• Summary of current service performance
  DPB had 63 filled positions in September 2000 to carryout its statutory responsibilities. Nine years later, the number has alarmingly dropped to 53, while statutory responsibilities have increased. Even with significantly fewer staff, DPB has been able to address the demands, but doing so in the future would be difficult, if not impossible, should the two trends continue. The follow list shows new responsibilities since 2000.
  
  2000
  § 2.2-1501, Chapter 424: Requires the Department to develop of performance management system involving strategic planning, performance measurement and performance budgeting.
  
  2001
  § 2.2-1501, Chapter 43: Requires the Department to submit annually before the second Tuesday in January to the money committee chairmen a report on agency strategic planning information and performance measurement results.
  
  § 2.2-2625, Chapter 844: Requires the Department to adjust an agency’s appropriation when all/a portion of their functions are privatized according to the recommendations of the Competition Council. The Department must also staff the Competition Council and ensure that all reporting requirements are met.
  
  2002
  § 2.2-1503.1, Chapters 480 and 486: Requires that the Governor submit to the General Assembly in each even-numbered year a six-year financial plan.
  
  § 2.2-1503.2, Chapters 839 and 888: Requires that the Governor submit to the General Assembly in each even-numbered year a six-year capital improvement plan.
  
  2003
  § 2.2-2686, Chapter 900: Requires the Department to staff the Council on Virginia’s Future, to establish long- term statewide objectives, and a scorecard to measure progress against those objectives.
  
  § 2.2-1501, Chapter 900: Requires the Department to establish a performance management system which includes a revised (three-year) strategic planning process for state agencies to articulate goals and objectives, identify program outputs and determine performance measures.
  
  § 2.2-1503, Chapter 612: Requires the Governor to include anticipated transportation fund revenues in the six-year nongeneral fund revenue projection.
  
  § 2.2-1503.3, Chapter 14: Requires the Governor to re-estimate general fund revenue based on Comptroller’s preliminary close if the close shows that actual general fund revenue is 1% or more below the original estimate.
  
  § 2.2-1508, Chapter 190: Requires the Department to cross-reference between budget items in the Budget Document and the Budget Bill and list performance standards and evaluations.
  
  § 2.2-1508, Chapter 888: Requires a listing in the Budget Document of schedules and descriptions of certain data processing projects and other projects with certain payment requirements.
  
  § 2.2-1509.2, Chapter 970: Requires the Governor to submit a plan for repayment within three years of money diverted from the Highway Maintenance and Operation Fund or the Transportation Trust Fund.
  
  2005
  § 23-9.2:3.03, Chapters 933 and 945: Requires the Department, in consultation with the Secretary of Finance, to prescribe a form and manner for the six-year plan for all public institutions of higher education.
  
  2006
  § 2.2-1502.1, Chapter 596: Requires the Department to initiate reviews of school divisions’ central operations (upon written request by a local school board or division superintendent).
  
  2007
  § 2.2-2530, Chapter 849: Requires the Department to provide technical assistance to the Virginia Commission on Immigration.
  
  §§ 2.2-4006 through 2.2-4015, Chapters 316,561,873, and 916: Requires the Department to managed the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website, to publish, as well as provide online public comment forums for all (non-exempt) regulatory stages. Requires the Department to complete its economic impact analysis (EIA) of a fast-track regulation within 30 days (reduced from 45 days). Requires the Department to include costs of developing real estate for commercial or residential purposes in its EIAs of proposed regulations. Requires the Department to provide a copy of an EIA to the Joint Commission on Administrative Rules (JCAR), as well as to each member of the General Assembly.
  
  § 30-58.4, Chapter 803: Requires the Department to provide technical assistance to Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission in their development of a pilot program to analyze and evaluate the accuracy of estimates submitted by state agencies.
  
  2008
  Chapters 321 and 575: Requires DPB, in consultation with the Office of the Attorney General, to develop model public participation guidelines and provide these guidelines to each agency that has the authority to promulgate regulations.
  
  § 2.2-1515 through 2.2-1520, Chapter 1 (Special Session I): Establishes the Six-Year Capital Outlay Plan Advisory Committee, stipulates DPB’s role in the new capital outlay process (serve on the Committee, transfer appropriations, approve contracts, approve supplemental cost allocations, approve construction contracts, transfer funds). Also establishes the Central Capital Planning Fund, the State Agency Capital Account, and the Public Educational Institution Capital Account; all to be administered by DPB. Included in Chapter 1 are emergency clauses that: require DPB to (1) transfer funds relating to a DCR park construction project, (2) fund acquisition projects approved by the GA money committees, (3) distribute funding to the Eastern Virginia Medical School for project planning, (4) supplement funding for any project listed in the act from NGF sources, (5) determine the amount of VCBA bonds to be issued, if any, to meet these projects needs’, and to report to the GA money committees any time bonds are issued, (6) allocate the $100 million in bonded authority to the capital projects listed in the act, and (7) fund the plans accepted by the SFC and HAC.
  
