Government Performance Evaluation System

855 Words 4 Pages
Background: Previous Program Evaluation Paths
The Clinton Administration acknowledged that agencies and departments were inefficient and lacked oversight of outcomes. The administration consequently passed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GRPA 93), giving government officials a tool to begin to properly manage outcome assessment of programs. The Act called for all federal agencies to develop five-year strategic plans with long-term goals. The agencies had to submit annual plans to Congress with upcoming goals and reports of past progress. GRPA 93 laid solid groundwork for government agencies to focus on outcomes of activities rather than the activities and provided excellent tools for the administration to use. The Clinton
…show more content…
Both the Clinton and Bush administrations had vastly different approaches and implemented unique tools that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can adapt to create a successful approach to performance evaluation. GRPA 93, PART, and the scorecard system can be influential in increasing efficiency, adaptation, and revolutionizing US agencies. President Obama has already begun to call for an overhaul of the system, hiring a Chief Performance Officer, as recommended, and immediately issuing challenges to Federal agencies to set a limited number of ambitious, but achievable performance goals. The remainder of this memo analyzes the present state of affairs, the direction President Obama wants to take, and the resources available and provides recommendations for policy direction in performance …show more content…
GRPA 93 instituted annual performance plans and reports that agencies worked on creating themselves. It increased focus on results rather than activities. The goals were developed in a flexible fashion that was less control-focused and less bureaucratic than previous administrations (Barzelay and Armajani 1992). The Bush administration pulled back on using GRPA 93 as its main mechanism and focused more on goals based on systematic budget and activity planning. The goal-making took on a much more Weberian direction with a very hierarchal goal making structure and a very scientific measurement-based system. The goals became less significant because the agencies did not use them as focal points in their operations. Instead the agencies during the Bush administration created long-term goals that were of little focus and played little into the initiatives of the

Related Documents