Content uploaded by Paul F. Gentle
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul F. Gentle on Nov 21, 2018
Content may be subject to copyright.
WHAT DO STATE LEGISLATIVE FISCAL OFFICES DO?
Anita Chadha, Anne Permaloff and Paul Gentle
An earlier version of this paper was presented at the Southwestern Political Science
Association Meetings in Corpus Christi, TX, March 1998.
Abstract:
A survey was mailed to all 58 legislative fiscal offices in the United States to
determine the scope of legislative fiscal office activities .Results indicate that the vast
majority of these offices are responsible for writing fiscal notes for all legislation ,with
the remainder at least evaluating the fiscal notes of the executive agencies. All fiscal
offices analyze executive budgets and produce legislative substitute budgets. Relatively
little attention is devoted to research projects during the session, with much more time
spent on that task between sessions. Results presented in this article represent the most
comprehensive effort to date toward determining what legislative fiscal offices do and
when.
Over the past decade, changing economic and social conditions have demanded
greater levers of information, knowledge, and expertise of state offices (Worthley and
Apfel, 1978).With increases in services and functions of these offices, legislative staff
have grown rapidly, making them an important political force. Staff members perform
assorted tasks, including bill drafting, fiscal analysis, revenue forecasting, policy research,
and program evaluation. According to Alan Rosenthal(1990),"because of the assistance
staff members render, the legislative process works better than before ..."The importance
of staff to legislators is clearly documented
(Entin,1973;Kovenock ,1973;Porter,1974;Rosenthal and Forth,1978;Sabatier and
Whiteman.1985;Huber,1989;Mooney,1991).
Research on state legislative staffing had been slow to develop ( Baluatis , 1975a;
Oppenheimer,1983) but is growing. While studying one legislature or subunits in a
legislature continues to be the modus operandi of most researchers, few integrative
comparative studies across state legislative levers exist (Mszey, 1979; Hammond, 1985).
With the growth in functions of staff offices, surveys concerning how legislative staff
offices, surveys concerning how legislative staff spends its time promise to be useful
(Bevier, 1979). The need for in-depth comparative studies continues to grow.
The legislative fiscal office (LFO) is one of the agencies that operates in support of
state legislative fiscal office and that these is substantial anecdotal evidence that some are
influential , relatively little information exists on the workloads they carry , or the timing
of their actives .What is known of LFOs is that they typically provide financial data
enabling legislatiors to make more informed decisions concerning the allocation of state
resources than would be possible without staff assistance. The LFO's responsiblities may
include the development of legislative fiscal notes (LFNs), short assessments of the
probable revenue and expenditure consequences of enacting a proposed piece of
legislation or the executive agency's estimate is correct. Some LFOs assist legislators in
budget development or alternatives to the executive budget, while others have
responsibility for research reports, program evaluations, and management evaluations.
Numerous works do exist on several aspects of congressional offices. Much work
has been done on staffing(Clapp,1963;Kofmehl, 1962, Fennno , 1966; Ripley ,1969;
Fox and Hammond ,1975,1977;Malbin ,1980; Rosenthal ,1981), committees and staff
(Huitt, 1954; Sharkansky ,1965,Cooper, 1971 ),the direct and indirect influence staff has
on the behavior of legislators (Huitt , 1966 ; Jewell and Patterson ,1966; Matthews,
1960) , comparative legislatures (Loewenberg, 1979 ; Mezey ,1979; Blondel ,1994 ).
Studies on state offices have also been done .They focus on dudgetary processes (Bell,
1972 ; Yongdarf,1983 ; Gold, 1985; Duncombe ,1986; NCSL , 1987; Hutchison ,1988;
Snell ,1990; NCSL, 1990; Thurmaier，1992； Godling, 1994 ) , staff roles (Huwa and
Rosenthal ,1977; Balutis ,1975a ; Feller et. al, 1975), compare legislative levels
(Meller ,1967 ; Francis , 1967), and include case studies of legislative fiscal staffs in New
Mexico (Budtke , 1975), Florida (Kyle ,1975), Michigan (Farnum ,1975 ),Wisconsin
(Hartmark ,1975）, and New York (Ballutis,1975b).