  2009
  Chapters 228 and 303: Requires DPB to work with DMAS to incorporate into the estimate of Medicaid expenditures any additional costs related to this act’s extension of Mental Retardation Medicaid Waiver (MR Waiver) and Individual and Family Developmental Disabilities and Support Medicaid Waiver (DD Waiver) slots.
  
  § 2.2-1156, Chapter 612: Amends the guidelines that DPB is required to develop regarding the deposit of proceeds from the sale or lease of state property.
  
  § 2.2-1508, Chapter 536: Requires DPB to include in the Executive Budget the total estimated amount appropriated for personnel costs for each agency.
• Summary of current productivity
  Even with a 16 percent reduction in filled positions since FY 2000, DPB employees have risen to the challenges of an ever-growing workload brought about by a significant number of new statutory responsibilities over the past decade. Through creative-thinking, development and use of efficient and effective technology, and sound in-house training, employees have worked diligently to deliver quality services and products, in spite of a most demanding workload.
  
  It is important to note that staff are extremely prideful of the work they do, most appreciative of the opportunity to play a role in Virginia's ranking as the "Best Managed State," and value the close interaction they have with Virginia's decision-makers. However, recent budget cuts have indeed damped the spirit of this workforce. With millions of dollars slashed from the Department's budget, opportunities for making noticeable contributions to enhance the Commonwealth have diminished.

• Summary of Major Initiatives and Related Progress
  DPB’s accomplishments:
  
  Developed a Bonds and Economic Stimulus Package. The package authorized $1.5 billion for 108 capital projects financed through the Virginia Public Building Authority and the Virginia College Building Authority.
  
  Developed a New Capital Outlay Planning Process. Bond package legislation also included significant improvements in the state’s capital outlay process including establishment of a renewable planning fund, a revamped planning process, and capital outlay review committee comprised of staff from the legislative and executive branches to make recommendations to legislative and executive branch leaders on which projects should be funded.
  
  Developed Productivity Measures. Productivity measures were developed for each agency representing the third component - along with agency key measures and administrative measures - of Virginia’s outcome-driven performance management system. Productivity measures strengthen the relationship between internal improvement investments and desired outcome and performance targets.
  
  Maintained the State’s AAA Bond Rating. Despite the most serious fiscal downturn since the Great Depression, and a biennial budget shortfall of more than $6 billion, Virginia has maintained its AAA bond rating.
  
  Participated in the Development of a Request for Proposal (RFP) and Evaluation of RFP Responses. Agency staff, along with subject matter experts from other state agencies, participated in the development of an RFP and the evaluation of responses to implement a new integrated performance budgeting system. Furthermore, DPB employees and staff from others state agencies are also participating in the project implementation, which will replace the variety of systems, databases, spreadsheets, and documents that currently support strategic planning and budgeting in the Commonwealth. The new performance budgeting system will be a web-based, integrated, and user-friendly system that supports existing strategic planning and budgeting functionality. It will also move the Commonwealth forward by providing additional integrated performance budgeting functionality. The project, which began in August 2009, will be completed in two phases. Phase 1, which includes budget development and budget execution, is scheduled to be completed by August 15, 2010. Phase 2, which includes strategic planning and agency spending plans, is scheduled to be completed by March 15, 2011.
  
  Implemented Plans to Address Revenue Shortfalls. Implemented plans to address each round of revenue reductions announced by the Governor over the last two biennium. Each round of revenue reductions required a variety of strategies to reduce spending and redirect resources to address the loss of revenue, while protecting core services as much as possible.
  
  Developed Two New Statewide Web Applications – CapSix and BETS. The CapSix application automated the Commonwealth’s capital budget development process. It is the tool by which state agencies request funding for capital projects, such as new construction and equipment maintenance. It also shows the status of statewide capital projects over a six-year period. The Budget Execution Transaction System (BETS) application, which was intended to replace the Commonwealth’s antiquated mainframe Form 27 Automated Transaction System (FATS), will become an intricate part of the new integrated performance budgeting system that presently is under development.
  
  Passed ARMICS Audit: DPB passed an independent firm's audit related to Agency Risk Management and Internal Control Standards (ARMICS) compliance matters. The ARMICS audit revealed no material weaknesses.
  
  Implemented School Efficiency Reviews. In FY 2008 and FY 2009, private consulting firms conducted reviews of six school divisions - Franklin County, Loudoun County, Norfolk City, Rappahannock County, Charlottesville City, and Hampton City. The total annual recommended savings for these six reviews was $14.8 million, bringing the total recommended savings for all conducted reviews to $34.2 million.
  
  Savings on Proposed Regulation to Upgrade Commonwealth Dams. DPB's recommendations on compliance costs for local governments and private property owners produced savings of $142 million, while still significantly reducing the likelihood of dam failures.
  
