Performance-based Budgeting Framework for
the Alamo Community Colleges
DRAFT UPDATED 11/9/07
Prepared by
Dr. Carlos Ayala,
Student Outcomes Assessment and Research (SOAR) Department,
in collaboration with
Gladys Jacobson,
District Budget Office
November 2007
DRAFT
Performance-based Budgeting Framework
for the Alamo Community Colleges
“Measuring cost is an integral part of measuring performance”
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board
Introduction
The Alamo Community Colleges Board of Trustees and Chancellor have recommended the
adoption of performance-based budgeting for enhancing financial management, effectiveness,
and accountability at the Alamo Community Colleges. This initiative seeks a budget and
performance integration and the alignment of college/division budgets with the District’s
strategic plan.
This document provides the concept, benefits, requirements, and challenges behind
performance-based budgeting. An implementation timeframe is included.
The content of this document is based on the white paper entitled “Performance Budgeting for
Federal Agencies - A Framework” by John Mercer (Appendix).
Performance Budget
A performance budget is an integrated annual performance plan and annual budget that
shows the relationship between program funding levels and expected results. It indicates that
a goal or a set of goals should be achieved at a given level of spending.
Performance budgets require an understanding of what the end product (i.e., outcomes) will
be in order to give a cause-effect indication of how funding will turn into positive results. This
is accomplished by showing for each program (budgetary unit) how dollars will fund activities,
how these activities will generate certain expected outputs, and what specific outcomes
should be the result.
$$$  Activity 
Output  Outcome
While an object class (functional category) budget shows what each dollar will be spent on
(e.g., salaries, benefits, office supplies, travel, utilities, equipment, etc.), a performance
budget shows what each dollar will accomplish (e.g., recruit a number of students, increase
persistence by certain level, process a grant application, inspect a facility, review a
compliance activity, etc.). Programs should be able to show their budgets in both formats
with matching totals.
As variances between plans and actual implementation occur, managers examine the
resource inputs and how they relate to outcomes to determine program effectiveness
and efficiency.
Performance budgeting implementation will help managers/directors at all ACCD levels
enhance their financial management practices, improve dollar spending efficiency and
effectiveness in their academic and administrative units, and achieve the strategic plan goals
of the Alamo Community Colleges.
1
Goals-to-Budget Transition
Chart 1 depicts the transition from strategic planning to performance budget at the Alamo
Community Colleges. The colleges and divisions (e.g., District offices) are responsible for
formulating strategies that are aligned with the District’s goals and strategies, as well as for
supporting the four strategic drivers (recruitment, retention, completion, and clusters). In
addition, they are expected to collaborate with District in preparing performance management
balanced scorecards under five perspectives (financial, employee learning and development,
internal processes, student and customer, and community), and to follow the Baldrige
Education Criteria for Performance Excellence.
After strategies, action plans, and tasks are planned, implemented, evaluated, and
controlled/corrected, funding is distributed to program activities based on the outputs and
outcomes expected in the next period.
Program activities constitute the bridge between goals and budgeted funds through several
steps:
1. Every activity conducted by staff is defined within a program.
2. Each activity is measured in units.
3. Every full-time equivalent is converted to the appropriate number of work hours (e.g.,
2,080 hours per year) and is linked to a specific activity.
4. Every dollar of operating cost is charged against a specific activity.
5. Every activity is linked to a single output measure (or small set of output measures) in
the hierarchy of goals and measures.
Units with high performance effectiveness demonstrate a strong linkage between resources
consumed and program outcomes achieved, and can objectively and transparently justify
their requests for continued or increased funding.
Budget and Performance Integration
Several requirements need to be satisfied in order to integrate performance planning and
budget decisions:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Performance targets are compatible with funding levels.
Planning officials at all levels set out targets to match funding levels for programs.
Program managers are held directly accountable for managing to the targets.
Reforms in policies and processes (e.g., changing the way support services, capital
assets, and employee benefits are budgeted) lead to more accurate information on
program costs.
The development of a performance budget is a simultaneous top-down and bottom-up
process. Planning officials must articulate program goals and objectives and outline the levels
of resources anticipated to support them. These officials should identify outcome measures to
determine whether goals are met and resources spent effectively. However, the goals,
objectives, resource levels, and outcome measures must be developed with and validated by
subordinate managers and staff. This applies a level of realism to the annual performance
plan. In addition, by working closely across organizational lines, planners and policy officials
may be assured that managers at all levels not only understand the integration between an
annual performance plan and a performance budget, but also are committed to its success.
