Archive
_________________________________________________________________________________
Document Name: Chapter 2 -- Putting Customers First Part I
Date: 09/07/94
Owner: National Performance Review
_________________________________________________________________________________
Title:Chapter 2 -- Putting Customers First Part I
Author: Vice President Albert Gore's National Performance Review
Date:7 September 1993 10:00:00 EST
Content-Type: text/ascii charset=US ASCII
Content-Length: 75744
Chapter 2
Putting Customers First
*********************************
We are going to rationalize the way the federal government
relates to the American people, and we are going to make the
federal government customer friendly. A lot of people don't
realize that the federal government has customers. We have
customers. The American people.
Vice President Al Gore
Town Meeting, Department of Housing and Urban Development
March 26, 1993
*********************************
All of us--bureaucrat or business owner, cabinet secretary
or office clerk--respond to incentives. We do more of what brings
us rewards and recognition, less of what brings us criticism. But
our government, built around a complex cluster of monopolies,
insulates both managers and workers from the power of incentives.
We must change the system. We must force our government to put
the customer first by injecting the dynamics of the marketplace.
The best way to deal with monopoly is to expose it to
competition. Let us be clear: this does not mean we should run
government agencies exactly like private businesses. After all,
many of government's functions are public responsibilities
precisely because the private sector cannot, should not, or would
not manage them. But we can transplant some aspects of the
business world into the public arena. We can create an
environment that commits federal managers to the same struggle to
cut costs and improve customer service that compels private
managers. We can imbue the federal government--from top to
bottom--with a driving sense of accountability.
Is it really possible to reinvent government in this way?
Horror stories about government waste are so abundant that many
doubt its ability to change. For some, the only solution is to
cut or abolish programs wholesale. In some instances those cuts
make sense and we are recommending them. But alone they do not
address the problem we face or move us decidedly toward a
government that works better and costs less. We propose a
different approach. we must make cuts where necessary; we also
must make our government effective and efficient. Some programs
clearly should be
eliminated, others streamlined. We will offer many proposals to
do both in chapter 4. But reinventing government isn't just about
trimming programs; it's about fundamentally changing the way
government does business. By forcing public agencies to compete
for their customers--between offices, with other agencies, and
with the private sector--we will create a permanent pressure to
streamline programs, abandon the obsolete, and improve what's
left.
This process will be neither quick nor easy. But as it
unfolds, a very different type of government will emerge, one
that is accountable to its true customers--the public.
We propose four specific steps to empower customers, break
federal monopolies, and provide incentives for federal employees
to better serve their customers.
First, we will require that all federal agencies put
customers first by regularly asking them how they view government
services, what problems they encounter, and how they would like
services improved. We will ensure that all customers have a
voice, and that every voice is heard.
Second, we will make agencies compete for their customers'
business. Wherever feasible, we will dismantle government's
monopolies, including those that buy goods and services, acquire
and maintain office space, and print public documents. These
internal monopolies serve their customers--government workers--so
poorly, it's no wonder those workers have such trouble serving
customers outside government.
Third, where competition isn't feasible, we will turn
government monopolies into more businesslike
enterprises--enterprises in closer touch with both customers and
market incentives.
Fourth, we will shift some federal functions from old-style
bureaucracies to market mechanisms. We will use federal powers to
structure private markets in ways that solve problems and meet
citizens' needs--such as for job training or safe
workplaces--without funding more and bigger public bureaucracies.
Together, these strategies will enable us to create a
responsive, innovative, and entrepreneurial government. If we
inject market mechanisms into federal agencies as we are cutting
red tape, we will create new dynamics--and a new
dynamism--throughout the federal government.
Step 1: --Giving Customers A Voice-- And A Choice
Setting Customer Service Standards
Long lines, busy signals, bad information, and indifferent
workers at front counters-- these are all too common occurrences
when customers come in contact with their government. Quite
simply, the quality of government service is below what its
customers deserve.
