Reality Check

Reorganizing government makes sense-in theory.

In March, the White House doubled down on the prospect of reshuffling the government's organizational chart. President Obama, building on his declaration in his State of the Union that he would "develop a proposal to merge, consolidate and reorganize the federal government" within a few months, issued a memo to agencies ordering an effort to do exactly that.

His rhetoric was sweeping. "We cannot win the future with a government built for the past," Obama wrote. "We live and do business in the Information Age, but the organization of the federal government has not kept pace. Government agencies have grown without overall strategic planning and duplicative programs have sprung up, making it harder for each to reach its goals."

But when it came to specifics, all the talk was about business-related agencies, especially trade-related ones. The first phase of the reorganization campaign, Obama said, would focus on that part of government's org chart. This begs the question: Will there actually be a second, more comprehensive phase? There are reasons to doubt it. After all, the trade-related reorganization could in and of itself accomplish one of Obama's central goals: send a message to the business community that he will structure government to support American competitiveness.

What's more, the prospect of full-scale reorganization is daunting indeed.

Historically, attempts to close, consolidate, merge and reorganize federal agencies have had a very low success rate. As Charlie Clark reports in our cover story, they tend to run smack into political brick walls built by interest groups and shored up by lawmakers. And reorganizations require sustained commitment. The archetypical modern large-scale restructuring, which the Hoover commission undertook in 1947, resulted in hundreds of recommendations that took years to implement.

Then there's the dirty little secret that public administration experts know but politicians don't want to admit: Reorganizations don't save money, they cost money. That's why presidents tend to push them during times of prosperity or national crisis. And in the latter case, they tend not to work out very well-look at the Homeland Security Department.

So, does the Obama administration have the stomach for a fight over reorganization that will involve considerable expenditures of both po-litical and financial capital? Phase 1 of its approach, which certainly will involve battles and delicate maneuvers both on Capitol Hill and in affected agencies, may well exhaust the administration's patience. If so, the president could decide to put away the wrecking ball and, like other presidents have done, learn to live with the government's organizational structure as it has haphazardly developed during many decades.

Stay up-to-date with federal news alerts and analysis — Sign up for GovExec's email newsletters.
Close [ x ] More from GovExec

Thank you for subscribing to newsletters from
We think these reports might interest you:

  • Sponsored by G Suite

    Cross-Agency Teamwork, Anytime and Anywhere

    Dan McCrae, director of IT service delivery division, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

  • Data-Centric Security vs. Database-Level Security

    Database-level encryption had its origins in the 1990s and early 2000s in response to very basic risks which largely revolved around the theft of servers, backup tapes and other physical-layer assets. As noted in Verizon’s 2014, Data Breach Investigations Report (DBIR)1, threats today are far more advanced and dangerous.

  • Federal IT Applications: Assessing Government's Core Drivers

    In order to better understand the current state of external and internal-facing agency workplace applications, Government Business Council (GBC) and Riverbed undertook an in-depth research study of federal employees. Overall, survey findings indicate that federal IT applications still face a gamut of challenges with regard to quality, reliability, and performance management.

  • PIV- I And Multifactor Authentication: The Best Defense for Federal Government Contractors

    This white paper explores NIST SP 800-171 and why compliance is critical to federal government contractors, especially those that work with the Department of Defense, as well as how leveraging PIV-I credentialing with multifactor authentication can be used as a defense against cyberattacks

  • Toward A More Innovative Government

    This research study aims to understand how state and local leaders regard their agency’s innovation efforts and what they are doing to overcome the challenges they face in successfully implementing these efforts.

  • From Volume to Value: UK’s NHS Digital Provides U.S. Healthcare Agencies A Roadmap For Value-Based Payment Models

    The U.S. healthcare industry is rapidly moving away from traditional fee-for-service models and towards value-based purchasing that reimburses physicians for quality of care in place of frequency of care.

  • GBC Flash Poll: Is Your Agency Safe?

    Federal leaders weigh in on the state of information security


When you download a report, your information may be shared with the underwriters of that document.