|
| |
Opinion: July 28, 2000: Is the tide turning on
oversight?
 | It appears that Congress may be starting to focus on what GPRA ultimately implies - oversight.
Oversight, properly conducted, provides the starch for the backbone needed to make
programs effective and for Congress to fully carry out its responsibilities. It had
been my expectation for some time that oversight would take on a larger role given GPRA's
requirements and expectations, but it has been a long time coming. In 1998 I stated
that "The Analyst believes that hearings on the FY 2002 budget request will
focus on performance promised in the FY 2000 request" - these hearings would
take place during 2001. (For my full statement, go to the OVERSIGHT page.) And there may be hope that the next
Administration will take matters a bit more seriously. |
| To date, both the Administration and Congress have, by and large, ignored the
need to focus on performance and figure out what programs are doing, how well
things are being done, and what changes may be needed to make things work better.
Unfortunately, this is the natural state of affairs at the political level. There
is little incentive to do the hard work that will result in assessing how programs are
doing and whether or not the results are what was expected and whether or not the results
have been achieved efficiently. Both Congress and the Administration have thrown out
the baby with the bathwater.
 | The electoral cycle takes over, there is little patience to do the work, and both sides
have decided to get rid of staff who would do the work. |
| Congress drastically reduced its capabilities for oversight starting in 1995, and has focused
on showy stunts, such as the Waste-O-Meter (where the only substantial
"waste" is alleged Medicare fraud, with no focus whatsoever on outcomes or
efficiency). |
| The Administration's focus is best illustrated by (1) its emphasis on reducing staff
that works on budget and related matters (yes, those who work on performance measures),
and (2) its performance in producing the first reports required by GPRA on performance
measures and accomplishments - best characterized as "late if at all." |
|
| Given this state of affairs, why do I think that the tide may be turning?
Because we can expect more focus from the next President, and more focus from
Congress.
| Mr. Gore has had a keen interest in performance management. As Vice President
there is actually little that he can do to set the tone for an Administration.
(After all, the only real job that a Vice President has is to preside over the Senate, and
no amount of cooperation and effort on the part of a President will change this basic
fact.) As President he would be in a significantly better position to focus on
performance and results. |
| Mr. Bush is Governor of Texas, a state that has had some experience with performance
management. He and some of his appointees are likely to bring this focus with them.
(Texas is a state with effective PBB, performance based budgeting.
See the literature review page for more information and
references.) |
| Congress seems to be figuring out that they have a problem, that they need to take it
seriously, and that stunts do not make oversight nor change programs. The Washington
Post today reports that "In Congress, GOP leaders take on oversight." (Page A23, The Federal Page.) Given the failure of the Congressional
budget process and the lack of a replacement process, it is likely that chaos will prevail
unless there is a process that can be used to evaluate what the Executive is doing and
make changes if needed. Perhaps this realization and the developing changed attitude
will carry over into next year, making oversight an actual businesslike process. |
|
| But for the tide to really turn Congress and the Executive have to recognize that
effective performance management and oversight will be possible only with proper focus and
staff work. In the real world there is no such thing as a free lunch,
and there is no reason to expect that there is a free lunch in oversight. Those bent
on cutting back government (and it seems that everybody wants to do this) need to
recognize that some functions are more important than others, that sorting through them
takes time and skill, and that only properly staffed and managed organizations will get
the essential assessment work done. No President or Member of Congress will do the
staff work needed for proper oversight or proper performance management. Like it or
not, this staff work will have to be done by civil servants. Our leaders and
representatives need to face a few facts:
| The United States is a very large, complex country, with many interests in the world and
beyond. This places many demands on its government, a government that is an integral
part of the country's place and role in the world. And nothing is simple, and
everything matters to someone. |
| The actions of the government have many benefits, but they can also go astray and result
in problems. Complicated programs are bound to have problems; even if minor, these
problems can have large scale consequences. There is a need for continued
independent assessment of the government's activities and programs, and there is need for
corrective actions. Both the programs and the corrective actions will be complex. |
| Only a sophisticated assessment capability that persists both in time and in effort can
expect to cope with the demands placed on it. Therefore, allocating proper resources
to the assessment function is essential. The resources have to include both high
level attention and appropriate staffing. |
|
| So is the tide turning? Only time will tell, but I have some hope. You
cannot run a government by constantly cutting it. At some point you have to
take the time and make the effort to understand what is going on and to assess
the need for change. |
If you have thoughts on these matters that you would like to share,
please write me at Laszlo@budgetanalyst.com.
|