Despite the importance of LFOs, there has been very little which can genuinely be
recognized as an in-depth descriptive survey on the duties and functions of LFOs. While
descriptive studies on legislative staffing exist , they are dated and tend to focus on
demographic characteristics and tenure (Rogers , 1941; Kammerer ,
1949,1951),recruitment and turnover ( Kampelman ,1954; Elder, 1957), U.S.
congressional staff positions (Galloway, 1946, 1953 ;Graves, 1961),and state legislative
staff (Lentz ,1957; Siffin, 1959; Meller ,1952;Crane and Watts ,1968;Lacy ,1967).
Comparative research across state offices in general is also sparse (Mezey ,1979;
Hammond , 1985).
The research presented in this paper is largely descriptive and represents an attempt
to better understand the Legislative Fiscal Office and its operations. It seeks to answer
several questions including: What are the duties assigned to the LFO by state law or
legislative roles? When are these tasks performed? For whom? Which tasks receive
priority? What is the LFO workload? What are their staffing levels? Are there functions
that LFOs have assumed on their own?
Methodology
In September 1997, a mail questionnaire was sent to the heads of the LFO or comparable
state legislative offices in each of the 50 states. The names of the heads of each LFO were
obtained from the National Association of Legislative Fiscal Officers Directory for 1996-1997
compile by the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL). The NCSL identified eight
states that operated with two completely separated offices. In these states LFO functions were spilt
between the House and Senate. The initial mail-out, therefore, consisted of 58 surveys.
The questionnaire contained open-ended and close-ended questions designed to explore the
duties, functions, and workloads of the LFO during regular legislative sessions, between sessions,
and during special sessions .Information on the amount of time spent on each function and support
staff in these offices was also collected. Other questions focused on those duties and functions
performed during the previous two years, i.e., 1995 and 1996. The last page was customized for
each state with information about the state legislature.
A self-addressed stamped, return envelope was included in the initial mailing. For
respondents convenience, a return fax number and telephone number were given. In several cases
LFO directors called the contact number for verification of information or to ask for question
clarification .Three weeks after the initial mailing , a follow up fax was sent to 34 officers which
had not yet responded .A telephone follows up was also used .Altogether ,thirteen of the 16 dual
offices replied, a response rate of 81 percent . Thirty-four of the 41 joint offices replied for a
response rate of 83 percent.
Findings
State law and/or legislative rules can assign LFOs the authority to perform a wide variety of
budgeting related tasks, including writing fiscal notes for bills, forecasting revenues, evaluating
the executive budget(s), developing alternative budges, and assisting in the development of
legislative budgets.
Note that while state law or legislative rules may assign LFOs the authority to produce these
varied tasks, not all states perform these duties. As we will show later in a few states where no
authority or legislative rule exists, the right to perform a task may have developed over time.
Duties performed
Eighty percent of the responding LFOs indicated that state law and/or legislative rules assign
them the authority to produce legislative fiscal notes (LFNs). Revenue forecasting is an authorized
function for 68 percent of the LFOs. Another 80 percent are assigned the task of evaluating the
executive budget, with over 91 percent of these LFOs examining a unified budget. Seventy-seven
percent assist in the development of an alternative to the executive budget, and 54 percent are
tasked with assisting in the development of the budget for legislative operations. Budget
development is the most important duty performed by LFOs.
Percent
Research reports and evaluations are produced for a variety of individuals. Among the
responding LFOs, 88 percent produce such reports for individual legislators and committee chairs
while 82 percent may produce research reports for legislative offices. Seventy-nine percent of the
LFOs report they have the authority to initiate their own research reports. Only Georgia and West
Virginia indicate the authority to produce reports for the governor.
020 40 60 80 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
Figure 1
Fsiscal nts
Forecast
Exec bud
Unif bud
Alt bud
Leg op
Duties Performed
54
77
91
80
68
80
Figures 2
Additional Duties Performed
Program evaluations are less likely to be produced and are never done for the governor. The
authority by 54 percent of the LFOs . For legislative offices and committee chairs the numbers are
49 percent and 54 percent respectively. Furthermore, 54 percent of the responding LFOs may
initiate program evaluations on their own. Almost one-half of the LFO have the authority to
conduct management audits.
Examining the Different Workloads
In order to assess priorities in terms of tasks, we asked the respondents to estimate the
amount of time their LFO devoted to each task. Table 1 reports this information for work done
during the regular session.
Table
Percentage of Time Devoted to Each Task During Regular Sessions
Percent
Budget
Develop.
