When the Legislature appropriates new funding for a project, it’s kind of like your family setting out on a road trip to your favorite theme park—if the journey is successful, you’ll make it to the place where all your dreams come true. Appropriating the funding is like getting on the freeway, it’s a starting point but it’s not the intended destination. Along the way, you’re constantly tracking indicators of your road trip “performance” much like those in the New Funding Follow-up Report (Follow-up Report):
- Schedule: Are you on schedule to arrive before it gets dark or before your kids start going stir-crazy in the backseat?
- Spending: Are you staying within your budget for your favorite gas station snacks?
- Performance: Are you on the right route, or have you veered off course due to a wrong turn or a missed exit?
For each newly funded item, the Follow-up Report tracks key indicators about a project’s progress on its journey to the ultimate destination: benefitting Utahns. The report tells users if a project is on schedule, within budget, and for projects over $500,000, whether it’s meeting customized performance measures that represent positive, intended outcomes for taxpayers.
Based on information reported from the agency administering the project, Legislative Fiscal Analyst (LFA) staff make targeted recommendations for the legislature to “course correct” as needed on funded projects. This year’s report compiles data on 544 funded projects, representing $5.3 billion in new funding and over 100 recommendations for appropriations subcommittees to consider.
Tailored Recommendations
Based on the information reported back from each agency, analysts can make a variety of different “course-correction” recommendations back to legislators. Examples include:
- Re-allocation or Reduction of Funding: Sometimes a project doesn’t require the full funding amount to be successfully implemented, so remaining funding may be better spent elsewhere. Analysts might recommend one-time or ongoing reductions in funding in these cases.
- “Menus” of Solutions: Other times, agencies or analysts may identify an issue that could be solved in multiple ways. For example, if it’s discovered that the actual costs of a program will exceed the initial appropriation, the recommendation might come in the form of a “menu” of options for resolving the shortfall that a subcommittee can choose from.
- Repeat Reporting: Finally, some projects may need to be revisited in future fiscal years for repeat reporting. This might be recommended when a project’s implementation was delayed or when agencies need more time to accurately measure the outcomes of a project.
Improvements for 2024
Just like the auto makers that are continually improving the dashboard displays in new cars, LFA and Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) set out to make this year’s online reporting dashboard more interactive. Additional functionalities include the ability to see project details from the “Action Items” and “Responsiveness” pages, as well as a filter on the “Future Years” page to find when a funded project will be reported on. The back-end functionality has also been improved through upgrading to PowerBI to improve the speed, quality, and customization of the underlying data analysis.
Using the Follow-Up Dashboard
For a tutorial on the updated dashboard, check out the LFA Performance Team’s presentation to the Executive Appropriations Committee earlier this week. The tutorial covers what information lives on each view of the dashboard and how to search and filter for the data you need.
Looking Forward to 2025
LFA and GOPB are already planning improvements for the 2025 report, and are happy to share a sneak peek of upcoming changes:
- Integration with ongoing line item measures; and
- Process improvements for setting measures that adhere to legislative intent and capture real impacts on Utahns rather than just inputs or activities.
The Follow-up Report is designed to provide transparency and accountability in how taxpayer dollars are used, and also provide legislators with decision making criteria, based on objective information. Staff welcome feedback for how to improve the tool in future years for the benefit of legislators and constituents.