 |
|
||
Making Big Plans:
Bush Expands Use of “National Strategies”
By
John M. Kamensky
The Government Accountability Office, in its assessment of the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act, said “Congress should consider amending GPRA to require the President to develop a governmentwide strategic plan.” The President’s Office of Management and Budget objected, saying the President’s Budget serves as the government’s strategic plan.
The debate over a governmentwide strategic plan has been underway for more than a decade. In fact, GPRA requires OMB to prepare an annual governmentwide performance plan, which has not been prepared as a separate document for more than five years because OMB says that the budget fulfills that requirement.
So, does the federal government just ignore challenges that are long-term, large-scale, multi-agency, and multi-sector?
Not really. While OMB has resisted a governmentwide planning requirement, necessity has in fact created just such a process in the past five years.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, President George Bush understood the criticality of developing a national – not just a federal – approach to fighting terrorism. He expanded the use of a relatively new policy vehicle – which the White House calls a “national strategy” document – as a way of creating an overarching strategic plan around a specific need or outcome.
One of the first, the 90-page National Strategy for Homeland Security, was issued in July 2002. It addresses the threat of terrorism in the US and focuses on the domestic efforts of the federal, state, local and private sectors. It identified three major goals – prevent terrorist attacks, reduce vulnerability, and minimize damage and recover from attaches. These are underpinned by six objectives, each of which have 5-12 accompanying activities. These are implemented via presidential directives (such as Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5) which in turn drive specific initiatives such as the development of the National Response Plan or the National Incident Management System.
National strategy documents have been issued in the past. Their use seemed to have started under President Clinton in the mid-1990s, such as the International Crime Control Strategy in 1998. In fact, some were required by law, such as the 1997 National Military Strategy of the United State of America, but these were not signed by the President and largely dealt within the bounds of a specific agency. For example, the national military strategy was signed by the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff and focuses on the armed forces – force structure, acquisition, doctrine, etc. Other agencies had developed cross-cutting national strategies. For example, the Office of National Drug Control Policy’s national strategy and the attorney general’s interagency counterterrorism and technology crime plan, pre-existed the Bush Administration’s use of national strategies.
To date, there are about a dozen national strategy documents that address terrorism or related issues (see accompanying box). But just what is a “national strategy” document? Congress asked this question of GAO and it prepared a report that assessed those that related to terrorism. GAO concluded “National strategies are not required by executive or legislative mandate to address a single, consistent set of characteristics. . . we found there was no commonly accepted set of characteristics used for an effective national strategy.”
So GAO developed a set of six “desirable” characteristics! They are:
GAO developed these characteristics based on existing strategies, as well as best practices agencies developed in drafting their strategic plans under GPRA.
GAO found that national strategies differ from other federal government planning documents in that the were national – not just federal – in scope, oftentimes had international components, and the federal government did not control many of the sectors, entities, or resources involved in implementing them. It also found that there was a rough hierarchy among the various terror-related strategies with cross-references among them. For example, the National Security strategy provided an overarching strategy for national security as a whole while the Homeland Security strategy provided more specific approaches to combating terrorism domestically.
However, more important than what are national strategies is an answer to “so what?” National strategies, says GAO “will not ensure a strategy-driven, integrated, and effective set of interagency, interorganizational programs to implement these strategies.” There is no one central entity that can control implementation, accountability, oversight, or coordination. That’s the nature of a federal system of government. And without incentives related to national goals, the national strategies may revert to primarily a federal responsibility. So while this may concern GAO, it may not concern others. Like most planning efforts, just the process of developing a plan may be the most valuable part of the process. It creates a dialogue among stakeholders around developing a common direction, develop relationships, and improve cooperation. GAO concerns about accountability and implementation may be important, but that may not be the only measure of success.
Still, GAO does raise valid issues. Dr. Sharon Caudle, a GAO assistant director who has been following the evolution of the national strategies, says there is not a consistent process to update the national strategies, for example the Homeland Security strategy is now four years old and should be revisited given that it is now perceived as weak in some areas such as all-hazards preparedness, which stems from the Hurricane Katrina experience. Even if updated with new, innovative goals, organization specific strategic and operational plans must provide further direction for implementers and funders. Also, she notes that the increasing proliferation of strategies may be devaluing its use as a tool that can focus national visibility and priority attention.
What about the experience of other countries with governmentwide planning? The track record has not been clear. New Zealand, one of the pioneers in managing for results, found that it could successfully create accountability and focus on program outputs that it could control, but not on policy outcomes where it had less control. It has experimented with several approaches for developing outcome-oriented governmentwide strategies and plans over the past 15 years, but has not developed a solution to the control and accountability issues that GAO has raised. Other countries that have attempted governmentwide outcome planning -- such as the United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia – have not solved the problem either.
So, while there may be concerns about the use of national strategies, there does not seem to be a model of an alternative approach that works on a large scale. Or is there? This seems to be a “work in progress,” so if you have any examples, please share!
List of National Strategies
|
Strategy |
Issued by |
Date |
|
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff |
September 1997 |
|
|
President |
February 2002 |
|
|
President |
??? September 1999, updated November 2003 |
|
|
Sec. of Treasury and Attorney General |
July 2002 |
|
|
President |
May 1997, updated September 2002 |
|
|
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff |
October 2002, updated January 2005 |
|
|
President |
December 2002 |
|
|
President |
February 2003; updated Sept. 2006 |
|
|
National Strategy for the Physical Protection of Critical Infrastructure and Key Assets |
President |
February 2003 |
|
President |
February 2003 |
|
|
National Strategy for Pandemic Influenza Preparedness and Response |
President |
November 2005 |
|
President |
October 2005 |
|
|
President |
December 2005 |
|
|
National Strategy to Internationalize Efforts Against Kleptocracy |
President |
August 2006 |
|
Commissioner, CBP |
September 2004 |
Sources: GAO, GAO-03-519T, March 3, 2003, and White House Website