Making Results-Based State Government Work.(Review)

Liner, Blame; Hatry, Harry P.; Vinson, Elisa; Allen, Ryan; Dusenbury, Pat; Bryan, Scott; and Snell, Ron.

Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, April 2001 (150 pp)

Reviewed by W. Anderson Williams, Policy Analyst, GFOA Research and Consulting Center, Chicago, Illinois.

State agency officials, executive budget staff, and legislators often are surprised to find that the implementation of governing-for-results is a time-consuming process fraught with unexpected complications. Until recently, stakeholders in these initiatives have looked for best-practice examples of governing-for-results only to find scarce resources.

A timely addition to the Urban Institute's series on results-based government should fill this gap. Well-known for its work in performance measurement, the Urban Institute supported a study of state practices in governing-for-results. Making Results-based State Government Work summarizes findings and examples from this study and makes recommendations pertinent to state governments currently implementing governing-for-results or considering implementation. Data was collected through the use of site visits to Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, and Texas, where officials from the three sectors and citizens discussed governing-for-results experiences in those states. Research was conducted between 1998 and 2001.

This report identifies practices and lessons learned by states that are well-known for their use of governing-for-results principles. Although many governments have been using governing-for-results since the early 1990s and the focus on outcomes is strong at all levels of government, programs are slowed by such factors as unfamiliarity with outcome measurement and fears that public managers will be unfairly blamed for less-than-expected outcomes.

Fundamental to the satisfactory implementation of governing-for-results, the authors claim, is the integration of outcome measurement and reporting with strategic planning (Section 2). These are the two core elements of governing-for-results. Outcome measurement looks at past performance while strategic planning uses past performance to shape future direction. Since agencies are more familiar with the details of their own performance, they