This document discusses four frameworks for establishing governmental service priorities: incremental, conceptual, performance, and reevaluation. The incremental framework focuses on year-to-year changes from previous funding levels. The conceptual framework examines the proper role of government and community values. The performance framework emphasizes measuring outcomes. The reevaluation framework combines elements of the other approaches and encourages collaboration among stakeholders. Each framework has benefits but also limitations, such as being minimally responsive to change, not conducive to public participation, or difficult to quantify outcomes.

1. REEVALUATING METHODS OF
ESTABLISHING PRIORITIES FOR
GOVERMENTAL SERVICE
FAHRUL AZMI
1206337002
MAKP
UNIVERSITAS INDONESIA

2. Some Importance Issues in Establishing
Priorities For Govermental Service
 Evolving welfare reform at the national level.
 Local government face resource limitation.
 Careful financial management requires decision-making
procedure that support consistent, fair, and rational
determination of resource allocation priorities.
 Public policy maker need some methods for determining
which program will receive funding and the level of
funding to be dedicated to each program

3. Beberapa Pendekatan/Framework dalam
Penentuan Prioritas Program Pemerintah
1.
2.
3.
4.
The Incremental Framework
The Conceptual Framework
The Performance Framework
The Reevalution Framework

4. The Incremental Framework
 Decision are made on the marginal amount of change from year to
year. (Wildavsky, 1988)
 The emphasis on year-to-year marginal adjustment used the recent
past as a good guide to the immediate future. (Caiden, 1992)
 One outcome of this approach was that discussions were then limited
to making decision on the increment (or decrement) of change from
previous funding levels.
 It emphasizes stability and routinized decision-making processes in an
attempt to minimize uncertainty. (Axelrod, 1995)
 It accommodates the politicalness of the prioritization process by
allowing for a series of trade-offs in funding decisions without explicitly
considering previous decision made on program and policies.
 The drawback of this approach is that it is minimally responsive to
change in the environment

5. The Conceptual Framework
 This framework focuses on policy discussion on the proper
role of government.
 There are three major guideline that government must
consider in prioritizing the service
1. Adequately meet mandated responsibilities, then offer optional
program providing importance services for large number of people or
helping government meet its legal responsibilities
2. Give special consideration to program with capacity for long-term
benefits and a ripple effect; to program that help maintain and
stimulate a humane, compassionate community; and to program
showing promise of becoming independent of governmental funding.
3. Support program for person without physical, mental, or emotional
capacity to work only when other governmental resources are not
adequate.

6. The Conceptual Framework
The conceptual framework considers three points of view.
1.The Societal View
The societal view is most concerned with productivity off all adult members of
society so that the basic needs of individuals for food, shelter, and clothing
are met.
The emphasis in on helping citizens achieve self-sufficiency through the
provision of service that emphasize education and training in anticipation of
long-term benefits such as a reduction in future public expenditure.
2.The Structural/Governmental View
The Structural/Governmental view regards that The formation of nonprofit
agencies is a means of providing other services basic to the needs of the
community while partially relieving government of its responsibility.
The interest of the community is served, through private donations and public
taxes, when needed service provision is sustained, when service delivery is
effective, and when service provision is more cost-effective than when offered
through government agencies.

7. The Conceptual Framework
3. The Humane Perspective
This perspective involves basic societal values about governmental actions
and funding support for meeting the needs of groups within the society,
based on compassion and empathy for those in need. (Grace, 1995)
Example of program that traditionally receive funding priority under this view
are those that provide for basic human needs such as food, shelter,
clothing, or health care.
The action to meet such needs in often undertaken because such response
is seen as a compassionate, moral responsibility rather than as a legal
duty.

8. The Conceptual Framework
 The conceptual framework is limited in its ability to fulfill the
promise of democratic decision making because it is not conducive
to citizen participation.
 The discussion tends to be limited to the political elite who have
the greatest voice in the community and its decision-making
processes.

