The Oregon Option is a unique pilot. It tests the notion that the alignment between disparate programs and policies across levels of government can be improved to better achieve the results for people, their families, and their communities.
The fundamental promise of the initiative has been that setting clear goals that are measurable, pruning back the underbrush of prescriptive dictates on how the work gets done, and creating accountability for achieving results could help reduce some significant inefficiencies in the intergovernmental systems. Connie Revell, the director of the Oregon Option, describes it succinctly: "the Oregon Option is not a program and not really even a project, but an agreement to do business together in new ways."(1)
Over the first 18 months, the Oregon Option partners -- from the federal, state, and local levels and from both the public and private sectors -- have taken many small steps and a few impressive leaps forward. They forged new relationships, particularly in the Workforce Option and Healthy Children Clusters. Assumptions that underlie how business is done in intergovernmental settings were challenged. Barriers that impeded progress toward achieving the performance goals were identified and, in a number of notable cases, they were reduced or removed. And the Oregon Option partners have developed and begun to implement new systems and tools that present real promise for getting the public's business done faster, better, and more efficiently.
Eighteen months is too short a span to determine whether the experiment has been successful. There are, however, some preliminary lessons that merit attention. Four observations that stem from reviewing the development and implementation of the Oregon Option are discussed in the following pages.
Creating benchmarks and performance measures -- keystones in any effort to become more results-oriented -- takes time, investment, and constant care.
Picking Oregon as the partner for this pilot effort was akin to choosing the world's greatest sprinter as a relay team partner and granting him or her a substantial head start before the race begins. Only a handful of states have undertaken sustained efforts at building benchmarks and performance measurement systems.(2) No other states that have moved as far or for as long.
No other state was as prepared as Oregon to be a partner in this pilot. Hundreds of people from within and outside government helped create the benchmarks and develop the biennial reports to the legislature.
The analytical framework behind the benchmark effort was well formed and was followed consistently across the years. The benchmarks were carefully chosen. There were extensive efforts to engage the public and stakeholders in the process. And, through cooperation with program and data people across the agencies, the data for a performance tracking and reporting systems were created that are unequaled in any other state. Perhaps most impressive, however, is the high level of knowledge about and commitment to the benchmarks evidenced across agencies and from policymakers to program managers.(3)
Throughout the seven years of developing and implementing the benchmarks, Oregon dedicated time, attention, and resources to continuously refine the process and the benchmarks themselves. Without this base of experience, it is hard to imagine that the Oregon Option could have developed as far as it has in the first year and a half.
The Clinton administration is extending the idea of results-based partnerships, modeled in many respects on the Oregon Option, to other places and issue areas. It may be necessary, however, to set specific screening criteria for local, state, and federal partners to ensure they have the foundation necessary for any such partnerships to succeed.
Additional efforts may be needed to better align benchmarks and performance measures across federal, state, and local agencies and systems.
Generally, the benchmarks adopted for these three cluster groups were drawn from the Progress Board's existing listings. They were proposed by the Oregon state partners -- sometimes in concert with their local counterparts. And they were reviewed with federal partners who sought some changes that most often focused on current program regulations or statutory requirements.(4) As a result, the clusters' benchmarks may be a better reflection of Oregon's priorities and some federal operational concerns.
There has not been a top policy level review to rethink federal roles and priorities comparable to the benchmarking efforts in Oregon. If the Oregon Option model is to be extended, it should build upon a review of vision, mission, alternative roles, and priorities above the program-specific level of the affected federal agencies.
The workforce development system, for example, extends across federal programs and agencies. Over time, Congress and the agencies set performance measures on a program-by-program basis -- but without a clear vision of how the program pieces fit into a workforce development system at the level where services are delivered. The Workforce Option partners recently assembled a list of the almost 150 performance measures required of these programs by federal or state agencies. Such a long list of measures, each suggesting an issue that should receive priority attention, can do little to really guide the development of a new approach. The Workforce Development Cluster is working to prune the current list down to propose a core list of measures that would become the yardstick for the regions and the state. But they may need to address some existing statutory and program requirements -- both federal and state -- to reach the kind of list that should drive the system.
"Getting the benchmarks right" is an art, not a science. An explicit process may be needed to review and revise the benchmarks over time.
