RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPROVED SPENDING EFFECTIVENESS

AND DOWNSIZING GOVERNMENT

White Paper SOC2014.2
June 15, 2014

The Spending Oversight Council (SOC) has reviewed and analyzed numerous
federal and state reports, audits and other documents, attended state hearings and
met with state workers and legislators. While audits and other investigations of
state agencies have identified cases of fraud and non-compliance with federal and
state statutes, the SOC has identified an equal and perhaps even greater potential
waste of taxpayer money which is the failure to not only perform objective measures
of services but the failure to even identify objective goals for these services that
would appear to address the stated intent of the programs. Without establishing
such goals and metrics there are no means to determine whether programs provide
benefits commensurate with the spending of taxpayer money. Nothing illustrates
this more than the continued reduction in performance of our public elementary
and secondary education system which is very apparent simply by looking at the
number of college students taking remedial math and reading courses just to be able
to study in college.

Based on our review and analysis of state programs the SOC requests that the
Missouri legislature consider implementation of three recommendations defined
below to reduce the waste and cost of Missouri government and to improve the
quality of services provided to the citizens of our state:

1. FREEZE the budgets of each existing program at the current absolute level and
reject any new programs or expansion of existing programs until the following
conditions have been met in advance of each request for additional funds:
a. Define for each program specific objective and measureable goals,
results and benefits that will occur for the program to be considered
successful. This should include a verifiable current baseline, what the
program is intended to accomplish and numerical changes that will
 occur at intermediate times and at a mandatory sunset date for each
program. These objectives should be established by or reviewed and
approved by a commission of non-government employees.
b. Define specific objective metrics that will be used to determine success
or failure of the program, including the frequency of the measurements,
who will perform and review the metrics and how and to whom they
will be reported.
c. Define a decision basis for eliminating, modifying or continuing a
program based on the measurement results and a sunset date for when
such evaluations shall occur. No change of metrics shall be permitted
after the initial metrics have been approved and before the sunset
evaluation has been completed.
d. Determine a non-governmental entity to make the evaluations using
individuals who have no vested personal interest in the program other
than a concern for what is good for the Nation, State and Citizens.

2. PRIVATIZE all services that are currently performed by a government agency

which can reasonably be privatized. We believe that this includes the
overwhelming majority of such services, including but not limited to,
healthcare programs, various welfare programs, public education, vehicle
registration and many others. This would include programs funded by the
federal government, state government or a combination of the federal and
state governments. We further recommend that all requests for proposals
should be established by or reviewed and approved by a commission of non-
government employees. Benefits of such privatization could include the
following:
a. Competition would be introduced into the performance of services and
failure by the providers to meet customer satisfaction would result in
losing the contract or failing as a business.
b. Costs would be reduced as private suppliers would streamline their
organizations to maximize performance.
c. The state agencies would be dramatically downsized and become
essentially oversight organizations and could hold private suppliers
accountable. Currently state legislators do not have the resources to
provide such oversight and depend on the agencies for oversight.
Experience has shown over and over again that agencies will not
investigate themselves or provide unbiased oversight of their activities
so that accountability of agencies/departments and employees is non-
 existent. This effectively means that little or no oversight exists at the
moment.
d. While we assume that privatization of all such services which can be
privatized cannot be privatized at once due to resource limitations, such
privatization could be prioritized by review of the Missouri Single Audit
Reports. We suggest that any issue of fraud, non-compliance, or lack of
response/correction of issues that appear on consecutive Single Audit
Reports be placed at the first priority for privatization. We have already
shown in public hearings of the House Appropriations Committee that
claims by the DSS Director that they correct all issues as soon as they
learn of them is demonstrably untrue and that the same or similar
deficiencies are repeated year after year. That same department
director even admitted that the Department of Social Services was
“strong on output, weak on outcomes”. A private supplier would be
terminated and replaced for such results. We believe that prioritization
based on performance deficiencies would gather the attention of the
deficient or eliminate them at the earliest possible schedule. The audit
reports provide the evidence to refute any argument that the state
provides the services better than private industry could do.

3. PROVIDE a website or other information forum that is publicly available with

the following data in an easy to find and read format for any citizen to see the
status of each program, review the budget request and actual expenditures,
and budget approvals. If we are to be as we say “a government of the people,
for the people and by the people” our citizens need to be well informed and at
the very least have the opportunity to be well informed. The information
provided to the public shall, as a minimum. include the following:
a. Budget amount requested and the objective goals set for those
expenditures
b. Actual cost to date and the measured achievements to date.
c. Hearing dates, time and place for the budget request and review
including recommendations made by the hearing committee.
d. Milestone dates and sunset date, and planned achievements by those
dates.
e. Name and title of the state employee responsible for the program
implementation.