The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: Implications for Social Work Practice

Abstract

Accountability, measurement, and are terms used throughout the social work literature (for example, Kettner, Moroney, & Martin, 1990; Lawlor & Raube, 1995; Netting, Kettner, & McMurtry, 1993; Rapp & Poertner, 1992) as well as in the hallways of contemporary public, nonprofit, and private human services agencies. Martin and Kettner (1996) identified five forces that combine to give these concepts tremendous credibility: (1) the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, (2) the National Performance Review, (3) the total quality management (TQM) approach, (4) managed care, and (5) the service efforts and accomplishments (SEA) reporting initiative of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) (pp. 1112). They contend that SEA is the most critical of these forces because it represents systematic approach to performance measurement with an identifiable structure and language (p. 15), unlike the other four forces, which are more diffuse. Martin and Kettner (1996) went on to discuss SEA and its implications. Literature and hallway discussions are rife with the pros and cons of TQM and managed care approaches (Martin, 1993). Less note has been made in the social work literature of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 (P.L. 103-62) and the National Performance Review (the government's name for reinventing government), which set new directions for the way government conducts its business with regard to all programs. Because Congress intends to base budget decisions on agencies' reports of performance in achieving outcomes, the GPRA is mandate social workers need to be familiar with. This national initiative is symbolic of push toward outcome measurement and accountability that pervades not only federal but also state program budgeting. This article outlines the intent and content of the GPRA so that social workers will be familiar with this legislation. explore the implications of the GPRA for social work practice within the context of the current debates about reinventing government, program performance, and outcomes. What Is the GPRA? The GPRA is Congress's entry into the business of requiring and in all federal agencies. It marks new attempt in federal administration to link performance to budgets. Historically, agencies found in their authorizing legislation mandates of activities, limits to their authority, and directions for controlling their expenditures. Rarely have they found definitions of the desired or outcomes of their activities (Allen, 1995). Comptroller General Charles A. Bowsher, whose responsibility it was to evaluate federal programs, testified, We waste half our time in doing our program evaluation work and our financial audit work even in trying to figure out what is the goal that was trying to be achieved (Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 1993, p. 6). Congress articulated this concern in the findings section of the GPRA: Federal managers are seriously disadvantaged in their efforts to improve program efficiency and effectiveness, because of insufficient articulation of program and inadequate information on program performance; and congressional policymaking, spending decisions and program oversight are seriously handicapped by insufficient attention to program performance and results ([section]2(a)(2) and (3)). The GPRA addresses the absence of goals, objectives, and outcomes by requiring agencies to set performance that must be accompanied by measurable outcomes. Briefly, the GPRA mandated strategic plans, an annual performance plan, and an annual performance report. Strategic plans submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and to Congress by September 30, 1997, must cover not less than five years and must include * goals and objectives, including outcome-related and objectives, for the major functions and operations of the agency [italics added] ([section]306) * strategies for achieving the and * a description of the program evaluations used in establishing or revising general and objectives ([section]306). …