The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Hydra-Headed Monster or Flexible Management Tool?

• Published in: Public administration review 1998-07, Vol.58 (4), p.307-316
• Main Author: Radin, Beryl A.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: 4320; 9190; 9550; Budgeting; Business management; Early Experience; Efficiency; Executive branch; Failure; Federal budget; Federal government; Federal legislation; Federal Programs; Government; Government budgets; Government reform; Law; Legislation; Management; Managerial budgeting; National government; Objectives; Office management; Pilot Projects; Problems; Program Descriptions; Program Evaluation; Public administration; Public management; Public sector organizations; Quality of service; Requirements; Strategic planning; United States federal budget
• ISSN: 0033-3352; 1540-6210
• DOI: 10.2307/977560

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) responded to many of the recommendations for change in public management that have emerged over the years but has evoked incredibly divergent views as it has begun to be implemented. While some aspects of the perceived problems are attributable to the background of the legislation (e. g., its purposes and requirements), the initial instructions for implementation also contributed to the confusion. One cannot understand the reaction to GPRA, however, without an understanding of the larger context. This environment includes the reality of the budget and budget decision making, the context of fragmentation, decentralization, and devolution, the pressures from living in an era of ideology and divided government, skepticism about federal collection of information, problems dealing with the concepts of customers and stakeholders, and what I call crowded management space (competing management requirements.) The early stages of implementation suggest that there are problems in the process of developing strategies, defining goals and performance measures, dealing with data, determining the level of analysis, and assigning responsibility for the implementation. While it is very early to give a definitive assessment of the GPRA process, the optimism that surrounded the legislation is not as strong as it was several years ago when the legislation was enacted. Some agencies within the federal establishment may be using the requirements to achieve internal management agendas, but the complexity of the institutions of American governance works against the accomplishment of the rational goals of the legislation.