Performance Based Budgeting

1
Performance Based Budgeting

• Making Government Efficient, Effective, and
• Accountable
• Testimony before the House Committee on the
  Budget
• Congressman Henry Cuellar

2
Performance Based Budgeting

• Performance Based Budgeting a results oriented
  budget tool that sets goals and performance
  targets for agencies, and measures their results
• What Gets Measured Gets Done

3
Bill Pattern Evolution

• Bill Pattern Comparison for the Texas Department
  of Insurance 1970-1971
• Personal Service
• Board Members at 23,500 70,500 70,500
• Commissioner of Insurance 23,000
  23,000
• Liquidator and Conservator 16,016 16,016
• Administrative Assistant 14,000 14,000
• Fire Prevention Coordinator 13,248 13,248
• Salaries of Classified Positions
  3,865,914
  3,997,355
• Seasonal Help
  25,000 25,000
• Total, Personal Services
  4,027,678 4,159,119
• Other Expenses
• Travel
  398,710 398,710
• Consumable Supplies and Capital Outlay
  326,458 325,138
• Out-of-State Examinations 90,000 90,000
• Burial Rate Board 2,500 2,500
• Director of Personnel, Assistant Executive
  Director 16,000 16,000
• Tuberculosis 15,500 15,500

4
Bill Pattern Evolution

• Bill Pattern Comparison for the Texas Department
  of Insurance 1982-1983
• Operating Fund No. 36
• Board Officers
• a. Board Members (3) 153,900 167,400
• b. Board Administration 253,215 269,993
• c. Information Services 254,970 278,006
• Commissioners Offices
• a. Commissioner 49,600 53,900
• b. Administration 231,234 217,994
• c. Hearings 167,213 175,159
• d. Legal Selection 410,886 446,927
• e. Personnel 213,340 232,047
• f. General Support Service 905,454 933,422
  
• g. Data Processing
  1,671,931 1,518,631
• h. Company Conservation and Rehabilitation 175,82
  4 186,926
• Business Practices, Enforcement
• a. General Management 423,916 459,082
• b. Licensing and Regulation (IA,A,PFC) 647,503
  698,337

5
Bill Pattern Evolution

• Bill Pattern Comparison for the Texas Department
  of Insurance 1998-1999
• Goal Encourage Fair Competition
• Encourage fair competition in the insurance
  industry
• Outcomes
• Percent of Agent License Filling Completed in 15
  days 92 92
• Percent of Stationary Rate and Form Fillings
  Completed
• Within 90 Days 50 55
• Number of Automobiles Covered by Voluntary
  Policies
• a Percent of Total Private Passenger Automobiles
  in
• Underserved Markers 45.1 46.5
• Percent of MAP Applications Eligible for Referral
  Resulting
• in the Insurance of a Residential Property
  Insurance Policy 50 50
• Percent of Contested Cases Finalized in 180
  Days 80 80
• Estimated Amount (in Millions) of Insurance
  Fraud Eliminated 23 25
• (Continued)

6

• Strategy Promote Competition
  9,390,159 9,388,959
• Collect and analyze market data,
• provide information to consumers and industry,
• and process rates, forms and other required
  filings.
• Outputs
• Number of Inquiries Answered
• Number of Rate Guides Distributed 275,000 275,0
  00
• Number of Life/Health Insurance Fillings
  Completed 130,000 130,000
• Number of HMO Form Filling Completed
  23,500 23,500
• Efficiencies
• Average Costs per Rate Guide Distributed
• Explanatory
• Total Number of Licensed Agents 171,000 176,000
  
• Number of Texas-Based Required Companies
  805 807
• Number of Non-Texas Based Required Companies
  1,885 1,890
• Number of License HMOs 65
  70

7
A Legislators Guide to Using Performance
Information Basic questions to ask agencies in
budget and program review hearings

• What is your programs (or agencys) primary
  purpose? Which citizens are affected?
• What key results are expected from this use of
  taxpayers funds?
• What key performance indicators do you use to
  track progress in attaining these results?
• What were the results in the most recent years?
• How do these results compare to your targets?
  Have any results been unexpectedly good or
  unexpectedly poor?
• How do the results compare to other benchmarks?

8
A Legislators Guide to Using Performance
Information Basic questions to ask agencies in
budget and program review hearings

• For which citizen groups have the results been
  less than desired? (Examples Groups by location,
  gender, income, age, race/ethnicity, disability,
  etc.)
• If any targets were missed, why were those
  targets missed?
• What is currently being done to improve
  deficiencies?
• What actions does your new/proposed budget
  include that would improve results?
• How would the results change if funding is
  increased by 5 percent? Decreased by 5 percent?
• Which groups of citizens might benefit? Which
  might lose? To what extent?
• What other programs and agencies are partners in
  producing desired results?
• Source Legislating for Results, Action Brief 9.
  National Conference of State Legislatures and the
  Urban Institute, 2003