California Performance Review

California Performance Review
Name	California Performance Review
Formation	2004
Purpose	Statewide organizational review and reform
Headquarters	Sacramento, California
Leader title	Director
Parent organization	State of California

Contents

California Performance Review

The California Performance Review was a large-scale administrative initiative launched to assess and reform the operations of the State of California. It sought to evaluate programs across the California State Legislature, Office of the Governor of California, California Department of Finance, and numerous state agencies such as the California Department of Transportation, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, and California Environmental Protection Agency. The review aimed to produce recommendations comparable to national efforts like the Grace Commission and contemporaneous state projects such as the Arizona Commission on Government Reform.

Background and Objectives

The review was initiated in the wake of fiscal challenges associated with the 2003 California budget crisis and debates in the California State Senate and California State Assembly over structural deficits. Its objectives included streamlining administrative functions in agencies including the California Highway Patrol, University of California, California State University, and the California Department of Social Services; improving service delivery to constituents used to interfacing with entities like the Franchise Tax Board and the Employment Development Department; and aligning programs funded through the California Environmental Protection Agency and California Health and Human Services Agency with policy goals debated during sessions of the California Legislature. The initiative invoked comparisons to reform efforts led by figures such as Newt Gingrich and Al Gore and drew attention from advocacy groups including the California Chamber of Commerce and AARP.

The project was organized under the auspices of the Office of the Governor of California and coordinated with the California Department of Finance and the Little Hoover Commission (California). Leadership included appointed directors and senior advisers drawn from firms like McKinsey & Company and PricewaterhouseCoopers, as well as public officials formerly associated with the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Office of Management and Budget (United States). Regional outreach involved engagement with county-level bodies such as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, San Diego County Board of Supervisors, and municipal executives from City of San Francisco, City of Los Angeles, and City of San Diego. The initiative convened panels comprising executives from the California Teachers Association, California Hospital Association, California Public Employees' Retirement System, and representatives from legal entities like the California Public Utilities Commission.

Recommendations encompassed proposals to reorganize agencies including consolidations touching the California Department of Transportation and California Department of Parks and Recreation, privatization or contracting options involving vendors like AT&T and UPS, and workforce reforms affecting employees represented by unions such as the Service Employees International Union and the California Federation of Teachers. Fiscal proposals referenced interactions with tax administrators like the Franchise Tax Board and adjustments to programs funded through propositions passed at the California ballot proposition process. Technology initiatives suggested integrations with systems used by the Internal Revenue Service and standards referenced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The review advanced performance metrics inspired by practices in the United Kingdom Cabinet Office and benchmarking studies akin to those used by the Government Accountability Office.

Implementation proceeded variably across agencies such as the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, California Highway Patrol, California Department of Education, and the California Public Utilities Commission. Some recommendations influenced budgeting processes managed by the California Department of Finance and procedural reforms within administrative bodies like the State Personnel Board (California). Outcomes included selective consolidation of administrative functions, shifts in procurement practices affecting contracts with companies including IBM and Oracle Corporation, and pilot projects in counties such as Alameda County and Orange County. Several proposals required legislation from the California State Legislature or ballot measures similar to Proposition 13 (1978), and others remained advisory, debated in hearings held by the Little Hoover Commission (California), the California State Auditor, and committees chaired by members of the California State Senate.

Critics from organizations including the California Faculty Association, American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and activist groups aligned with the ACLU of Northern California argued that proposals risked service reductions to beneficiaries of programs administered by the California Department of Social Services and the California Department of Veterans Affairs. Debates involved advocates such as the California Tax Reform Association and commentators in outlets like the Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, and Sacramento Bee. Legal challenges and political pushback engaged officials from the California Attorney General's office, the California Supreme Court, and municipal law departments in cities including Oakland, California and Sacramento, California.

The review's legacy persisted in subsequent reform efforts by administrations in the Office of the Governor of California and studies commissioned by the Little Hoover Commission (California), influencing reorganizations considered by the California State Senate and administrative modernizations undertaken by the California Department of Technology. Elements of the review informed later initiatives pursued during administrations of governors such as Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, and contributed to policy dialogues involving stakeholders like the California Chamber of Commerce, California NAACP, and the Public Policy Institute of California. Its recommendations continue to be cited in analyses from the California State Auditor and academic work at institutions including Stanford University, University of California, Berkeley, and University of Southern California.

Category:Public administration in California