Better results from public services – or just more cuts?

It was good to see this week’s government efficiency report focusing on better outcomes from essential public services. Challenges for Change: Results for Vermonters held out the promise of saving $38 million in fiscal 2011 and nearly twice that much in fiscal 2012—all while delivering “the same or better result.”

If it comes to pass, it will be a welcome change from across-the-board budget-cutting the state has suffered the past two years. Services have become an afterthought; the bottom line has ruled.

It’s hard to argue with the goal of better public services at lower cost. But Challenges for Change is thin on details, so it’s also hard to gauge how effective the plan will be.

The cuts—or rather “savings”—appear to be a given:  “The savings are taken in the FY11 and FY12 budget process. There is no argument about money. The money isn’t there to spend.” it says.

Then the report repeats the challenge: “deliver the same or better result with the money available.” It doesn’t say how we’ll know we’ve gotten that better result.

In fact, the section on “challenges” in human services suggests we can expect worse outcomes: “Aging demographics and reduced public resources may be requiring Vermont to reconsider its expectations about whom it can afford to serve.”

In other words, elderly Vermonters and Vermonters with disabilities may get less. This doesn’t sound like a better outcome, unless you think cutting services to vulnerable people is efficient and likely to improve their quality of life.

Efficiency and better outcomes are one thing, cutting services to vulnerable people is quite another.  Vermonters clearly support the former.  There will be pushback – and there should be – about the latter.