Grading the States introduction THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT Report Card: Georgia GOVERNOR Roy Barnes (Democrat, elected 1998) LEGISLATURE House — 104 Democrats, 74 Republicans, 1 independent Senate — 32 Democrats, 24 Republicans FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: B- Basic financial management here is reasonably good, with ample reserves, responsible use of surpluses and a triple-A bond rating from all three rating agencies. In years past, the quality of the state’s financial report has been a consistent problem, and it is still a weak spot — the annual report doesn’t come out until about eight months after the close of the fiscal year. A new IT system for financial management should help out in this area by bringing more uniformity to the way different agencies maintain their financial records. Georgia’s procurement practices have improved dramatically, with managers being trained in the techniques of assessing vendor performance. Unfortunately, the state has a hard time holding on to its procurement staff. “It sometimes feels like we’re the training ground for other departments as well as the private sector,” says Winston McColl, state procurement administrator. Agencies are somewhat hog-tied in their ability to move funds between expense categories, such as travel and contracts, without approval from the legislature. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: B- In 1999, at the governor’s urging, the legislature created the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority in response to Atlanta’s traffic congestion and inability to meet federal air-quality standards. The superagency has the power to rule on future road-building and land use decisions for the entire Atlanta metropolitan area, and can authorize up to $2 billion in bonds for transportation projects. Although the governor is set on moving forward, progress on the region’s road projects has been stalled by environmental groups concerned about the impact of road building. Historically reluctant to do any statewide planning on the capital front, Georgia took a major step in this direction during the past two years. Individual agencies have traditionally drawn up long-term plans and developed annual capital requests, but now the state Office of Planning and Budget is compiling the documents into a five-year set of statewide priorities. The big problem here is maintenance. The Department of Transportation lacks a plan to fund major renovations and doesn’t calculate its deferred maintenance. This lack of information leaves the state clearly underfunded but without much idea of how big the gap might be. A statewide inventory system is being phased in, which should help maintenance planning. HUMAN RESOURCES: B- Five years ago, Georgia plunged into a massive personnel reform. The most dramatic change was a phase-out of civil service. Fewer than half the state’s employees are now covered by traditional civil service protection. The results of this venture are just coming in, and they are largely good. Agencies are hiring faster, low performers are being terminated more quickly than in the past, and promotions and pay increases are more clearly linked to performance. On the negative side, employees appear to lack confidence in the fairness of the new performance-pay system, known as Georgia Gain. The state is starting to rework the system. At the same time as Georgia began this reform, it decentralized personnel functions, giving crucial decision-making power to the line agencies. As central HR staffers are freed from more mundane activities, they can work on larger issues such as work-force planning. One problem, however: The number of job titles has grown to more than 3,600, as agencies create their own unique classifications. Meanwhile, with or without reforms, employees are upset that the previous administration’s promise to raise pay didn’t materialize — the salary structure is 20 percent below market rates. And the use of temporary workers — who can be brought in at higher salary levels than full-timers — has mushroomed over the past decade from about 8,000 to more than 18,000 now. MANAGING FOR RESULTS: B- Georgia officials are true believers in outcome-based measurements. All state executive agencies have identified programs, long-term goals and desired results. The FY 2001 budget showed baseline data for FY 1998, desired and actual results for FY 1999, and desired results for 2000 and 2001. But although the format is enviable, the data itself has a long way to go. As things stand, the state concedes that there is still “a dearth of valid, reliable and current outcome data.” Partially as a result, the legislature hasn’t made much use of this data for budgeting. But the agencies are finding the process increasingly useful, and Governor Barnes is a big supporter. “He loves it, he just loves it,” reports one observer. And the executive branch has clear ideas of how to use the information: Agencies with poor performance will be required to address their problems. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: C+ Georgia is going for centralized information control in a big way. The state has had a CIO for several years, but until recently, this job had little power over the agencies. Now, as head of what is being called the Georgia Technology Authority, the CIO has genuine control over all IT planning, strategy and procurement. More emphasis is being placed on strategic planning and the development of a combined portal through which agencies and citizens can conduct their online business. But there’s a great deal remaining to be done. Perhaps the biggest problem is a lack of formal standards, and creating them is one of GTA’s priorities. Right now, according to one official, “Georgia has gross inefficiencies in several areas due to nonstandard systems.... The total cost of ownership increases each time an individual agency sets out on a new initiative in absence of standards.” Two other projects for GTA to tackle: streamlining procurement and developing a better means for making sure that IT projects justify their costs. AVERAGE GRADE: B- Copyright © 2001, Congressional Quarterly, Inc. Reproduction in any form without the written permission of the publisher is prohibited. Governing, City & State and Governing.com are trademarks of Congressional Quarterly, Inc.