We propose to set a goal of providing customer services
equal to the best in business. Too many agencies have learned to
overlook their customers. After all, most of government's
customers can't really take their business elsewhere. Veterans
who use veterans' hospitals, companies that seek environmental
permits, or retirees applying for social security benefits must
deal with public agencies that hold monopolies. And monopolies,
public or private, have little sensitivity to customer needs. So
government agencies must do what many of America's best
businesses have done: renew their focus on customers. Some are
already trying. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Social
Security Administration (SSA) have taken major steps to improve
their telephone services to customers. SSA, the U.S. Postal
Service (USPS), and the Department of Veterans Affairs are
developing a combined government services kiosk, providing a
single point of access for services offered by the three
agencies. The Library of Congress, the Energy Department, the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the National
Science Foundation, and other federal agencies have placed their
materials on Internet, a worldwide computer network.1
Good service means giving people what they need. To do that,
however, one must first find out what they want--a step few
federal agencies have taken. In the future, federal agencies will
ask their customers what they want, what problems they have, and
how the agencies can improve their services.
Knowing what customers want, public agencies must set clear
and specific customer service standards. When Federal Express
promises to deliver a package the next day by 10:30 a.m., both
customers and employees understand precisely what that means.
Similarly, when the Air Force's Tactical Air Command discarded
its thick set of specifications about living quarters for
visiting pilots and adopted a simple standard- -equivalent to "a
moderately priced hotel, like Ramada"--employees understood
exactly what it meant.2
Several federal agencies that frequently interact with
citizens have launched aggressive customer service initiatives.
We endorse strengthening these initiatives--described below- -and
expanding them across the federal government.
Internal Revenue Service.
The IRS, the federal agency most citizens prefer to avoid,
might seem the least likely to develop a customer focus. But it's
working hard to do just that.
Four years ago, the General Accounting Office (GAO)
discovered that IRS staff gave a wrong answer to one of every
three taxpayers who called with a question. Since then, the
agency has improved its accuracy rate to 88 percent.3 And--in a
switch that signals a basic change in attitude--agency employees
now refer to taxpayers as customers. In IRS pilot projects across
the country, employees now have authority to change work
processes on their own in order to improve productivity.
Front-line workers also have more authority to resolve issues
one-on-one with individual taxpayers. The agency is fostering
competition among its tax return centers, based on customer
service levels and efficiency at handling the 1.7 billion pieces
of paper the IRS receives each year. Centers that perform better
get higher budgets and workloads, and employees get promotion
opportunities. The IRS was among the first government agencies to
use 800 numbers and automated voice mail systems to increase
customer access to information. Today, the IRS is beginning to
survey its customers.
***********************************
Customer Service Standards: IRS
As part of the National Performance Review, the IRS is publishing
customer service standards, including these:
-- If you file a paper return, your refund due will be mailed
within 40 days.
-- If you file an electronic return, your refund due will be
sent within 14 days when you specify direct deposit, within
21 days when you request a check.
-- Our goal is to resolve your account inquiry with one
contact; repeat problems will be handled by a Problem
Resolution Office in an average of 21 days.
-- When you give our tax assistors sufficient and accurate
information and they give you the wrong answers, we will
cancel related penalties.
-- With your feedback, by 1995 IRS forms and instructions will
be so clear that 90 percent of individual tax returns will
be error-free.
***********************************
In addition, some centers are serving customers in truly
astonishing ways. One anecdote makes the point. At the Ogden,
Utah Service Center--a winner of the Presidential Award for
Quality--a down-on-his-luck man hitchhiked from out of state to
get his refund check. As it turns out, this center doesn't issue
checks. But IRS employees there discovered that a disbursing
center had sent a check to the hitchhiker's old address and that
it had been returned. They ordered a new check sent to Ogden and
helped the hitchhiker make ends meet until the check arrived.
In the end, the IRS's efforts could affect all of us, not
only as filers of tax returns but as taxpayers. If IRS forms are
easier to understand and use, more taxpayers might file on time.