  Produced Several Public Safety Population and Admissions Forecasts. These forecasts aided public safety and DPB staffs with projecting accurate budgets for future capacity and public safety staffing needs. One of these forecasts, the State Responsible Inmate Population, serves as a performance measure for DPB. The measure strives to produce State Responsible Inmate Population forecasts within a plus or minus three-percent (monthly average) of the actual population over the first year of the forecast. The average monthly accuracy for FY 2008 and FY 2009 was 0.15 percent and 1.32 percent respectively, both well within the performance target.
• Summary of Virginia's Ranking
  Virginia has been named one of the best managed states in the nation by the Government Performance Project, sponsored by Governing magazine. Virginia’s financial strength is also indicated by its AAA bond rating. Virginia is one of only seven states to have been given this highest rating by all three national rating agencies. In addition, Virginia consistently ranks tops in the United States in categories that impact successful economic development. One award includes Forbes.com “Best State for Business” designation for four years in a row, 2006 through 2009. This award reviewed business cost, regulatory climate, quality of the workforce, and economic growth. Pollina Real Estate, Inc, a top U.S. corporate site relocation expert, ranked Virginia in 2009 as the top-rated business-friendly state in the nation. CNBC in 2009 designated Virginia as its “Top State for Business” based on factors that include cost of living, business friendliness, and access to capital.
• Summary of Customer Trends and Coverage
  Requirement: Section 2.2-5510.A.4 of the Code of Virginia requires each agency to develop and maintain a strategic plan that includes an analysis of how the aging population will impact its ability to deliver services.
  
  DPB's programs and services do not directly impact Virginia's aging population, and it does not provide services to senior citizens age 65 and older. The agency's Web sites are "senior-friendly" and follow accessibility standards.
  
  During the next two years, five employees will be eligible for retirement. To address these possible retirements, DPB will analyze its organizational structure to determine where existing resources can best fill the potential departures. Once this step is complete, DPB will determine if additional training is needed to help staff placed in new roles. This training could be provided externally through outside vendors, or it could be offered internally through a mentorship arrangement.

• Summary of Future Direction and Expectations
  DPB will continue to lead in the development and rollout of the Commonwealth’s enhanced integrated strategic planning and budget process. In terms of the overall financial health of the Commonwealth, DPB’s six-year financial plan indicates that maintaining necessary funding for the core service of state government will be increasingly challenging in the years ahead. DPB will experience increased pressure to remain vigilant in maintaining financial responsibility and a structural balance in the state’s budget.
• Summary of Potential Impediments to Achievement
  The fallout from the global recession continues to place unprecedented stress on staff and management as they strive to efficiently and effectively meet demands. Current staff levels simply cannot absorb additional responsibilities and still be expected to perform at elevated levels for extended periods. The daily work they perform is extremely complex and often has far-reaching, long-term consequences on many Virginians. Time and deep-thought are required to produce expected results, but these two fundamental needs are under siege by unrelenting recession pressures. It would appear that DPB is at the point where it can no longer do "more with less."
  
  To further complicate matters, additional general fund reductions appear eminent over the next few years. When combining present cuts with possible future cuts, hiring restrictions, and no funding for training, it will be difficult for DPB to attract new talent or retain creative staff when Virginia's economy turns for the better.

• Description of the Agency's Products and/or Services:
  § Budget bill
  § Budget document
  § Governor’s budget press package
  § Budget development and execution instructions for state agencies
  § Analysis of budget proposals and development of recommendations for the Governor
  § Year-end close and new-year start-up instructions for state agencies
  § Procedures for monitoring agency expenditures
  § Decision briefs for budget execution decisions
  § Instructions for agencies regarding development of legislative proposals
  § Recommendations to the Governor on agency legislative proposals
  § Fiscal impact statements on bills introduced in the General Assembly
  § Planning and performance measure instructions, handbook and training for state agencies
  § Tracking of agency performance measures
  § Economic impact statements and policy analyses on proposed regulations
  § Maintenance of the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website
  § Coordination of the rulemaking process across state agencies
  § Training on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website and state rulemaking process
  § Forecasts of major budget items such as Medicaid expenditures; prison, jail, and juvenile correctional center populations; TANF caseloads; FAMIS expenditures; and Supreme Court trial expenditures.
  § Analyses of federal budget proposals and actions that may affect Virginia
  § Executive Order assistance
  § Detailed assessments of programs and services to achieve a more efficient and cost-effective state government
  § School efficiency reports
  § Best management practices reports
  § Staff assistance to the Council on Virginia’s Future
  § Staff assistance to the Commonwealth Competition Council
  § Serve on legislative and executive task forces
  § Advisory assistance to various panels, committees and commissions
  § Presentations on fiscal and budgetary policy
  § Respond to Constituent Requests
• Factors Impacting Agency Products and/or Services:
  Three factors that could adversely impact the delivery of DPB products and services are: (1) the continuation of budget reductions, (2) declining staff numbers, and (3) unanticipated service cost increases levied by VITA\NG.
• Anticipated Changes in Products or Services:
  No changes are anticipated unless the above three factors come to fruition.

• Financial Overview:
  Over 78 percent of DPB's general fund budget supports personnel costs - salaries, wages, and fringe benefits. The remaining budget supports day-to-day operations. Included in this percentage is funding for rent, information technology needs, the School Efficiency Reviews Program, the Council on Virginia’s Future, insurances, training, office supplies, and other miscellaneous costs.
  
