P.A. 07-3). The act calls for a commission of 16 voting members – 12 appointed by legislative leaders and four appointed by the governor – with specified backgrounds and experience, and a number of heads of state agencies to serve as ex-officio members. The act requires that, by October 1, 2008, the strategic plan be submitted, which shall include specific goals and benchmarks for 2010, 2015, and 2020. The Department of Higher Education indicates that as of early December 2007, the appointments have been made to the commission, but an RFP is being developed to hire a consultant to assist with this effort as well. The commission terminates in 2021.

Results-based Accountability. While not planning per se, the legislature over the past two years has begun implementing a pilot program that attempts to link performance and results with the state budget process. This effort, still in a relatively early stage, is being overseen by a Results-based Accountability (RBA) subcommittee of the legislature's Appropriations Committee, and has targeted two specific areas – early childhood education, and selected programs in the Department of Environmental Protection – to begin work. The key elements of the results-based accountability movement are to evaluate outcomes using three simple categories:

Under RBA, data collection and analysis should be kept to a minimum and be linked to the three key questions above. The two pilot areas have gone through a couple of reporting cycles, and the subcommittee is seeking to reduce the amount of RBA materials produced in order to evaluate the questions. The subcommittee is also considering which new areas might be examined using the RBA methods over the next two legislative sessions

All of these recent initiatives, while laudable, maintain the state's compartmentalized approach to planning, as discussed later. 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 (e.g., P.A. 07-3), it is unclear how that coordination or implementation will occur.

Lack of centralized data. Another problem hampering comprehensive long-range planning in Connecticut is that generally there is no one place where data are collected and analyzed that could be used in long-term planning, or in monitoring progress to achieving established state goals.

Program review cited in the September briefing report that -- between the mid-1990s to 2006 -- Connecticut was the only state in the nation without an active state data center. Beginning in 2006, through a two-year memorandum of agreement between the Office of Policy and Management and University of Connecticut's Center for Economic Analysis (CCEA), the state data center is housed at CCEA. About $75,000 from OPM's budget was committed for FY 07 and $120,000 for FY 08 to fund staff and operations of the state data center.

Earlier this year, the data center released statewide and town-by-town population projections for the first time in 12 years. The current projections indicate far less robust population growth than the 1995 estimates, and even predict a shrinking population, unless there is a continued influx of foreign-born immigrants to the state.²

Without basic population and demographic analysis being conducted on an ongoing basis (rather than every 12 years), Connecticut decision-makers are lacking crucial information about what long-term policies should be developed to either: a) accommodate the changing demographics; or b) create an environment where the state can influence the demographics (i.e., the preferred future). And, even with the demographic information now being provided, there must be knowledgeable staff to analyze and interpret the data to guide the planning and policy implementation.

Another example of a data collection gap is that Connecticut has no centralized repository for data that is being collected by the various state agencies implementing different programs and serving different populations. In 2003, Core-CT was launched to streamline and improve the coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness of the state's financial accounting, human resources, and performance measurement systems. The implementation of the system did not go smoothly due somewhat to early retirements of key staffers, and delays and cost overruns ensued.

Further, while the state does have a Department of Information Technology (DOIT), for the most part information technology in Connecticut state government is very decentralized, with over 1,000 different information technology applications at the various state agencies, and little in the way of sharing or analyzing data. And while DOIT does have a current (2006-2009) comprehensive and ambitious strategic plan that sets forth a vision, including shared data warehouses among state agencies, the plan will take time and considerable resources to implement.

Finally, even if the agencies were able to use the Core-CT to report on program measures, and data collected in the various agencies were more easily shared, there still is no one entity responsible for analyzing the data to measure progress toward any overarching goals the state might develop.

In the absence of setting any goals or long-term plans for the state, which might also guide the state's spending policies, Connecticut continues to use the budget as the sole overall planning document, and review the budget and increases agency by agency. There is no link, analysis, or evaluation of how each agency's spending is tied to overall state policy or how well each agency is performing in reaching any statewide goals.

Survey Results

The deficiencies of state-level planning are well-recognized at the local level. In a survey committee staff sent to chief elected officials in all 169 Connecticut towns, the officials were asked several questions regarding state planning. Staff received responses from 100 towns – although not all 100 answered every question -- and some of the results are presented in the table below.

In addition, in the briefing report, it was noted that only 23 percent of the survey respondents rated the state's overall planning efforts as adequate. Taken in combination with the responses shown in the table, it is clear local officials are unsatisfied with the state's planning efforts and the guidance such planning provides to Connecticut towns.

