Results Oriented Strategic Planning : A Framework for Aligning Public Sector Resources

Presentation by Jeffrey Tryensto

Balance Scorecard at the Municipal Level:A national conference of experiences

Oslo, NorwayJanuary 31, 2002

http://www.econ.state.or.us/opb(503)986-0039

The Unfocused Organization

Strategic

Planning

Organizational Leadership

W

ork

Proc

ess

Man

agem

ent

Systematic

Learning

Info

rmat

ion

&

Dat

a A

naly

sis

Human Resource

Policies & Practices

Custom

er focus

and satisfaction

The Focused Organization

Human Resources Customer focus

and satisfaction

Organizational leadership Work process

managementStrategic planning

Information and data analysis

Systematic learning

The Unfocused Government

The More Focused Government:Achieving Internal Alignment

The Well Focused Government:Finding Common Elements

Shared Strategies Unified Vision

Meaningful Measures

Outcome-based Evaluations

Oregon Shines provides a unified vision for state government.

Shared Strategies Unified Vision

Meaningful Measures

Outcome-based Evaluations

Strategic Planning in Oregon

Oregon's Strategic Plan-Oregon Shines-Drafted in 1989-Updated every eight years

-Encompasses the entire state Oregon Progress Board

-Monitors implementation of plan-Chaired by the Governor-Created -1990/reauthorized -1997

The Elements of Oregon Shines II

Economy: Quality jobs for all Oregonians

People: Safe, caring andengaged communities

Environment: Healthy, sustainable surroundings

Oregon’s Strategic Planning Model

1. Where are we?

2. Where do we want to be?

3. How do we get there?

4. How did we do?

Where Are We?Trend analysis shows mixed bag.

Economy: Oregon's economy is doing well overall, but some areas are still suffering.

People: Health insurance coverage is near tops in the nation. Juvenile crime is increasing, as is student alcohol and drug use. Poverty rates have stayed flat despite economic growth.

Surroundings: Housing affordability and congestion are growing problems and natural resources are starting to reach their limits.

Where Do We Want to Be?Oregon's goals have changed.

Diversify the Economy

w/ International Focus

Grow & Attract Good Jobs

Maintain Quality of Life

Maintain Healthy,

Sustainable Surroundings

Support Safe, Caring & Engaged

Communities

Grow & Attract Quality Jobs

for All Oregonians

1989 1997

A clean, appealing environment,

a talented workforce, and responsive public

services...Attractand providea base for

Diverse, value adding industries that provide

well paying jobs...

Create opportunities for Oregonians, reducing poverty and crime...

Generate revenues for excellent schools and

quality public services and facilities...

Whichresult in

Which

How Do We Get There? The “circle of prosperity” is our guide.

How Did We Do?The focus is on the Oregon Benchmarks.

Results Not Effort

Oregon Benchmarks are key to Oregon's performance measurement system.

Shared Strategies Unified Vision

Meaningful Measures

Outcome-based Evaluations

Results Not Effort

What BenchmarksDon't Measure

School Expenditures

Prison Beds

Environmental Enforcement

What BenchmarksDo Measure

Literacy

Crime Rates

Air and Water Quality

The Elements of a Benchmark

0

4

8

12

16

80 90 92 94 96 98 00 10

% of Oregonians

with incomes below poverty

Oregon Population Survey

TargetsData

Indicator

Source

Economy -Key Benchmarks

Student Skills

Baccalaureate Degrees

Adult Literacy

Industry R&D

Employment Outside Portland/Willamette Valley

Professional Services Exported (Imported)

New Companies

Per Capita Income

Communities - Key Benchmarks

Ready-to-Learn

High School Dropouts

Eighth Grade Use of Alcohol, Illicit Drugs and Cigarettes

Poverty

Teen Pregnancy

Affordable Housing

Overall Reported Crime

Juvenile Arrests

Child Abuse

Health Insurance

Volunteerism

Surroundings- Key Benchmarks

Congestion

Agricultural Land Preservation

Forest Land Preservation

Wetlands Preservation

Air Quality

Wild Salmon Restoration

How Benchmarks Are Developed

Benchmarks are reviewed biennially by the Progress Board.

Anyone can suggest a change. Since 1989, Over 8,000 Oregonians have

been involved in the process. Benchmarks are currently under review.

Benchmarks must meet certain criteria....

An Oregon Benchmark should: Link to an Oregon Shines' goal

Emphasize results, not effort

Be measurable

Be policy relevant

Be understandable

Be comparable to a standard

Be economical to gather

Benchmark Changes

Fewer Benchmarks (259 --- 90)

Fewer Benchmark Categories (17 --- 7)

Fewer Key Benchmarks (39 --- 22)

More Comparator Information

New Target Setting Method

Local governments also “benchmark.”