2
Five criteria for favorably rating a system that integrates budget and performance:





Planning/evaluation and budget staff work with program managers to create an
integrated plan/budget and to monitor and evaluate its implementation.
A streamlined, clear, integrated plan/budget sets forth outcome goals, output targets,
and resources requested in context of past results.
Budget accounts, staff, and, specifically, program/activities are aligned to support
achieving program targets.
Full budgetary cost is charged to accounts and activities. Cost of outputs and programs
is integrated with performance in budget requests and execution.
Organization documents program effectiveness. Analyses show how program outputs
and policies affect desired outcomes. Organization systematically applies performance
to budget and can demonstrate how program results inform budget decisions.
Table 1 presents various criteria for assessing budget and performance integration.
Performance Budget Implementation Challenges
Implementing a performance-based budgeting system that effectively integrates budget and
performance information takes leadership, discipline, and time. The following challenges need
to be addressed proactively by the Alamo Community Colleges for the first year of
performance budget implementation.
1. Defining activities for each program. The definition of each ACCD operational activity in
either broad or narrow terms will depend on the level of detail that is meaningful for
managerial and accountability purposes. With a new ACCD performance budget system
that links program activities to goals, ACCD managers will need to combine, divide, or
redefine some activities. ACCD budget managers will need to clearly define performance
measures and integrate them into budget submissions and the management of
operations.
2. Identifying the cost of each activity. A performance budget defines all direct and
indirect activities required to support a program, and it estimates all activity costs. By
tracking the cost and number of units for each activity, output, and outcome, unit cost
information can be generated. However, identifying activity costs is complex and time
consuming. In addition, standardizing activity costs across units is a challenge and, in
many cases, unachievable. ACCD managers will need to use cost accounting to provide
reliable and timely information on the full cost of programs, their activities, and
outputs. The move to implementation of performance-based budgeting will require
cost accounting information and training at the program level.
3. Mapping budget justification to an annual performance plan. Every ACCD manager will
need to integrate an annual performance plan with the budget justification. This
requires careful planning to ensure that performance information is not lost in the
larger budgeting process. A system cross-referencing information from performance
budgets, other budget documents, and program activity performance will be
necessary.
4. Changing budget structures. Performance budgeting will require a change in the ACCD
budget account structure to facilitate program activity identification and linkages to
strategic plans and annual plan goals/objectives. Use of the existing six-digit activity
code field in Banner Financial to record budget transactions linked to program
activities, strategies, goals, and drivers is a first step.
3
5. Encountering resistance. Performance budgeting involves monitoring activity
outcomes, managing the budget for results, and the participation of more than the
ACCD budget and strategic planning offices. In addition, program managers generally
are disinclined to adopt new managing systems and establish new performance
agreements. These factors may provoke resistance. To eliminate it, ACCD program
managers must learn the benefits of using performance budgets, receive the
appropriate training in cost accounting (activity-based costing), and get the necessary
support from their committed leaders.
6. Upgrading systems. IT and financial management systems will need to be coordinated
and upgraded, as appropriate, to support performance management at the ACCD.
Setting goals for program outputs, unit costs, and outcomes in the performance
budget amounts to only part of the solution. Providing ACCD managers with a steady
stream of timely, accurate, and useful program performance data throughout the year
will be critically important.
Other challenges deal with how to reach funding level agreements for specific targets, how to
measure intangibles or hard-to-measure outputs/performance, and adopting TracDat and SPM as
supporting tools. Despite the challenges, performance budgeting is achievable. ACCD managers
will need to develop an understanding of performance budgeting, develop a plan, and get started.
These initial efforts will be improved every year. As managers use performance budgets and the
supporting information systems to steer their programs, they will demand better and more timely
performance data, which will drive further improvements in performance budgeting and
institutional effectiveness.
4
Proposed Activities for Performance Budgeting Development
Pilot Months
● The District Budget Office designates the six-digit activity code field
in Banner Financial to record budget transactions linked to program
activities, strategies, goals, and drivers.
● Each college selects one pilot program and describes its activities.
● One selected college, to start with, allocates full costs to each
activity of its pilot program. Under the Goals-to-Budget Transition
model (Chart 1), the college inputs a standard action plan using
TracDat and monitors it through April of Year 1; all budget
transactions related to the pilot program are input in Banner
Financial, including the activity code field.
