Performance Report 2001/02
Project Management
2001/02 Performance Report
CAPITAL SUPPORT PERFORMANCE MEASURES
I. PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR CAPITAL SUPPORT
A. Background
In December 1995, in response to supplemental report language in the 1995 Budget Act, the Department submitted its report to the Legislature on Capital Support Performance Measures. That report proposed twelve performance measures for evaluating all capital outlay support functions. The proposed measures included specific measurements to evaluate the Department's cost effectiveness and timeliness in completing work, and to provide a consistent basis for year-to-year comparison. The report to the Legislature also recommended the development of a Quality Performance Measure to evaluate scope and quality of the final products, and to rate customer satisfaction.
In the Department's three-tiered scheme of measures (departmental, program, and operational), these twelve performance measures are program measures for the statewide Capital Outlay Support (COS) Program. These measures, along with other program measures, serve as performance indicators for the departmental measures. The relationship of capital outlay support program measures to departmental measures will be described later in this report.
The purpose of this report is to summarize, at the program level, the status of the capital outlay support performance measures, report data for these measures for the past five years through FY 2001/02, where available, and recommend target goals, where possible.
B. Context of Capital Support in the Department
Performance Measure #1 of the Report to the Legislature proposed "pie" charts showing PY and dollar expenditures for the Department's programs, the elements of the Highways program, and the breakdown of capital support expenditures. This is not a performance measure as such, but rather it sets the context for the other measures.
In FY 2001/02, total Caltrans expenditures for the five programs were $6.69 billion, of which $5.73 billion or 86% were Highways Program expenditures. The dominance of the Highways Program is shown in Figure 1.
| Program Category | FY 2001/02 Espenditures (millions) |
|---|---|
| Aeronautics |
$11 |
| Highways |
$5,731 |
| Mass Transportation |
$499 |
| Transportation Planning |
$149 |
| Administration |
$299 |
| TOTAL |
$6,689 |
Of the $5.73 billion in Highways Program expenditures, capital outlay support represents $1.17 billion and capital outlay $2.43 billion. The remaining $2.13 billion were for the other six Highways Program elements included in Figure 2.
| Activity Category | Percent Expenditure |
|---|---|
| Maintenance | 14% |
| Operations | 3% |
| Legal Services | 1% |
| Planning & Research | 1% |
| Local Assistance | 18% |
| State/Local Partnership | <1% |
| Capital Support | 20% |
| Capital Outlay | 42% |
| Total | 100% |
The percentage breakdown of the $1.17 billion of capital support expenditures for the FY 01/02 is shown in the following chart.
| Activity Category | Percent Expenditure |
|---|---|
| Locally Funded Projects | 4% |
| Overhead | 7% |
| Owner Operator | 4% |
| State Program Projects | 85% |
C. Relationship of Capital Support to Capital
Outlay
Perhaps the most sensitive of all the capital support measures is the ratio of capital support to capital outlay expenditures. This is the Performance Measure #2 in the Report to the Legislature. The relationship for each year from FY 1988/89 to 2001/02 is shown in Figure 4 on the next page. This figure and the accompanying table show a three-way breakdown of capital support, and the overall relationship to capital outlay dollars. The data for both capital support and capital outlay exclude expenditures on locally funded projects. Capital support also excludes owner-operator services.
It is also important to note that the capital support and capital outlay expenditures represent different sets of projects at different times. Capital support effort for Preliminary Engineering and, to a lesser degree Design, is expended on projects that will be under construction in some future fiscal year. Similarly, capital outlay is expended for projects that incurred Preliminary Engineering and Design support expenditures in past fiscal years. See Figure 4 on the next page.
Target: PM #2 is used to analyze trends and, therefore, there is no target goal for this measure.
|
Capital Support Category |
FY 88/89 |
FY 89/90 |
FY 90/91 |
FY 91/92 |
FY 92/93 |
FY 93/94 |
FY 94/95 |
FY 95/96 |
FY 96/97 |
FY 97/98 |
FY 98/99 |
FY 99/00 |
FY 00/01 |
FY 01/02 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Preliminary / Environmental |
12% |
10% |
11% |
9% |
8% |
4% |
4% |
3% |
2% |
4% |
8% |
7% |
8% |
8% |
|
Design & Right of Way |
20% |
20% |
19% |
21% |
24% |
17% |
19% |
19% |
16% |
17% |
20% |
22% |
22% |
21% |
|
Construction |
14% |
12% |
12% |
14% |
15% |
15% |
15% |
12% |
12% |
16% |
15% |
15% |
16% |
17% |
|
TOTAL |
46% |
42% |
42% |
43% |
46% |
36% |
38% |
34% |
30% |
37% |
43% |
44% |
46% |
46% |