Fiscal
Notes
Research
Reports
Program
Evaluation
Management
Evaluation
Other
Tasks
0.0
14.3
19.0
16.7
69.0
76.2
33.3
0.1-29.9
7.1
52.4
76.3
28.5
23.8
57.2
30-69.9
40.5
16.6
7.2
2.5
0.0
4.8
70-100
38.0
12.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.8
As one would expect, budget development received the most attention among the duties
020 40 60 80 100
1
2
3
4
5
6
Research and Evaluation
系列3
系列2
0
2
Indiv leg
Comm ch
Legs Off
Indiv leg
LFO
Gov
50
79
82
88
88
54
49
54
Evaluations
Research reports
performed during regular sessions. More than 74 percent of the LFOs report that a majority of
their time is devoted to budget development. Fiscal notes received more attention than research
reports or program evaluations. Most LFOs (76 percent) report no work at all on management
evaluations during the sessions, and 69 percent report no work at all on program evaluations.
Figure 3
Percent of time devoted to each task regular session
The work patterns change between legislative sessions (see Table 2). A majority of the
reporting LFOs indicate that fewer fiscal notes or management evaluations are done during this
period. Budget development, research reports, and program evaluations all receive some attention;
however, the amount of attention varies considerably from one state to another.
Table 2
Percentage of Time Devoted to Each Task Between Regular Session
Percent
Budget
Development
Fiscal
Notes
Research
Reports
Program
Evaluation
Management
Evaluation
Other
Tasks
0.0
20.5
51.3
5.1
43.6
61.5
28.2
0.1-29.9
28.2
46.2
46.2
41
33.4
43.5
30-69.9
43.5
2.6
41.1
12.9
5.2
28.2
70-100
7.7
0.0
7.7
2.6
0.0
0.0
Not surprisingly, budget development and fiscal notes received more attention during regular
sessions than between sessions. However, between sessions, budget development and research
reports were more important than any other duties performed. Research reports and program
evaluations received more attention between sessions than during regular sessions.
0
30-69.9
0
20
40
60
80
Develop.
Notes
Reports
Evaluation
Evaluation
Tasks
Budget Fiscal Research
Program
Management
Other
0
0.1-29.9
30-69.9
70-100
Figure 3
Percent of time devoted to each task regular session
Budget development :
Budget development has always been an important part of the duties of LFOs. Over 91
percent of LFOs examine some budgetary function. There are differences in time spent on budget
development, when budgets were done (whether during regular, special, or between sessions), and
the different kinds of budgets considered. There are many reasons for this variation. For instance,
differing constitutional, statutory, and judicial constraints govern the number of the number of
budgets passed for each state. Also, state legislatures differ in the number of budget bills that are
introduced and considered. States may have separate committees in each chamber with some
exercising the responsibility for both revenue and spending matters and others having the sole
responsibility for one or the other.
While twenty state legislatures entertained only a single budget bill, the other thirty
considered from 2 to 350 separate budget bills. The Oregon LFO assisted in developing 126
different versions of unified budgets, while the Oklahoma Upper House LFO assisted in
developing 156 general fund budgets. Its LFO assisted with 10 versions of that budget. The
Alabama LFO is also one of 8 LFOs that assist in add-on or special budget development. On the
other hand, LFOs such as Colorado, Georgia, Maine, and Virginia, do not require their fiscal
offices to assist in developing unified, general, special, or add-on budgets. Table 3 shows the least
to most amount and kind of budget development done by these offices.
0
30-69.9
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Development
Notes
Reports
Evaluation
Evaluation
Tasks
Budget FiscalResearch
Program
Management
Other
0
0.1-29.9
30-69.9
70-100
Table 3
Workload Figures (Budgets)
Unified
Budget
General Fund
Budget
Spec. Education
Budget
Add-ons/Special
Budget
Low
0
0
0
0
High
126
156
10
150
Median
2
0
0
0
Mean
6
10
1
8
No. of
Cases
39
42
42
42
Medians and means have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
While the important question related to the budget is what is the total dollar amount passed,
many separate budgets can be introduced. The number of bills not only can affect legislative work
load but can also influence legislative decision making.
Fiscal notes:
Another important duty of fiscal offices is to write fiscal notes. The fiscal office generally
prepares a written estimate, or fiscal note, for each general bill that will have an impact on state or
local government finances. The fiscal note is designed to provide information as to the fund or
agency budget that will be affected, in what manner, and by how much it will be affected. The
intended effect of the fiscal note is to transmit the best estimate of the fiscal impact of a bill to
legislative committees and the full legislature prior to the consideration of that bill.
