Performance Officer: A Rough Road Ahead

Yesterday, President-elect Barack Obama announced his intention to nominate Nancy Killefer as the federal government's first Chief Performance Officer. Just as I disagreed with President Bush creating an entirely new executive agency (DHS) to do what other agencies were already doing, I have some reservations about this new position. Each executive agency is held responsible for their own effectiveness. As such, the Secretary, Commissioner, or other chief operating officer of that agency is held accountable to their department's performance. Now, assuming Ms. Killefer is confirmed by the Senate, we will have one watch dog to police all of the other political appointees.

While I agree with the underlying desire to increase government efficiency, I am not convinced that creating yet another bureaucratic position is the best approach. Each Department, theoretically, policies itself for effectiveness. Under the Bush Administration, this has been done (theoretically) by using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). Based on PART assessments, the Bush Administration has repeatedly suggested the termination of numerous government programs. Unfortunately, the PART has been largely ignored by Congress, and most of these programs are still in existence. Legislators have questioned the criteria that the PART uses to determine a programs effectiveness.

I am not here to defend the PART, but to use its failure as a warning for Ms. Killefer. The main reason that ineffective programs remain operational is because of the people that the program employs. No one wants to lose their job, so as soon as any talk of cutting funding occurs, those whose employment is in danger tries to scare constituents into believing that losing this program would be the worst thing that could happen. If their constituents do not want to see the program eliminated, then members of Congress will not vote to eliminate them. The Chief Performance Officer will run into this same blockade.

As an advocate for cutting federal spending, I hope she is wildly successful in her quest to root out programs that have outlived their usefulness. However, the realist in me is not very optimistic about her chances of success. If her efforts prove fruitless, then we will be paying yet another bureaucrat for a job that they cannot carry out in a satisfactory manner. That, in and of itself, is more wasteful government spending. I hope I am wrong. Time will tell.