Grading the States introduction THE GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE PROJECT Report Card: Idaho GOVERNOR Dirk Kempthorne (Republican, elected 1998) LEGISLATURE House — 61 Republicans, 9 Democrats Senate — 32 Republicans, 3 Democrats FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT: C+ Idaho takes care of its day-to-day financial affairs reasonably well. It has kept a good balance between revenues and expenditures, has been responsible in its use of tobacco money and has fully funded pensions. It presents its financial information in a way that taxpayers can readily understand. But the state is deficient when it comes to anticipating the future. Its rainy day fund is too small at 2.2 percent of general fund revenues; the governor wanted to hoist it to 5 percent last year, as other states have been doing in flush times, but the legislature refused. Spending estimates, particularly in the corrections field, are sometimes inaccurate (corrections was off 5.2 percent for the current period). More worrisome, the state produces no revenue or expenditure projections beyond the upcoming year, and has no formal fiscal-note process to estimate the future costs of legislative enactments. Providing this analysis is the responsibility of the legislator who introduces a bill; Idaho’s system is an open invitation to ignoring unpleasant details. CAPITAL MANAGEMENT: B- Last year’s legislature significantly altered the state’s capital program. Each agency must now prepare five-year facilities-needs plans, which will be submitted as part of their annual budget request. The Division of Public Works will prepare a statewide facilities-needs plan that incorporates the individual agency plans. The new plans will start with the fiscal year 2002 budget cycle, and in the beginning they’ll be sketchy, because there won’t be enough time to pull together detailed condition assessments. Idaho anticipates hiring private contractors to do more in-depth assessments of some of the larger facilities, once the process gets under way. The state doesn’t calculate deferred maintenance. It doesn’t appear to have any idea of the size of its maintenance backlog, beyond the sense that it’s big. But a new condition-assessment process should help. It will include calculation of the costs needed to bring assets up to good condition. The Division of Public Works will produce the original estimates and agencies will assume responsibility for updating the estimates at least every five years. The biggest strength here is in a solid effort by both agencies and the state to track capital projects. As a result, most efforts come in on schedule and on budget. HUMAN RESOURCES: B You’d have to go far to find a state that has improved more than Idaho in this field. A task force in 1997 found numerous problems with personnel systems, and unlike many task force reports, this one had dramatic impact. In July 1999, a new Division of Human Resources was created to take on most of the duties of the old personnel commission. The old body was “politically isolated and viewed as a regulatory body,” one official explains, where the new one is a “strategic partner” for state agencies. Idaho’s work-force planning and many of its HR programs are still in the early stages, but they are at least moving forward. Training has gotten good attention, with focus groups set up across government to make recommendations for improvement. Funds for training are up about 40 percent since 1998. A new emphasis has also been placed on recruitment. Written tests have been cut back, and managers are allowed to hire on the spot for hard-to-fill positions. The state has made strides in reforming its performance-appraisal system, with software that helps supervisors and employees focus on ongoing communications rather than once-a-year ratings. MANAGING FOR RESULTS: C- Individual agencies in Idaho have been responsible for developing goals and performance measures, with little input from the administration. The state is now working on an entity-wide plan in the hopes that it will provide some much-needed guidance for the agencies. “A centralized planning process doesn’t fit in with the political realities of this state,” says one official. As a result, Idaho forgoes some of the benefits of centralization, such as standardized information, evaluated and communicated in a consistent way. Agency-level planning has been useful in pockets, but hasn’t achieved many of the desired goals. Performance measurement in the state — also conducted on an agency-by-agency basis — is a mixed bag. Some agencies have extremely good data and good reporting systems. Others are just going through the motions. Ultimately, however, no one entity is empowered to sift through the measures and put together a report prioritizing the most important ones for the governor. So with a vast array of measures and a part-time legislature, insufficient attention is paid. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY: B Until recently, there was little if any serious effort toward coordinating IT efforts in Idaho. But that’s changing fast. Entity-wide information systems in human resources and capital management are being developed. Techniques are in place for ensuring that new acquisitions fit in well with the remainder of the state’s technology. Idaho has published its first IT strategic plan. And while it still retains a number of legacy systems, there are efforts to make certain they can communicate effectively with others. The state remains stymied by the peculiar placement of its financial management data center in the independently elected comptroller’s office. As a result of this separation of powers, there are painful disconnects between the financial management IT system and agencies that report to the governor. The state has put an infrastructure in place that will permit far more sharing of information across agencies. But the next step — use of common databases — is critical if agencies are to work together effectively. “I would still say that’s a challenge for us,” says one IT official. “The database management tools are a focus for us now.” 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.