J.

OF PUBLIC BUDGETING, ACCOUNTING & FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, 17(4), 471-487 WINTER 2005

THE GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING
Meagan M. Jordan and Merl Hackbart*

ABSTRACT. There has been a great deal of research regarding the success and
impact of state performance-based budgeting with findings ranging from
hopeful to critical. Previous findings have also indicated that the success and
impact of implementation have varied across the states. The practitioners' varied
views of successful performance implementation are likely linked to their varied
views of the purpose of performance implementation. We survey state executive
budget officers regarding performance-based budget goals, implementation
successes, and obstacles. Our findings suggest that program accountability as a
goal, rather than budget allocation, makes a stronger foundation for determining
performance-based budget success.

INTRODUCTION
It is reasonable to assume that the motivation to adopt or implement
performance-based budgeting varies among the states. Different
perceptions of what "it" is may lead to different reasons or motivations to
adopt performance-based budgeting. As some writers have suggested
that the implementation wave may be over (Melkers & Willoughby,
1998), it appears to be an appropriate time to begin assessing state goals
or visions associated with the adoption or implementation of
performance-based budgeting. Likewise, the maturation of the
-------------------------
* Meagan M. Jordan, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor in the Institute of
Government at University of Arkansas at Little Rock. Her teaching and research
interests are state and local government budget theory and policy, financial
management, and economic development. Merl Hackbart, Ph.D., is a Professor
and Associate Dean of the Carol Gatton School of Business and Professor in the
James W. Martin School of Public Policy and Administration at the University
of Kentucky. His teaching and research interests are state budgets, municipal
bonds and transportation finance.

Copyright © 2005 by PrAcademics Press

472 JORDAN & HACKBART

performance-based budgeting "wave" provides an opportunity to

investigate obstacles to adoption and strategies for implementation that
might be transferable to future financial management innovation efforts
by state financial managers.

PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING: ITS HISTORY AND

REAPPEARANCE
Performance-based budgeting, in some aspect, has demonstrated
remarkable resiliency in the past century as it reappeared in different
forms at different levels of government from the 1940s to the end of the
century. This resiliency is despite the limited success it has enjoyed and
the various criticisms it has received. For example, writing in 1971,
Schick concludes that "…once the allure of performance budgeting had
worn off, it was viewed with indifference" (Schick, 1971, p. 62). Rubin
indicates that the performance review process lacked credibility and
budget analysts discounted the measures presented to them (Rubin,
1993). Jordan and Hackbart (1999) observe that "despite the fact that
performance budgeting has existed in some form in state governments
since the 1950s, it has not reached a high level of success or acceptance
due to a number of conceptual and operational reasons" (p. 73).
Despite past and current criticism, performance-based budgeting has
endured, perhaps because of its numerous and practical reasons for
implementation. Most writers identify the Hoover Commission (U.S.
Commission, 1949) as the first major effort to tie performance to the
budgeting process. Others suggest that the underpinnings for government
performance analysis and accountability assessments had their birth with
the Budgeting and Accounting Act of 1921. For example, Miller suggests
that the 1921 Act "created a budget office and an auditing agency, both
of which would open government to scrutiny through publication of a
unified budget. Unification and openness put the spotlight on the
executive; everybody could follow the decisions being made because
they all took place in public view" (Miller, 199l, p.14).
Performance-based budgeting has again become a major focus of the
budget process in the past decade in order to address several goals. These
goals are to improve budget processes and program efficiency, enhance
the transparency between resource inputs and program outputs, and
improve accountability. Specifically, the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 had the goals of improving three areas:
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 473

accountability to the public, service delivery, and congressional decision

making. The GPRA goals are a component the National Performance
Review guidelines in addition to customer service performance standards
(U.S. General Accounting Office, 1993a, 1993b, 1994).
Meanwhile, at the state level, the National Association of State
Budget Officers (NASBO) reported in 1997 that 48 states had indicated
some use of performance budgeting concepts (NASBO, 1997). Despite
limited success or implementation progress at the state and local level,
implementation is proceeding (Jordan & Hackbart, 1999; Wang, 2000).
Broom and McGuire (1995) conclude that the abiding interest in
performance budgeting at the state level is attributable to the desire for
improved accountability, increased achievement of priority objectives,
and better understanding of activities. Grizzle (2002) states that
continued progress in performance implementation requires a consensus
among the decision makers and users regarding the expectations for the
performance information and a data collection process that produces
reliable and valid performance information.

