This first appeared as a PATImes column in December 2007.

Passing the Baton:  Sustaining a “Performance and Results” Approach
by John M. Kamensky

Publicly, the George W. Bush Administration is often seen as having mis-managed the government in high-profile cases, such as Hurricane Katrina, the passport delays, and managing defense security contractors. However, inside the bureaucracy, the Bush Administration is seen as making a concerted effort to create strong management systems and placing a strong emphasis on performance and results. This is being done via the President's Management Agenda (and scorecard) and the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART).

This progress, however, has been largely the effort of Clay Johnson, III, the deputy director for management at the Office of Management and Budget, with the strong support of the President. Johnson is very close to the President and likes to refer to him as "the first MBA President." Johnson was the President's college roommate, served as chief of staff when Bush was governor of Texas, and headed the Office of Presidential Personnel in Bush's first term.

The President and Johnson have invested significant time and energy over the past 7 years in improving agencies' management capacity via the President's Management Agenda - which rates how well agencies are managed in selected areas such as human capital, finance, and e-government. They also invested heavily in rating the performance of more than 1,000 individual programs across the government and making the results publicly available.

But they have only a year left in office. How can they ensure the momentum isn't lost when the next President takes office? The Bush Administration is beginning to embed into the machinery of government a series of performance improvement reforms. It is doing this via a new Executive Order, signed by the President in mid-November. Interestingly, the new Order does not embed the specifics of either the President's Management Agenda or the OMB Program Assessment Review Tool. Instead, it creates an administrative framework that is flexible enough to accommodate a range of initiatives, so long as they are focused on performance and results of an agency's programs.

What Does the New Executive Order Do?

The new executive order says it is intended "to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the Federal Government and promote greater accountability. . ." The Order:

Requires each agency head to create annual and long-term goals. These goals are to have "objectively measurable outcomes" and measure progress towards those goals. Individuals must be held accountable for meeting those goals. The Order also requires agency heads to justify their budget requests based on "objective performance information" and post "updated and accurate" program-level performance information on their agency's websites.

Requires each agency head to appoint a "Performance Improvement Officer." This newly-designated officer is to be a senior executive who will be the focal point for the development of their agency's strategic plan, annual performance plan, and annual performance report - all of which are required by the Government Performance and Results Act. They are also responsible for assessing the goals and targets proposed by program managers, as well as assessing the measures being used by the programs. In addition, they are responsible for assessing performance and advising on "performance measures in personnel performance appraisals."

Creates a government-wide "Performance Improvement Council." The deputy director for management of the Office of Management and Budget will chair a cross-agency council of performance improvement officers. Collectively, they will develop criteria for evaluating program performance (which could be the existing Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), or some variation). They will also be able to share best practices as well as develop a website "that provides the public with information on who well each agency performs." Currently, OMB sponsors a website, expectmore.gov, that provides program-level performance assessments done using the PART.

According to the Washington Post: "By the end of 2008, the Bush administration intends to tell Congress which program goals each agency has promised to accomplish and by what date they will show results." Clay Johnson told the Post: "There should be no dropped batons going from this administration to the next administration. The next administration will come in knowing what every department is committed to do. It will help ensure there is continuous attention to these goals."

In a recent interview on the IBM Center's weekly radio show, Johnson elaborated: "We want to have all this work carry over to the next administration, because it's not really about Republican goals or Democratic goals. It's about goals, and having clearly defined outcome goals, and having a way to focus people's energies and attention on getting them accomplished in a reasonable period of time."

What Are Its Implications?

This executive order formally creates a single point of accountability in each agency and government-wide for creating, tracking, and reporting performance and results -- 14 years after the passage of the Results Act. Over the years, this responsibility has been performed in different places in different agencies. Some placed this responsibility with their chief financial officer. Others placed it in their planning or budgeting units. Some split the responsibilities across their agencies. This Executive Order finally creates a single focal point of accountability. It also creates a cross-agency network of these officials so they can share best practices, much like other cross-agency councils such as the Chief Financial Officers Council.

Symbolically, this executive order signals that performance improvement continues to be important to the President and that he wants to "establish a lasting legacy." But more importantly, as Johnson notes, the next Administration will inherit a performance improvement network of senior executives – largely career public servants -- who will be responsible for advocating improved performance and making results of agency programs publicly available. If the next Administration wants a different focus, it would have to proactively take actions to change course