= Cooperator

= Active "Progress Board"

10%

25%

50%

7%

16%

36%

7%

17%

28%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

6th Graders 8th Graders 11th Graders

% u

sing

A,T

or D

.

Alcohol Tobacco Drugs

County level data are readily available for many benchmarks.

Office of Alcohol and Drug Abuse Programs - 1998 data

8th gradeAlc. - 31stTob. - 4thDrug - 16th

11th gradeAlc. - 32ndTob. - 24thDrug - 32nd

6th gradeAlc. - 20thTob. - 15thDrug - 23rd

Kids Index: Prenatal Care, Infant Mortality, Smoking WhilePregnant, Child Abuse, Teen Pregnancy

County level rankings generate interest in benchmarks.

Sample Regional Rankings# 3 Benton# 15 Lane# 23 Linn

Highest Tier Counties# 1 Wallowa# 2 Washington# 3 Benton# 4 Polk# 5 Clackamas# 6 Union

Not All State Priorities are Benchmarks

&

Not all Benchmarks are State Priorities

How does state government link to benchmarks?

Creating a Measurement System:A Linked Set of Indicators

Benchmark

AgencyWorkload Output

Societal

Concern

ExternalInfluences

Creating a Measurement System:A Linked Set of Indicators

High Level Outcome

(Benchmark)

AgencyWorkload Output

Societal

Concern

IntermediateOutcome

Joint Action

Measure Definitions

Outcome

High Level

Output

An event, occurrent or condition of importance to customers or the general public that is, at least partially, the result of a service or product provided.

A desired end, usually a measure of societal health or well being.

The physical quantity of an agency’s completed product or service, either by staff or contractors.

Intermediate Measures progress toward a desired end, but is not an end in itself.

How Agencies Relate

High Level Outcome

Intermediate Outcome

Output

Measures progress toward broad goals

Long-term perspective Affected by societal forces Beyond the scope of an individual

agency Indicates progress toward high level

outcome Short- or medium-term perspective Affected by societal forces Often beyond the scope of one

agency Indicates progress toward intermediate outcome

Short term perspective Measures agency performance Can be accomplished by a single

agency

Pre-K Expansion

Creating a Measurement System:A Linked Set of Pre-K Measures

Output % of family needs assessments completed

% of children coming to school "ready to learn"

High Level Outcome

Intermediate Outcome

% of eligible children who complete the

program

Degree of Control

Ultimate

Policy Intent

Activitie

s

Int. Out.

Outputs

Inputs

The Logic Model: A Frameworkfor Measuring Results.

High LevelOutcome

Percent of children in Wallowa County entering kindergarten ready to learn will increase.

According to the Oregon Progress Board, only 44% of Wallowa County children entered school ready-to-learn in 1997. Language and cognition

were the primary deficits.

CCF Funds: $17,299.00 Leveraged Resources: $153,860.00Personnel, office space, equipment, supplies, travel and postage

Monthly on-site storytimes, distribution of newsletters and circulation of children’s collections. This is s proven cost effective best practice for increasing language

skills.

An average of 30-35 childcare providers and Early Childhood Professionals will access services thru the Training Wheels Program

25 on-site story times conducted monthly in day cares, in-home preschools, Kindergartens, Head Start, Health Department, Early Intervention/Early Childhood, Special Education, local libraries, Safe Harbors and playgroups

315 newsletters distributed monthly to families with children in day care, preschools, Head Start, Safe Harbors, Kindergartens, Health Department, Mental Health Clinic, physicians and parents participating in parenting classes

90% of Training Wheel participants will be rated “ready” in language usage and cognition upon entering kindergarten.

Logic Model Worksheet, June 1999Program: Training Wheels

IdentifiedProblem/NeedInputs

Activities

Outputs

IntermediateOutcome

Healthy, Thriving Children Healthy, Readiness for School: Educational Success

High LevelOutcome

Wellness Goal

Implementation OptionsImplementation Options

Full Model Implementation in Next BienniumFull Model Implementation in Next Biennium• Unlikely given current budget realitiesUnlikely given current budget realities

Phased ImplementationPhased Implementation • Focus on reading in grades K-5 Focus on reading in grades K-5

Performance targetPerformance target - 90% of 3rd and 5th grade students will reach

reading benchmarks within 4 years

• Additional Professional Development to meet the Additional Professional Development to meet the reading target and begin high school restructuringreading target and begin high school restructuring

Some targets are high profile -Some targets are high profile -Quality Education CommissionQuality Education Commission

Measures must reflect goals and high level outcomes.