We found that the number of fiscal notes written differs greatly from LFO to LFO (See Table
4). The number not only differs because of whether a state is required to produce fiscal notes, but
also because of distinct conditions in each state legislature. The number of fiscal notes written by
an LFO (ranging from 0 to 7,361) can be due to the number of bills introduced in a legislature.
And, even if a legislative body requires fiscal notes, these are different requirements in regard to
how fiscal notes are treated and counted. For example, a bill can have more than one fiscal notes,
depending upon the number of times the bill is amended. In some states, as a bill moves from
chamber to chamber, new fiscal notes are written every time. In still other states, no fiscal notes
are required if it is a House bill and does not affect state revenues or expenditures; however,
Senate bills are always required to have fiscal notes.
Some LFOs, such as Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Minnesota Virginia, Washington,
and West Virginia do not write fiscal notes at all. Still others indicate that their LFO has written
LFNs for all or some bills but that the right to do so just developed over time. These LFOs are
Idaho, Louisiana, Arkansas, Illinois, Vermont, and the Pennsylvania Upper House.
Research reports:
The number of research reports done by LFOs also varies considerably. Some LFOs
perform research while others do none at all. Table 4 lists the least to most number of research
reports done and by which entity it was requested. We found that the Oklahoma lower house
produced more research reports than any other LFO in all categories: at the request of legislators,
legislative officers, committee chairs, and initiated by the LFO themselves. Only two LFOs,
Georgia and West Virginia, produced research reports when requested by the governor.
Table 4
Workload Figures (Legislative Fiscal Notes, Research Reports, Program Evaluations)
LFN
No.
Number of Research Reports Done For:
Number of Program Evaluations Done For:
Indiv.
Legis
Legis
Off.’s
Comm
Chairs
LFO
Gov.
Indiv.
Legis
Legis
Off.’s
Comm
Chairs
LFO
Gov.
Low
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
High
7361
2500
2500
400
100
5
26
12
450
70
0
Median
400
10
0
4
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
Mean
1299
136
79
34
13
0
2
1
13
4
0
No. of
Cases
44
37
36
35
38
40
40
40
40
40
41
Medians and means have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Evaluation:
Monitoring the progress of programs, i.e., whether the program is in compliance with statutory
authority and efficiently and effectively programs are accomplishing their goals and objectives
may also be a duty fulfilled by LFOs. Evaluations can be program or management based.
Approximately 10 state LFOs performed program evaluations whether requested by legislators,
legislative officers, committee chairs, or by the LFO themselves. The Nevada LFO did the most
program evaluations reaching 450 requested by committee chairs. None did program evaluations
that were requested by the governor. Table 4 also reports the comparisons in workload figures on
program and management evaluations.
Professional, Secretarial and Clerical Staff:
Differences in secretarial and clerical staff support exist among LFOs. The ability of the LFO
to have or secure adequate staff support is an important factor in measuring workload. At 90,
Texas had the largest number of full-time professional staff, followed by the New York lower
House at 40, Colorado at 39, and Virginia at 35. The smallest number of personnel was in Vermont
and West Virginia both at 4. The Texas LFO also had the largest full-time secretarial staff at 8
individuals while LFOs in Alaska, Vermont , Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin had none.
In terms of full-time clerical staff, the Texas LFO again led at 8, while several LFOs had none.
Table 5
Workload Figures(Professional, Secretaries, Clerical Staff)
Full Time
Professional
Staff
Part Time
Professional
Staff
Full Time
Secretaries
Part Time
Secretaries
Full Time
Clerical
Part Time
Clerical
Low
4
0
0
0
0
0
High
90
4
8
4
8
4
Median
14
0
2
0
0
0
Mean
18
1
3
1
1
1
No. of
Cases
43
43
43
42
42
42
Medians and means have been rounded to the nearest whole number.
Conclusions
Descriptive studies on the workload of LFOs continue to be important as it advances our
knowledge of specific institutions or legislative subunits. It also serves as a basis for cross state
comparison. This paper has sought to answer several questions including the following: What are
the duties assigned to the LFO by state law or legislative rules? When are these tasks performed?
For whom? Which tasks receive priority? What is the LFO workload? What are their staffing
levels? Are there functions that LFOs have assumed on their own?
Currently we have data on 58 cases and 158 variables. These data provide us with an
excellent opportunity to systematically examine the variations and diversity that exists between
these LFOs and how they differ in relation to specific legislative characteristics. Many interesting
and significant questions may be addressed in future analyses.