PURPOSE OF STUDY
As indicated, several research efforts have focused on state efforts to
implement performance-based budgeting systems and processes.
However, limited research has focused on the state's motivation for
adopting or integrating performance-based budgeting concepts into
current financial management and budgetary practices. While outcomes
of management and budget process changes are always difficult to assess
due to the fact that "performance data" on budgeting systems and
processes are difficult, if not impossible, to acquire, outcomes are even
more difficult to assess during initial or early implementation periods. At
the same time, state policy makers and administrators often desire such
assessments to assist them in deciding whether to emulate innovations by
peer states. However the assessment of performance-based budgeting
success is dependent upon the purpose of implementing performance-
based budgeting. Some studies demonstrate that performance measures
have been integrated into the state budget process (Melkers &
Willoughby, 1998) albeit with limited use for allocation (Jordan &
Hackbart, 1999). There are also indications that there are organizational
and managerial uses for performance that go beyond the budget process
(Jordan & Hackbart, 1999; Willoughby & Melkers, 2000). The
474 JORDAN & HACKBART

practitioner's view of successful performance implementation is likely

linked to their view of the purpose of performance implementation.
The purpose of this research, then, is twofold. First, this research
extends previous state performance-based budgeting research by
focusing on the goals of state performance-based budgeting efforts and
perceived success in attaining those goals. Second, the study is designed
to gain insights regarding state performance-based budgeting
implementation successes and obstacles. Insights regarding
implementer's goals and perceptions of implementation success can be
useful to governments considering the adoption of performance-based
budgeting or to states contemplating the expansion of or modification of
their implementation strategies. Likewise, the assessment of
implementation strategies and obstacles can also assist states and local
governments in designing their implementation strategy. Included in the
studies' implementation analysis are the success of performance-based
budgeting in different functional or program areas and implementation
process management issues. The study also obtains insights from state
budget offices regarding their perceptions of "obstacles to success" of
performance-based budgeting efforts.

METHODS
Following previous similar research efforts, the current study uses a
survey of state budget offices. The survey document was mailed to the
State Budget Director, or the equivalent, in each state using addresses
and/or contacts provided the National Association of State Budget
Officers (NASBO) Directory. The survey was tested in one state and
mailed to the state budget offices in July of 2001. The research staff
began follow-up in August for the states that had not responded, and
additional questionnaires were e-mailed upon request. Twenty-one
completed surveys were returned representing a 42 percent response
rate1. The actual respondents are budget directors or their senior staff.
As noted, this study focuses on two major issues including the goals
of states that implemented performance-based budgeting systems (and
currently perceived outcomes of that action) and insights regarding
approaches and strategies associated with the implementation of
performance-based budgeting systems. The principal goals and
associated issues analyzed are as follows:
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 475

Part I: Goals of state government efforts to implement performance-

based budgeting systems and the relative success of attaining those goals.
Included in the analysis of this issue is an assessment of the following
specific issues associated with state decisions to implement performance-
based budgeting:
- State government goal or goals that led to state efforts to implement
performance-based budgeting systems.
- State perceptions of success of performance-based budgeting
implementation efforts relative to the goals of such efforts.
Part II: Insights regarding performance-based budgeting system
implementation. Sub-issues of this research focus included the following
concerns:
- Perceptions regarding the relative success of performance-based
budgeting in different "functional" program areas.
- State perceptions regarding the use of performance-based budgeting
to improve accountability.
- Perceptions regarding how state performance-based budgeting
implementation strategies and efforts are generally viewed.
- Perceptions regarding obstacles to performance-based budgeting
implementation efforts.

