The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool?

Field: Social Sciences (Social Sciences)

A simple reading of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) suggests that this legislation is fairly straightforward and responds to many of the recommendations that have come from students of public management over the years. Written in the language of the good government tradition, this legislation shares much with earlier reform efforts. However, unlike past management reform initiatives, GPRA takes the form of legislation, not simply pronouncements from the executive branch. Although the legislation was enacted in 1993, 1997 was the first year that its requirements actually came to life and the first year that its requirements for strategic plans as well as the first performance plans became tangible. During the past few months, the Washington press (which is rarely interested in management issues) has focused unusual attention to the implementation of GPRA, reporting various pronouncements from the General Accounting Office (GAO), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Republican leadership in Congress about the relative success or failure of federal agencies to comply with its initial requirements related to strategic planning. Both the press accounts and the institutional response to the legislation indicate that there is a wide divergence of views about this management reform effort. What appeared on first reading to be a fairly clear effort has emerged as a tangled set of expectations and experiences that reflect quite different and often competing views about the process. This article attempts to explicate some of the reasons for this tangled reality by focusing on three elements of the still developing experience. First, it provides some background on the legislation itself. Second, it discusses the context in which the implementation is placed. And third, it includes a preliminary analysis of the early experience with the requirements of GPRA. This critique emphasizes the problems involved in implementing a government-wide management strategy; it is not focused on similar reform efforts that take place within specific agencies (Radin, 1997). Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) While the origins and implementation of the Clinton administration's National Performance Review (NPR) were located squarely in the political environment of the White House and enunciated via executive orders and presidential pleas, the life story of GPRA was much different. bill that emerged from the Congress and was signed by President Clinton in August 1993 had its origins in legislation introduced by Republican Senator William Roth in 1990. That legislation was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, which had hearings over a two-year period, modifying the original Roth legislation. House version of the legislation was not introduced until February 1993, after the 1992 presidential election. With the blessing of the Democratic White House, the legislation sailed through with overwhelming bipartisan support.(1) While the support for the legislation was broad, there was very little real debate over its provisions. GPRA was framed in very general and often abstract terms; neither authorizing nor appropriations committees focused on the consequences of the process for particular policies or programs. President Clinton's remarks upon signing the legislation on August 3, 1993 emphasized the importance of restoring the confidence of the American people in the federal government. He commented: The law simply requires that we chart a course for every endeavor that we take the people's money for, see how well we are progressing, tell the public how we are doing, stop the things that don't work, and never stop improving the things that we think are worth investing in. Enveloped in classic good government rhetoric, the legislation had support from almost all quarters. It was difficult to be against a bill that sought to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure program results. …