Blaine County elected officials and heads of departments are starting their FY2016 internal budgeting process to prepare for public hearings mid-May through June. I went to a workshop yesterday where they discussed their views of Outcome Based Budgeting (OBB), the model inaugurated by the County in 2011 (one of five possible budgeting models considered at the time). 

I think most of us can appreciate that budgeting, whether for a family or a corporation, is an art - and a trial, even for those who actually like doing it! To be effective, it requires both detailed, measurement-focused analysis and big picture conceptualization of desired outcomes and the strategies to achieve them.

The title for the County's workshop could have been "What has been the outcome of the shift to a budget process focused on outcomes?" Reviews were mixed and honestly shared - with some angst about having the discussion late in the game since budgeting is beginning and it's too late to alter the process for this year. Nevertheless, starting the evaluation now should focus everyone's attention on changes needed to improve budgeting next year.   

There was consensus that OBB has achieved at least one of its goals: To provide County Commissioners, other elected officials, and department heads with greater awareness of each others' objectives and necessities, enhancing their sense of being a team and collaborating to help each other out re: resources.

County Commissioners, responsible for reviewing and pulling all department budgets together for the final County budget, were more generally favorable to the OBB process than others but they don't create budgets themselves. They do feel the process has improved County management and contributed to Moody's recent AA1 rating for County bonds. But other elected officials and department heads were not quite so sanguine. More experienced with the paperwork than they were four years ago, they find it restrictive, time-consuming, jargonistic - and perhaps an empty exercise with the product shoved into a desk drawer until the next year.

I took a look after the meeting at the description of the OBB process and its required paperwork and can see several good reasons for dissatisfaction. For one thing, a clear explanation of what is meant by "outcome" is lacking. This is not an obvious parameter if you've been used to line item budgets which tend to focus on activities, rather than what the activities are supposed to produce. The specific requirement of department heads to identify key performance questions to find key performance indicators to reach key performance outcomes.... well, yes, although based in logic, it's jargon and constricting. The lack of a quarterly budget review as a County team and feedback by Commissioners about "How we're doing" is also an oversight. Their presence would keep the process alive and productive.   

These issues will be handled, I'm sure, in future workshops by the County. But, in the meantime, all of us who ever prepare or review budgets (for-profit, non-profit, or family head) should remember a few things.

1. A yearly budget review provides the opportunity for a leader (for-profit, non-profit, or family head) to work with her team to identify what should be removed from the upcoming budget, how activities can be made more efficient and cost-effective, and what new possibilities might be available based on expected income. This can actually be a fulfilling enterprise:

• Certain costs will not recur! Yay, knock them off the budget!
• Our application processing takes too long. Let's streamline it and save some man-hours. Yay, budget savings! 
• If we don't have to absorb any cuts this year, what new outcome can we aim for using the dollars we've saved? Yay, something new and different to work on that will make us shine!

2. Thinking in terms of budget outcomes elevates one's thinking from listing status quo activities, i.e. "what dollars do we need next year to continue what we did this year" to "what can we point to achieving a year from now (outcome)" and "why do we want to do that? (strategy.)" Outcome based budgeting invites improvement, change, and tangible proof for all to see of what's been achieved.   

3. It's not clear if County Commissioners have defined outcomes for the County that include individual departments. The website states the County's Vision:

"To improve quality of life by providing efficient and effective public services. As stewards of citizens' resources, we serve our diverse community with teamwork, integrity, and commitment to excellence." 

However, I couldn't find any outcomes. Even if not on the website, they should be written and their intent communicated to all other leaders for help in their budget development. 

There are many possible outcomes that could be identified for the County as a whole. One possibility is to achieve greener operations in FY2016. This example comes to mind because, as I walked into the Courthouse, I saw grass sod being laid out on the building's lawn. Immediately, I smiled and thought it might be drought-tolerant grass - knowing that the County cares about sustainability. Turns out, it wasn't.

But what an opportunity for County Commissioners to drive change by establishing a County-wide outcome of greater sustainability - an outcome that surely all departments and employees could buy into and easily find ways to align it with their own outcome based budgets. 

Until next week...Jima Rice