RESULTS
Of the twenty-one state responses to the survey, sixteen states
indicated that their state integrates performance measures into the budget
process. This response differs from the earlier cited NASBO survey
which indicated a higher percentage of states had identified performance
measures or had adopted some aspect of performance budgeting
(NASBO, 1997). However, four of the respondents that indicate that
performance has not been integrated in the budget process have indicated
current and past obstacles to implementation. Therefore, their negative
response to performing performance-based budgeting is due to their
perception that the implementation is not complete or is unsuccessful. As
a result, a portion of the following results reflect the responses of the
sixteen who have indicated the use of performance-based budgeting, and
476 JORDAN & HACKBART

the remaining responses regarding overall perceptions of performance-

based budgeting are reported for all 21 respondents.

Part I. Goals of Performance -Based Budgeting Implementation

Given that earlier studies conclude that there are diverse opinions
regarding what performance-based budgeting actually is (Joyce, 1999),
the authors assume that different states might have implemented
performance-based budgeting for different reasons and, perhaps, multiple
reasons. Therefore, respondents are asked to rank order their goals for
performance-based budgeting implementation, with 1 indicating the first
priority. The ranking for each goal is averaged.
As shown in Table 1, state budget offices responding to this survey
indicated that their top goals for implementing performance-based
budgeting are program related. The highest ranked goal is to improve
program accountability at 2.31. A close second is to increase program
effectiveness at 2.44. Increased program efficiency is the next most
important goal identified by the state budget offices with an average rank
of 3.88, and changes in program management follow with a rank score of
4.20. Changes in state budget allocations, budget process, and state
policy each have an average ranking score of 4.69, 4.71, and 5.18,
respectively. The relative low rankings for budget process and
reallocation goals and high rankings for program management goals for
state performance-based budgeting implementation may suggest that

TABLE 1
Rank Ordering of Performance-Based Budgeting Implementation
Goals
Average
N
Rank Score
Improved program accountability 16 2.31
Increased program effectiveness 16 2.44
Increased program efficiency 16 3.88
Changes in program management 15 4.20
Changes in state budget allocations 14 4.69
Changes in budget process 13 4.71
Changes in state policy 11 5.18
Source: Survey of State Budget Offices by Authors.
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 477

there is a better understanding of the potential organizational value of

performance-based budgeting systems than previously recognized. The
priority of the management goals is, however, similar to Jordan and
Hackbart's (1999) earlier conclusion that performance is viewed more as
a management tool than a budget process or allocation decision-assisting
tool.

Success of Performance-Based Budgeting Implementation Goals

Respondents are also asked to rate their perceptions of the success of
their performance-based budgeting implementation efforts in attaining
the aforementioned goals. A success rate score is applied to each goal
category using a weighted average. This score is created by assigning
weights for various levels of perceived success with "very successful"
having a weighted value of 4, "successful" having a value of 3,
"moderately successful" having a value of 2, and "unsuccessful" having a
value of 1. Therefore, each "very successful" response receives four
points. The success perception values are then averaged to determine a
"success score" which is displayed in Table 2. The goal with the highest
perceived success rate is improved program accountability with a score
of 2.75. The goals with the second and third highest perceived "success
rates" are changing budget processes at 2.62 and changing state policy at
2.56. The remaining success rate scores for, increasing program
effectiveness, increasing program efficiency, changing program
management, and changing budget allocations are 2.43, 2.31, 2.21, and
2.08 respectively.
While the success values are not strong, their relative values have
some interesting implications. For example, the state implementation
goals (Table 1) suggest that programmatic impacts are ranked as the
major goals for implementation. In particular, improving program
accountability is the highest ranked goal. Indeed, respondents indicated
that they are most successful at improving program accountability (Table
2). However, changing budget processes and changing state policy (a re-
direction of state program efforts) have the second and third highest
success value, perhaps indicating the procedural adjustments necessary
to implement performance-based budgeting. The other programmatic
goals have scored in the bottom half of the success rates, indicating less
success in achieving goals that are of higher priority. Finally, the lowest
success values for changing the budget allocations may suggest the
478 JORDAN & HACKBART