Summary of Findings

What's wrong with the way we do it? In answer to this question, the committee finds the following deficiencies with the current state planning landscape:

Best Practices

Why and how should we do it better? The scope of study called for the review to propose how successful planning should be done. Thus, it is not sufficient to identify where Connecticut's planning efforts fall short, but the study also must determine how the state could do it better. Program review has reviewed the literature, and spoken with experts both in Connecticut, and from other states, and has developed a list of best practices or key indicators that help promote successful comprehensive planning. These are listed in Table I-2.

Some of the practices listed in the table involve tangibles, such as having trained and skilled staff to carry out the functions, while other elements – such as committed leadership and an enthusiastic “champion” – are much more intangible.

Recommendations

Many of these practices were discussed in the forum on models for conducting state planning that the committee sponsored on November 8, 2007. The committee used the best practices list and information provided at the forum to develop the following recommendations. It is important to keep in mind that this is a development of an ongoing process, rather than a creation of a body only to produce a document and go away. Thus, it is crucial to bear in mind it will take time for this process to take hold -- to change the “business as usual” or “ignore it and it will go away” attitude that is often a self-fulfilling prophecy in government – and for those involved to see the value in doing it. Only when that happens will the process be sustainable.

What will it take to do it better and is it worth it? The key aspects to the recommendations that address the first part of the question include:

The second part of the question is addressed in the rationale for each part of the recommendation. The initial test in determining whether it is worth it will be if policymakers believe in its value and adopt the proposal and dedicate the resources to ensure its implementation.

Creation of an Oversight Body

There shall be a Council on Connecticut's Future created by October 1, 2008. The council shall be composed of 18 members:

The council should meet monthly. Vacancies shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointments, and a majority of the council shall constitute a quorum.

Rationale. It is important that both the executive and legislative branches have representation on the oversight council. The public members should come from the private sector and represent a wide spectrum of Connecticut citizenry. It is vital that the governor's office promote the importance of this effort or state agencies will not place value on the efforts. Program review believes that having the lieutenant governor serve as chair is a symbolic recognition of that value as well as a clear link to the state's chief executive. The committee believes that the council should be perceived as having “teeth” and therefore thinks it is crucial that the executive and legislative leaders themselves, and not designees, attend the meetings.

Major Council Duties

The council shall be responsible for developing a planning process for setting a direction for the future of Connecticut. That process shall include some or all of the following sequential steps: 1) developing a long-term vision; 2) conducting a situational analysis of Connecticut and core state services (e.g., analyzing strengths, weakness, opportunities and threats); 3) establishing a limited number of overarching goals for Connecticut in the first year of operation and expanding the goals in a timeline established by the council; 4) setting long-term objectives for state services and aligning state services to the long-term objectives; 5) instituting a planning and performance measurement system consisting of strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluation of progress toward goals; 6) establishing plan adjustments as needed; and 7) reporting annually to the legislature and the governor on progress toward goals.

Explanation and rationale. Program review does not include definitions as part of the recommendation. The council may wish to establish its own working definitions. However, by way of guidance, the council may wish to use Virginia's definitions for Connecticut:

Vision—means an aspirational expression of a future condition for Connecticut that is both essential and desirable and extends at least 10 years into the future;

Strategic planning- means the systematic clarification and documentation of what a state agency wishes to achieve and how to achieve it. The objective of strategic planning is a set of goals, action steps, and measurements constructed to guide performance. These agency strategic plans should be linked, by the council and its staff, to the overarching statewide goals; and

Strategic performance measurement – means the use of data to review the current performance, improvement in productivity, and progress against the long-term objectives.

The council should be given an opportunity to establish its own process, rather than have one dictated in statute, but guidance is provided through the sequential steps and process followed in Virginia and Washington, which are contained in Appendix A.

It is important that the council start with a manageable approach and timetable. If it establishes too many goals and demands too much in the way of reporting, data collection and measuring in the beginning, the efforts are likely to falter, as was the case with the Connecticut Progress Council in the mid-1990s. Program review believes the recommended council should decide what a manageable number of goals is and which areas the state should begin with, but would suggest the areas of major policy concern might be: 1) Education/Higher Education; 2) Health and Social Services; 3) Economic Development; 4) Environment; 5) Transportation; and 6) Public Safety. In the beginning, perhaps one or two goals in each of those areas, with defining progress measures, would be appropriate.

The program review committee also believes that the council need not produce some hefty document or written plan. Again, it is more important that this be recognized as a process that will change the culture and accountability of government, rather than to see the delivery of a product as an end in itself. The council must be perceived as being important enough to effect this change, otherwise it will be just another “think tank” issuing white papers but affecting little in the way of policy or results.

It is equally important that the council not “reinvent the wheel”. It should ensure that information and planning already being done in state policy areas -- like the Economic Development Strategic Plan (P.A. 07-239) and the Higher Education Strategic Plan (P.A. 07-3) - are used in the council's vision and goal-setting. Both of these plans are required to seek public participation, and regional forums for the Economic Development Strategic Plan are already underway. Thus, the council could use the public input from those as background for its vision and goal-setting rather than establishing another round of time-consuming and costly forums around the state. It could also establish a comment and public input segment to its website as its ongoing link to the citizenry.

