Increasing Transparency:
Via an Annual Government Report Card Assessing Agency Performance
by bruce@industriallogic.com
An effective way of redressing the lack of accountability of government officials and increasing the voice of the people in a representative, meaningful, non-partisan and fair way would be have each government agency prepare and administer a survey of the users of its services to determine the degree of satisfaction with the way the services have been provided.
On an annual basis, the surveys would be:
• Developed and refined by each government entity and program
• Vetted for its evaluative efficacy by the auditing agency (e.g. Office of Management and Budget)
• Administered by rotating independent research firms to assure statistical randomness and fairness to the individuals, businesses, organizations, and government agencies using the government agency’s services
• Reported in the public media as an annual Government Report Card
The benefits that would accrue include:
• Agencies would get feedback about the perceived value of their programs to their constituencies so that they could adjust their approaches or abandon futile enterprises, thereby producing increased productivity for taxpayer dollars
• The legislature would be aided in its oversight of the executive branch so that budgets could be better matched to results
• The responding public would feel empowered, thereby helping to dispel some of the currently experienced sense of helplessness about affecting government decision making
• The nation would be improved by the expansion of government accountability for performance and the reduction of the importance of politics in agency operations
• The international reputation of the United States as a genuine example of democracy would be enhanced
In contrast to polls that tell of the overall level of satisfaction with the legislature, these surveys would be specific regarding the value of each program to the recipients of the services involved.
The cost of such a systemic evaluative process would be modest to establish, and minimal to operate subsequently, especially in relation to the benefits that would obtain in making the quality of government operations visible to the citizenry and the world.
Because this idea has received nearly universal approval from citizens to whom it has been described, and pretty much ignored by the government officials and media organizations to which it has been submitted, it seems that the only practical way of implementing it is by Executive order.
Comments (5)
The OMB Program Assessment Rating Tool does something like this, but the unit of analysis is a program (which is what delivers services to citizens) not agencies. The scorecard is at www.expectmore.gov -- it isn't annual for every program and is being considered for revision by the Obama Administration, which inherited it from the Bush Administration. There is pending legislation to make this permanent, and required. It was submitted by two Democrats earlier this month, Congressmen Cuellar and Moore.
I agree with Kamensky (above) that the PART tool is a great first attempt. I would be curious to get your reaction to the following idea http://opengov.ideascale.com/akira/dtd/3041-4049 and/or the http://www.slideshare.net/Gov2.0/enhancing-fed-gov-transparency-democr-assessment-and-populist-planning
Customer satisfaction surveys are now used by some local government agencies, including the County of San Diego. They serve populations large than many states. Results of they surveys provide employees and managers with usefull feedback. They also engage line staff to develop and implement quality improvements, as well as, require them to attain cost savings in their respective divisions.
The difference between what I have suggested and the other valuable programs is that
1 the surveys must be mandatory and vetted by an oversight agency
2. the results must be widely publicized, not just used internally by the agencies themselves, so that poorly run agencies are embarrassed by being so perceived and improve or risk de-funding; this is significant transparency and the reason no government at any level has yet adopted it
3. it involves the public in a meaningful way
4. it does not require the expertise suggested by Mr. Lennon's proposal
Mr. Lennon's suggested crowd-sourcing of agency performance, or transparency and comment at key points in program decision processes, might be something worth piloting on several programs to see if this is worthwhile or whether it is something that would be taken over by special interests.