9. The Performance Framework
 This type of approach gives primary emphasis to the systematic
measurement of outcomes as they reflect desired result.
 It clarifies and simplifies prioritization and decision making by
providing a method of identifying and analyzing the multiple
variable (e.g., goals, programs, values) and promoting a common
basis for decision making.
 There are five ideas support the performance framework
1. Most people make decisions based on personal and professional
background, experiences, and preferences for abstract concepts.
2. The overall goals is to minimize the negative impact and
maximize the positive benefit of decision.
3. The choice of measurements can reflect process and/or product.
4. The indicators should be specific and measureable.

10. The Performance Framework
5. It is important to maximize analytic skill and minimize the
potential for political manipulation
 Requirements for appropriate performance measurement of
government services are threefold:
1. Decision makers must understand the real nature of these
delivery systems; for example, the services provided are clearly
defined, reliable, and of high quality.
2. They must be willing to agree on strategic objectives
(outcomes), provide incentives to influence each organization’s
behavior to be objective and performance-based, and evaluate
each program on the degree to which it achieves the outcomes.
3. Performance measurement data must be properly collected,
analyzed, clearly presented.

11. The Performance Framework
 The strength of the performance framework approach lie in its
versatility.
 The primary drawback of this approach is that it is difficult to
quantify the outcome or result of government programs, which has
often led to an emphasis on input and workload measures in
traditional decision-making processes.
 A drawback of this approach is the tendency to rely on quantitative
analysis as the sole decision-making tool.

12. The Reevaluation Framework
 This approach capitalize on the benefits of other approaches.
 It merges the emphasis on the political process described in
incremental budgetary theory with the economic principles of utility
maximization present in the conceptual framework and the result
orientation of decision making under the performance framework.
 There are two different approaches within the reevaluation
framework
1. The Value Assessment Approach
The value assessment approach is concerned with how funding change
(increase or decrease) to one or more agencies (within a set of agencies) is
thought to likely alter the value (or benefit) of service that agency can provide.
This strategy recognizes the difficulty in quantifying the relationship between
budgets and outcome, particularly when the outcomes, their indicators, and
valid measurements of those indicators are not quantifiable.
Even so, it is possible to determine the value of services provided by
individual agencies as well as the total value of services delivered among all
agencies.

13. The Reevaluation Framework
1. The Value Assessment Approach
To ensure this approach be desirable to local government, there
are four requirements that have to be fulfilled
a.An effective information and data system to enhance
collaboration and integration would need to be in place.
b.Service providers would have to develop new ways of working
with clients and each other.
c.A method for resolving conflict among agencies would need to
be ensured.
d.Funding mechanisms appropriate for resource collaboratives
would have do develop.

14. The Reevaluation Framework
2. The Service Integration Approach
 Service integration is a process for developing an integrated
framework within which ongoing programs can be incorporated
and improved to make service better available within existing
commitments and resources. (Yessian, 1995)
 It emphasizes the need for linkages between programs that have
the target group in mind and are flexible enough to change based
on ongoing performance review.
 A centralized leadership structure is necessary to pursue
sufficient funding and regulatory flexibility while remaining
accountable for result in line with those inditified in system’s
strategic plan.
 A primary advantage of this method for establishing priorities is
that it encourages a comprehensive and systematic view of both
a policy issue and the network of services and providers
surrounding the policy issue.

15. The Reevaluation Framework
 This approach encourages collaboration of wide range of
stakeholders, making the process more democratic; it also has the
ability to accommodate the politicalness of governmental decisionmaking processes by linking policy objective to funding decision.

16. Comparative Review of Different Frameworks
Frameworks
Benefits
Problems
Incremental
Accommodates the politicalness
of the prioritization process
No periodic review of entire policy
networks; minimally responsive to
changes in the environment
Conceptual
Forces an examination of the
proper role of environment and
consideration of communitywide values
Not conducive to wide ranging
participation, particularly that of
citizens
Performance
Identifies desired results and
allows for utility ranking of
multiple
alternatives/organizations
Difficult to develop uniform,
objective quantifications,
minimizes the role of the political
process
Reevaluation
Establishes priorities based on a
comprehensive and systematic
view of the policy issue by
multiple stakeholders
Lack of dedicated resources for
staff trained in needs
assessments and outcome
evaluation techniques
(Hale and Franklin, 1992)