Year 1
● All colleges and District offices start classifying and describing all
their programs (budgetary units), and activities.
● College financial managers get trained on activity-based costing,
performance budgeting, and TracDat.
● Performance budgeting and TracDat training continues.
● All four remaining colleges start their performance budgeting pilot
programs.
● Pilot programs’ performance and budget allocations per activity are
assessed.
● All colleges and District offices complete their classification and
description of programs and activities.
● Colleges make their budget submissions/presentations indicating
funding levels by functional category and identifying percentage
distributions by strategic driver or other priority and by program
activity for each category.
● Budgets for pilot programs’ new year are submitted as performance
budgets, based on outputs and outcomes from previous year, with
matching dollar totals.
● Building from its pilot program, each college selects a few additional
programs (base budget or new strategic initiative proposals) and
allocates full costs to each program activity.
● Under the Goals-to-Budget Transition model, a standard action plan
is input and monitored for one year using TracDat.
Year 2
● All District offices start the performance budgeting process as
colleges did in year 1.
● Additional performance budgeting and TracDat training is conducted
as appropriate.
● Pilot programs’ performance budgets are assessed.
● Colleges make both functional category and performance budget
submissions/presentations identifying percentage distributions by
strategic driver or other priority.
● Building from its pilot programs, each college and District office
selects at least 5% of its programs (base budget or new strategic
initiative proposals) and allocates full costs to each program activity.
● Under the Goals-to-Budget Transition model (Chart 1), a
standardized action plan is input and monitored for one year using
TracDat.
● Performance budgets are assessed.
5
Chart 1. Goals to Budget Transition
ALAMO COMMUNITY COLLEGES
VISION
MISSION
VALUES
GOALS
I, II, III, IV, V
ACCD
STRATEGIES
KPIs
BALANCED
SCORECARD
BENCHMARKS
Environmental Scanning, SWOT Analysis
COLLEGE / DIVISION STRATEGIES
DRIVER 1
DRIVER 2
DRIVER 3
DRIVER 4
RECRUITMENT
RETENTION
COMPLETION
CLUSTERS
Other
Strategic
Priorities
DEPARTMENT ACTION PLANS
(Objectives, Outcomes, Metrics)
New Initiatives
and Strategies
TARGETS
Same Strategies
UNIT / INDIVIDUAL TASKS
(Activities, Ownership, Timelines)
PERFORMANCE
BUDGET
EVALUATION AND CONTROL
(Collect, Analyze, Utilize, Follow-up, Remediate, Report)
Goals/drivers addressed? Outcomes reached? Budget variances
reduced? Timelines followed? Benchmark gaps closed? Targets met?
District
Target Team
College/Division
and SSPPM
M
Identify:
● Programs and activities
● Objectives, outputs, and outcomes
● Activities linked to long-term goals
● Full cost of activities
● Unit cost of activities
● Costs of achieving objectives
and BBaannnneerr
6
Chart 2. FOCUS PDCA to Improve Processes and Develop Action Plans
7
Table 1. Meeting Criteria for Budget and Performance Integration
Does Not Meet Criteria
o
Senior managers do not have a regular
process for considering financial and
performance information when making
decisions regarding the management of
programs;
o
Strategic plans contain too many goals
and objectives to provide a clear and
focused statement of priorities.
Performance measures included in
annual budget and performance
documents do not meet the standards of
the Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART), a method for assessing the
performance of program activities (see
Appendix);
Partially Meets Criteria
o
Senior managers meet at least
quarterly to examine reports that
integrate financial and performance
information that covers some of the
major responsibilities of the
Department. The reports are used to
make decisions regarding the
management of programs.
o
Strategic plans contain a limited
number of outcome-oriented goals
and objectives. Annual budget and
performance documents incorporate
all measures identified in the PART
process.
o
Performance appraisal plans for SES
and managers link to mission, goals
and outcomes, effectively differentiate
between various levels of
performance, and provide
consequences based on performance.
o
Performance appraisal plans do not link
to mission, goals and outcomes,
effectively differentiate between various
levels of performance, or provide
consequences based on performance;
o
Does not have a systematic way to
estimate the full cost of achieving
performance goals reported in budget
and performance documents;
o
o
Less than 50% of programs rated by the
PART have at least one efficiency
measure; or
o
At least 50% of programs rated by the
PART have at least one efficiency
measure.
o
PART ratings are not consistently used to
justify funding requests and management
actions. More than 50% of programs
receive a Results Not Demonstrated
rating for more than two years in a row.
o
PART ratings are used to justify
funding requests and management
actions. No more than 50% of
programs receive a Results Not
Demonstrated rating for more than two
years in a row.
