Keypoints
Findings and Recommendations
December 16, 1999

• The purpose of the study is to identify ways to strengthen and systematize the availability and use of performance measurement information for the Connecticut General Assembly.
• The basic elements of a performance measurement system involve:
  • development of a plan that defines agency and program objectives and the strategies and resources to meet the objectives;
  • identification of measurable performance indicators;
  • collection and verification of the accuracy of the performance data; and
  • analysis of the performance data and distribution to decision-makers.
• A 1998 consultant's report done for the Office of the State Comptroller indicated Connecticut's performance measurement system contributed little of value to:
  • managing agencies and programs;
  • evaluating agency operations and programs; and
  • analyzing agency and program budgets.
• A 1998 legislative task force study found Connecticut had some performance auditing mechanisms in place, but such mechanisms were not implemented uniformly across state agencies in an ongoing manner. The task force recommended a performance review division be established in the Office of Legislative Management.
• A 1999 survey of state agencies by OPM found:
  • 67 % claimed to have a strategic planning process;
  • 54 % claimed to have performance measures for all their programs; and
  • there appeared to be little connection between strategic planning and program measurement.
• Committee staff through its analysis concluded:
  • Connecticut already has statutes requiring all the key elements of a performance measurement system; and
  • to have a successful performance measurement system, there must be a commitment to the system by executive and legislative leaders.
• Committee staff examined four options for systematizing the availability and use of performance data within the Connecticut General Assembly.
  • Create a permanent commission composed of individuals representing the executive and legislative branches and empowered to make recommendations to the governor and legislature. The commission would be served by contract consultants. Estimated cost of implementing this option is $1.5 million.
  • Create a permanent commission composed of individuals representing the executive and legislative branches and empowered to make recommendations to the governor and legislature. Commission would be served by staff loaned or reassigned from other state units. Estimated cost of implementing this option ranges from $225,000 to $1.4 million, depending on whether the reassigned staff are replaced in their previous units.
  • Create a permanent state office empowered to make recommendations to the governor and legislature. The office would be served by a permanent staff of state employees. Estimated cost of implementing this option is $1.4 million.
  • Establish a process by modifying the responsibilities of existing governmental entities to focus on the systematic identification, collection, and distribution of performance data. Specifically: 1) OPM would be charged with overseeing the development of strategic plans and performance measures by executive branch agencies; 2) the state auditors office would serve as an independent monitor of agency compliance; and 3) the program review committee would review reports and data produced by state agencies and forward the reports and data with the committee's comments to the legislature's Office of Fiscal Analysis and the appropriate committees within the General Assembly. Estimated cost of implementing this option ranges from $515,000 to $805,000, depending on whether the reassigned staff are replaced in their previous units.
• Committee staff recommends adoption of the option involving the modification of existing governmental entities

Return to Year 1999 Studies