March 7, 2003

Changes to Campbell's Strategic Plan

The Campbell government seems to have backed away from some of the targets it set in its first strategic plan. The updated plan that was tabled with the budget last month contains some disappointing changes.

The first goal in government's strategic plan is "to have a strong and vibrant provincial economy". An objective under that goal is that "British Columbia will have a prosperous economy." Last year targets called for improvements relative to year 2000 baseline measurements, but they have been abandoned in favor of the BC Progress Board's ranking of BC relative to other provinces. The most difficult target to reach may be BC's rank for the growth rate for real GDP per capita. Last year the target was simply to increase real GDP per capita from its value of $30,664 in year 2000. Of course, year 2001 turned out to have a recession so the government failed in its first year on that measurement. The strategic plan's target now says "The B.C. Progress Board has set a target for us of 1st or 2nd place in Canada by 2010. To meet that goal, by 2005/06 we expect to be at a 5th place rank in Canada in the growth of real GDP per capita, from the 2001 baseline rank of 10th place." Note that the emphasis has shifted to ranking growth rates rather than improving the absolute level. Also note how the government changes the target when it fails to hit it.

The second goal in the strategic plan is to have "a supportive social fabric". One of the objectives listed under that goal is that British Columbians be self sufficient. Last year a measure of self sufficiency was the number of seniors in receipt of maximum Guarantee Income Supplement benefits, and the target was to reduce that number from the 1999 baseline of 32%. That measure and its target have been dropped from the updated strategic plan. What remains are targets for getting people off of income assistance. The Campbell government just doesn't seem to understand that the well being of its citizens is more important than cost indicators for government. The comparable document for the State of Oregon lists over 20 key indicators including the percentage of Oregonians in poverty, incidence of elder abuse and the number of homeless. The measures and associated targets chosen by the Campbell government stand in testimony of an uncaring government.

The third goal in government's strategic plan is to have "safe, healthy communities and a healthy environment." One of the objectives is that "British Columbians will have safe communities." Last year a measure of that objective was domestic violence and its target was to reduce it from the baseline of 2.44 per 1,000 population. That measure and its target have been deleted from the updated strategic plan! That is disappointing but not surprising for a government that has backed away from protecting women and has abandoned mandatory prosecution for spousal abuse. Replacing that objective measure of safety in the updated plan is an opinion poll on the percentage of people who are satisfied with their personal safety. It is no wonder that public opinion polls conducted by Ipsos-Reid show that women are increasingly dissatisfied with the Campbell government.

Last year's plan included an objective that "local governments will have increased autonomy". Its measure and target were "pending" following consultation on the Community Charter. All reference to this objective has been deleted from the updated strategic plan.

The updated strategic plan includes an objective that "British Columbians practice sustainable resource development." It challenges the imagination to understand how the government's target of faster turnaround for tenure applications has anything to do with sustaining our natural resources but it is clear that the target relates to "development".

The Auditor General has expressed interest in tracking and assessing the reliability of government's plans and annual reports. No one knows when his assessment of the Campbell government's shifting measures and targets will appear, but the public is scheduled to provide an assessment on May 17, 2005.

---

March 6, 2003

Changes to BC's Transportation Plan

It is good news that some needed highway projects are getting funding help from the federal government. In many ways the spurt of project announcements is reminiscent of the glory days of black top politics under WAC Bennett.

In modern times there has been a trend in public administration to insist on measurable goals and objectives with specific targets for the measurements. It looks like BC's Ministry of Transportation is one of the hold outs that views big ticket announcements as more important than rational planning. Improving Kicking Horse Canyon is important, even though the announcement doesn't cover the entire project, and having better routes for truck traffic is vital for economic development, however, every effort should be made to show how the particular announcements fit into a rational service plan.

The Budget Accountability and Transparency Act requires every ministry to submit a service plan and to follow it with an annual report comparing ministries actual results with stated targets. It is interesting to compare service plans for any ministry between years to see how priorities and targets change. A comparison of the plan presented in 2002 with the plan presented in 2003 for the Ministry of Transportation reveals enormous differences. The introduction to the Ministry's 2003-06 service plan includes a page discussing differences from last year's plan in terms of various projects that have been announced. What is missing is any discussion of how those announcements help in reaching targets set by government a year earlier.

Last year's service plan specified targets for the Provincial Inland Ferries in terms of number of vehicles carried, cost per vehicle carried and actual hours of service vs. scheduled hours. This year's plan contains a footnote saying "The performance measures in the previous three-year service plan pertaining to Inland Ferries may not be accurate measures of achievement under a privatized model of service delivery. The ministry is developing alternative performance measures for privatized services." Could it be that the issue became so hot before the Premier backed off on tolls that he forgot to tell Judith Reid to put the Inland Ferries back in her Ministry's plan?

Both service plans set targets for urban traffic congestion measured as the percentage of vehicle kilometers traveled in conditions where the volume to capacity ratio exceeds 0.9. Last year's plan set the target for 2003/04 at 13.8% rising to 14.8% in 2004/05. This year the targets were increased to 13.9% for 2003/04, lowered to 14.3% for 2004/05 but put it back up to 14.9% for 2005/06. A footnote says that "reduced congestion is expected after 2006." That will be an interesting target to keep track of in the years ahead.

Both plans said that commercial trucking travel time between major economic gateways was a desired performance measure, but the updated plan still said that the targets for that measure were still "under development". Could that mean that the announcement for improved truck routes was done in the absence of any performance targets?

Both service plans spoke of the importance of highway safety but a major change occurred since last year in the target for measuring highway safety. In last year's plan the target was 1.08 fatalities and 28.40 serious injuries per 100 million vehicle kilometers treated. This year the target was changed to 230 kilometers of rumble strip installed per year, and 13 kilometers of new guardrail (compared to a baseline of 223 and 11 respectively). In the language of health care, that is a change from an outcome measurement to an input measurement, and that is the wrong direction for changes to be taking. At a time when rhetoric around the Sea to Sky Highway has been that hundreds of millions must be spent so as to improve safety, it is sad to see the measurement of safety change. You can be sure that the body count will still be available from ICBC even if the Ministry doesn't use it as a measure. Come to think of it, during the recent IOC visit the language about the highway shifted from safety to how fast one could get to Whistler!

Last year the Ministry specified separate targets for pavement condition for primary, secondary, and northern and rural roads. The target for a rating of good or excellent was 75% for primary roads, and 65% for secondary roads. The rating for northern and rural roads has yet to be determined. This year, in the spirit of the heartland, the distinction between different roads was dropped and the target was set at 76% good or excellent for all roads. Last year's report claimed that the 2001/02 baseline was 75% for primary and 65% for secondary, but this year's report claimed that the baseline was 76% for all roads. Baseline means the standard already achieved. The Ministry has some explaining to do on how the baseline took such a big jump in a year when little was done to improve highways. In fact, the related target for highway rehabilitation remained the same in both plans, 2,500 lane kilometers to be resurfaced per year.

This year's plan did set a very precise deadline for a major report. Page 16 of the service plan specifies the objective of a practical long-term framework for an integrated, multi-modal transportation system in BC, and says that a strategic frame work document will be published by March 31, 2004 - just over one year from now.