The ‘doers’ need a budget: Why a $100 million council fund can end federal management failures

When a problem exists within one federal agency, it’s a safe bet it exists elsewhere — maybe everywhere. But how would any agency leader know that? Only by bringing key executives together will you discern a pattern, identify the scale and scope of the problem, and be able to develop and implement potential solutions.

A forum exists today to focus on cross-government management issues and solve big problems — in theory. In practice, the Federal Executive Councils are vastly underutilized, underfunded and ultimately without ‘power’ to solve real cross-agency issues. Today’s chaotic environment challenges us to rethink and repurpose the councils into a more functional, directed and empowered community.

Members of the councils may not have chainsaws, but they do have deep knowledge of Financial Management (CFO), Acquisition (CAO), Data (CDO), Human Capital (CHCO), Information Technology (CIO), Grants (GMO), Evaluation (EO), Performance (PIO), Privacy (CPO) and Real Property. These are not the “talking heads” you see on the news or even those leading critical federal programs. These are the leaders who ensure those folks can do their jobs. These are career executives whose work keeps the lights on, pays the bills, ensures contracts are legal and programs are evaluated. These are the people who know where the systems are broken, what legislation ties their hands and where critical investments can solve pervasive problems.

Currently, the policy direction for management functions within the federal government is established by the Office of Management and Budget, specifically the M-side (Management) as they are known. While well intentioned, staff on this side of OMB is overextended and generally has limited agency experience. Policy is often developed by OMB staffers without any input from the agency staff — “the doers” — who must implement these government-wide directives. These agency staff often have both deep technical knowledge in the key operational areas — IT, procurement, HR, data collection and reporting — as well as broad-based knowledge of potential implementation challenges, unintended consequences, hidden costs and tradeoffs.

Even when input from agencies is solicited, this is typically more performative than informative, often via working groups in which agencies are expected to salute and not raise any questions or concerns.

This disconnect between OMB and agencies can lead to fundamental errors in policy, undermining future implementation. Further, when the M-side releases a guidance document directing agencies to comply, there is absolutely no incentive to do so beyond avoiding the ‘stick’ — and even that is limited as it is the B-side (Budget) who control the purse strings. Neither side of OMB has money to fund these new tasks, so most are assimilated by existing functions with limited staffing. The directives are thus relegated to simply one more ‘compliance’ task.

Alternatively, the Federal Executive Councils, properly unleashed, could craft management policies based on real experience “in the trenches” at agencies. Proposed policies could be sufficiently pressure tested with the broad agency representation on the councils and ensure implementation is possible within existing limitations. Ultimately, these councils could tackle and manage big challenges which have, to date, been slow to resolve, like fraud detection, budget transparency and acquisition streamlining.

Solving big problems that cross federal silos cannot be accomplished with current funding models. Federal appropriations law typically limits the use of funds to mission and mission-support. When a problem exists that extends beyond a single agency, there are tight controls on how dollars can be spent.

Currently, a small fund exists for the Federal Executive Councils and their innovations, but it is far less than it would take to solve these issues. As such, the current fund has been used for projects with relatively limited impact — handbooks for a specific council, trainings, shared hiring announcements, etc.. These monies are collected from existing agencies and their use is expanded by Congress. Imagine what could be accomplished with an unrestricted, direct appropriation to seasoned management executives, in the $100M or greater range, more than five times the current fund amount. Executives would stay plugged into their agency work, while spending a dedicated portion of their time on cross-federal work.

The time is ripe for big change, impactful change. Political appointees — with or without chainsaws — simply can’t do the job if they don’t understand the federal space, the policy constraints and the problems. Let’s use the Federal Executive Councils to confront the challenges and give them a budget that will allow them to innovate, test and scale solutions to tackle government’s biggest management problems. Members of our Federal Executive Councils are a virtually untapped resource for cost-effective, impactful, cross-agency solutions to some of the federal government’s most vexing challenges.

Dana Fowler, a former federal manager, is currently senior advisor for We the Doers, a nonprofit focused on government reform informed by career leaders. For a period of nine years, Ms. Fowler worked with the Executive Councils, first as deputy director of the Performance Improvement Council, then as deputy associate director of the Federal Executive Councils support team in the Office of Governmentwide Policy at GSA.