Master FIR (1988)

NOTE: As provided in LFC policy, this report is intended for use by the standing finance committees of the legislature. The Legislative Finance Committee does not assume responsibility for the accuracy of the information in this report when used in any other situation.

Only the most recent FIR version, excluding attachments, is available on the Intranet. Previously issued FIRs and attachments may be obtained from the LFC office in Suite 101 of the State Capitol Building North.

F I S C A L I M P A C T R E P O R T

SPONSOR:	Altamirano		DATE TYPED:	03/31/00		HB
SHORT TITLE:		Performance-Based Budgeting				SB	SJM 4/aSFC
					ANALYST:		Burch

APPROPRIATION

Appropriation Contained

Estimated Additional Impact

Recurring

or Non-Rec

Fund

Affected

FY00

FY01

FY00

FY01

NFI

(Parenthesis ( ) Indicate Expenditure Decreases)

Relates to HB 2 and SB 15

SOURCES OF INFORMATION

LFC files

SUMMARY

Synopsis of SFC Amendment

The amendment is technical in nature and makes the format of the memorial consistent.

Synopsis of Bill

The joint memorial directs the Department of Finance and Administration, the Legislative Finance Committee and certain agencies to develop performance measures and perform other functions in compliance with the Accountability in Government Act as follows:

•directs the use of the performance budgeting steering committee administratively created at the beginning of FY00 to coordinate implementation of the Accountability in Government Act;

•requests agencies to submit progress reports on attaining the performance targets contained in the memorial;

•requests the State Agency on Aging, Human Services Department, Department of Health and Children, Youth and Families Department to coordinate their strategic planning processes among each other;

•identifies certain oversight agencies and requests them to file FY01 and FY02 strategic plans with the LFC and State Budget Division by May 1, 2000 and requests the State Budget Division to report to the LFC by May 31, 2000 on how these strategic plans address certain duties of these agencies; the agencies are the State Auditor, Department of Finance and Administration, General Services Department, Information Technology Management Office, Personnel Board, State Treasurer, State Department of Public Education and Commission on Higher Education;

•requests the Commission on Higher Education to coordinate the development of a strategic plan, baseline data and performance standards with the higher education institutions for certain quality and effectiveness indicators (see page 19, lines 4 through 14 of joint memorial);

•requests the State Department of Public Education to coordinate the development of a strategic plan, baseline data and performance standards for certain quality and effectiveness indicators (see page 20, lines 1 through 12 of joint memorial);

•requests the State Budget Division to develop and implement a training plan to train agencies on developing strategic plans;

•establishes performance standards in addition to those contained in the proposed General Appropriation Act of 2000 (SB15 and HB2) for FY01 for the following agencies and programs:

Agency	Programs
Administrative Office of the Courts	Magistrate Court Warrant Enforcement
Taxation and Revenue Department	Motor Vehicle
Economic Development Department	In-plant Training
Human Services Department	Temporary Assistance for Needy Families Child Support Enforcement
Department of Health	Prevention, Health Promotion and Early Intervention Health Systems Improvement and Public Health Support Services Special Needs Populations and Long-term Care
Corrections Department	Inmate Management and Control Inmate Programming Community Offender Management Training and Administrative Support
Department of Public Safety	Law Enforcement
State Highway and Transportation Department	Traffic Safety Program
State Department of Public Education	Instructional Materials School Safety

Significant Issues

All of the provisions of the contained in the joint memorial were included in the General Appropriation Act vetoed by the governor during the regular 2000 legislative session. The executive objected to the provisions because:

•it believed that some of them were substantive law and did not belong in the General Appropriation Act; and

•it was not consulted on some of the targeted measures which were either added or changed during the legislative process; the executive believed that some of the changes resulted in a need for more funding for the affected agencies in order for the agencies to achieve the revised targets.

The executive agreed to consider the revised provisions if they were omitted from the General Appropriation Act and included in a joint memorial.

ADMINISTRATIVE IMPLICATIONS

The joint memorial will require certain agencies to expend effort to provide the requested information; however, implementation of the Accountability in Government Act will require the agencies to direct their efforts to doing more in performance-based budgeting anyway.

DKB/njw:gm