In 2010, the State of Illinois passed Budgeting for Results (BFR), a spending reform act to institute an outcomes-oriented budgeting process for the State. The BFR Commission was appointed to help guide the State of Illinois towards developing a more accessible and responsible state budget by using program performance data during the appropriations process, expanding public reporting of state agency performance information, and increasing the number of opportunities for residents to inform state spending.
The BFR Commission partnered with Mission Measurement to develop a prototype analytical solution that could be used to inform strategic decision-making across the legislative and executive branches. In collaboration with the Governor’s Office of Management and Budget, a sample of education programs across multiple State agencies was selected for inclusion in the pilot.
The Mission Measurement team launched this pilot by working with the BFR Commission to understand the social impact priorities of the State of Illinois’s education portfolio. These priorities were mapped to six standardized education outcomes from Mission Measurement’s Outcomes Taxonomy™. Once these priority outcomes were identified, Mission Measurement created aligned each pilot program to one of the six standardized education outcomes. This exercise provided the State with a solid framework through which it could begin to view the results of its allocated resources and the value of its funded programs.
With the help of State agencies, Mission Measurement collected information around program design, budget, reach, metrics, and existing data and research related to programmatic success for each pilot program. Using a prototype of Universal Impact®, Mission Measurement then assessed each program and developed standardized program reports to visualize program information and key metrics in a format designed to be easily accessible to state legislators. These reports summarized observations about program evidence and effectiveness, performance according to the three key metrics of Efficacy Rate, Expected Outcomes, and Cost Per Outcome.
The pilot provided the State with a demonstration of the type of framework through which legislators could comparatively look at all State programs and enable them to enhance the impact of existing State programs, identify measurement gaps, and more deliberately apportion funding to the most efficient and effective programs, thereby achieving greater impact for the State’s constituents at the same overall budget levels.