The full cost of achieving performance
goals is accurately (+/- 10%) reported
in budget and performance
documents.
Meets All Criteria
o
Senior managers meet at least quarterly
to examine reports that integrate financial
and performance information that covers
all major responsibilities of the
Department. This information is used to
make decisions regarding the
management of programs;
o
Strategic plans contain a limited number
of outcome-oriented goals and
objectives. Annual budget and
performance documents incorporate all
measures identified in the PART and
focus on the information used in the
senior management report described in
the first criterion;
o
Performance appraisal plans for at least
60% of positions link to mission, goals
and outcomes, effectively differentiate
between various levels of performance,
and provide consequences based on
performance;
o
Reports the full cost of achieving
performance goals accurately (+/ - 10%)
in budget and performance documents
and can accurately estimate the marginal
cost (+/- 10%) of changing performance
goals;
o
Has at least one efficiency measure for
all programs; and
o
Uses PART evaluations to direct program
improvements and PART ratings are
used consistently to justify funding
requests and management actions. Less
than 10% of programs receive a Results
Not Demonstrated rating for more than
two years in a row.
Adapted from GPRA and Performance Management (http://www.john-mercer.com/pma-stds5.htm)
8
Appendix
9
About John Mercer
With over 20 years of experience in improving governmental performance and
accountability, John Mercer is an internationally-recognized expert in strategic planning,
performance budgeting, and comprehensive performance management.
His services include assistance to federal agencies in complying with the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), the President's Management Agenda and OMB's
Program Assessment Rating Tool. His clients have included agencies at the U.S.
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Homeland Security, Interior, Labor, Treasury,
and Veterans Affairs. He is the creator of the CASCADE™ Performance Budgeting System for
government agencies.
Mr. Mercer has been referred to by key members of Congress and many government
officials as "the Father of GPRA" for having proposed, initiated and led the development of
the Government Performance and Results Act while serving as Counsel to the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee.
Mr. Mercer previously served as Mayor and Councilmember in Sunnyvale, CA, whose
internationally famous performance management and budget system was used by him as
the inspiration for the Government Performance and Results Act. The White House Office of
Management and Budget has stated that Sunnyvale’s system “stands out as the single best
example of a comprehensive approach to performance measurement that we have found in
the United States. . . One underlying reason for the success in Sunnyvale is the fact that
every program manager uses the system to plan, manage, and assess progress on a dayto-day basis.” In the President's Budget for FY 2003, Sunnyvale's system of performance
budgeting was cited as being internationally recognized for its effectiveness.
10
Program Assessment Rating Tool
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) is a diagnostic tool used by the U.S. Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for evaluating Federal program effectiveness. PART’s
purposes are to inform and improve plans and reports, to establish a meaningful systematic
link between performance and budget decisions, and to improve program performance.
The basic PART instrument is composed of 25 questions divided into four sections, each with
specific weights: (1) Program Purpose and Design, 20%; (2) Strategic Planning, 10%; (3)
Program Management, 20%; and (4) Program Results and Accountability, 50%. Programs
are awarded points based on the answer to each question. This is used to assign overall
ratings of effectiveness (Effective, Moderately Effective, Adequate, Ineffective, and Results
Not Demonstrated).
Each question in the first three sections of the PART is answered in a Yes/No format.
Questions in section 4 may be answered as Yes, Large Extent, Small Extent or No. The PART
requires from programs a high level of evidence to justify a Yes response (i.e., a program
must show it is achieving its purpose and that it is well managed).
PART’s scores are divided into ranges and converted into qualitative ratings (Effective,
Moderately Effective, Adequate, and Ineffective). Regardless of the overall score, however,
an effectiveness rating of Results Not Demonstrated (RND) is given if the program does not
have agreed-upon performance or if the measures lack baselines and performance data.
When a PART is completed for a program, along with each answer there is a brief
explanation that includes a description of the relevant evidence substantiating the answer.
The questions within each section are given equal weight, unless the evaluator decides to
alter their weight to emphasize certain key factors of importance to the program.
