Bill Overview
Title: Federal Agency Performance Act of 2022
Description: This bill addresses federal agency performance and accountability. Specifically, the bill revises requirements regarding strategic reviews of federal agencies' performance goals and requires a Deputy Performance Improvement Officer to support the Performance Improvement Officer. With respect to strategic reviews, not less frequently than annually and consistent with guidance issued by the Office of Management and Budget, each agency must take specified actions, including for each goal or objective established in the agency's strategic plan, review the progress achieved toward the goal and the likelihood that the agency will achieve the goal; identify any risks or impediments that would decrease the likelihood that the agency will achieve the goal; and for each goal at greatest risk of not being achieved, identify prospects and strategies for performance improvement. Additionally, the bill requires that federal government priority goals (1) be updated and revised not less frequently than during the first year of each presidential term, (2) include plans for the successful achievement of each goal within each single presidential term, and (3) explicitly cite to any specific contents of the budget that support the achievement of each goal.
Sponsors: Sen. Peters, Gary C. [D-MI]
Target Audience
Population: People interacting with or employed by federal agencies
Estimated Size: 500000
- Federal employees, particularly those involved in performance management, will have new processes to follow, impacting their workload and potentially how they are evaluated.
- Citizens who interact with federal agencies may experience changes in service quality or efficiency as agencies improve their performance goals.
- The implementation of this act may lead to government-wide changes in performance management systems and processes, affecting all federal agencies.
- Indirectly, by potentially improving the efficacy of government services, all citizens might experience changes as a result of more effective performance management of federal agencies.
Reasoning
- The policy mainly impacts federal employees involved in strategy and performance management, as their workload and evaluation criteria might change. These changes require training and might lead to increased stress or job satisfaction, depending on their current roles and future outcomes.
- Citizens interacting with federal agencies may notice a gradual improvement in service efficiency and quality, though the impact will be less pronounced initially and grow over time as the agencies adjust to new guidelines.
- We need to incorporate a mix of federal employees and everyday citizens for this simulation to reflect a diverse set of experiences with the policy.
- Considering budget restrictions, we assume that changes in government processes will be incremental, affecting management more significantly than implementation staff or general public interactions in the short term.
- Given these factors, the impact of the policy will vary from high for certain federal employees to low or none for citizens not directly interacting with federal agencies.
Simulated Interviews
Federal agency performance officer (Washington, D.C.)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think this policy will require us to rethink our current processes. It might increase our workload temporarily, but it could also lead to more efficient operations in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 7 |
IT Specialist (Fort Meade, Maryland)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This act means increased coordination with performance officers but also improves what we deliver as IT specialists through better-defined goals.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 8 |
Civilian (Chicago, Illinois)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 14/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I haven't noticed any changes with my interactions with federal services yet, but hopefully things will be smoother in the future.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
HR Manager in a federal agency (Los Angeles, California)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aligning our evaluation criteria with revised strategic goals means additional training for teams, but it often leads to better alignment and performance.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Software Developer in a private sector contract for a government agency (Austin, Texas)
Age: 33 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While it creates new opportunities, this policy means more stringent compliance protocols, which could be both good and bad for business.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Retired (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 60 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- As a retiree, administrative efficiency affects me indirectly, so I hope these changes translate into better service quality.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Project Manager in a Public Health Agency (New York City, New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Aligning new federal guidelines with our agency goals will add stress initially but should help create clearer outcomes for public health projects.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Citizen (San Francisco, California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think any efforts to improve efficiency are good, but I haven't seen much change in the services I use.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Federal Performance Analyst (Phoenix, Arizona)
Age: 42 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This transition will require retraining, but I've seen these changes lead to more impactful evaluations in the long run.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 6 |
Administrative Assistant at federal agency (Boston, Massachusetts)
Age: 35 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The additional documentation as part of the new guidelines will increase my workload significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 4 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $20000000 (Low: $15000000, High: $25000000)
Year 2: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 3: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 5: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 10: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Year 100: $15000000 (Low: $10000000, High: $20000000)
Key Considerations
- Initial setup costs and ongoing operational expenses for improving agency performance systems are relatively modest compared to potential long-term benefits.
- The policy aims to enhance efficiency, which over time could lead to savings that offset its initial costs.
- There is some uncertainty over the true extent of performance improvement and related cost savings, as this will depend on successful implementation and adherence to guidelines across all federal agencies.