TABLE 2
Calculated Success Scores for Performance-Based Budgeting
Implementation Goals

Unsuccessful
Moderately
Successful
Successful

Successful
Performance-Based Budget Implementation
N
Goal

Score
Very
Improved Program Accountability 4 4 8 0 16 2.75
Changing Budget Processes 2 5 5 1 13 2.62
Changing State Policy 1 4 3 1 9 2.56
Increasing Program Effectiveness 1 4 9 0 14 2.43
Increasing Program Efficiency 0 5 7 1 13 2.31
Changing Program Management 1 1 12 0 14 2.21
Changing Budget Allocations 0 3 7 2 12 2.08
Source: Data from State Budget Office Survey by authors.

continued entrenchment of incremental budgeting and resistance to using

performance measures to financially reward or penalize departments.

Part II. Relative Success of Performance-Based Budgeting Across

Programs or Functions
A continuing concern of performance-based budgeting efforts has
been the availability of performance measurement data. Consequently,
some have assumed that successful implementation of performance-
based budgeting may vary by program or departmental areas depending
on the availability of identifiable or usable performance measures. This
survey addresses the issue as the respondents are asked to indicate their
perception of the relative success of performance-based budgeting
implementation efforts in functional or program areas. As shown in
Table 3, the respondents do not indicate significant variation in perceived
success across areas. The ratings tend to hover between moderately
successful and successful and range between 2.00 and 2.62.
The perceived success of implementation possibly is related to
success in achieving their goal for implementing performance-based
budgeting. The top ranking goals for implementation are to improve
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 479

TABLE 3
Success of Performance-Based Budgeting in Program or Functional
Areas

Unsuccessfu
Moderately
Successful
Successful

Successful

Score
Very
Program or Functional Area N*

l
Education (Elementary/Secondary) 0 6 8 1 15 2.33
Education (Higher) 2 2 9 0 13 2.46
Transportation 0 6 7 1 14 2.36
Personnel 0 5 3 1 10 2.20
Economic Development 1 5 8 1 15 2.40
Health Services/Medicaid 0 5 12 1 16 2.50
Human Services/ Welfare 1 6 7 1 15 2.47
Environmental 0 7 8 1 16 2.38
Agriculture 0 8 5 0 13 2.62
Finance 1 3 5 1 10 2.40
Budgeting 0 6 6 1 13 2.38
Legislative Services 0 1 3 1 5 2.00
Corrections 2 3 8 1 14 2.43
Parks and Tourism 1 6 6 1 14 2.50
Governor’s Office/ Central Government 0 7 3 1 11 2.55
Note: * One state marked moderately successful and successful for
Health Services/Medicaid.
Source: Survey of State Budget Offices by Authors

program accountability and to increase program effectiveness. The

perceived success of attaining those goals is tested for a correlation with
successful implementation across programs. The successful
implementation of performance-based budgeting in most programs is
positively correlated to the success perceived in attaining the top-ranked
implementation goal of improving program accountability. The
successful implementation score in 9 out of 15 of the program/function
areas is significantly correlated to the achievement of the improving
program accountability goal at least at the 0.05 level using Kendall's tau-
b (Table 4). In addition, the rating of program areas by each state has
480 JORDAN & HACKBART

TABLE 4
Correlation Between Success of Improved Program Accountability
Goal and Implementation Success Across Program Areas
Improved Program
N Accountability
Education (Elementary/ Secondary) 15 0.524*
Education (Higher) 13 0.065
Transportation 14 0.489*
Personnel 10 0.484
Economic Development 15 0.533*
Health Services/ Medicaid 16 0.185
Human Services/ Welfare 15 0.568**
Environmental 16 0.557**
Agriculture 13 0.655**
Finance 10 0.413
Budgeting 13 0.177
Legislative Services 5 0.267
Corrections 14 0.409*
Parks and Tourism 14 0.549*
Governor’s Office/Central Government 11 0.511*
State Average Success Score 16 0.496**
Notes: *Correlation is significant at the .05 level (1-tailed Kendall's tau-b).
**Correlation is significant at the .01 level (1-tailed Kendall's tau-b).

been averaged to obtain the state's overall implementation success score.