After assessment and rating of programs covering about 20% of the federal budget, OMB
published the results in the President’s FY 2004 Budget. The President’s Budget for FY 2006
included specific assessments and overall effectiveness ratings for 607 federal programs
that have been evaluated by OMB through use of the PART. After three annual rounds of
PART assessments, federal programs comprising approximately 60% of all federal programs
have now been evaluated in that manner. The President’s Budget for FY 2006 showed a
significant correlation between program effectiveness ratings and proposed funding levels.
OMB’s plan is to bring 100% coverage to federal programs within 5 years.
11
Definitions
Action Plan
A plan that covers each program activity set forth in a unit’s budget. It supports the
strategic plan; establishes performance goals or objectives to define the level of
performance to be achieved by a program activity; expresses such goals in an objective,
quantifiable, and measurable form; briefly describes the operational processes, skills,
technology, resources, and timeframe required to meet the performance goals;
identifies ownership and levels of responsibility; establishes performance indicators to
be used in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes of
each program activity; provides a basis for comparing actual program results with the
established performance goals; and describes the means to be used to verify and
validate measured values. FOCUS PDCA is a useful tool for developing and improving
action plans.
Activity
See “Program Activity.”
Benchmark
Representation of best practices and performance for similar activities within the
organization or compared to peer organizations. Benchmarking helps the organization
understand the current dimensions of performance excellence.
Completion
Strategic driver encompassing all programs, services, and activities related to
attainment (graduation with degrees and certificates), student transfer to other
institutions, and student/customer acceptance in or return to the workplace. Key
performance indicators related to completion include program completion, graduation,
and transfer.
Clusters
Harvard Business School Professor Michael Porter defines an industry cluster as “a
geographic concentration of competing and cooperating companies, suppliers, service
providers, and associated institutions.” At the Alamo Community Colleges, clusters
represent a strategic driver involving all activities related to workforce development. It
captures the non-credit side of the ACCD, and it highlights the relationship of a variety
of activities that support economic development. Industry clusters make sense in the
economic development world. In the education sector, however, clusters underscore the
need for programs, services, and activities that go beyond providing graduates to satisfy
the current needs of expanding industries. Clusters aggregate the academic and nonacademic, as well as the workforce-related credit and non-credit programs and services
of the Alamo Community Colleges. Key performance indicators related to clusters
include workforce program effectiveness, workforce training, and workforce success.
Driver
A measurable strategic priority area. The Alamo Community Colleges drivers include
recruitment, retention, completion, and clusters.
Evaluation and Control
In an organization, strategy implementation calls for strategy evaluation and control.
Strategy evaluation examines the underlying basis of the strategy, compares actual
results with expected results, and takes corrective actions to address performance gaps.
Evaluation and control consists of the following steps: (1) Define parameters to be
measured, (2) Define target values for those parameters, (3) Perform measurements,
(4) Compared measured results to the pre-defined standard, and (5) Make necessary
changes.
12
Functional Category
Functional categories are part of a budget function classification system. A budget based
on a budget function classification system provides a comprehensive means to capture
activity and budgetary resources according to mission (need) area. For example, the
Federal Budget considers the following ten functional categories for spending: Social
Security, National Defense, Medicare, Income Security, Health, Net Interest, EducationTraining-Employment-Social Services, Transportation, Veterans Benefits and Services,
and Other. The ACCD uses eight functional categories: Instruction, Public Service,
Academic Support, Student Services, Institutional Support, Operation and Maintenance
of Plant, Scholarships/Exemptions, and Auxiliary.
Goal
A formulated purpose or aim that an organization intends to achieve (e.g., “Increase
success rates in developmental math courses,” “Conduct community service activities
that contribute to student growth and support community needs,” “Restructure the
Biology Study Center with improved tutoring, study space, and study cohorts.”) A
strategic goal is a broad statement describing how to reach the organizational vision,
answering the question “how will we know when we’ve arrived?”
KPI
A Key Performance Indicator is a group of high-level financial or non-financial
metrics/measures used to quantify goals/objectives/priorities and reflect strategic
performance in areas deemed critical to success.
Mission
A statement of purpose, answering the question “what is our primary purpose?”
Object Class Budget
A budget that uses an object classification system to array financial data emphasizing
the goods, services, or items purchased and how they are delivered. The Federal
Budget, for example, includes the following five major object classes: Personal
Compensation and Benefits (“Personnel”), Contractual Services and Supplies,
Acquisition of Assets, Grants and Fixed Charges, and Other.
