3	To analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions	Novice	Developing	Proficient	Accomplished
3a	Develop expertise in techniques used in managing government operations	Can identify why strategic planning, budgeting, and sound fiscal management practices are important, but cannot analyze how and/or if such practices are being used within specific contexts.	Can identify strategic planning, fiscal planning, and budgeting practices for a particular situation or context, but has limited capacity to evaluate the effectiveness of a management system.	Can identify and analyze strategic planning, financial management systems, needs and emerging opportunities within a specific organization or network.	Can provide new insights into the financial management and strategic planning challenges facing an organization or network, and suggest alternative design and implementation scenarios.
3b	Appraise the concepts of social science research methods, statistical analysis and techniques; apply the skills to analyze public policies and government operations; and formulate a policy or managerial decision	Can explain why it is important to undertake program/policy evaluation but possesses limited capacity to actually carrying it out.	Can provide a rationale for undertaking program and policy evaluation and explain what the possible goals and outcomes of such an evaluation might be.	Can provide a detailed account for how a program or policy evaluation should be structured within the specific context.	Can demonstrate the successful execution of a program or policy evaluation or the successful utilization of evidence to improve administrative practice.
3c	Create networked / collaboration solution to complex modern problems	Can explain why it is important for public administrators to value coalition and team building in a vague or abstract way, but cannot provide specific explanations or justifications applied to particular contexts.	Can identify instances in specific cases or context where a public administrator successfully or unsuccessfully demonstrated a capacity to build teams or coalitions. Possesses a basic level of understanding of network dynamics.	Demonstrates a capacity for successful participation in a team or coalition environment. Can apply teaming and coalition building concepts to describe the experience.	Can point to example in which they have created and/or lead teams or coalitions. Can apply teaming and coalition building concepts to describe the experience.
3d	Identify, evaluate and model best practices	Can provide an explanation of why performance goals and measures are important in public administration, but cannot apply this reasoning to specific contexts.	Can identify the performance management considerations for a particular situation or context, but has limited capacity to recognize the effectiveness of performance management systems.	Can identify and analyze performance management systems, needs and emerging opportunities within a specific organization or network.	Can provide new insights into the performance management challenges facing an organization or network, and suggest alternative design and measurement scenarios.
3e	Develop professional capacity in basic skills (including writing, speaking, analytical techniques, and critical thinking)	Demonstrates some ability to express ideas verbally and in writing. Lacks capacity to present and write consistently.	Possesses the capacity to write documents that are free of grammatical error and are organized in a clear and efficient manner. Possesses the capacity to present ideas in a professional manner. Suffers from a lack of consistency in the presentation of material and expression or original ideas and concepts.	Is capable of consistently synthesizing and expressing ideas verbally and in writing in a professional manner that communicates messages to intended audiences.	Can demonstrate some instances in which verbal and written communication has persuaded others to take action in solving problems.

NASPAA Competency 3"Ability to analyze synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions" with UCF MPA Program Learning Objectives

	3. ability to analyze, synthesize, think critically, solve problems and make decisions	3a. Develop expertise in techniques used in managing government operations.	3b. Appraise the concepts of social science research methods, statistical analysis and techniques; apply the skills to analyze public policies and government operations; and formulate a policy or managerial decision.	3c. Create networked/collaboration solution to complex modern problem	3d. Identify, evaluate and model best practices.	3e. Develop professional capacity in basic skills (including writing, speaking, analytical techniques, critical thinking).
PAD 6053Public Administrators in the Governance Process	R	I		I		R
PAD 6035Public Administration in the Policy Process	M	M		R		R
PAD 6700Research Methods for Public Administration	M	I	M		R	M
PAD 6037Public Organization Management	R	R	I	I	R	R
PAD 6701Analytic Techniques for Public Administration	M		M		R	R
PAD 6227Public Budgeting	M	M			R	R
PAD 6207Public Financial Management	M	M	R			R
PAD 6417Human Resource Management	M	M			I	R
PAD 6335Strategic Planning and Management	M	R	R	R	M	R
PAD 6062Advanced Concepts and Applications in Public Administration	M	R	R	M	R	M

I need these in bold, I have attached the paper I have written at the bottom of the screen, The top of this is supposed to answer the first two questions as well.

Competency/capacity addressed:

Criteria I have met:

Summary of Paper: Paragraph Form

Relationship to measures from above: Paragraph form

Suggestions for improvement of paper: Paragraph Form

Paper

Florida's budget transitioned from a line-item budgeting approach to a performance-based program budgeting approach which was simple. Instead of presenting a statement attached to a budget with categories, performance-based budgeting is clear," the number of resources given to public programs should be influenced by their performance in achieving desired results" (VanLandingham et al, 2005). This performance-based approach should tackle different points by increasing agency accountability, increase agencies budget flexibility, improve coordination, involve the citizens in the governance process and develop incentives for agencies among others. This reform was rolled out over a seven-year period with an agency taking three years before fully implementing the performance-based program budgeting (PB²). The Florida Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis and Government Accountability (OPPAGA) was created in 1994 to oversee the program's effectiveness after the first full year of implementation of the agencies.

There were benefits that presented itself when the program was in its infancy which the OPPAGA noted in its report's. A big benefit was the improved efficiency these agencies were operating under the new PB². The Department of Revenue decreased the number of steps involved in tax collection, combined activities in regional offices, and reduced the number of managers (VanLandingham et al, 2005). The goal for PB² was just that, to oversee performance and base their budget according to the results.

As there were benefits, there was also many hurdles that came with implementing this plan. Leadership, or the lack of, was a big one. Many legislators pro PB² were not overseeing this implementation. The responsibilities were slip between appropriations and substantive committees. Some of these agencies also were unclear about how to measure the performance budget. Many thought that by asking for a larger budget will incentivize agencies to perform but the legislature persisted on continuing to base budget on results. Some programs that couldn't be measure with positive or negative results were also an issue as they were still tied to the old way of line-item budgeting which could be confusing to agencies that were implementing performance budgeting.

People might see many issues or weaknesses with the performance-based budgeting, but the positives outgain the negatives. The usefulness of the new budget was beneficial to complement budget decisions so legislators can have a better understanding on how programs work and their outcome. A particular group did not disproportionately benefit from the change. There was still a process in which the budget was submitted either performance based or line-item if the program did not fit the rubric for performance-based budgeting. There were some programs that were crucial to keep budgeting no matter the performance as it couldn't be measured.

The power did shift drastically to the governor when the budgetary program was implemented. Governor Bob Graham elected in 1978 expanded the role of the governor in its involvement with the budget preparation and extending an office of planning and budgeting in the executive office of the governor (Rubin p.142). This meant that the governor had a front seat into what the budget looks like and obtaining more control in approving the budget. In Florida, because the governor and the legislature were the same party, the priorities of the governor were met as the demands aligned. Governor Jeb Bush elected in 19998, threated to veto any projects or programs that did not align with his agenda. In governor Bush's first year, he vetoed 550 proposals, and the number did not decline. Legislators needed to find a way to get proposed project and programs funded, by either aligning their project with the governor's interest or making the project less visible, in 2002 and 2003 the veto number were drastically down. The legislature in Florida then composed new laws and commission to ensure that this shift in power gets reverted back. The Legislative Commission which contains fourteen members of each house to oversee agency spending plans and have decisions on midyear budgeting changes. This commission can challenge the governors' decisions, retain power, and balance the same party domination that was crucial for other governors to align the budget to their agenda. Still, the governor has the power to veto any proposed budgeting plan if it is reasonable.