Lawmakers remain skeptical of linking budgets, performance

During the fiscal 2004 budget process, Capitol Hill appropriators acknowledged a Bush administration management initiative asking federal agencies to link funding requests to program performance, but they remained critical, an analysis of congressional committee reports shows.

President Bush's five-part management agenda requires agencies to consider performance goals and results achieved on past projects when formulating budget requests. In turn, the White House wants congressional appropriators to base funding decisions at least partly on agencies' demonstrated progress at meeting performance goals.

But in committee reports on several fiscal 2004 spending bills, congressional appropriators said they were not prepared to see agencies submit "performance-based" budget documents in place of traditional budget justifications.

A committee report accompanying the House version of the 2004 Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development budget bill explained that appropriators view performance-based budget documents primarily as "strategic planning" tools for agency managers. In the next budget cycle, agencies should submit performance-based budget materials only as supplements to traditional funding requests, the committee said.

House and Senate negotiators "strongly disagree" with "efforts to substitute performance-based budgeting for the traditional budget structure," the conference report on the 2004 omnibus spending package stated. Performance-based materials submitted with 2004 budget requests lacked adequate detail, were not organized to meet appropriators' needs and contained "minimal" useful information, conferees said.

The Office of Management and Budget is holding a series of meetings on Capitol Hill to tout the benefits of performance-based budgeting, said Robert Shea, head of OMB's budget and performance integration initiative, on Tuesday. Congressional staff members attending a Jan. 12 meeting seemed knowledgeable about performance-based budgeting, but aired concerns about the process, he said.

"There was not wild enthusiasm, but nobody rejected it out of hand," Shea said. "People think it's a worthy goal, but there are cynics." Some congressional staff members questioned the "credibility and objectivity" of information contained in performance-based budget materials, he added.

OMB will continue to "get Hill folks and agency folks together to talk about their concerns," Shea said. "We want what we're doing to be useful to Congress." Appropriations subcommittees have varying views of the form they'd like budget information to take, he explained, presenting a challenge to agencies and OMB.

Lawmakers may take a while to warm to performance budgeting, but in the meantime, agencies will still benefit from linking strategic goals to funding requests. "[OMB] is using the information," Shea said.

Philip Joyce, associate professor of public policy and administration at George Washington University, agreed that performance budgeting is, at the very least, a good internal management tool for agencies. Over the next few years, agencies should plan on submitting both traditional and performance-based budget justifications to lawmakers, he said.

"Appropriators are creatures of habit," Joyce explained. "You can't expect them to pay attention to [performance-based budgeting] just because you want them to." OMB will not have the final word either, he said. For the new budget technique to take hold on Capitol Hill, lawmakers would have to believe that a failure to accept performance-based budgets would have political ramifications, he predicted.

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.