  DPB also has an additional $250,000 of nongeneral fund appropriation dedicated to the Commonwealth Competition Council in each year of the biennium. This appropriation, when backed by savings generated through the Council, would support both personal and nonpersonal service costs.
• Financial Breakdown:

  	FY 2011			FY 2012
  	General Fund	Nongeneral Fund		General Fund	Nongeneral Fund
  Base Budget	$8,330,623	$250,000		$8,330,623	$250,000
  Change To Base	-$1,030,774	$0		-$1,030,774	$0
  Agency Total	$7,299,849	$250,000		$7,299,849	$250,000

  This financial summary is computed from information entered in the service area plans.

• Overview
  DPB relies mostly on salaried, classified state employees for the delivery of services to its customers. The agency also employs wage employees to supplement classified staff during peak work periods and unexpected staff turnover. Generally, wage employees make up about 10 percent of DPB's staff.
• Human Resource Levels

  Effective Date	9/1/2009
  Total Authorized Position level	69
  Vacant Positions	-16
  Current Employment Level	53.0
  Non-Classified (Filled)	1
  Full-Time Classified (Filled)	52		breakout of Current Employment Level
  Part-Time Classified (Filled)	0
  Faculty (Filled)	0
  Wage	8
  Contract Employees	0
  Total Human Resource Level	61.0		= Current Employment Level + Wage and Contract Employees

• Factors Impacting HR
  There are two pressing human resource matters that DPB must address over the next biennium - the loss of funding for positions, and an aging workforce in key positions that either is, or soon will be, eligible for retirement.
• Anticipated HR Changes
  During the early part of the biennium, or prior to, DPB should develop a succession plan that will allow for a logical and systematic transfer of institutional knowledge to a new generation of associate directors. One potential approach for achieving this end would be the establishment of an internal career progression path in which mid-manager positions are created.

• Current Operational IT Investments:
  DPB is preparing for the release of the Enterprise Applications Division's new integrated performance budgeting system. It is anticipated that certain components of the new system will be available as early as August 2010. These components will replace both Web-based and Legacy systems in DPB. Once fully implemented, the new system will enhance operational efficiency by: (1) increasing productivity, (2) consolidating numerous fragmented systems (e.g., WebBears, FATS, CapSix, Virginia Performs, etc.), and (3) reducing error rates.
  
  DPB's Web-based Electronic Fiscal Impact Statement System was designed to simplify the tracking and development of Fiscal Impact Statements. These statements are issued on bills introduced during the General Assembly sessions. They describe the fiscal impact of proposed legislation and are intended to aid legislators and the Governor's Office in the decision-making process.
  
  The Town Hall Web application was the first of its kind in the nation. It provides Virginians the opportunity to participate in the regulatory rulemaking process. Regulations affect many aspects of our life, including speed limits, physician qualifications, pollution control requirements, and testing standards in our public schools. At the Town Hall Web site, Virginians can learn about regulations, submit online comments, and sign up to receive customized email notifications at no cost.
• Factors Impacting the Current IT:
  There are two key factors that could impact DPB's business environment in the 2010-2012 biennium. Both factors, VITA\NG transformation and implementation of the VITA Enterprise Applications Division's integrated performance budgeting system, carry significant unknowns into the new biennium.
  
  The VITA\NG transformation has not moved forward as scheduled, nor has the transformation progressed as smoothly as expected. Additionally, transformation changes proposed by VITA\NG would financially threaten DPB if fully implemented. For example, DPB's current Virtual Private Network solution that allows staff to conveniently telework after normal business hours would cost significantly more, the VITA\NG back-up system (EBARS) would be a new cost, and 500MB mailboxes for staff would be an added expense. These are just a few examples of unbudgeted expenses that the agency would have to absorb at a time when funding for such costs is not available.
  
  Although still in the development stage, the integrated performance budgeting system appears promising as a "cutting edge" system for the replacement of current Web and Legacy systems. However, it is unknown if this system would save money, be cost neutral, or be an added operational expense for DPB.
• Proposed IT Solutions:
  As mentioned under "Factors Impacting IT," the outcome from the Enterprise Applications Division's integrated performance budgeting system initiative and the VITA\NG information technology transformation effort would likely change the manner in which services are delivered and measured.
  
  The successful completion of the performance budgeting project would be the first systematic and consolidated overhaul of the budget process in Virginia since the early 1980s. It would combine under one system budget development, budget execution, capital, and performance measurement (Virginia Performs). The budget development and budget execution components should be activated in August 2010, while completion of other components, such as performance measurement, would likely carry deeper into the 2010-2012 biennium. If implemented as planned, the integrated performance budgeting initiative should increase efficiency across the state.
  
