PRESIDENTIAL MANAGEMENT INITIATIVES

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00467A003100100011-5
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 37
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: May 27, 2005
• Sequence Number: 11
• Publication Date: July 22, 1976
• Content Type: MF

`Approved For ase 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP79M00467 3100~86elT1:l-1~- C L ~' S
tl 43Ck~nt"I_~ra _..
2 JUL
MEMORANDUM FOR: Deputy Director of Central Intelligence
FROM : James H. Taylor
Comptroller
SUBJECT: Presidential Management Iniatives
1. You have been invited to appear at a cabinet meeting tomorrow
to talk about "presidential management iniatives." Attached is _a
short memorandum by John McMahon which summarizes what the President
and Jim Lynn will talk about. Also attached is a longer paper by
OMB which gives some of the background on these proposals. The
meeting apparently is designed to acquaint everybody with this new
thrust and to guarantee that the follow-on letters will get an
enthusiastic reception from us.
2. Five general topic areas are discussed. One is the need
for better program evaluation. A second is concerned with the
burden on the US public of government reporting requirements and
is, I think, irrelevant to CIA. The third focuses on the question
of the need to contract out with private industry as much activity
as we can while holding our internal overhead down. The fourth
asks for renewed commitment to good personnel management including
executive development, position management control, etc. The
fifth is concerned with establishing good decision making processes
in government organizations.
3. Frankly, pieces of. this are OMB at their worst, but we,
like everyone else, will have to go along with the gag. For the most
part I think we can explain in our response to OMB that we are
deeply committed to all these goals and carrying them out already,
but you will need to assure yourself that. This is the case.
There is action here for the Comptroller and the DDA and perhaps
other parts of the organization, but as I understand it, nothing
needs to be done until the presidential and OMB letters are in
hand.
/,/James ay
Attachments:
As Stated
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
STAT
 'Approved For ase 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP79M0046703100100011-5
DCI/IC 76-0151
19 July 1976
SUB,J`t'sCT: Presidential Management Initiatives
1. At a meeting in 0MB on 19 July, I was advised of a forth-
coming requirement imposed by 0MB under a program titled Presiden-
tial Management Initiatives.
2. It is planned that in the very near future the President
will hold a cabinet meeting attended by heads of agencies which
will cover the full range of management issues in the Government.
The program involves an evaluation of current programs, an effort
to reduce the burden of Federal regulations and reporting, pro-
grams for personnel management, reduction of overhead costs and
encouragement for greater use of the private sector, and an effec-
tive decision-making process.
3. Following the cabinet meeting, 0MB will task each agency
by letter to initiate a plan which will permit the program evalua-
tion as well as establish a schedule of accomplishment.
4. Under "Evaluation of Current Programs," the plan is to
devise a program impact evaluation also known as zero base evalua-
tion, with a statement of whether or not the program is meeting its
objective. This is somewhat akin to the "sunset" laws, particularly
the Muskie/Roth proposal which set a-.five-year limit on all,pro-_
grams, at which time they would expire. The evaluation should cover
the efficiency of the program as well as develop the priorities of
it, and within 60 days establish an evaluation unit within each
agency to perform the improvement and evaluation effort. This unit
should report directly to the agency head. The agencies will also
be instructed by 0MB to devise their management plan which would be
incorporated with the FY 78 budget submission. There is further
stipulation that within 30 days of the cabinet meeting, the agencies
must identify 10 efficiency evaluation topics and be prepared to
report on the progress of them on 31 December 1976, as well as at
the end of FY 77. If an agency does not have 10, it must explain
why.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved For ease 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M0046703100100011-5
5. The management plan called for by OMB should identify:
a. those programs that should receive program impact
or efficiency evaluation on a regular basis;
b. the proper timing and frequency of the evaluation;
c. the proper design of it;
d. the amount of public participation;
e. interagency coordination; and
f. the coordination of the evaluation with the budget
process and policy decisions. .
6. Under Reduction in the Burden of Federal Regulations and
Reporting, the President's desire is to reduce the reporting by the
public to the Government by 15% before the end of-FY 78. This ob-
viously does not apply to CIA.
7. Under Contracting Out and Holda.zig,Down Overhead hosts, one
should refer to 0MB Circular A-76. Here we are encouraged to reduce
travel, insure efficiency in ADP practices, use wisdom in cash
management, watch the growth of reproduction equipment and audio/
visual activities, limit the use of telephone and mail, insure good
utilization of space, etc. Also, under this category the Govern-
ment agencies will be urged to make greater use of the private
sector thus reducing the growth of Government. GSA will be
commissioned separately to review all Government office space as
well as to rewrite the Federal Property Management Regulation.
8. There is also great concern-regarding personnel management,
not only in grade creep which the Government is experiencing, but also
sheer growth. Example as follows:
HEW
Justice
Treasury
VA
1966
99,000
33,000
90,000
169,000
1.975
141,000
51,000
119,000
209,000
1976
150,000
53,000
123,000
222,000
9. Under the Initiative Program agencies will be required to
devise a system to insure that the best qualified are hired and ad-
vanced, and a program established to identify at mid-career those
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved For grease 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467Q803100100011-5
personnel selected for executive development, not only through the
experience of the right kind of jobs, but also training. There
will. be particular encouragement for executive selection and develop-
ment: and a system requested which will permit the identification of
high-potential employees. A PMCD type unit will be required as
well as the establishment of some means for measurement of producti-
vity.
