![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
Florida's performance-based budgeting reform, called performance-based program budgeting or PB2, followed a defined plan of implementation from its inception in 1995. The reform's implementation was perhaps more interesting for its dynamic adjustments than its planned progression, however. At various points along the reform trajectory key entities charged with driving the reform process had to deal with challenges to both the substance of reform and its day-to-day management. This article presents some of the story of this process. PB2 has not proved a panacea for all the budgeting woes governments like Florida's may face, but it has been useful and the story of its implementation should be of interest.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or perspectives of the Office of Program Policy Analysis in Florida or of the World Bank.
Notes
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the positions or perspectives of the Office of Program Policy Analysis in Florida or of the World Bank.
1.Combining the perspectives of practitioners actively involved in the reform process with published histories that have been widely referenced helps to provide a practical and valid reflection of the reform implementation process.
2.OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). PB2 Status Report, Fiscal Year 1998–99: Performance-Based Budgeting Has Produced Benefits But Its Usefulness Can Be Improved. OPPAGA Report No. 98–45; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, 1999, 2.
3. A prescribed time-line is shown in OPPAGA, Supra note 2; 4.
4. OPPAGA, Supra note 2; 4.
5. The recommendation role is a powerful one, as OPPAGA can recommend that programs be terminated if it finds the programs have little or no public value.
6. OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability), Justification Review: Growth in Medicaid Prescription Drug Costs Indicates Additional Prudent Purchasing Practices Are Needed, Report No. 01-10; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, 2001.
7. Including OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). Performance-Based Program Budgeting in Florida: Current Status and Next Steps.OPPAGA Report No. 96-77B; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, 1997; OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). PB2 Status Report, Recent Initiatives Strengthen Flor-ida's Performance-Based Budgeting. OPPAGA System Report No. 00-15; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, 2000.
8. OPPAGA, 1997, Supra note 7.
10. OPPAGA, Supra note 2; 4.
11. OPPAGA, Supra note 2, 6.
12. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 5.
13. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 5.
14. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 5.
15. OPPAGA, 2000, Supra note 7; 1.
16. OPPAGA, 1997, supra note 7; 2.
17. OPPAGA, 2000, supra note 7; 2.
18. National Legislative Program Evaluation Society Fall Training Conference Notes— Roundtable: Lessons Learned from Performance Measurement Systems, 2002 http://www.ncsl.org/programs/nlpes/training/fallconf/pds02/ perfmeasure.htm.
19. Henadon, Supra note 9; 671.
20. This issue is addressed in more detail in OPPAGA, Supra note 2; 7-8.
21. Henadon, Supra note 9; 675.
22. This issue permeates most of the document produced in November 2000: OPPAGA, 2000, Supra note 7; see in particular page 4.
23. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 6.
24. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 3.
25. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 10-11.
26. OPPAGA, 1997, supra note 7; 3.
27. OPPAGA, 1997, supra note 7; 4.
28. OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). Public Schools and Performance-Based Program Budgeting: Challenges and Opportunities, Report No. 97-35; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, January 1998, 4–8.
29. OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). PB2 Performance Report for the Florida Department of Transportation's Programs’ Performance for Fiscal Year 1997–98, Report No. 98–60; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, February 1999.
30. See the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Web Site, and listed OPPAGA Justification Reviews: http://www.oppaga.state.fl.us/pro-files/4122/
31. OPPAGA, Supra note 2; 12.
32. State of Florida. 2002. Long Range Program Plan Instructions. Tallahassee: Executive Office of the Governor, Office of Policy and Budget, Annex F, 3.
33. OPPAGA, 1997, supra note 7; 5.
34. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 7.
35. OPPAGA, 2000, supra note 7; 2.
36. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 7-8.
37. OPPAGA, 2000, supra note 7; 2.
38. OPPAGA, supra note 2, 8.
39. State of Florida. 2002. Long Range Program Plan Instructions. Executive Office of the Governor: Tallahassee, FL, Office of Policy and Budget, Annex F, 1-4.
40. OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). Bringing Administrative and Support Functions Under Performance-Based Program Budgeting, Tallahassee: OPPAGA, Report No. 99-01; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, August 1999.
41. OPPAGA, supra note 40; ii.
42. OPPAGA, supra note 40; 19.
43. The State's budget and planning instructions state that “All performance measures must be evaluated to determine if they are valid and reliable and to determine if the methodology to measure and acquire data are also valid, reliable and reproducible.” State of Florida, Supra note 39; Annex K, 1.
44. OPPAGA, supra note 2; 9.
45. OPPAGA, supra note 2;7
46. OPPAGA, 2000, supra note 7; 3.
47. OPPAGA, 1997, supra note 7; 7.
48. OPPAGA (Office of Program Policy and Government Accountability). PB2 Commentary: Florida's Unit Cost Initiative Shows Promise, But Needs Further Development,Report No. 01-05; OPPAGA: Tallahassee, FL, January 2001, 1.
49. OPPAGA, 2001, supra note 48; 5.
50. OPPAGA, 2001, supra note 48; 5.
51. State of Florida, Supra note 39; 2.
52. OPPAGA, 2000, supra note 7; 4.
53. State of Florida, supra note 39; 2.
54. State of Florida, supra note 39; Annex F, 1-4.
55. OPPAGA, 2000, supra note 7; 6.
OPPAGA, supra note 2; 6
National Legislative Program Evaluation Society supra note 18
OPPAGA, supra note 2; 6
OPPAGA, supra note 2; 6
OPPAGA, 1997, supra note 7; 4
National Legislative Program Evaluation Society, supra note 18