If the IRS develops an image as a more effective, user-friendly
agency, more taxpayers might decide to file in the first place. A
mere 1-percent increase in voluntary compliance would add $7
billion in government revenue each year.4
Social Security Administration.
Every year, more than 47 million Americans come in contact
with the Social Security Administration, which administers
old-age pensions, survivors' and disability insurance, and the
supplemental security income (SSI) program. The agency has 1,300
field offices and receives 60 million calls a year on its
toll-free lines. As the nation's population ages, the agency
faces an ever-increasing workload. Recently, an inspector
general's report showed that customer satisfaction had fallen 4
years in a row due to longer waiting times in offices and
increasing problems in reaching someone on the phone.5
Fortunately, the Social Security Administration is
strengthening its customer orientation. When Hurricane Andrew
struck South Florida, where 367,000 people collect social
security and SSI, agency workers took steps to ensure that senior
citizens would know how to get their checks despite the
devastation. Local offices used television, radio, and
loudspeaker trucks touring the area with messages in English,
Spanish, and Creole. The agency also hired an airplane to tow a
banner with SSA's toll-free 800 telephone number over the
hard-hit Homestead area.
***********************************
Customer Service Standards: Social Security Administration
As part of its participation in the National Performance Review,
the Social Security Administration will publish nationally, and
post in each of its offices, these performance standards:
-- You will be treated with courtesy every time you contact
us. -- We will tell you what benefits you qualify for and give
you the information you need to use our programs.
-- We will refer you to other programs that may help you. --
You will reach us the first time you try on our 800 number.
************************************
More generally, the Social Security Administration recently
adopted a customer-oriented strategic plan, which includes
objectives such as issuing social security numbers orally within
24 hours of an application. Besides pinpointing some of their
objectives as standards to reach today, SSA is publishing all 34
of its objectives and seeking customer feedback on whether it set
the right targets for service.
U.S. Postal Service. The Postal Service, which delivered 166
billion pieces of mail in 1992, has begun improving customer
service for a good reason: It has competition. While most people
still use the Postal Service to deliver first class mail, the use
of private delivery services and electronic mail is rising
quickly.
***********************************
Customer Service Standards: USPS
As part of its participation in the National Performance Review,
the USPS will expand its plans to display these standards in post
offices:
-- Your first class mail will be delivered anywhere in the United
States within 3 days. -- Your local first class mail will be
delivered overnight.
-- You will receive service at post office counters within 5
minutes. -- You can get postal information 24 hours a day by
calling a local number.
************************************
The Postal Service has decided to meet its competition
head-on. Using focus groups, the agency identified service areas
where its customers wanted improvement. It found that people
wanted shorter waiting lines at counters, better access to postal
information, and better responses to their complaints. Using
these standards to measure performance, the agency set a long
range goal of "100-percent satisfaction" and developed a customer
satisfaction index to measure progress toward it.
The agency also is providing incentives for employee
performance: In cooperation with two postal unions, managers now
use customer satisfaction data to help determine employee
bonuses.
Action: The President should issue a directive requiring
all federal agencies that deliver services to the public to
create customer service programs that identify and survey
customers. The order will establish the following standard for
quality: Customer service equal to the best in business.6
The President's directive will lay out principles to govern
the provision of customer services. For example, organizations
should:
-- survey their customers frequently to find out what kind and
quality of services they want;
-- post standards and results measured against them;
-- benchmark performance against "the best in business";
-- provide choices in both source of service and delivery
means; -- make information, services, and complaint systems
easily accessible; -- handle inquiries and deliver services
with courtesy;
-- provide pleasant surroundings for customers; and
-- provide redress for poor services.
The order will direct all federal agencies that deal with
the public to:
-- immediately identify who their customers are;
-- survey their customers on services and results desired, and
on satisfaction with existing services;
-- survey front-line employees on barriers to, and ideas for,
matching the best in business;
-- in 6 months, report results on these three steps to the
President; and
-- develop and publish a customer service plan--including an
initial set of customer service standards--within 1 year.
