The reason for our current distribution of government services among state, local, school and special district jurisdictions is a result of history, convenience, desire to maintain power and lack of political will to make significant changes.
To a large degree this hodge-podge of jurisdictions with overlapping missions, constituents and responsibilities has resulted in waste of government resources at a time when fiscal resources are very tight--- and likely to stay that way--- and contributes to citizens' anger at government.
Taxpayers want it all. They want quality education for their children, health care and services for vulnerable children, families and the elderly, safety where they live, work and play, reliable transportation, recycling, fire protection, etc. But they also want accountable, transparent government that is willing to make hard choices and use resources wisely. They deserve to have both.
This is the time for another radical change in the performance and organization of government. In the 20th century we introduced new bureaucratic features to government to address the corruption and nepotism that made government inefficient and unfair. Now in the 21st century it is time to move to a post bureaucratic government that is based on meeting citizen needs in the most efficient way possible.
This change is not an option. It is mandatory and urgent. It is demanded by the times. We are about to drive over a cliff. Governments can no longer expect to receive increasing revenues to the extent needed to keep up with the cost of providing services. Government customers and stakeholders have increased their demand for customer service. And the baby boomer cohort will drive up the cost of government with huge impacts on health care and pension costs.
I am not talking about government consolidations or new regionalized structures. Rather, I am talking about multiple governmental jurisdictions working on common priorities that the public most cares about - while retaining local community input and control. Through the pioneering work of my colleagues at the Public Strategies Group, and especially Peter Hutchinson and David Osborne, we have an approach - Budgeting for Outcomes - that can guide and focus this work. Early usage of this tool in the State of Washington is described in The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis by Osborne and Hutchinson.
Briefly, Budgeting for Outcomes entails:
- Setting the price of government: Deciding how much citizens are willing to spend and getting political agreement on a revenue forecast and any tax or fee increases up front.
- Setting the priorities of government: Defining the outcomes that matter most to citizens, along with indicators to measure progress. Outcomes are results such as improved education levels, better health, and increased perception of safety.
- Setting the price of each priority: Dividing the revenue among the priority outcomes according to their relative value to citizens.
- Developing a purchasing plan for each priority: Creating "Results Teams" to act as purchasing agents for citizens by deciding which strategies have the most impact on the desired outcome.
- Soliciting offers to deliver the desired results: Issuing "requests for results" to all comers, public and private and choosing those bids that provide the best results for the money.
- Negotiating performance agreements with the chosen providers. Spelling out the expected outputs and outcomes, how they will be measured, the consequences for performance, and the flexibilities granted to help the provider maximize performance.
This method has been successfully used in individual cities (Spokane, Washington and Azusa, California), counties (Snohomish County, Washington and Multnomah County, Oregon) and at the state level (Washington and Iowa). Now it is time to use this tool to deliver better results across multiple government jurisdictions.
Using Budgeting for Outcomes to help local governments work together will take tremendous courage on the part of elected officials and an absolute commitment to focusing on getting the greatest value possible for citizens' tax dollars. It would look like this:
- Price of government would be calculated for all participating jurisdictions --- one price for the community--- the aggregate of all taxes and fees paid regardless of jurisdiction. This recognizes that most citizens don't distinguish which jurisdictions provide which services - nor should they have to.
- Citizen priorities would be determined for the whole community, not for one jurisdiction --- again people don't care which jurisdiction does which priority. They just want them accomplished.
- Results maps would be created by Community Results Teams made up of representatives from the various jurisdictions and perhaps others without regard to who currently provides a service --- focus would be only on what the evidence shows works.
- An allocation of the total funds available would be made to each priority based on citizen input. This would be done without regard to the origin of the funds. This will take a great deal of courage for political leaders to agree to what the relative importance of their priorities are --- regardless of which jurisdiction currently provides a service or where the money is generated.
- All jurisdictions (and perhaps others --- non-profits, unions, businesses) would be eligible to respond to "requests for results" offered by Community Results Teams.
- Final buying decisions would be made by the elected leaders of the jurisdictions with a Community Guidance Team of respected leaders.
- Inter- governmental agreements would be negotiated to implement the community budget.
This could be done by a county, and the cities, school districts and/or special districts in the county. Ideally the state would also participate. The cost of community outreach and staffing the process would be shared among the participating jurisdictions.
The opportunity to use Budgeting for Outcomes to increase the cooperation, effectiveness and cost of governments has not been tried yet. If you are interested in taking up this challenge, I would appreciate hearing from you. You can contact me at beverly@psg.us or 503-789-3457.
|
