TOPICS

OMB to work on capturing potential savings from management agenda

As President Bush's targeted plan for improving the management of the federal government moves into its fourth year, attention will turn to harnessing its full potential and documenting the resulting savings, an Office of Management and Budget official said Monday.

The President's Management Agenda, a five-part strategy meant to encourage efficiency and optimal use of tax dollars, has already changed habits at federal agencies, OMB Deputy Director for Management Clay Johnson told reporters. The strategy, announced in one of Bush's August 2001 weekly radio addresses, asks agencies to concentrate on personnel reform, opening certain federal jobs to private sector competition, expanding the use of electronic government, improving financial management and linking program performance to budget decisions.

If agencies lived up to Bush's expectations in all five areas, the government could save taxpayers $30-35 billion a year, Johnson said. The administration's "next challenge is to make those real savings," he said.


RELATED STORIES

To date, the administration has gathered examples of modest savings produced on a program by program basis. OMB three months ago released a report projecting that public-private job contests held in fiscal 2003 under the controversial competitive sourcing initiative will save $1.1 billion over three to five years.

But Johnson acknowledged that OMB lacks comprehensive figures showing savings that already have been generated by the five initiatives. The administration is shifting focus to "what we've really delivered, not what we've projected to be delivered," he said.

OMB also hopes to get Congress "more involved" in the PMA. Congressional appropriators have been slow to accept the agenda, and some committees are still reluctant.

But Johnson said he is optimistic that lawmakers eventually will gain more interest in the agenda. "It took years for agencies to understand," he said. "Our intention now is to spend more time with Congress."

These are appropriate priorities, said Carl DeMaio, president of the Performance Institute, an Arlington, Va.,-based think tank. OMB also should be sure that "these reforms are understood as the fundamental improvements they truly are," he said. "They should not be seen as political -- or worse, partisan."

Despite the challenges ahead, Johnson said he feels the management agenda is the most effective government reform effort undertaken by any recent administration, and will have the most substantial and lasting impact because it has changed managers' habits. The agenda's "focus on results is not new, but what is new is a greater expectation than ever before that managers, line employees, indeed entire agencies, will be held accountable for meeting the goals they set," OMB officials stated in a report summarizing the management agenda's accomplishments at its three-year anniversary.

Johnson said he briefed the president and his management council on the status of the reform effort on Monday morning. Bush was pleased with the progress highlighted and encouraged OMB to "keep it up," Johnson said.

As part of the three-year report, administration officials summarized progress on all five management initiatives.

Agencies have improved at analyzing personnel needs, maintaining workforces with the optimal skills mix, and evaluating employees' job performance, according to the report.

Of the 26 major agencies OMB regularly grades on management agenda progress, 92 percent, or all but two, have developed leadership succession plans and have pinpointed skills imbalances. All but six of the major agencies are addressing identified skills gaps.

More than 80 percent of the major agencies rated have also designed systems of rating members of the Senior Executive Service based on how well they help their agency meet its mission, and 17 of the 26 agencies now use performance rating systems that make "meaningful" distinctions among employees.

In competitive sourcing, OMB reiterated projections of savings for the next three to five years. "With experience, the return on investment will only get better," the report stated.

Agencies are turning in financial statements "sooner after the end of the fiscal year than anyone would have thought possible a few years ago," the report said. Though a lack of adequate financial management technology is holding some agencies back, five have managed to get accurate financial information to managers in a timely fashion, and have earned the highest possible rating on the financial portion of OMB's quarterly score card that rates management accomplishments.

Government information technology systems are now more secure, thanks to the management agenda, the report said. To date, agencies have secured 70 percent of information technology systems, which is, according to OMB, a marked improvement from the 26 percent three years ago.

Agencies have also made strides in measuring the performance of federal programs, the report said. Of the 600 that OMB has assessed, 65 percent "defined and are tracking clear outcome goals to measure their results." Two thirds, OMB stated, are measuring efficiency to help manage costs.

COMMENTS

  • “Please..... Accountability? There are too many employees who come to work physically to draw a federal government welfare check. They do nothing, and dare you to ask them to do anything. Until those with that attitude and behavior are able to be fired without tying up an agency's resources, it aint gonna happen. “ I totally agree! But look at the reason. The first rule of management is that people do what you pay them to do. Classification of person and grade level reflects government experience because government cannot and does not evaluate work outside government. Most of my managers never examined my background and none ask me to take the lead in areas where I have great experience and education - the jobs go to their friends or long-term government workers. If you get no raise and cannot get promoted and stay in the area, what is the incentive? Answer is you reduce the workload - productivity drops. That is how you get a big staff “putting in the time for their government welfare check”. I bet if you look, sick leave for those people also goes up significantly. Problem is managers, not employees. The “slackers” are the managers and the attitude spreads to the staff. Solving the problem means improving the managers and the ability to pay and promote workers and not according to political budget directives. Bush’s solution is to avoid the system by going to outsourcing, not solving the problem! We have had “head cuts” - not beheadings but close - and removed several civilian positions (no military positions). However, contractors sitting here now fill several of those positions acting as employees (strictly illegal). Management encourages this! I get “good” bonuses by government standards (.001 times what I got in the private sector). But cannot get promoted to hold down the numbers in higher grades. If I were career oriented I would quit.
  • If the Bush administration is really serious about cost-savings and government efficiency they should seriously consider privating the DEFENSE SECURITY SERVICES. The DSS really requires a major overhaul from the bottom up. Darnell Wiescikuwictz, Federal Inv.
  • Today's Washington Post was full of back slapping by OMB regarding success in the president's "management" agenda. After we finish congratulating ourselves we should examine the agenda. A good hard look shows that it really has nothing to do with management and everything to do with accounting. Counting the cost savings by cutting programs and people and calling it "management." The process is really, really sad. Management is the balence between achieving the results of programs by best utilizing the resources of people working in these programs. The entire OMB focus is on results of programs-- almost no attention is paid to the best utilization of people part of this equation. The results of the last three years is that people aren't interested in a career in federal service and the reason for a very low attrition/retirement rate is purely based on economics. Human resource management takes a back seat in almost every Administration office in the government, even to the point where OCIO and computer management resources is more important. Across the federal government we see an administration at war with its civil service and a philosphical aversion to empowerment and consensus building, and information sharing. For an administration so proud of its business acumen, it shows no wisdom in treating employees this poorly. Most businesses know that its primary asset are its people. It's time for the government to realize the same thing and stop beating up its people. HR Specialist