The customer service plans will address the need to train
front-line employees in customer service skills. They will also
identify companies that agencies will use to judge how they
compare to the "best in business." The directive will ask cabinet
secretaries and agency heads to use improvement in customer
satisfaction as a primary criterion in judging the performance of
agency managers and front-line employees.
Action: For voluntary customer surveys, the Office of Management
and Budget will delegate its survey approval authority under the
Paperwork Reduction Act to departments that are able to comply
with the act.7
The public's input is crucial to improving customer service.
But current law gives the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
power to decide on virtually all agency requests to solicit
information from the public (OMB can delegate this authority).
This law was designed to minimize onerous paperwork burdens the
federal government imposes on businesses and citizens. But it
also minimizes the number of times agencies ask customers about
their needs. It often slows agencies down so much that they
abandon the idea of doing a survey altogether.
For many agencies, customer surveys are the single most
useful way to measure performance. If OMB has to approve every
request for a customer survey, however, neither the directive
described above nor the Government Performance and Results Act,
which the President signed in August 1993, will work. Citizens do
not like to be forced to fill out forms by their government. But
most Americans would be pleased to receive a voluntary survey
asking how their post office or social security office could
improve its customer service.
We propose to delegate approval of voluntary customer
surveys to departments with the ability to comply with the law,
and ensure that they create rapid approval processes so
bottlenecks don't develop at lower levels.
Customer-driven programs rarely cost more than others;
indeed, productivity gains in past federal experiments have more
than offset cost increases. At the Ogden Service Center, the IRS
office's new approach helped workers process 5 percent more tax
returns. When organizations shift their focus to customers, they
act like Avis--they try harder.
Crossing Agency Boundaries
Unfortunately, even agencies that try harder find very real
obstacles in the way of putting their customers first. Perhaps
the worst is Washington's organizational chart. Time and again,
agencies find it impossible to meet their customers' needs,
because organizational boundaries stand in the way.
Sometimes, programs housed in the same agency are only
tangentially related. While most Agriculture Department programs
relate to food, for instance, its customers range from farmers
who grow it to poor children whose families use food stamps. At
other times, programs dealing with the same customers are located
in a dozen different agencies. Rather than make people jump over
organizational boundaries on their own, we must remove the
boundaries at the point of customer contact. We must make the
delivery of services "seamless."
The traditional solution is to shuffle the organizational
chart. But in Washington, such proposals set off monumental turf
wars between agencies in the executive branch, and between
committees in Congress. After years of struggle, one or two
agencies are reorganized -- or a new department is created.
Meanwhile, the nation's problems keep changing, so the new
structure is soon out of date.
In a rapidly changing world, the best solution is not to
keep redesigning the organizational chart; it is to melt the
rigid boundaries between organizations. The federal government
should organize work according to customers' needs and
anticipated outcomes, not bureaucratic turf. It should learn from
America's best-run companies, in which employees no longer work
in separate, isolated divisions, but in project- or
product-oriented teams.
To do so, the government must make three changes. It must
give federal workers greater decision making authority, allowing
them to operate effectively in cross-cutting ventures. It must
strip federal laws of prohibitions against such cooperation. And
it must order agencies to reconsider their own regulations and
tradition-bound thinking. For example, the Forest Service found
that 70 percent of its regulatory barriers to new, creative ways
of doing business were self-imposed.8
Despite these barriers, some noteworthy initiatives are
underway. Rural Development Councils, under the Agriculture
Department's direction, work with several federal departments as
well as states and localities to better coordinate rural aid
programs. At the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), a
systems manager helps coordinate the activities of the FAA,
Defense Department, international aviation organizations, and
various private interests on matters involving satellites, data
links, and traffic flow management.9
We should bring the same approach to other parts of
government. The following examples illustrate the problems we
face and the solutions we must create.