Objective
An intended student learning, activity, or program outcome stated in measurable terms.
A statement of what is to be accomplished to achieve a goal. For example, “Offer in Fall
2008 a new 4-hour developmental Math course with a 3-hour lecture and a 1-hour lab,”
“To offer at least one specialized training course per semester per department for the
English and Math faculty members in order to increase teaching effectiveness and
student success.”
Outputs
The products and services or immediate results delivered by a program. For example, in
measuring the performance of a job-training program, an output measure could be the
number or percentage of program participants who completed the training. In the
academic world, an output measure could be the number of students who complete and
get a final grade in a course.
Outcomes
Specific statements derived from the objectives. Observable, measurable results or
evidence of the educational experience or administrative activity. For example, in
measuring the performance of a job-training program, while an output measure could
be the number or percentage of program participants who completed the training, an
13
outcome measure could be the number or percentage of program participants employed
one year after the training. In the academic world, outcomes are simple and clear
statements about what students will know, think, or be able to do after the completion
of a course or academic intervention (e.g., “Demonstrate understanding of xyz
principles,” “Be able to analyze data and solve problems,” “Use lab equipment
appropriately”). A high-level outcome such as “The student writing will be judged to be
of high quality by qualified readers” may have supporting lower-level outcomes such as
“Students will be able to write grammatically correct sentences” and “Students will be
able to write well developed and unified paragraphs.” Course learning outcomes
statements are not statements about what the course or instructor will achieve, nor are
they descriptions of what the course will be about. Instruments to measure course
learning
outcomes
include
pre/post
tests,
skill
demonstrations,
capstone
courses/projects, internships, portfolios, standardized exams, and licensure,
certification, or professional exams. The measurement of specific outcomes contributes
to the evaluation of objectives and the sustainability of performance budgets.
Program
A budgetary unit including a set of activities directed toward a common purpose or goal.
A program may be any organizational aim, project, function, or policy that has an
identifiable set of objectives. A program delivers products and services (outputs) or the
results of those products and services (outcomes). Program cost information may be
generated by tracking the cost of each program activity. An approach is to use the
organization budget accounts to identify programs, and the program’s outcome and
output objectives to identify the program activities. The budget structure may not
always clearly define all programs (i.e., “program activities” in the budget are not
always the activities that are managed as a program in practice). A program may also
be a collection of programs or activities that are managed as one entity or that has a
clear set of goals. When various programs (e.g., grant programs) contribute to a
common goal and are interdependent, it makes sense to review them as a whole than
separately. The same entity may manage multiple grants using different decisionmaking approaches, but it is the combination of those grants that contributes to the
same goal. Some examples of programs include Adult Employment and Training
Activities, Pell Grants/Student Financial Aid, Educational and Cultural Exchanges,
Facilities, Institutional Research Office, Counseling Department, Department of English,
Developmental English, and Gatekeeper English.
Program Activity
A specific academic or administrative mission, function, activity, service, project, or
process listed in a unit’s program and financing schedule. Program activities can be
major categories of responsibilities within a program, department, or unit. Program
activities provide a meaningful representation of the operations financed by a specific
program budget account. A program performance budget defines all activities, direct
and indirect, required by a program for support, in addition to estimating activity costs.
An approach is to use the organization budget accounts to identify programs, and the
program’s outcome and output objectives to identify the program activities. The
following are examples of program activities with identified outputs: increase the
number of enrolled dual credit students by 5% from the 2005-2006 result, conduct 60
student orientations in FY 2007, provide training to 50% of the department’s faculty in
FY 2007.
Performance Budget
A performance budget informs about resource allocation decisions based on a
performance-based management and budgeting system. It is an integrated annual
performance plan and annual budget that shows the relationship between program
funding levels and expected results. It indicates that a goal or a set of goals should be
14
achieved at a given level of spending. Performance budgets are not just based on
performance; they also require an understanding of what the end products (i.e.,
outcomes) should be in order to give a cause-effect indication of how funding will turn
into positive results. This is accomplished by showing for each program how dollars will
fund tasks and activities, how these activities are expected to generate certain outputs,
and what outcomes should be the result. While an object class budget shows what each
dollar will be spent on (e.g., salaries, benefits, office supplies, travel, utilities,
equipment, etc.), the performance budget shows what each dollar will accomplish (e.g.,
recruit a number of students, process a grant application, inspect a worksite, review a
compliance activity, etc.). Programs, however, should be able to show their budgets in
both formats with matching totals.
