GPRA

Senator Coburn has long campaigned against the seeming incomprehensibility of the federal government’s many programs. He sponsored two pieces of legislation in 2010 to address his concerns. The first bill requires the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to annually assess the fragmentation, overlap and duplication of federal programs. The second bill requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to create and publish on the Internet an inventory of all federal programs. Background.

Dr. Boston, visiting the U.S. on a Fulbright Scholarship, sums up some of his initial research on how the U.S. and several other democratic countries address long-term policy issues, in a recent presentation at American University. Background. Dr. Boston says that there are a number of important societal problems that reach beyond the span of an election cycle, and that for political leaders there can be “a temptation for intergenerational buck-passing.

In mid-November, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) released an assessment of how well agencies use performance information in decision making, with a particular focus on program evaluations.  Around the same time, a study on evidence-based policymaking in the states was released by the Pew Charitable Trusts and the MacArthur Foundation; and a new book, Moneyball for Government, by Peter Orzag and Jim Nussle, was announced by the non-profit Results for America.  Finally, a bill was introduced in the House by Congressman Paul Ryan (R), with the support of Senator Patty Murra

Greenleaf’s statement is pretty strong. And most people would think that he refers to political leaders. But his observation is pointed at leaders at all levels. Efforts to create a strategic foresight capacity in the U.S. federal government have experienced fits and starts over the past 40 years. But in recent years, there has been some progress at the agency level, largely at the behest of political and career leaders who appreciate the value of foresight as part of their decision making processes. They might not think of it in terms of an ethical issue, but as good leadership.

His memo indirectly adds some urgency to the relatively new “agency annual strategic reviews” which are currently underway in agencies across the government.

The 2010 amendments to the Government Performance and Results Act created a series of cycles for four-year strategic plans, annual plans, the designation of two-year agency priority goals and four year cross-agency priority goals. The law also requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to annually assess agencies’ progress.

The Government Accountability Office is mandated by law to track the progress of agencies’ implementation of the Government Performance and Results Modernization Act of 2010.  It’s summary highlights “mixed progress” but the report’s details show a great deal of progress.  The report covers a range of issues, summing up a series of related reports over the course of the past year.  But the core issue is:  are agencies using performance data to make decisions?

Earlier this Spring, Senator Tom Coburn grilled an OMB witness at a hearing about why OMB had not yet implemented a provision in the GPRA Modernization Act requiring the creation of a government-wide inventory of all existing programs.  He pointed to a list developed by the Department of Education and wondered why this was not done by every agency in government.

requests for fiscal year 2014, which is called OMB Circular A-11.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) works for Congress and is a big proponent of performance-informed decision making.  So they’ve written a practical report on how Congress can effectively use performance information produced by federal agencies to make better decisions.  And they’ve illustrated the report with three examples of where congressional committees, over a period of years, used performance information to guide key decisions in diverse areas such as immigration, HIV/AIDs, and improper payments.

Following the customer service initiatives launched by Gore’s reinventing government team in the 1990s, the federal government has waxed and waned on the importance of customer service in the course of serving the public.  Now that citizen satisfaction with government services is under 20 percent, a new law may turbo charge the emphasis if it is passed, since it would tie customer service to employees’ performance ratings.

Background