2011_0228_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

W% a Exhibit 3: Connecting Priority ResultAreas to Key Indicators Priority People in Pe ll< County who are at risk because of their health or economic status will get their basic needs met, and are as self-sufficient as possible. � STIN Improving 20=0 grams, but this would provide more flexibility in deciding the precise reduction approach). Of course, under any PD13 process, the prioritization is always just a recommendation to the governing board, and there is give and take to negotiate a final budget. PD 13 can be used effectively for evaluating priorities in all funds, not just the general fund. One option is to handle spe- cial purpose funds (where there are restrictions placed on how monies can be used) separately. For example, perhaps enterprise funds or court funds would be evaluated on a dif- ferent track or budgeted in a different way altogether. Another option is to rank offers/programs without respect to funding source, but then allocate resources with respect to funding source. Knowing the relative priority of all the offers/pr grams could generate some valuable discussion, even if there is no immediate impact on funding. For example, if a low-ranking offer/pr gram is grant funded, is it still worth providing, espe- cially if that grant might expire in the foreseeable future? Intended Result: Aligning resource allocation with results of priority - driven scoring. C II "Z 11 IIII '11111 IN G AC C 0 U IN 1111111t[111A IIII 3 Y There can be a potential moral hazard in PDB; the owners of the offers/programs that are being evaluated might over- promise or over-represent what they can do to accomplish the priority result. Create methods for making sure that offers/pro- grams deliver the results that their positive evaluations were based on. Many of the GFOAs research participants are striv- ing toward performance measures for this purpose. For exam- �16 Government Finance Review IAF)ril 2010 ple, an offer/program might have to propose a standard of evi- dence or a metric against which it can be evaluated to see if the desired result is being provided. Polk County has a conceptual approach to connecting pri- ority result areas to key indicators (see Exhibit 3). However, none of the research participants have worked this situation o ut entirely to their sat is f action. For those j ust starting o ut , the lesson is to be cognizant of the place for evidence in your process design, but also to be patient about when this part of the process will be fully realized. Intended Result: Making sure that those who received allocations are held accountable for producing the results that were promised. C 0 �N C U S 0 �N S Priority-driven budgeting is a big change from traditional budgeting. You should have strong support for the P`D13 phi- losophy before proceeding, especially from the chief execu- tive officer (who proposes the budget) and, ideally, from the governing board (who adopts the budget). If you move for- ward, study P`D13 carefully so you can design a process that works for your organization. Keep in mind the major levers and decision points mentioned in this article and use them to create a process that fits your organization. IIIIIIII Notes: 1. Pri(_-)rity-driven budgeting is als(_-) kn(_-)wn as budgeting for results, and the best-kn(_-)wn meth(--)d (_A implementing PDB is budgeting f(--)r (--)utc(-)mes (see "The City of Sawannah Uses Budgeting f(--)r Outc(--)mes t(--) Address Its Long- Term Challenges" in this issue (_A Gouernment Fi'nan• e Reuiew f(--)r more inf(_-)rmati(_-)n ab(--)ut BFO). BFI was the subject (_A The Price Of Gouernment: Getfing the Results We Need i'n an Age offi?rmanent Fiscal Crisi's by David 0sb(_-)rne and Peter Hutchins(_-)n New Y(--)Yk: Basic B(_-)(_-)ks) 2006. 2. R(--)bert S. Kaplan and David P N(_-)rt(-)n, Stmtegy Maps: Converting Intangi'ble Assets into Tangible Outcomes (W-) ton, Mass.: Harvard Business Press) 2004. SHAYNE C. KAVANAGH is senior manager of research for the CIF 's Research and Consulting Center in Chicago, Illinois. He can be reached at sl<avanagh(@gfoa.org. JON JOHNSON is an independ- ent local government advisor on fiscal health and wellness issues, fol- lowing a 28-year career as a government finance officer in Colorado and Missouri. He can be reached at jjohnson.jfadvisors(@ear-thlinl<.net. CHRIS FABIAN is in partnership with Johnson as a local government advisor assisting organizations across the country as they implement the priority-based budgeting model the two developed while serv- ing as budget practitioners in Jefferson County, Colorado. Chris can be reached at cfabian.jfadvisors( earthIinl<.net.