Recruitment
Strategic driver involving all student recruitment/enrollment activities. Key performance
indicators related to recruitment include partnership expansion, community relationship,
market penetration, student enrollment, and financial access.
Retention
Strategic driver involving all student retention, persistence, or re-enrollment activities.
Key performance indicators related to retention include program/service assessment,
student engagement, standardized curricula, process efficiency, student progress, and
Achieving the Dream progress.
SPM
SAS Strategic Performance Management is a Web-based application for designing,
building, and managing scorecards, dashboards and diagrams, including strategy maps.
SPM provides an interactive and collaborative environment to help communicate
organizational goals and strategies, monitor performance against targets, and identify
opportunities for improvement. This allows organizations to spot problems and
opportunities quickly and understand performance with one glance. SPM allows
organizations to align, monitor, and measure the execution of key initiatives that serve
strategies and performance goals.
Strategy
A description or plan of how the organization will achieve its goals. The approach, rule,
or guideline an organization takes to achieve the mission, goals, or objectives in order
to survive and succeed. A strategy can cover the organization as a whole or it can relate
to primary matters in key functional areas.
Target
A numerical point or range representing a desired level of performance measure or
quantitative goal. A target may be a projection based on comparative data
(benchmarks).
Task
Specific, individually assigned activity within an action plan.
TracDat
TracDat is a Sungard SCT Web-based database application for program assessment and
strategic planning. All ACCD employees can access TracDat via PALS. By documenting
action plans and providing easy access to supporting data, TracDat supports a culture of
evidence and helps increase efficiency, effectiveness, transparency, and accountability.
Using TracDat, programs and unit plans can be linked to the strategic plan and the
budget process, resulting in wiser allocation and utilization of budget funds based on
program/unit progress and success.
15
Values
Behaviors representing the “how” of the mission. They are basic precepts about what is
important to the organization.
Vision Statement
A clear and compelling description of a desired future state (i.e., “where do we want to
go?”). A vision paints a picture of ideal future outcomes.
WHAT TO MEASURE
KPI MEASURE EXAMPLE
INPUT
Resources (faculty, staff, technology, materials, etc.) used to teach
remedial Math courses.
Number of students taking remedial Math courses per year.
% of students who completed remedial Math courses.
% of students who enrolled in college Algebra after completing their
remedial Math courses.
PROCESS
OUTPUT
OUTCOME
16
Linking Planning and Budgeting
While strategic planning is about intended direction, priorities, and the future, budgeting is
about resource-allocation decisions to conduct daily activities. While the work of strategic
planners influence budgets, the work of budgeters determine the success of strategies.
Organizations must be prepared to link the future to the present. A number of questions
need to be answered to understand if the link is in place:
Is your strategic plan
ready to be linked?
Is your budget ready for
linking?
Are you ready for linking
budgets to plans?
1. Is the plan broad enough to
encompass all aspects of the
institution?
2. Does the plan spell out what
‘success” would look like in enough
detail to allow measurement of
progress?
3. Does the plan suggest what
activities are the most critical for
moving the institution toward
success?
4. Does the plan suggest what
activities are necessary, but not
critical, for moving the institution
toward success?
1. Can you produce reports
structured to show the resources
spent on plan initiatives?
2. Can you produce reports that
show revenue improvements from
various initiatives?
1. Is the leadership team willing to
make choices and ratify ideas?
3. Can you generate cost/benefit
analysis for any strategic
recommendation?
3. Has learning been
institutionalized?
4. Do all budget proposals within the
budget process require justification in
terms of plan principles, initiatives,
and priorities?
4. Has your organization found a way
to generate the face-to-face
communications of meetings without
the productivity-killing time demands
and the logistical constraints of real
meetings?
5. Is everything on the table? (Can
we consider outsourcing, retraining,
new student markets, new
technologies for learning and
administration, or any other taboo
area?)
5. Does the plan suggest what
activities are not necessary, but not
critical, for moving the institution
toward success?
2. Can anything, once started, be
stopped? (Is there a culture of
assessment? Is there courage?)
6. Does the plan list values and
ethics that describe initiatives and
behaviors that will be shunned and
not given support?
7. Does the plan describe methods
of searching for opportunities in ways
that allow for new budgets?
8. Is the planning process efficient
and dynamic enough to regularly
feed new ideas into the budgeting
process?
17