Highlights 77th Texas Legislature - Senate

_____________________ A PPROPRIATIONS
PPROPRIATIONS ACT
77 th Texas Legislature
earnings in excess of the amounts estimated above are appropriated to the specified recipient of the
available earnings of the fund in applicable law. Any unexpended appropriations made above as of August
31, 2002, are appropriated to the same agencies and institutions for the same purposes for fiscal year
2003.
Factors Affecting the State Budget
Public and higher education enrollment, prison incarceration, and certain health and human service
programs are among the most significant factors influencing the cost of state government. During the last
ten years, average daily attendance in public schools increased by 20.5 percent; higher education
enrollment in general academic institutions is up by 0.8 percent; community college enrollment has grown
by 17.7 percent; average monthly caseload for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) grants
(includes TANF-Basic and TANF-UP) has decreased by 43.4 percent; average monthly caseload for
nursing home clients has increased by 10.6 percent; average monthly caseload for Medicaid clients has
increased by 50.3 percent; inmate population in the Department of Criminal Justice has grown by 214.9
percent; new adjudications to the juvenile probation system have grown by 154.7 percent; and
CHIP—Phase II served 37,175 children in FY 2000 and is projected to serve more than 425,000 children by
September 2001.
Performance Measures and Targets
There are four types of performance measures used in the appropriations process: “outcome”
(results/impact), “output” (volume), “efficiency”, and “explanatory.” Each serves a different purpose.
Performance measures contained in the General Appropriations Act are designated as key measures, and
for key outcome, output, and efficiency performance measures, a target is established for each year of the
biennium for which funds are appropriated. The recommended appropriations for the 2002–2003 biennium
contain 2,167 key performance measures, which represent a 0.7 percent increase in the total number of
key performance measures from the 2000-2001 biennial level and a 21.7 percent reduction from the
1998–1999 biennial level.
Number of Measures
Conference
Types of Measures Appropriated Appropriated Appropriated Recommended
1996-1997 1998-1999 2000-2001 2002-2003
Outcome (Results/Impact) 1,118 1,012 902 894
Output (Volume) 1,445 1,123 828 841
Efficiency 512 491 300 304
Explanatory 175 143 121 128
Total 3,250 2,769 2,151 2,167
Source: Legislative Budget Board
Table 3
Key Perfomance Measures
Senate Research Center 7