  The VITA\NG transformation of information technology is the single largest IT initiative in the Commonwealth. The outcome of this monumental effort will shape IT thinking for state government well beyond the 2010-2012 biennium. However, this technology "reshaping" could adversely impact DPB's business practices and processes due to a lack of funding to support the technology changes.
• Current IT Services:

  Estimated Ongoing Operations and Maintenance Costs for Existing IT Investments

  	Cost - Year 1		Cost - Year 2
  	General Fund	Non-general Fund	General Fund	Non-general Fund
  Projected Service Fees	$295,117	$0	$299,544	$0
  Changes (+/-) to VITA Infrastructure	$15,500	$0	$15,500	$0
  Estimated VITA Infrastructure	$310,617	$0	$315,044	$0
  Specialized Infrastructure	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Agency IT Staff	$276,732	$0	$276,732	$0
  Non-agency IT Staff	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Other Application Costs	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Agency IT Current Services	$587,349	$0	$591,776	$0

  Comments:
  Not included in the "Estimated VITA Infrastructure" are costs related to VPN access for teleworking purposes. The cost range for VPN access could vary significantly depending upon the solution required by VITA/NG. If forced to abandon teleworking because of the lack of funding, productivity would decline and staff morale would sharply drop as well.
• Proposed IT Investments

  Estimated Costs for Projects and New IT Investments

  	Cost - Year 1		Cost - Year 2
  	General Fund	Non-general Fund	General Fund	Non-general Fund
  Major IT Projects	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Non-major IT Projects	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Agency-level IT Projects	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Major Stand Alone IT Procurements	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Non-major Stand Alone IT Procurements	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Total Proposed IT Investments	$0	$0	$0	$0

• Projected Total IT Budget

  	Cost - Year 1		Cost - Year 2
  	General Fund	Non-general Fund	General Fund	Non-general Fund
  Current IT Services	$587,349	$0	$591,776	$0
  Proposed IT Investments	$0	$0	$0	$0
  Total	$587,349	$0	$591,776	$0

• Current State of Capital Investments:
  Not applicable.
• Factors Impacting Capital Investments:
  Not applicable.
• Capital Investments Alignment:
  Not applicable.

Accomplishment of this goal will protect the state’s fiscal reputation and its AAA bond rating as well as maintain the Commonwealth’s standing as the best-managed state in the nation.

• Be recognized as the best-managed state in the nation.

Accomplishment of this goal will protect the state’s fiscal reputation and its AAA bond rating as well as maintain the Commonwealth’s standing as the best-managed state in the nation.

• Be recognized as the best-managed state in the nation.

• We will maintain a high level of satisfaction from the Governor’s Policy Office and the Cabinet regarding information and analysis provided to them by DPB.
  Objective Strategies

  • Keep Cabinet officials informed on upcoming changes and issues.
  • Facilitate the development and improvement of agency performance measures reported in Virginia Performs, ensuring appropriate linkage to the budget.
  • Conduct a survey of the Governor’s Office and Cabinet to assess their rating of the timeliness and quality of DPB’s analysis with respect to budget issues, proposed legislation, economic forecasting, regulatory review and evaluation.
  • Analyze survey feedback and communicate results to DPB staff. Develop and implement improvements to address less-than-satisfactory ratings.

  Link to State Strategy

  • nothing linked

  Objective Measures

  • Average rating of survey respondents’ satisfaction with the timeliness and quality of DPB’s analyses.
    Measure Class:

    Agency Key

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Target Value:

    4.5

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: Average rating of 4.5 or more (Good to excellent on a scale of 1 to 5) by June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: Annual survey of the Governor, Governor’s policy staff, and the Governor’s Cabinet. Calculation: Sum of ratings divided by the number of ratings.

Accomplishment of this goal will protect the state’s fiscal reputation and its AAA bond rating as well as maintain the Commonwealth’s standing as the best-managed state in the nation.

• Be recognized as the best-managed state in the nation.

Accomplishment of this goal will protect the state’s fiscal reputation and its AAA bond rating as well as maintain the Commonwealth’s standing as the best-managed state in the nation.

• Be recognized as the best-managed state in the nation.

This goal ensures compliance with federal and state regulations, polices and procedures for Commonwealth preparedness, as well as guidelines promulgated by the Assistant to the Governor for Commonwealth Preparedness, in collaboration with the Governor’s Cabinet, the Commonwealth Preparedness Working Group, the Department of Planning and Budget and the Council on Virginia’s Future. This goal supports achievement of the Commonwealth’s statewide goal of protecting the public's safety and security, ensuring a fair and effective system of justice and providing a prepared response to emergencies and disasters of all kinds.

• Protect the public’s safety and security, ensuring a fair and effective system of justice and providing a prepared response to emergencies and disasters of all kinds.

• We will be prepared to act in the interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth and its infrastructure during emergency situations by actively planning and training both as an agency and as individuals.
  Objective Strategies

  • The agency Emergency Coordination Officer will stay in continuous communication with the Office of Commonwealth Preparedness and the Virginia Department of Emergency Management.

  Link to State Strategy

  • nothing linked

  Objective Measures

  • Agency Preparedness Assessment Score
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Baseline Value:

    Date:

    Measure Baseline Description: 2008 Agency Preparedness Assessment Results (% out of 100)

    Measure Target Value:

    .75

    Date:

    8/1/2010

    Measure Target Description: The Department's assessment results for FY 2009.

    Data Source and Calculation: The Agency Preparedness Assessment is an all-hazards assessment tool that measures agencies’ compliance with requirements and best practices. The assessment has components including Physical Security, Continuity of Operations, Information Security, Vital Records, Fire Safety, Human Resources, Risk Management and Internal Controls, and the National Incident Management System (for Virginia Emergency Response Team – VERT – agencies only).

