Find solution
Why do agencies lose clients, what are the reasons?

What incentives should the US Government use to encourage agencies to spend less money?

  • Budgeting is a use it or lose it proposition.  If you don't spend your annual budget the Congress will be upset with you; your bosses will be upset with you. The only person who wouldn't be upset is John Q. Taxpayer.  There are probably great reasons for this system in the steady state... but ought this be an area of reform during the impending austerity?  Rather than just having Congress chop budgets for programs/departments (needs to happen) shouldn't we also create incentives for agencies to produce their own savings?

  • Answer:

    The current handling of federal budget is certainly mind-boggling.  The question posed clearly identifies the crux of this issue:  Budget is a use it or lose it proposition.  Unfortunately, the "best" managers often are entrusted with the largest budgets...which they are completely opposed to having cut year to year and feel a need to spend all the way up to the last dollar (which can be easily identified in the month of September, as agencies push hard to spend "end of year funds" that they will lose if they don't burn by 9/30). But I think this actually leads back to a larger problem...which is the complete lack of a meritocracy policy within many agencies in the federal government.  This is caused by three correlated phenomena: 1.   The most talented people leave for the private sector once they realize how broken the system is (and cuts on government salary will only make this worse) 2.  Promotions are based primarily on seniority and experience 3.  Government culture is generally risk averse Therefore, the people that have not left for the private sector year after year are the people that are promoted to higher ranks.  And the people that have been promoted year after year have generally made it there because they have avoided putting themselves in a position that they view as "risky".   So leadership generally ends up being non-innovative and self-back-patting in nature. This isn't going to be directly helped along by cutting programs and salaries.  It could be revolutionized by introducing the principles of meritocracy to the system, which is very similar to reform that is needed within education as well.  Reward risk-takers and entrepreneurial spirits.  Refuse promotions to bench-sitters and bureaucrats.  And when someone comes in under the budget and still delivers on their requirements, reward them with a "good steward" budget in the coming year.  This is obviously a long shot...but hey, a man can dream...right?

Trae Stephens at Quora Visit the source

Was this solution helpful to you?

Other answers

Building on Trae's post we can build into promotion systems the changes we want to see.  For example:  A police department wanted it's officers to become skilled in community policing.  They developed a good training program and integrated the knowledge and applied practices into the employee evaluation and promotion system.  By doing this they clearly demonstrated how much they valued the community policing and the officer was highly incentivized to learn and use those skills in their community. Pay raises and moving up depended on it. The same concept could be expanded within agencies.  If we value risk, innovation, design thinking, leadership, courage and collaboration, it should be built into how employees and agencies are evaluated and rewarded. We could create challenges and promote the best solutions.  We have to value what we want to create, match public policy with funding and programs. We spend the dollar more than once, we spend it over and over again.  I would breakdown silo behavior and funding, re-design our federal grant making system and value moving ideas to action.  We know from research how many of our wicked challenges share common causes.  It makes no sense to fund similar programs from different agencies for common purpose.  It makes much more sense to combine resources and support grantees in their success.  For example:  high risk youth grants come from education, justice and health, why couldn't we consider shared grant programs?  Over the years we have funded similar initiatives over and over again.  Why don't we build on our past successes and research, catalog past grants and use what we've already learned as we move forward. If we believe in public/private partnerships, why don't we partner up with philanthropic organizations who are also funding similar programs and grants. We really have to "think differently" about our entire approach.  Who says our current agencies are designed for today's issues?  What would happen if we had the challenge of redesigning, seriously, each agency and the internal systems and bureaucracies?  I bet it wouldn't look like it does now. I have served in a number of federal agencies and love public service.  I'm convinced we have to tackle core issues to get it right. We can talk all we want about innovation, but unless we value it, it's just talk.

Andrea Schneider

Related Q & A:

Just Added Q & A:

Find solution

For every problem there is a solution! Proved by Solucija.

  • Got an issue and looking for advice?

  • Ask Solucija to search every corner of the Web for help.

  • Get workable solutions and helpful tips in a moment.

Just ask Solucija about an issue you face and immediately get a list of ready solutions, answers and tips from other Internet users. We always provide the most suitable and complete answer to your question at the top, along with a few good alternatives below.