Working proactively with 48 departments and agencies, we have developed over 190 program performance measures in year two of this ongoing effort. With few exceptions all executive branch agencies and most other government offices have now completed their initial set of program performance measures. These measures are included on the agency and program financing pages in the Budget document and are described further in the Technical Appendix.

Program performance measures are used with increasing frequency and success by other states internally as management tools and externally to communicate to the public progress toward achieving the business of government. In the public sector program performance measures are most effective when developed consensually between the implementing agency, the chief executive and the legislature in a continuing process that begins with agreeing on strategic roles and missions. Most departments and agencies of state government are well along in this process and their performance measures reflect that fact. They have completed or are in the midst of clarifying their strategic missions, goals and objectives, and have presented initial or more refined performance measures for consideration in the current fiscal year. In all cases the process remains iterative as missions, goals and objectives evolve and measures of performance are clarified and refined.

Performance measures fall into four categories: input measures, output measures, efficiency measures and outcome measures. Each has its uses and all should be used in program management. In accordance with guidance provided by the Assembly, the program performance measures provided herein are "outcome" measures. Outcome measures are designed to monitor results, not activity. Outcome measures define quantitative objectives and show the extent to which those objectives are achieved. Essentially, they measure the "value added" by the program.

Generally, no performance measures are presented in the FY 1999 Budget for General Officers or for the Central Management programs of state departments or agencies. Development of program performance measures for General Officers presents a special challenge due to the unique roles, duties and responsibilities of each of these several constitutionally separate offices. We are continuing to work with these offices to assist them in developing their own performance measures as warranted and appropriate.

Development of program performance measures for the Central Management programs of the departments and separate agencies of state government likewise presents a special challenge. These programs consist of internal administrative activities that support the departments’ primary programs. They exist as separate programs and there is no practical way to distribute the day-to-day costs of these multiple administrative activities across all other programs. It is neither practical nor cost-effective to develop discrete program performance measures for each administrative activity. The impact of central management on departmental or agency outcomes is properly reflected and measured in the performance of the other programs of the department or agency.

Equal Employment Opportunity

The State's overall goal is to have its workforce representative of the general workforce population. The State Equal Opportunity Office has determined that the State government employment standard for minorities should be 9.2% and for females 47.3%. These figures are based on the Department of Labor's "available workforce" statistics. State agencies are required to produce an annual Affirmative Action Plan and so data was generally available.

Statutory Requirements: Section 16, Article 1 of the FY 1997 Appropriations Act requires that:

(a) Beginning with the fiscal year ending June 30, 1997, the governor shall submit, as part of each budget submitted to the general assembly pursuant to section 35-3-7 of the general laws, performance objectives for each program in the budget for the ensuing fiscal year, estimated performance data for the fiscal year in which the budget is submitted and actual performance data for the preceding two completed fiscal years. Performance data shall include efforts at achieving equal opportunity hiring goals as defined in the department's actual affirmative action plan. The Governor shall, in addition, recommend appropriate standards against which to measure program performance. Performance in prior years may be used as a standard where appropriate. These performance standards shall be stated in terms of results obtained.

(b) The Governor may submit, in lieu of any part of the information required to be submitted pursuant to subsection (a) an explanation of why such information cannot, as a practical matter be submitted.

Additionally, Section 35-3-24.1 of the General Laws provides for the following guidance:

35-3-24.1 Program performance measurement. -- The governor should recommend to the general assembly methods for measuring the performance of state programs. For purposes of this section, "program" would mean a program whose objective(s) are described in the program supplement for the governor's budget. These performance measures should be stated in terms of results rather than effort and be quantifiable whenever possible and shall include, but not be limited to efforts at achieving equal opportunity hiring goals as defined in the defined in the department's annual affirmative action plan. To the extent possible, the results should be contained in and made a part of the Program Supplement for the Governor's FY 1995 Budget.