• Factors Impacting the Products and/or Services:
  Decreasing General Fund appropriation could adversely impact DPB's ability to deliver products and/or services.
• Anticipated Changes to the Products and/or Services
  Assuming no further reductions in General Fund appropriation, there are no anticipated changes at this time.
• Listing of Products and/or Services
  • Budget bill
  • Budget document
  • Governor’s budget press package
  • Budget development and execution instructions for state agencies
  • Analysis of budget proposals and development of recommendations for the Governor
  • Year-end close & new-year start-up instructions for state agencies
  • Analyses of budget to expenditures
  • Decision briefs for budget execution decisions
  • Planning and performance measure instructions, handbook and training for state agencies
  • Tracking of agency performance measures
  • Analyses of federal budget proposals and actions that may affect Virginia
  • Serve on legislative and executive task forces
  • Advisory assistance to various panels, committees, and commissions
  • Presentations on fiscal and budgetary policy

• We will develop a financially sound budget in which proposed recurring spending can be maintained by recurring revenue over time.
  Objective Description
  Achievement of this objective assures fiscal integrity in the Commonwealth’s budget by avoiding the use of short-term or “one-time” monies for ongoing or long-term commitments.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  Objective Strategies
  • Submit a budget to the General Assembly that manages the available general fund resources resulting from one-time revenues and savings actions.
  • Submit a budget to the General Assembly that has clear performance measures for budget actions involving new initiatives.
  • Continue development of a new performance budgeting system for the Commonwealth.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Ratio of recurring general fund revenue to recurring general fund spending
    Measure Class:

    Agency Key

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Frequency Comment: Data are from the introduced budget bill

    Measure Target Value:

    1

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: Equal to or greater than one through June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: The introduced budget bill is the analysis source for calculating this measure. Calculation: Recurring general fund revenue divided by recurring general fund spending. A result of greater than 1.00 is preferable.

  • Percent of new budget initiatives in the introduced budget bill with specified performance measures or outcomes.
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Frequency Comment: Data are from the introduced budget bill

    Measure Target Value:

    100

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 100 percent as of June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: The introduced budget bill is the analysis source for calculating this measure.

• Ensure accurate actions in executing the state budget.
  Objective Description
  A focus on accuracy ensures that DPB’s work is reliable and efficient. In addition, accuracy ensures that monies allocated to agencies are available when needed to service their customers.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  • Agency Goal: Continue to strengthen communication and relationships with customers.
  Objective Strategies
  • Educate DPB analysts on appropriateness of changes to special fund operating appropriations.
  • Supplement the DPB operations manual with additional explanatory information on how to address special fund operating appropriations.
  • Provide additional training to DPB analysts on budget execution and on the FATS manual and guidelines for processing FATS transactions.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Administratively approved special fund and dedicated special fund operating appropriations as a percentage of the total special fund and dedicated special fund operating appropriations in the Appropriation Act each year
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Down

    Frequency Comment: Percentage figure is for each fiscal year.

    Measure Target Value:

    5

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 5 percent or less as of June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: Source: Probud; Calculation: Amounts appropriated by FATS transactions for special funds and dedicated special funds during a fiscal year divided by special fund/dedicated special fund appropriations in the Appropriation Act for that year. A lower percentage figure is preferable.

• Conduct timely and comprehensive analyses of the federal budget.
  Objective Description
  Changes in the federal budget can have direct impacts on the Commonwealth’s budget. Thus, timely and comprehensive analyses of federal budget changes helps to ensure that agencies are aware of both positive and negative changes in the availability of federal funds (e.g., availability of grant monies for current or proposed agency programs; reduction in funding for specified programs).
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Continue to strengthen communication and relationships with customers.
  Objective Strategies
  • Maintain ongoing communications with the Liaison Office.
  • Review NASBO information on federal funds.
  • Conduct a survey of the Governor’s Office, Cabinet and Liaison Office to assess their rating of the timeliness and comprehensiveness of DPB’s analyses of the federal budget.
  • Assign resources for analyses.
  • Monitor the federal budget.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Average rating of survey respondents’ satisfaction with respect to timeliness and comprehensiveness of DPB’s federal budget analyses.
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Target Value:

    4.5

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 4.5 (Good to excellent on a scale of 1 to 5) as of June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: Annual survey of the Governor, Liaison Office and Cabinet. Calculation: Sum of ratings divided by the number of ratings.

• Factors Impacting the Products and/or Services:
  Decreasing General Fund appropriation could adversely impact DPB's ability to deliver products and/or services.
• Anticipated Changes to the Products and/or Services
  Assuming no further reductions in General Fund appropriation, there are no anticipated changes at this time.
• Listing of Products and/or Services
  • Instructions for agencies regarding development of legislative proposals
  • Recommendations to the Governor on agency legislative proposals
  • Fiscal impact statements on bills introduced in the General Assembly

• Provide accurate, timely analysis of the fiscal and related impacts of legislation.
  Objective Description
  DPB provides the General Assembly and Governor with analyses of how constituents and the Commonwealth’s budget, policies and service levels may be impacted by legislation.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  • Agency Goal: Continue to strengthen communication and relationships with customers.
  Objective Strategies
  • Triage bills as they are introduced to determine which have fiscal impacts and need fiscal analysis, giving high priority to bills that go to money committees.
  • Do formal, fiscal impact analyses on all enrolled bills.
  • Review all legislation being submitted at the request of the Governor for fiscal, policy and regulatory impacts.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Average satisfaction rating of the Governor’s policy staff with the quality and timeliness of the impact analyses
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Target Value:

    4.5

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 4.5 (Good to excellent on a scale of 1 to 5) as of June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: Annual survey of the Governor’s policy staff; Calculation: Sum of ratings divided by the number of ratings.