Action: Create a system of competitive, one-stop, career
development centers open to all Americans.10
Our nation's economic future depends on the quality of our
workforce. Our individual futures, too, depend on whether we have
marketable, flexible skills with which to adapt to the changing
demands of new technologies. In a country where the average
worker changes jobs seven times in a lifetime, those skills are
more than desirable; they are crucial.
Our government invests heavily in education and training.
Together, 14 separate government departments and agencies invest
$24 billion a year, through 150 employment and training
programs.11 But we do not invest this money well enough. For one
thing, our system is organized for the convenience of those who
deliver services, not those who use them. For another, the system
lacks competition and incentives for improvement. "The United
States has a worldwide reputation for providing its youth
extensive
opportunity to attend college," the General Accounting Office
noted recently. "However, our country falls short in employment
preparation of many noncollege-youth." Unlike our competitors,
GAO said, we have no national policy to systematically prepare
non-college educated youth for jobs.12
Our system is badly fragmented. Each service -- from job
referral to retraining -- is designed for different people, with
different rules, regulations, and reporting requirements.
Bewildered, often dispirited, job seekers must trudge from office
to office, trying to fit themselves into a program. When they
find a program, they may find that they aren't eligible, that
it's all filled up, or that the classroom is across town.
American workers deserve a better deal. Nowhere on the
government reinvention front is action more urgently needed or
are potential rewards greater. We envision a new workforce
development system, focused on the needs of workers and
employers. We will organize it around the customer -- whether an
individual or a business -- then provide that customer with good
information about the performance of different providers and
plenty of choices. If we do this, career centers and training
providers will have to compete for their customers' business,
based on the quality of their services.
Specifically, we propose one-stop career management centers
across the country, open to all Americans -- regardless of race,
gender, age, income, employment experience, or skills. (One-stop
centers are also a key feature of the Workforce Investment
Strategy the Labor Department is developing.) Our centers would
offer skills assessment, information on jobs, access to education
and training -- everything people needed to make career
decisions. The centers would be linked to all federal, state, and
local workforce development programs, and to many private ones
(which are, after all, the source of most job-training money).
Core services such as labor market information and job search
help would be offered free. Some centers might offer other
services, from comprehensive testing to career counseling and
workshops, on a fee-for-service basis.
These centers would help their customers get access to funds
from any of the 150 programs for which they qualified. To make
this possible, the federal government would eliminate or waive
many rules and regulations that keep our workforce development
programs separate. The centers would also be allowed to generate
their own revenues, including fees collected from employers and
employees would could afford to pay. Any organization, public or
private, would be allowed to seek a charter to operate one or
more one-stop career centers. The process would be
performance-driven, with contracts renewed only if centers met
customers' demands. The federal government would establish
national chartering standards for the centers, but states and
local employment boards would decide which organizations met the
standards.
Today, local organizations such as U S Employment Service
and Service Delivery Areas get most of their federal funds almost
as a matter of entitlement. They account for the money, but we do
not hold them accountable for whether they spend it effectively.
We would make funding for these new centers more competitive,
opening the process to public and private, nonprofit and
for-profit, entities.
We would judge these centers in part by how many people
sought help at them -- on the theory that centers attracting the
most customers were clearly doing something right. But we would
focus as well on what happened after the customers left. Did they
enroll in meaningful training programs? Did they find jobs? Did
they keep their jobs? Did they increase their incomes? Finally,
we would give customers the necessary information to decide the
same thing for themselves: Which training program would meet
their needs best?
We believe that the central problem in the Employment
Service is not the line workers, but the many rules and
regulations that prevent them from doing their jobs. Waiver of
these antiquated rules will free up these workers to perform
well. In order for state Employment Services to compete on a
level playing field -- particularly after the negative effects of
the last decade of spending cuts and over-regulation -- line
workers must be given the opportunity to retool. The Labor
Department should ensure that they receive the necessary training
to enable them to participate in the process. The biggest single
barrier to creating an integrated system of one-stop career
centers is the fragmented nature of federal funds. The 150
federal programs have different rules, different reporting
requirements, even different fiscal years. To synchronize these
-- and to break down the walls between
categorical programs -- the National Economic Council should
convene a Workforce Development Council, with members from the
Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services;
the Office of Management and Budget; and other departments and
agencies with employment and training programs. This council
should standardize fiscal and administrative procedures, develop
a standard set of terms and definitions between programs, develop
a comprehensive set of results-oriented performance standards,
and improve the qualitative evaluation of program performance.
