• <br /> are used and the level of activities undertaken. Whether or way to ensure that policy goals are translated into results is to <br /> not desired outcomes have been achieved, however, is often allocate budgetary resources to achieve specific objectives <br /> determined by public perceptions or changes in public defined in the planning stages. The budget process is also <br /> behavior. For some programs, the impact may not be seen connected to the management function in that, by <br /> until years into the future. As an example, one of the goals appropriating funding, managers are given authority to <br /> of secondary education is to prepare graduates to enter the implement programs and are held accountable for results. <br /> workforce or go on toAgher levels of education; hence, an ..r <br /> appropriate outcome measure is percentage of graduates - <br /> gainfully employed or continuing their education within two <br /> Budgeting <br /> years of graduation. To determine whether this objective has <br /> • been successfully met, program administrators would need to <br /> track graduates' progress after they have left the secondary <br /> education system. Measuring outcomes may therefore <br /> require more time - consuming and costly processes such as <br /> survey analysis, and could also involve efforts to follow A Paformance program beneficiaries long after they have left the program. <br /> Despite these obstacles, state and local governments are Planning Mp g nr <br /> increasingly recognizing the importance of making greater . <br /> use of performance measures in all aspects of public <br /> administration: planning, management, and budgeting. . <br /> Performance measures are routinely reported (often as part of It is important that an explicit effort be made to integrate <br /> budget requests) or used in program management in a performance measures into all three administrative <br /> growing number of jurisdictions. A survey undertaken by functions, and not be the focus of only one administrative <br /> the International City Management Association (ICMA) in activity. For example, proposals to develop and regularly <br /> 1988, to which 451 jurisdictions responded (42 percent of report performance measures in government financial <br /> those receiving the survey), found a dramatic increase in the statements will fail to lead to any meaningful change in the • <br /> use of performance measures between 1976 and 1988. In provision of public services unless planning and budgeting <br /> 1988, 70 percent of the respondents indicated they were processes also support the achievement of service objectives. <br /> using some type of performance measures, up from Using performance measures only in financial reporting <br /> approximately 30 percent in 1976. [Streib, 1989] A 1991 directs managers' attention to a narrow range of issues — <br /> survey conducted by the National Association of State • that is, indicators and trends — without considering whether <br /> Budget Officers (NASBO) found that 34 states reported or not agreement on goals has been reached and sufficient <br /> performance measures as part of their budget requests, and resources allocated. The budget provides the necessary <br /> most states required agencies proposing new programs to linkages to ensure that performance is integrated into all <br /> submit productivity and effectiveness measures. [Lee, 1991] government activities. In the planning phase, this linkage <br /> Clearly, governments understand the value of measuring helps to ensure that programs are prioritized and realistic <br /> performance, and are striving to overcome impediments in goals and objectives are established in a inanner consistent <br /> order to make greater use of these measures in decision with expected funding. The budget can also supply <br /> making appropriate incentives and sanctions to ensue that programs <br /> are carried out as intended in the management phase. <br /> Linking Planning, Management, and Budgeting Experiences in Allocating Resources Based on <br /> Performance. The pivotal role played by the budget process <br /> As noted- earlier, performance objectives are more likely to be in meeting performance objectives has long been recognized. _ <br /> • achieved if the planning, management, and budgeting Unfortunately, major budgetary reform initiatives over the <br /> functions are closely tied. In this way, all administrative past century attempting to create stronger ties between <br /> functions are working toward common purposes. The program objectives and the budget process have failed to lead <br /> budget process is the key to creating this linkage. In their • to a significant overhaul of budgetary practices. In <br /> book Reinventing Government. David Osborne and Ted particular, efforts such as Planning - Programming- Budgeting <br /> Gaebler argue, "...in government, the most important lever — (PPB) and zero base budgeting collapsed in part because they <br /> the system that drives behavior most powerfully — is the were overly complex and time consuming, and also because - <br /> budget." [Osborne and Gaebler, 1992] The most effective they were not adaptable to political realities. <br /> 5 . <br />