The success score for each state is also examined for correlation. The
state success score is significantly correlated at the 0.01 level to the
success of attaining the improved program accountability goal. No
correlation is found with the success of the second ranked goal of
increase program effectiveness goal. Table 4 displays the results of the
correlations for improved accountability goal.

Importance of Performance-Based Budgeting as an Accountability

Tool
The importance of performance-based budgeting as a tool for
accountability enhancement is further demonstrated by the responses to
statements detailing the specific role of performance as an accountability
tool. Respondents feel that performance-based budgeting makes them
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 481

more accountable, especially to the executive and citizens. The results

are displayed in Table 5. Nineteen out of 21 respondents agree or
strongly agree that performance measurement provides accountability to
the executive. Fifteen respondents agree or strongly agree that
performance measurement provides accountability to citizens. Fourteen
out of the 21 respondents agree or strongly agree that performance
measurement provides financial accountability, and 13 agree or strongly
agree that performance measurement provides accountability to
legislature. Interestingly, financial accountability and accountability to
citizen and legislature has considerably more neutral respondents and
fewer affirmative responses. The neutral responses may reflect a less
than optimistic view of performance measurement as an accountability
tool for those purposes and a resistance to selecting 'disagree' or 'strongly
disagree'.
Perceptions Regarding the Implementation of Performance-Based
Budgeting Systems
Another issue addressed by the present study is perceptions and
recommendations from the respondents regarding implementation
strategies or approaches. Such perceptions are sought regarding the
overall implementation strategy and obstacles to successful performance-

TABLE 5
Perceptions of Performance-Based Budgeting for Accountability
Enhancement
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Neutral

Perception of the purpose for using

Agree

Agree

N
performance measurement

Performance measurement provides financial

1 1 5 12 2 21
accountability
Performance measurement provides
1 0 5 9 6 21
accountability to citizen
Performance measurement provides
0 1 7 8 5 21
accountability to legislature
Performance measurement provides
1 0 1 13 6 21
accountability to the executive
Source: Calculated from data obtained from survey of State Budget Offices by
authors.
482 JORDAN & HACKBART

based budgeting implementation. As shown in Table 6, the respondents

tend to favor "across the board" implementation of performance-based
budgeting rather than focus on a few agencies. In fact, 13 of 21
respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement that performance-
based budgeting should be implemented in all agencies. The respondents
also tend to feel that performance-based budgeting is useful for staff and
line agencies as only 2 indicate that performance-based budgeting is not
useful. Nineteen of 21 respondents indicate that they feel it is feasible to
develop or acquire performance measures. These perceptions may
explain the little variation in successful implementation across
departments. Two-thirds (14) indicate that their performance measures
"captured what agencies achieved." Again, there are several neutral
respondents who appear to be less than positive about the relevance of
performance-based budgeting in capturing what agencies achieve, the
usefulness in staff agencies, and the usefulness beyond line agencies.

TABLE 6
Perceptions of the Relevance of Performance-Based Budgeting to
Agencies and Implementation Strategies
Disagree
Disagree
Strongly

Strongly
Perception of performance-based budgeting
Neutral
Agree

implementation Agree N

Performance-based budgeting should be

1 5 2 6 7 21
implemented in all agencies
Performance-based budgeting is not useful for
3 9 7 2 0 21
staff agencies
Performance-based budgeting is only useful for
3 10 6 2 0 21
“line” or service delivery agencies.
It is usually feasible to identify relevant
0 2 0 18 1 21
performance measures
Performance measures capture what agencies
0 1 6 13 1 21
achieve
Source: Survey of State Budget Offices by Authors.
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 483