Action: The President shoud issue a directive that requires
collaborative efforts across the government to empower
communities and strengthen families.13
At Vice President Gore's recent conference on family policy
in Nashville, experts agreed that effective family policy
requires new approaches at the federal, state, and local levels.
We should stop dividing up families' needs into health,
education, welfare, and shelter, each with its own set of
agencies and programs, many of which contradict one another and
work at cross-purposes. Instead, across all levels of government,
we need collaborative,
community-based, customer-driven approaches through which
providers can integrate the full network of services.
For instance, we spend about $60 billion a year on the
well-being of children. But we have created at least 340 separate
programs for families and children, administered by 11 different
federal agencies and departments.14 Thus, a poor family may need
to seek help from several departments--Agriculture for food
stamps, Housing and Urban Development for rental support, Health
and Human Services for health care and chasing down dead-beat
parents. For each program, they will have to visit different
offices, learn about services, fill out forms to establish
eligibility--and wait.
The system is fragmented and illogical. In Texas, where the
immunization rate among poor children is about 30 percent, the
state Health Department sought permission to have nurses who run
the Agriculture Department's Women, Infants and Children
supplemental food program also give immunization. The Agriculture
Department said no--unless Texas developed an elaborate cost
allocation plan. Consequently, mothers and children will have to
continue visiting more than one agency.15
A few years ago, Governing magazine described a teenage girl
who was pregnant, had a juvenile record and was on welfare.
Between the three problems, she had more than six
caseworkers--each from a different agency. As one put it: "The
kid has all these people providing services, and everybody's
doing their own thing and Tasha's not getting better. We need to
have one person who says, 'Now look, let's talk about a plan of
action for Tasha.'"16 President Clinton's directive will help
remove obstacles that agencies face in trying to serve Tasha and
others like her.
Action: The President should issue a directive and propose
legislation to reconstitute the Federal Coordinating Council for
Science, Engineering, and Technology as the National Science and
Technology Council, giving it a broader role in setting science
and technology policy.17
Progress in science and technology is a key ingredient of
national economic success. President Clinton's A Vision of Change
for America, released in February, cites studies showing that
"investments in research and development (R&D) tend to be the
strongest and most consistent positive influence on productivity
growth."18 In an increasingly competitive world economy, the
American people need the best possible return on federal R&D
investments.
The Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering,
and Technology (FCCSET) is a White House-managed team that helps
set policy for technology development. With representatives from
more than a dozen agencies, it develops interagency projects,
such as biotechnology research and the high-performance computing
initiative. Unfortunately, FCCSET lacks the teeth to set
priorities, direct policy, and participate fully in the budget
process. It can't compel agencies to participate in its projects,
nor can it tell agencies how to spend funds. Its six funded
projects will account for just 16 percent of Washington's $76
billion R & D budget in 1994. At a time of declining federal
resources, experts in business, academia, and government
recognize the need for one-stop shopping for science and
technology policy.
A new National Science and Technology Council would direct
science and technology policy more forcefully, and would
streamline the White House's advisory apparatus by combining the
functions of FCCSET, the National Space Council, and the National
Critical Materials Council.
Action: The President should issue a directive to give the Trade
Promotion Coordinating Committee greater authority to control
federal export promotion efforts.19
Unlike most of our economic competitors, the United States
has no national export strategy. Our export programs are
fragmented among 19 separate organizations- -including the
Agriculture and Commerce Departments and the Small Business
Administration. The U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service, in
Commerce's International Trade Administration, is the lead agency
for trade promotion overseas. But dozens of other entities--many
within Commerce--also have trade promotion roles.