Agencies should report only key measures. Agencies must use common language. Agencies must develop performance targets. Data must be accurate and reliable. Measures should link to organizational units. Different types of measures should be included. Comparisons with others should be included.

Performance measure guidelines create a consistent framework.

Benchmarks provide the basis for agencies to develop shared strategies.

Shared Strategies Unified Vision

Meaningful Measures

Outcome-based Evaluations

Juvenile Crime Prevention

Academic Achievement

Family Environment

Peer Association

AbsenteeismHS graduationSchool mobilityDrop outTruancyDisciplinary problemsTest scores

Behavior Alcohol & Drug Use

RunawaysTraining school commitmentsArrestsVandalism

Alcohol useDrug useTobacco use

Child abuseSCF casesFoster care placementFamily management discipline conflict history support for conventional activity

Friends who:have beensuspendedcarry a gunsmokehave stolen a vehicledropped out of schooluse drugshave been arresteddrink alcohol

Juvenile Crime Prevention

Juvenile Arrests

88 Agency Performance Measures

Governor: Budget Instructions

Progress Board: Benchmark Blue Book

Legislature: Perf. Measure Data BaseWays & Means Committee

Aligning Agencies with Benchmarks

Benchmark Blue Book reveals opportunities for shared strategies.

In the 1999-01 budget, Oregon had:– 18 Benchmarks with 2 agencies involved– 19 Benchmarks with 3 agencies involved– 8 Benchmarks with 4 or more agencies involved:

adult high school equivalencywages>150% volunteerismpublic management qualityhealth insurance coverageadult skills trainingdisabled workersdisabled in poverty

Benchmarks are a key ingredient in an outcome-based assessment.

Shared Strategies Unified Vision

Meaningful Measures

Outcome-based Evaluations

Grading Success

How grades are determined.

4048 49 49 49 51

020406080

100STUDENT

SKILLS: % of 8th graders

meeting math

standard

Target

A

F

Benchmarks targets provide opportunities for evaluation.

Category Grade Economy C

Education C+Civic Engagement DSocial Support B-Public Safety B+Community

Development C-Environment C+OVERALL C+

Oregon's 2001 Performance Report

In Oregon’s largest city, Portland, auditors have conducted system-wide assessments focused on benchmark outcomes.

Beginning with the benchmark "percent of children entering school ready to learn," they are examining how effective the system is at affecting important societal outcomes.

Performance audits are key to successful evaluations.

They can also encourage course corrections by agencies.

20406080

100

90 91 92 93 94 95 95 00 10

% of babies whose moms received early prenatal care

Oregon Targets

Why did Oregon perform so poorly regarding prenatal care?

Goal was too ambitious

Most resources focused on lower-income women

No single agency with overall respon- sibility for achieving the Benchmark

What can we expect?U.S. appeared to be outpacing Oregon.

% of babies whose mothers received early prenatal care

70727476788082

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995Oregon United States

And some states were significantly higher than Oregon.

50

60

70

80

90

100

%of

bab

ies

whos

e m

othe

rs

rece

ived

early

pre

nata

l

RI Maine Mass. U.S. OregonTexas Nevada D.C.

1994 Data

Oregon's new target was aggressive, but realistic.

2030405060708090

100

90 91 92 93 94 95 00 10

% o

f Bab

ies

Who

se M

othe

rs

Rece

ived

Early

Pre

nata

l Car

e

Oregon Targets

reduced to 90%

How would the target be achieved?

More public outreach to all pregnant women

Ease access through systemic changes in managed care

Expansion of availability of care to lower income women

Oregon Health Division has lead staffing responsibility

What's happened since? Increased attention, but slow progress.

2030405060708090

100

90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 0 00 10

% o

f Bab

ies

Who

se M

othe

rs

Rec

eive

d Ea

rly

Pren

atal

Car

e

Oregon Targets Linear (Oregon )

Next step – Oregon Children’s Plan.

Universally available home visitations as part of a comprehensive package of services to new and expectant mothers.

What have we learned?

Involve the boss.

Strive for simple and clear. Link goals and measures. Start from where you are. Be inclusive. Be relentless. Be realistic. Be patient.

What's different today?

Technology has improved

Partnering demands new forms of accountability

We can learn from others

Unified Vision - A

Common Measures - B

Shared Strategies- C

Outcome-based Evaluation - D

How well is Oregon's system working?