Perceptions of Obstacles to the Implementation of Performance-

Based Budgeting
Realizing that the implementation of performance-based budgeting
varies across states and that implementation obstacles also vary,
respondents are asked to identify past and current obstacles to
performance-based budgeting implementation in their state.
Respondents also are asked to elaborate on how problems or obstacles to
implementation are being addressed. Possible obstacles include
technology, political constraints, the development of performance
measures, and managerial support. The survey results are reported in
Table 7.
Regarding technology as an implementation obstacle, respondents
indicate that it has been a problem in the past and is a growing obstacle
to implementation. They also indicate that they need to improve their
data systems by purchasing supportive statewide software packages to
enhance implementation success. Funding obstacles exist, and it also
appears to be an increasing constraint. Perhaps, this reflects the budget
and financial problems that the states currently are realizing. While
"development of performance measures" continues to be an obstacle,
respondents indicate (Table 6) that it is usually feasible to identify

TABLE 7
Perceived Obstacles to Successful Implementation of
Performance-Based Budgeting Systems
Obstacles facing/faced in implementing Past Current Not N*
performance-based budgeting Applicable
Technology 6 9 7 20
Funding 2 6 14 20
Political 9 7 6 20
Development of Performance Measures 11 10 3 20
Managerial Support 12 8 5 20
Staff Commitment 12 8 4 19
Staff Training 14 9 3 20
Agreement Among Budget Players
8 12 6 20
(executive and legislative)
Information Overload 12 7 5 20
Note: *Some states indicated past and current obstacles.
Source: Survey of State Budget Offices by Authors
484 JORDAN & HACKBART

relevant performance measures. Several respondents state that the

development of measures is a continuous process.
The states seem to be overcoming a number of obstacles. For
example, fewer states indicate that the development of performance
measures, politics, managerial support, information overload, staff
commitment and staff training are obstacles at the present time than in
the past. In written follow-up responses, respondents indicate that
training is important in aiding the identification of performance
measures. They also indicate that it is especially useful to train across
levels of the organization, to be on-going, and to be agency-specific
when necessary. Training, managerial support, and executive support
also play an important role in increasing staff commitment. Managerial
support is an issue particularly for agencies with goals that are difficult to
quantify. However, this is addressed by training, establishing a close
working relationship with executive or legislative offices to assist in the
process, and allowing ample and realistic time periods for refinements.
Staff commitment and managerial support also are aided by realistic,
relevant measures that actually will be used. To address political
obstacles and to promote agreement and trust among budget players,
some respondents indicate that the players need to have a basic
agreement on the use of the information. Respondents also feel that there
needs to be a clear understanding of the operations of an agency to avoid
using unrealistic or irrelevant measures to punish an agency. Therefore,
players need to share the operational factors of an agency that impact
measures as well as discuss the rationale and limitations of the measures.
Information overload is addressed by presenting summarized relevant
data as opposed to presenting all available information. While various
types of performance data are collected, there may also be uniform
guidelines requiring one type of information used in reports. Clearly,
addressing the many obstacles is a continuous process because the
process of developing, refining, collecting, and reporting performance
measures is on-going.

DISCUSSION
While tentative conclusions and observations from this study must be
limited to the states that responded thus far, they indicate that improving
program accountability has emerged as the primary goal of performance-
based budgeting implementation as opposed to changing the budget
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 485