Our export programs provide little benefit to all but our
nation's largest businesses. The economic implications of such
selective assistance are serious. Exports are among our most
effective job-creating tools. They create about 20,000 new jobs
for every $1 billion in exports. Thousands of small and mid-sized
companies make products attractive for overseas markets, but are
discouraged by high transaction costs and a lack of information.
According to trade experts, the United States may be the "world's
biggest export underachiever."20
The President's directive will give the Trade Promotion
Coordinating Committee (TPCC), chaired by the Commerce Secretary
and including representatives from 19 departments, agencies, and
executive offices, broader authority to create performance
measures and set allocation criteria for the nation's export
promotion programs. Working with the National Economic Council,
TPCC will ensure that such programs better serve the exporting
community.
Action: The President should issue a directive to establish
ecosystem management policies across the government.21
"For too long, contradictory policies from feuding agencies
have blocked progress, creating uncertainty, confusion,
controversy, and pain throughout the region," President Clinton
declared at the Forest Conference held in Portland, Oregon in
April 1993. Shortly thereafter, the President announced his
Forest Plan--a proactive approach to ensuring a sustainable
economy and a sustainable environment through ecosystem
management. We recommend extending the concept of ecosystem
management across the federal government.
Although economic growth has strained our ecological
systems, our government lacks a coordinated approach to ecosystem
management. A host of agencies have jurisdiction over individual
pieces of our natural heritage. The Bureau of Land Management
oversees more than 60 percent of all public lands; the Forest
Service manages our national forests and grasslands; the Fish and
Wildlife Service manages our National Wildlife Refuge System; the
National Park Service oversees the national parks; the
Environmental Protection Agency implements laws to regulate air
and water quality; the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) manages marine resources; and various other
agencies run programs that affect the environment. Different
agencies, with jurisdictions over the same ecosystem, do not work
well together. Even within the same agency, bureaus fight one
another.
At the local level, a hodge podge of government agencies
control activities that affect the environment. Consider, for
instance, the San Francisco Bay delta estuary. One of the most
human-altered estuaries on the west coast of North or South
America, it is governed by a complex array of agencies, plans,
and laws. One mile of the delta may be affected by decisions of
more than 400 agencies.22
The White House Office on Environmental Policy has convened
an interagency task force of appropriate assistant secretaries to
develop and implement cross-agency ecosystem management projects.
The Office of Management and Budget will review the plans as part
of the fiscal 1995 budget process. In 1994, the assistant
secretaries will establish cross-agency teams to develop initial
ecosystem management plans for implementation in fiscal year
1995. Also in 1994, the President should issue a directive that
will declare sustainable ecosystem management across the federal
government.
Action: The President should create a Federal Coordinating
Council for Economic Development.23
The federal government has no coherent policy for regional
development and community dislocation. Instead, it offers a
fragmented and bureaucratic system of seven programs to assist
states and localities. The major programs are the Commerce
Department's Economic Development Administration, the Housing and
Urban Development Department's Community Development Block Grant
program, and the Agriculture Department's Rural Development
Administration and Rural Electrification Administration. The
Defense Department, Tennessee Valley Authority, and Appalachian
Regional Commission run smaller programs. Thus, states and
communities must turn to many different agencies and programs,
rather than a single coordinated system. Communities find it hard
to get help, and the dispersion of effort limits overall funding.
Washington's economic and regional development activities
should be reconfigured to suit its customers--states and
communities. We propose a Federal Coordinating Council for
Economic Development, comprising the appropriate cabinet
secretaries and agency heads, to coordinate such activities and
provide a central source of information for states and
localities. The council will provide a unifying framework for
economic and regional development efforts, develop a
governmentwide strategic plan and unified budget to support the
framework, prevent duplication in the various programs, and
assess appropriate funding levels for the agencies involved.