Testimony on Government Federal Performance
Statement of Jeffrey D. Zients
Chief Performance Officer and Deputy Director for Management
Office of Management and Budget
Before the Budget Committee
United States Senate
October 29, 2009
Chairman Conrad, Ranking Member Gregg, and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to come before you today to discuss the Obama Administration’s efforts to improve the performance of the Federal government. In particular, I applaud the Committee’s efforts to form a new Task Force on Government Performance and look forward to working with you.
The President believes that it more important than ever to maximize the effectiveness of every tax dollar we spend. We must be aggressive in identifying which programs work, and which do not. When programs work, we should support them and continue to push for improved performance. When they do not, we need to reform or terminate them. To accomplish this, we need to measure the performance of programs and continually search for more effective and efficient ways to operate.
During my 20 years in the private sector as a CEO and advisor to CEOs, I found that leadership, measurement, and a motivated workforce create the foundation for good performance. I am confident that the same is true in government.
Congress and previous Administrations laid some of the groundwork for government-wide performance management, starting with the Clinton Administration’s implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). The Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) developed by the Bush Administration tried to create metrics at the program level. The result is that today we have thousands of metrics and plans in a number of overlapping systems.
The test of a performance management system is whether it is used. Despite the extent and breadth of these historic efforts, the current approach fails this test. Congress doesn’t use it. Agencies don’t use it. And it doesn’t produce meaningful information for the public.
Most metrics are process-oriented and not outcomes-based. We do not track progress on goals that cut across agencies. Overall, too much emphasis has been placed on producing performance information to comply with a checklist of requirements instead of using it to drive change.