Similarly, the council should link its work in measuring progress toward statewide goals to legislative efforts that assess state budget and policy areas using the Results-based Accountability approach. Neither the council's efforts or RBA will further the state's interests in improving government accountability and setting the state on a clear future direction, if the initiatives are not connected.

There are many sources of technical assistance the council could seek out as it develops its process. The Council of State Governments is beginning an initiative called State Governance Transformation that offers guidance to public sector policymakers and managers in how to enhance government in several categories. The categories include much of the council's agenda: long-term and strategic planning; results-focused budgeting and management; inter-agency collaboration, cooperation and cost efficiency.

The council and staff might consult other organizations -- such as the National Governors Association, Governing (e.g., the Governing Performance Project and Governing.com) and the Governmental Accounting Standards Board – for assistance in specific areas of conducting performance measurement and benchmarking. All of these entities have ongoing initiatives and expertise in those fields.

Location, Structure, and Staffing

The Policy Development and Planning Division of the Office of Policy and Management shall provide staff assistance to the council. Additional assistance as needed, and upon request from the council, shall be provided by the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee, the Auditors of Public Accounts, the Office of Fiscal Analysis, and the Office of Legislative Research.

To ensure there is adequate staffing to the council, five analyst positions shall be added to the current Policy Development and Planning Division within the Office of Policy and Management. The analysts shall report to the undersecretary of that division, and the undersecretary shall be responsible for the day-to-day activities of the analysts and for their overall performance of council-related duties.

Three of the analysts shall be knowledgeable in a broad array of state policy areas including health care, the environment, education, and social services, as well as have experience and training in goal-setting, strategic planning, and performance measurement. These three analysts shall have primary responsibility for assisting the council in:

Two other analysts shall have knowledge in quantitative analysis, and computer hardware and software applications. These analysts would merge, analyze, and report on large databases to determine results, and would also be responsible for:

The council shall work with the Connecticut State Data Center at the University of Connecticut. The State Data Center, operating under a memorandum of agreement with the Office of Policy and Management, currently maintains all Connecticut data issued by the U.S. Census Bureau, and performs all population projections for the state. The memorandum of agreement shall be modified so that broad-based data analysis on this demographic information would be provided, as the council requests. The State Data Center shall also assist the council with its other broad data needs, such as merging data collected by a variety of state agencies using different systems and databases and analyzing and reporting on the information so that it can be used by the council and staff in measuring progress toward the state goals and improving state government accountability.

Rationale

Cost. Program review estimates the costs for the council's operations to be approximately $1 million. The cost break-down is contained in Table I-3. Committee staff arrived at these cost estimates through review of job descriptions and salary levels for staff of both Virginia and Washington initiatives, and the costs of the computerized system in Virginia. If the effort to establish a planning and government accountability effort is to succeed it is necessary to furnish the appropriate level of resources. Without the tangibles of staff and equipment, it is certain the intangibles of changing a culture and placing value on the process will not develop.

Program review believes that the council should be provided with adequate resources, as proposed in the recommendation. However, the council and its staff should seek every opportunity to work with existing entities, like the state data center, to perform its functions in an efficient, cost-effective manner that avoids duplication. The council should be seen as a leader in making government work effectively and assuring accountability.

Transparency and Accountability

One of the most important steps to a successful state long-term planning effort is to ensure that the process is public, and has value and meaning in developing policy and ensuring accountability. As much as possible, each of the sequential steps should be “transparent”. In addition to the website reporting, program review recommends that:

Rationale. The meetings with commissioners to report publicly and to each other on progress toward goals is a strategy used by the Government Management Accountability and Performance (GMAP) project in Washington state, although there the governor is actively involved in the meetings. It is important that the recommendations related to transparency and accountability are aimed at achieving not just those purposes alone, but also at advancing overall best practices of:

APPENDIX A

Planning and Performance Frameworks for Virginia and Washington

¹ Governing Performance Project is an endeavor sponsored by Governing magazine that periodically evaluates states in five functional categories based on research-based criteria arrived at by academics, and reviewed by practitioners. Information from each state is collected using surveys and interviews and then results evaluated and graded using the criteria.

² Connecticut State Data Center News Release, May 16, 2007. The center's estimates to the year 2030 indicate that Connecticut's population will grow by only 207,470 residents (to 3.7 million) in the next 25 years – an annual growth rate of 0.27 percent, or less than one-third the national annual growth rate of 0.85 percent. This is significantly less than 3.74 million population estimated for 2025 in the 1995 projections.