  • Percentage of all versions of bills assigned to DPB (excluding those marked “no review”) for which fiscal impact statements were issued
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Output

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Baseline Value:

    .685

    Date:

    Measure Baseline Description: .685 (Results from the 2007 General Assembly Session)

    Measure Target Value:

    0.70

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description:

    Data Source and Calculation: 1. Copy the “Main.mdb” Access table from EFIS into Excel. Sort on only the bills assigned to DPB. 2. Sort the DPB bills into four categories: No Review, Superseded, Dead, and Competed. 3. Divide the number of bills with fiscal impact statements issued by the number of bills (minus No Reviews) assigned to DPB.

• Factors Impacting the Products and/or Services:
  Decreasing General Fund appropriation could adversely impact DPB's ability to deliver products and/or services.
• Anticipated Changes to the Products and/or Services
  Assuming no further reductions in General Fund appropriation, there are no anticipated changes at this time.
• Listing of Products and/or Services
  • Economic impact statements and policy analyses on proposed regulations
  • Maintenance of the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website
  • Coordination of the rulemaking process across state agencies
  • Training on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website and state rulemaking process
  • Forecasts of major budget items such as Medicaid expenditures; prison, jail, and juvenile correctional center populations; TANF caseloads; FAMIS expenditures; and Supreme Court trial expenditures.

• Provide timely analysis of the economic impact of proposed regulations, with the objective of designing regulations in the most efficient, effective, and least intrusive manner.
  Objective Description
  Section 2.2-4007.04 of the Code requires that DPB prepare an economic impact analysis (EIA) for all non-exempt proposed regulations within 45 days of receipt. An EIA typically clearly and concisely describes the expected economic impact of a regulatory proposal on Virginians. An EIA may produce significant value added for (1) the Governor when deciding whether or not to approve proposed regulations, (2) legislators in learning about the benefits and costs of regulations, and (3) the regulated community and other members of the public who may be directly or indirectly affected by the proposed regulations. An EIA is a public document and may be viewed on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  Objective Strategies
  • Provide economic impact analysis reports that correctly indicate economic costs and benefits of proposed regulatory change, using, where feasible, existing reference and high-quality research.
  • Provide review within the statutory deadlines that adds positively to public discourse.
  • Verify and improve the design of proposed (stage) regulations to maximize economic benefits and minimize economic costs.
  • Make implementable recommendations that result in design improvements and that advance the Governor’s public policy goals.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • The percentage of economic impact analyses that are completed within 45 calendar days from receipt of proposed (stage) regulation.
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Target Value:

    90

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 90 percent or more completed within the 45 calendar day standard as of June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: Deadlines for the completion of economic impact analyses are statutory and are explicitly stated on the Virginia Regulatory Town Hall website. Also explicitly stated is the date that any given regulatory action is completed and uploaded onto the website. A comparison of these two dates will indicate whether the regulatory review was completed on or before the stated deadline.

• Develop timely and accurate forecasts for major state programs for planning and budgeting purposes.
  Objective Description
  The Department produces annual forecasts for the following significant state programs, which are provided to decision makers as key input for each year’s budget decisions as well as for longer range policy and planning for key budget drivers: Medicaid Expenditures (DPB has statutory authority for this forecast.); Public Safety Admissions and Inmate Population forecasts for state prisons, local jails, state juvenile correctional facilities, and detention homes; Criminal Fund forecast.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  Objective Strategies
  • Maintain expertise on relevant forecasting techniques and models to maintain quality.
  • Manage forecast production to optimize usefulness to decision makers.
  • Assure forecast results are communicated effectively.
  • Perform other economic analyses and projections, upon request.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Accuracy of the official forecast for total Medicaid expenditures.
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Down

    Measure Target Value:

    3

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 3 percent (Actual Medicaid expenditures will fall within +/-3% of the prior fiscal year’s official forecast of Medicaid expenditures.)

    Data Source and Calculation: For this forecast, the division will calculate the percentage difference between the forecasted value and actual value.

  • Accuracy of DPB’s forecast for total state responsible inmate population.
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Down

    Measure Baseline Value:

    .0022

    Date:

    Measure Baseline Description: .0022 (FY 2007)

    Measure Target Value:

    0.03

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 3 percent (Actual state responsible inmate population will fall within +/-3% of the prior fiscal year’s forecast of state responsible inmate population.)

    Data Source and Calculation: For this forecast, the division will calculate the average monthly percentage difference between the forecasted value and actual value. Please see the below explanation note.

