Performance Measurement Ch 2

Over time the Connecticut General Assembly has introduced, modified, and attempted to strengthen various aspects of financial and programmatic oversight. Initially, much of this attention was focused on the Auditors of Public Accounts and the Program Review and Investigations Committee. Each office plays a key role in aiding the legislature to meet its oversight responsibility. In recent years, the focus has shifted away from modifying these two special function offices toward developing a system to ensure performance data are integrated into the legislature’s budget and policy decision-making processes.

The legislature’s attention has been on creating a process wherein performance measurement data will be identified and flow to decision-makers. As a result, Connecticut has statutes requiring such things as: the development of a long-range vision for the state; agency strategic plans; agency performance measures; and progress reports. Relevant statutory sections are summarized below.

Table II-1 identifies entities with a role in the operation of the state's performance measurement system. Each entity's responsibilities with respect to the process outlined in Figure I-2 (i.e., step 1, planning; step 2, identification of measures; step 3, collection of data; and step 4, analyzing data) are noted in the column labeled "Roles". Excluded from the table is step 5, concerning decision-making operations that are not referenced by the state statutes in a performance measurement context. Following Table II-1 is a slightly more detailed description of the entities named in the table.

Table II-1. State Entities with Statutory Responsibility for Performance Measurement.
*Entity*	*Statutory Reference*	*Roles*	*Staff Resources Available*	*Relevant Annual* *Output*
CT Progress Council	4-67r	Establish a vision and develop benchmarks against which performance can be measured	Staff loaned as needed from executive and legislative branches	Required by statute to produce a benchmarks report biennially
OPM	4-66, 4-67m, 4-70b	Work w/ state agencies to develop plans and identify performance measures	Strategic Management Division staff - 7	10 reviews of agency operations
State Auditors	2-90	Conduct financial and performance audits	Performance audit team staff - 4	2-3 performance reports plus 20 or more narrow issue reports included in selected audits
LPR&IC	2-53, 2c-3	Conduct performance reviews	Committee staff – 12	6-8
OFA	2-71c	Budget analysis	Office staff - 25	Numerous analyses of the budget and proposed bills
Office State Comptroller	Sec. 24 of the state constitution C.G.S. 3-112	Maintains the state's accounting system and conducts selected reviews	N/A	N/A

Connecticut Progress Council. The council was created by P.A. 93-387 to develop a long-range vision for the state and to define benchmarks to measure the state's progress. The council is composed of 28 members, including legislators and representatives of the executive branch and the private sector. It is authorized to draw personnel and other resources from state agencies and the nonpartisan offices of the legislature. In its 1995 report - - the only one issued to date - - the council identified 300 benchmarks to be used to measure progress. Examples of the measures include incidents of child abuse and neglect per 1,000 population, violent crime per 100,000 population, and percentage of students at or above goal on the Connecticut Mastery Test.

Office of Policy and Management. In addition to preparing the governor’s budget proposal and implementing and monitoring the execution of the budget, OPM has a statutory mandate to determine the effectiveness of the policies, management, organization, operating procedures, and services of state agencies and to recommend improvements (C.G.S. 4-66). Primary responsibility for this charge resides with OPM's Strategic Management Division, which serves as a management consultant to state agencies. The division consists of two groups totaling 19 members. The Energy Group has a staff of 12. The Performance Evaluation Group has seven staff, two of which are assigned to agencies to develop strategic business plans, develop performance measures, and evaluate programs. The division indicates it conducts about 10 performance reviews annually.

Auditors of Public Accounts. The primary responsibility of the auditors’ office is to determine whether state agencies are in compliance with state and federal financial requirements. The statutes also give the state auditors authority to examine an agency's performance to determine its effectiveness in achieving an expressed legislative purpose (C.G.S. 2-90(c)). Using this power the state auditors have included a performance evaluation component in selected audits and established a Performance Audit Team, which can be assigned to review specific state programs. Such assignments typically are an outgrowth of a financial audit. The performance audit team has a staff of five and completes about two or three reviews per year. Its reports are published separately from financial audits. In conducting the reviews, the team assesses the objective of the program, determines program results, identifies factors inhibiting performance, assesses compliance with laws and regulations, evaluates management oversight, and recommends program improvements.

Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee. The committee is a 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 and recommend remedies where needed. A staff of 12 including a director, 10 analysts, and an administrator serves the committee. It completes six to eight reviews per year.

Office of Fiscal Analysis. The Office of Fiscal Analysis is a nonpartisan professional office of the Connecticut General Assembly. Its primary function is to provide technical support to the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Finance, Revenue and Bonding, as well as the other committees and members of the legislature. A staff of 25 including a director and four administrators serves the office. Among the duties of the office relevant to performance measurement are: analyzing budget requests; assisting in the development of means by which budgeted programs can be periodically reviewed; preparing short analyses of the costs and long-range projections of executive programs and proposed agency regulations; analyzing and preparing critiques of the governor's proposed budget; studying selected executive programs during the interim; and preparing fiscal notes upon favorably reported bills that require the expenditure of state or municipal funds or affect state or municipal revenue.

Office of the State Comptroller. The Office of the State Comptroller (OSC) maintains the state's computer-based accounting system and is the primary producer of comprehensive financial information for the state. OSC's functions include providing accounting and financial services, developing accounting policy, preparing financial reports, and analyzing and compiling agency and state-level management information. Among relevant performance measurement activities carried out by the comptroller's office are reviews of reports of the Auditors of Public Accounts aimed at ensuring agency compliance with the auditor's recommendations and conducting independent audits under OSC's performance review program.

In the past, when the state has experienced severe and widespread financial difficulties, it has created special commissions to study the management and structure of the state's government and recommend changes. There have been four such commissions created over the past 30 years. The first of these was the 1971 Governor's Commission on Services and Expenditures (Etherington). In 1976, the Committee on the Structure of State Government (Filer) was established. The Commission to Study the Management of State Government (Thomas) was set up in 1991 and succeeded a year later by the Commission to Effect Government Reorganization (Harper-Hull).

Each commission was set up as a temporary body charged with reviewing government operations and identifying ways to: reduce costs; improve management; and make the delivery of state services more effective and efficient. All of the commissions recommended reductions in the number of state agencies and elimination of those state services deemed unnecessary or duplicative. Of note, every commission made recommendations of one type or another aimed at improving the availability of information to executive and legislative decision-makers for analyzing and managing state government operations.

Combined, the four commissions made over 2,000 recommendations. Although systematic follow-up studies are absent, there is anecdotal information that many of the recommendations were implemented either through executive directive or legislative action. However, as the Connecticut Public Expenditures Council discussed in a paper reviewing the work of the first three commissions, the positions taken on recommendations by special interest groups generally had more influence on the fate of proposals than evidence of a cost reduction or system improvement.