process and allocation. In fact, the top four ranked goals for performance
implementation are program related with increased program
effectiveness as the second ranked goal. This is similar to the earlier
findings of Jordan and Hackbart (1999) and Broom and McGuire (1995).
Managers are more likely to support performance-based budgeting when
the measures are realistic, relevant, and helpful in the management of
programs- not as a threat to their budgets.
While many reform efforts have come and gone, the push for
accountability has not disappeared. So it is understandable that
accountability is clearly an important element in the persistence of
performance-based budgeting. Therefore, performance reports to users,
such as agency heads, executive and legislative officials and citizens are
an integral part of the process. The tentative results also indicate that,
contrary to previous opinions and observations, the state budget offices
do not perceive major differences in the potential for success across state
government agencies. This observation or perception is probably
consistent with the optimistic view of the respondents regarding the
feasibility of developing or acquiring performance measures. The same
sense of optimism pervades observations or opinions regarding strategies
for implementing performance-based budgeting systems or processes. As
is indicated, the states responding to the survey favor an across the board
implementation strategy as opposed to a selective approach to
implementation.
Finally, the respondents offer several insights regarding obstacles to
implementation. Again, there is encouragement here. In several obstacle
categories, respondents indicate that the problems are less significant in
the current period than during early phases of implementation.
Apparently, the states are identifying ways and means to overcome or
accommodate real and perceived obstacles. Not surprisingly, however,
certain obstacles are emerging as greater concerns including funding,
technology and agreement among budget players. The latter is not
surprising due to the fact that previous studies have indicated a lack of
common terminology and common perceptions of what performance-
based budgeting "is" or "could be" (Joyce 1999; Grizzle and Pettijohn,
2002). Finding new methods to address old obstacles and methods to
address new obstacles will continue as long as there is a long-term and
continuous commitment to training, development and refinement of
measures, and reporting for accountability purposes. So, what is
performance-based budgeting success to practitioners? For the most part,
486 JORDAN & HACKBART

performance-based budgeting success is the usefulness of performance

measures as an accountability tool.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors would like to acknowledge Kami L. Fletcher for her
valuable assistance with data entry and follow-up calls.

NOTES
1. Responding states consist of Colorado, Delaware, Georgia. Iowa,
Idaho, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts,
Missouri, Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New
York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Texas and
Washington.

REFERENCES
Broom, C. A., & McGuire, L. A. (1995). "Performance-Based
Government Models: Building a Track Record." Public Budgeting &
Finance, 15 (4): 3-17.
Grizzle, G. A. & Pettijohn, C. D. (2002). "Implementing Performance-
Based Program Budgeting: A System-Dynamics Perspective." Public
Administration Review, 62 (1): 51-62.
Jordan, M. M., & Hackbart, M. M. (1999). "Performance Budgeting and
Performance Funding in the States: A Status Assessment." Public
Budgeting & Finance, 19 (1): 68-88.
Joyce, P. G. (1999). "Performance-Based Budgeting." In R. T. Meyers,
(Ed.), Handbook of Government Budgeting (pp. 597-619). San
Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
Melkers, J., & Willoughby, K. (1998). "The State of the States:
Performance –Based Budgeting Requirements in 47 out of 50."
Public Administration Review, 58 (1): 66-73.
Miller, G. J. (1991). Government Financial Management Theory. New
York, NY: Marcel Dekker, Inc.
National Association of State Budget Officers [NASBO]. (1997). Budget
Processes in the States. Washington, DC: Author.
GOALS AND IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS OF STATE PERFORMANCE-BASED BUDGETING 487

Rubin, I. S. (1993). The Politics of Budgeting (2nd ed.). Chatham, NJ:

Chatham House Publishers.
Schick, A. (1971). Budget Innovation in the States. Washington, DC:
The Brookings Institution.
U.S. Commission on Organization of the Executive Branch of the
Government. (1949). Hoover Commission Report. New York:
Macmillan.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993a). Management Reform: GAO’s
Comments on the National Performance Review’s
Recommendations. Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1993b). Performance Budgeting: State
Experiences and Implications for the Federal Government.
Washington, DC: Author.
U.S. General Accounting Office. (1994). Management Review:
Implementation of the National Performance Review’s
Recommendations. Washington, DC: Author.
Wang, X.-H. (2000). "Performance Measurement in Budgeting: A Study
of County Governments." Public Budgeting and Finance, 20 (3):
102-118.
Willoughby, K. & Melkers, J. (2000). "Implementing PBB: Conflicting
Views of Success." Public Budgeting and Finance, 20 (1): 105-120.