Setting Performance Priorities: It's The Law
A group of government management improvement experts--including those who worked on reform efforts in the Reagan, Clinton and Bush I and II administrations, have come together to urge the Senate to pass a measure (already approved by the House) that would require agencies to set high priority goals and measure their progress toward achieving them.
In a posting on the Center for American Progress website, Jonathan D. Breul, John Kamensky, Jitinder Kohli and Robert J. Shea argue that "setting agency goals that target real-world results for the American people will force leaders to prioritize initiatives that are the most effective at achieving these results."
Breul worked in the Office of Management and Budget on governmentwide management policies from 1980 to 2002. Kamensky was deputy director of Vice President Al Gore's National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Kohli spent 15 years in the British government, including leading an effort to reduce the administrative burden of regulation. Shea led the George W. Bush administration's performance improvement efforts.
The authors suggest the Senate sharpen the House bill by, among, other things, limiting the number of high priority goals to about 5 per agency, or 100 across the whole government. They also warn that the new legislation potentially just layers more reporting requirements on top of the 1993 Government Performance and Results Act.
GPRA, they point out, already requires agencies to adopt strategic plans, publish performance plans and issue annual reports on what they've accomplished. "GPRA already ensures that agencies produce lots of information, but few decision-makers make use of the information," they write. "To some extent, that's because of the sheer volume of information produced. This is a recipe for confusion and does little to improve government performance."
Perhaps, the authors delicately suggest, it's time to put GPRA out to pasture -- or at least scale it way back. It would be "sensible," they suggest, "for the Senate to reform the GPRA so that it no longer requires agencies to produce voluminous reports. The new legislation could limit reporting requirements to high-priority goals--requiring that agencies describe which agency programs contribute to a high-priority goal and to what extent they will help accomplish the goal."
Makes sense to me. GPRA came in with much fanfare about how it would revolutionize agencies' approach to managing the performance of their programs. Now, all these years later, people still aren't paying attention to it. That strongly suggests it's time for the law to go.
By the way, it's worth noting that the Obama administration already has made setting high priority goals a centerpiece of its reform efforts. The proposed law would simply make such efforts a requirement for future administrations, too.
COMMENTS
Post a Comment
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although GovExec does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
ABOUT THIS BLOG
Government Executive Editor in Chief Tom Shoop, along with other editors and staff correspondents, take a fresh look at news affecting the management and operations of the federal bureaucracy.
But, isn't setting priorities and goals an essentially POLITICAL act, even the action to create, delay, and fuzz priorities and goals? Aren’t many to most statutes vague, open, contradictory, by intention by virtue of the political necessities of law making? As before with GPRA -- the intersection between management and operational efficiency meets at the cross roads of politics--and the...how to say….shyness..coyness...reluctance...surely not ignorance or naiveté of GovExOnline...to address this evergreen issue is not just disappointing but SAD. To quote the three experts above:” setting agency goals that target real-world results for the American people will force leaders to prioritize initiatives that are the most effective at achieving these results." I look forward to the next GovExOnline sponsored convention on federal management when the quoted experts – foreign and domestic-- can expound on the salubrious effects of a federal statute which will "force leaders to prioritize." Oh one more point: an anecdote which GovExOnline can replicate at will: I recall a Senate staffer on Appropriations during the Q&A at a Georgetown sponsored seminar on How The Hill Works-- I reconstruct the exchange, thus: Question: "How much use do you make of agency submitted GPRA status reports in the appropriations review and hearings?" Answer: "Just about zero. The GPRA reports are too long, too detailed, and they don't track with House/Senate committee jurisdictions or categories. Staff doesn’t read them, of course members don’t." Alas. Who doesn't like rational and clear standards, but, then right after we receive our MPAs. MBAs, and journalism degrees, and high level appointments to OMB -- many learn that determining the standard IS A DIFFICULT, INDETERMINATE, and NECESSARY POLITICAL ISSUE. Oh well, I made a good living working the agency side of GPRA – all those indexed binders, in-house briefings, the contractor assistance, the delivery to OMB, the back and forth, defining outcomes, crafting measures. Good times. So, now, much wiser (and with different contractors?) we’re going to put the old horse GPRA out to pasture and bring in a fresh horse – a new LAW, a fast filly, a breed out of the Obama Administration's “efforts…at setting high priority goals." And, Mr. Shoop, you regard this binding of “goals”setting into statute a straight forward effort: we’ll "simply" make the Obama effort “a requirement for future administrations?" Mr. Shoop, your Washington is a foreign place to me and your optimism astounds me. Plus ca change.
Concerned Retiree Posted Tuesday, September 21, 2010 8:53 AMGetting rid of GPRA would be a big mistake. Maybe Congress and the public don't pay much attention to it but most federal agencies find that it is a useful planning and reporting tool. Without it it would be very difficult to determine what the goals and results were for most of the programs in the federal government. The HPPG effort launched by the Obama administration is essentially worthless. It is at too high a level to be useful for management purposes. It is almost impossible to hold an agency accountable for 6 goals. Federal programs are far too diverse and complex to be captured in 6 goals. The real problem is that no administration has pushed hard enough to require that agencies actually demonstrate that they use performance data in setting priorities and making budget and management decisions. Until that happens, developing performance measures, setting goals, and reporting results will always be a worthless paper exerercise.
Concerned federal employee Posted Tuesday, September 21, 2010 11:54 AM