The Oregon Option benchmarks are a mix of outcome- and output-based measures. The conclusions from a review of the overall Oregon benchmarks by Harry Hatry of The Urban Institute in mid-1994(5) are equally applicable to the Oregon Option benchmarks:
"The benchmark indicators appear to be a good set of strategic indicators. Most are focused on end results that appear of significance. However, many indicators are quite broad ... and often do not readily lend themselves to be used directly as performance indicators ... some of the benchmarks may not be sufficiently end-result oriented ...(6)
A mix of benchmarks that include both output- and outcome-oriented measures may be appropriate. For example, the Healthy Children Cluster benchmark on increasing the percentage of two-year olds with complete immunizations is an output indicator. However, the link between the output and the desired end result -- improved health status for children -- is clearly established. And the outcome-oriented indicator appropriately emphasizes the specific strategy Oregon has selected to achieve that end.
The Oregon Workforce Option and the Healthy Children Cluster both negotiated benchmarks to guide their efforts. That process has been relatively informal. The partners did not seek formal endorsements of the listings beyond the group of federal, state, and local participants.
While the current ad hoc approach provides much flexibility, there are two steps that may help strengthen the partnership for the future. First, a process could be set for review and approval of the clusters' benchmarks by top appointed and elected officials at the federal, state, and local levels. Such an endorsement could strengthen implementation efforts. Second, the Oregon Option partners could formally commit themselves to periodic review of the benchmarks and related performance measures. As experience is gained in implementation and as conditions change, the underlying benchmarks and measures may need to be updated. Requiring periodic reviews -- perhaps every two to three years -- creates an opportunity to plot out any needed course corrections.
Learning about creating effective accountability systems has only just begun.
Accountability for results is central to the promise of the Oregon Option. The agreement, after all, proposed granting greater flexibility on how programs were run in exchange for improved results and accountability for their achievement.
But operationalizing that concept, particularly in the intergovernmental environment, is difficult. There are parts of an informal and formal accountability system at work in Oregon. For example, state agencies often report on benchmarks and performance measures to legislative committees and review them within the executive branch budget process. The Oregon Progress Board examines and reports on progress against the targets. The Commission on Children and Families and the Workforce Quality Council keep close watch on performance of the multiple programs that comprise their systems. And information on progress against the benchmarks is broadly disseminated to the public by both the Progress Board and some of the clusters.
The Oregon Option partners have only begun to create intergovernmental accountability mechanisms. The Healthy Children Cluster, for example, has set nine benchmarks. However, they've not yet attached specific incentives (or consequences) each of the partners may face if the benchmarks are met (or efforts fall short). Under the welfare waiver, the fiscal implications for not meeting the caseload reduction goals are clear. The funds the state hopes to reinvest in prevention and self-sufficiency programs will not be available unless they meet the caseload reduction goals. The other Family Stability Cluster benchmarks are only indirectly tied to consequences.
The Workforce Cluster may have moved the furthest in building an accountability system. The partners completed a memorandum to guide implementation of their efforts.(7) That agreement tries to specify the expected roles of the partners, the process for agreeing on benchmarks and performance measures, and the general outlines of the consequences that could be linked to meeting or failing to achieve the benchmarks.
The Workforce Cluster agreement is a good start. But much further work will be needed to convert these concepts into working systems. The partners need to first reach agreement on a list of core performance measures. Historical data on performance must be assembled and target levels for future years set. The overall targets should be set for the state as a whole and for the workforce quality regions. And supporting systems -- data systems with common definitions applicable across programs and regions -- must also be developed.
(1) Connie Revell, interview, December 1995.
(2) NGA Report.
(3) Interviews with Jeff Tryens, Duncan Wyse, and Connie Revell.
(4) While true of the Oregon Workforce Option and Healthy Children Clusters, the Family Stability Cluster followed a different path. The review of Oregon's waiver request followed the traditional process at the federal level. As such, there was less of a focus on the intergovernmental level on benchmarks.
(5) "Report to the Oregon Progress Board: Findings and Recommendations Oregon Benchmarks and Associated Performance Measurement Process", Harry P. Hatry, The Urban Institute, Washington, DC. May 27, 1994.
(6) Ibid, page 12.
(7) "Memorandum of Understanding on Implementation and Accountability under the Oregon Option Workforce Cluster", Oregon Workforce Cluster, 1996.