GovernmentExecutive.com

Return to Article: It Ain't Child's Play

• 85803
  

  I have been studying bureaucracies of a number of countries for some time. I can tell you that they all operate in the same manner. Similar complaints can be found around the globe. What everyone is describing is just what bureaucracies do. You should be talking about is what it will take to change things. There are certain triggers to which bureaucracies react. What you must do is find the combination of those triggers in the jurisdiction in which you want those changes to take place and use them to bring about change.

  Complaining about bureaucracy will make you feel good but will accomplish nothing. Simply, this is the way it is. The question is - can you change it?

  Christopher Studholme Posted August 29, 2009 10:01 AM
• 45980
  

  Friel has found the most obscure possible example to force his case for program measurement difficulties. The fact is, performance meaurement is not so hard--if Congress has the will to insist upon it. One hallmark of this Administration has been its attempt to hold the arrogant SES mullahs of the Executive Branch accountable. But the president has had to drag Congress along, too, and the burden is too much. I admire W for his effort, and deplore Congress for its hyprocricy in passing GPRA, then failing to effectively oversee its implementation.

  Ron Posted March 11, 2008 8:16 AM
• 45039
  

  There needs to be more honesty regarding much of the opposition to performance measurement in government programs, seen also analogously in the widespread antagonism to pay-for-performance systems. Very simply, it boils down often - not always but often - into an attempt to evade accountability. Being held strictly to account for achieving objectively defined goals makes many government managers very uncomfortable. The hallowed bureaucratic imperative for seemingly eons has been ensure to the greatest extent possible that those in charge are insulated from any possible conclusions that they personally are held accountable for failure to achieve program goals. The concept of "collective responsibility" is also used, usually not overtly but certainly covertly, to minimize the possibility that any specific individuals - such as the senior managers running a given program - will be held accountable for any resulting failures. In defense of said government managers, however, it must be said that in government the managerial rewards for success are far outweighed by the potential penalties for failure. This is a main reason why risk-taking - so often encouraged through lip service - is not a favored strategy, instead of that seen in setting easily reached goals (a.k.a. "low hanging fruit") or ensuring that responsibility for attainment of more demanding (and therefore riskier) goals is diffused among many. As long as the system's incentives are structured the way they are, there's little hope of any significant progress in the GPRA process.

  jeremiah Posted March 5, 2008 8:10 AM
• 45030
  

  There are many programs identified by OMB in their Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) rated as "Ineffective." However, all the the major executive branch agencies (CFO Agencies) have made significant progress in establishing performance goals, measures and evaluations. Annual agency reports include a performance section and considerable effort is place on performance measurement. Most agencies use a stoplight system (red, yellow, green) to portray their success in meeting performance goals. For grants administration, sometimes I feel the purpose is just to spend the money and keep employed rather than to effectively measure the results of programs.

  John Herko Posted March 5, 2008 7:34 AM