Bill Overview
Title: CFO Vision Act of 2022
Description: This bill establishes or modifies provisions to provide for standardized government-wide financial management requirements. Each agency Chief Financial Officer must oversee and provide leadership in the areas of budget formulation and execution, planning and performance, risk management, internal controls, financial systems, accounting, and other areas as the Office of Management and Budget may designate. The bill requires the government-wide financial management plan to include actions for improving financial management systems, strengthening the federal financial management workforce, and linking performance and cost information to budget decision-making. The bill requires (1) the development of financial management performance-based metrics, and (2) an assessment of performance by such metrics to be included in the government-wide and agency-level financial management plans and status reports.
Sponsors: Rep. Maloney, Carolyn B. [D-NY-12]
Target Audience
Population: People who interact with the US government or benefit from its services
Estimated Size: 334000000
- The bill targets federal agencies and their financial management practices.
- The primary impact will be on Chief Financial Officers (CFOs) within federal agencies who are responsible for implementing these financial management requirements.
- Improved financial management could indirectly impact all individuals interacting with government services due to potential enhancements in efficiency and cost-effectiveness.
- The federal financial management workforce, including accountants, analysts, and budget officers, will be directly affected by the new requirements.
- American citizens could benefit from improved government financial management through potentially more efficient allocation and use of federal funds.
Reasoning
- The policy directly impacts federal employees, particularly those in finance, who number approximately 2.1 million.
- Only a subset of federal employees will be directly involved with implementing the new standards.
- Although the general U.S. population/some citizens might not directly interface with the policy, gains in government efficiency and effectiveness could provide indirect widespread benefits.
- Policy changes in financial management can lead to layered benefits, eventually trickling down to public service improvements.
- Wellbeing effects are mostly indirect, as improved financial management can support better resource allocation for public services.
Simulated Interviews
Chief Financial Officer at a federal agency (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy emphasizes improvement in areas we are already trying to strengthen.
- It could drive us toward more structured processes, making our work easier and more impactful over time.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Financial Analyst at a federal contractor (Kansas City, MO)
Age: 32 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Standardized financial measures can guide clearer project objectives.
- Better financial management could enhance our efficiency in meeting requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Accountant at a federal agency (San Francisco, CA)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act might demand more rigorous oversight initially, which could be stressful.
- However, better systems could streamline operations and reduce workload.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Independent consultant (New York, NY)
Age: 37 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Increased standards could mean more consulting opportunities for compliance services.
- My work could become essential to helping firms navigate new requirements.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Federal Program Manager (Chicago, IL)
Age: 29 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Support for better performance metrics is crucial and long overdue.
- The policy could improve how effectively we execute our program objectives.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Public School Teacher (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 55 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Improved financial management could mean more efficient use of education funds.
- It's a distant impact, but any step toward better budgeting helps.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Civil Engineer (Houston, TX)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Clear financial oversight can lead to better project funding.
- Streamlined budgeting is likely to make project planning easier.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Retired government employee (Boston, MA)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better federal financial management could secure pension systems.
- I hope this results in more stable funding for retired employees.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Software Developer (Seattle, WA)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The new Act could require creating new analytical tools, boosting demand for my services.
- Technical implications of enhanced data requirements are interesting.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 10 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 10 | 8 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, FL)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 13/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Better government financial management could lead to more contracting opportunities.
- Optimistic about more agency projects needing tech integrations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 2: $500000000 (Low: $450000000, High: $550000000)
Year 3: $490000000 (Low: $440000000, High: $540000000)
Year 5: $480000000 (Low: $430000000, High: $530000000)
Year 10: $470000000 (Low: $420000000, High: $520000000)
Year 100: $400000000 (Low: $350000000, High: $450000000)
Key Considerations
- Federal agencies would need to realign their existing financial practices to adhere to standardized requirements, which can be resource-intensive.
- Initial costs of implementing new systems and training could be substantial.
- Over time, improved financial management practices have the potential to lead to significant savings and more effective use of government funds.