• Factors Impacting the Products and/or Services:
  Decreasing General Fund appropriation could adversely impact DPB's ability to deliver products and/or services.
• Anticipated Changes to the Products and/or Services
  Assuming no further reductions in General Fund appropriation, there are no anticipated changes at this time.
• Listing of Products and/or Services
  • Detailed assessments of programs and services to achieve a more efficient and cost-effective state government
  • School efficiency reports
  • Best management practices reports
  • Staff assistance to the Council on Virginia's Future
  • Staff assistance to the Commonwealth Competition Council

• Facilitate improvement of the efficiency and effectiveness of executive branch agency operations.
  Objective Description
  Best management practices conducts studies to identify opportunities to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of programs under review.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  • Agency Goal: Provide objective, accurate, and timely information with respect to planning and evaluation of fiscal, legislative and regulatory activities, in order to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of state government.
  Objective Strategies
  • Set up a methodology to monitor project timeliness and acceptance of recommendations.
  • Conduct objective evaluations of specified programs and processes.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Percent of evaluation study recommendations accepted
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Target Value:

    97

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: Acceptance of 97 percent of recommendations by the end of the 12 month period following submission of the school review report.

    Data Source and Calculation: A written inquiry of status will be used to calculate the data. The calculation will reflect a rolling average of the most recent three studies.

• Facilitate ways for local school divisions to save money in non-instructional areas.
  Objective Description
  Conduct studies to identify possible areas of savings in local school divisions using established school efficiency assessment protocols.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Provide the highest quality financial management for the Commonwealth to protect its fiscal integrity.
  • Agency Goal: Continue to strengthen communication and relationships with customers.
  Objective Strategies
  • Solicit volunteer school divisions for upcoming fiscal years.
  • Identify funds to be used to contract for studies.
  • Conduct objective evaluations of non-instructional areas within specified schools.
  • Manage contracting and performance of private firms.
  • Capture and report savings.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Percent of school efficiency recommendations implemented
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Target Value:

    95

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: 95 percent as of June 30, 2010

    Data Source and Calculation: Supervisors are queried in follow-ups to studies to determine the extent of implementation. Recommendations that are fully implemented, partially implemented, implemented by substitute, or on track for implementation are included as positives in this calculation. Recommendations that are reported as “considered and rejected” are not.

• Factors Impacting the Products and/or Services:
  Decreasing General Fund appropriation could adversely impact DPB's ability to deliver products and/or services.
• Anticipated Changes to the Products and/or Services
  Assuming no further reductions in General Fund appropriation, there are no anticipated changes at this time.
• Listing of Products and/or Services
  • Employee relations services for agency staff members
  • Fiscal services for the agency
  • Facilities management services for the agency

• Ensure that resources are used efficiently and programs are managed effectively, and in a manner consistent with applicable state and federal requirements.
  Objective Description
  This objective, which is shared by all of Virginia’s state agencies, ensures that sound management practices are exercised in the Commonwealth.
  Alignment to Agency Goals
  • Agency Goal: Attract and retain highly qualified and energetic individuals to carry out the mission of the agency.
  • Agency Goal: Strengthen the culture of preparedness across state agencies, their employees and customers.
  Objective Strategies
  • On a quarterly basis, review, compile, and report data so that corrective action can be taken (if necessary) to ensure that the performance target is met or exceeded.
  Link to State Strategy
  • nothing linked
  Objective Measures
  • Compares actions and transactions handled by DPB divided by the agency budget.
    Measure Class:

    Productivity

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Down

    Measure Baseline Value:

    0

    Date:

    1/1/2008

    Measure Baseline Description: To be determined.

    Measure Target Value:

    0

    Date:

    1/1/2009

    Measure Target Description: Data are unavailable at this time.

    Data Source and Calculation: Specific transactions to be measured: Fiscal Impact Statements (FIS); Form 27 Automated Transaction System (selected types); Budget Requests (No Base Adjustments); Code 3s and 5s; Economic Impact Statements (Regulations); Regulatory Actions Reviewed; Decision Briefs for the Governor; Forecast Revision Iterations; Number of School Review Studies; Number of Evaluation Studies; Capital form CO2s Processed

  • Percent of administrative measures marked "meets expectations" (green indicator) for the agency
    Measure Class:

    Other

    Measure Type:

    Outcome

    Measure Frequency:

    Annual

    Preferred Trend:

    Up

    Measure Baseline Value:

    Date:

    Measure Baseline Description: The FY 2009 score of the agency. Note: Data for this measure was not available at the time of submission.

    Measure Target Value:

    .90

    Date:

    6/30/2010

    Measure Target Description: The agency's target is to reach or exceed 90 percent eacy year.

    Data Source and Calculation: Data Source: There are currently 13 administrative measures organized into five categories. Each measure has a different data source. Agencies should refer to the administrative measures data source information table to locate the data source for each measure. The table is located in the Virginia Performs/Agency Planning and Performance/Administrative Measures. Calculations: Agencies select the appropriate colored indicator (green, yellow, red) indicator for each measure, depending on results. A gray indicator is used for measures where data is unavailable. The agency administration measure is the percent of administrative measure that have a green indicator (meets expectations). Exclude items with a gray indicator from the calculation.