10. Decision-making and Departmental Organization is an effort
to insure that a system exists for identifying the priority objec-
tives and to insure that decisions are made only after considering
all the factors. Some expression of an internal management :i.nforma-
tion system as well as the means of a centralized evaluation for all
programs exist. Concern is expressed over "layering"; i.e., the
propensity in Government to have assistants, deputy assistants,
special assistants, etc. It is noted that ERDA has requested 46
more supergrades, with 86 of their present 446 supergrades in the
assistant or special assistant categories.
11. In looking through the attached items, I noted that the
IC Staff could speak to"the-National Foreign Intelligence Program
to some degree concerning program evaluation, training, a portion
of ADP management as it pertains to Information Handling, and policy
development. I indicated that the bulk of the items should rest
with the individual agencies of the Intelligence Community, and I
would pass on the information I had to Jim Taylor of CIA and the
administrative people, and that I would have Jim Taylor contact
Everett Keech_directly in behalf of CIA.
/John c azon-
Associate Deputy to the DCl
for the Intelligence Community
cc: Comptroller
DDA
D/OPBD
D/OPEI
D/OPP
IC/Registry
Attachment:
As stated above
P.S. Hopefully, in the near future we will
receive from OMB all of the above in
writing. Presumably, it will make more
sense then than now. J.N.M.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved Fore ease 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP79M0046WO3100100011-5
Presidential Management Initiatives
A. Evaluation of Current Programs
1. Program Evaluation. Reopening, on a priority list basis,
old programs for complete reexamination as to whether they are being
run as well as possible.
2. Public Hearings. As part of such reviews, holding public
hearings. `
B. Reduce Burden of Federal Regulations and Reporting
3. Review of Regulations.. As part of such priority reviews, re-
publishing for comment, existing regulations as if the programs
involved were new.
4. Paperwork Reduction. Progress on the paperwork problem
including systematic ways to review better the burden imposed by old
and new paperwork requirements, including, on a selective basis, inviting
comments and holding hearings in advance of each renewal and each pro-
posed-new paperwork burden.
5. Uniform Administrative and Financial Requirements. Review and
design of standard financial and administrative requirements for programs
for which uniform guidelines do not exist. .
C. Personnel Management
6. Grade Creep. "Grade creep," e.g., the tendency of average
General Schedule grades to move up over time in ways that are not justi-
fied. (This is very costly.)
7. Training and Advancement. Identification of and training and
advancement opportunities for personnel having management promise.
8. Productivity Measurement. Improving productivity measure-
ment and extending such measurement to functions not presently covered,
as a means of judging both managers and individual staff performance
and improving productivity.
D. Overhead Cost & Use of Private Sector (A-76)
9. Lay-erinc. Surveying middle management structures to ferret out
"layering, "e.g., assistants to assistants, assistants to deputies, etc.
10. Travel Expense. Achieve expected results from the current effort
to cut travel expense.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved For W ease 2005/06/06: CIA-RDP79M0046W03100100011-5 2
11. Audio-Visual and Equipment Expense. Improve management
of audio-visual activities and implementation of the task force
report on audio-visual expense; reduce equipment purchases; require
more efficient use of reproduction and retire file records to
storage.
12. Overhead Cost Control. Plans for development of a ystem
to hold down overhead cost. Critical examination of overhead cost.
13. Overhead Cost. Reduction of equipment purchases, require
more efficient use of reproduction equipment, retire files.
14. Cash Management. Modernizing agency cash management practices
to reduce the amount of borrowing Treasury has to do to meet Government--
wide cash needs.
15. Contracting Out. Use of the private sector more and "in-
house" personnel less to carry out Government programs.
16. ADP Management. Reducing the cost of data processing and
eliminating unnecessary and marginal computer workload.
17. Mail Management Practices. Review of mailing practices with the
thought of modifying mailing procedures as suggested by MARS.
18. Appropriate Utilization of Space.- Review of current use of
space. Agencies have expanded space holdings at a greater rate than
personnel expansion would require.
E. Effective Decisionmaking and Departmental Organization
19. Public Hearings. As part of such reviews, holding public
hearings.
20. Accountability Audits. Upgrading audits, particularly of inter-
Governmental programs, to assure public accountability for tax dollars.
(Consider "audit committees" of the type used so extensively in industry.)
21. Accountinc Systems. Plans for making accounting system more
responsive to_management needs.
22. Policy Development and Management Orcanization. The need in each
agency for a policy and management unit that reports directly to the
Secretary, does not have programmatic responsibility, has enough expertise
to give the agency head and the heads of programs first-rate advice on
policy and management matters free of programmatic biases and follows
through to see that policy and management objectives are carried out.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved Forase 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M004603100100011-5
Followup on Presidential Management Initiatives
I. Plan of Action
1. The President will send a followup memorandum
to the agencies the day after the meeting in
order to confirm key points made.
2. Jim Lynn will send a followup letter one day
after the President's memo which provides more
detailed instructions, including a suggested
format for the agencies' plan of action.
3. The agencies will provide to the President thru
Jim Lynn, OMB, an individually tailored plan of
action for response to Presidential Management Initiatives for each of the five major issues
within 30 days of the Presidential muting.
Agencies are also required to designate a high
level official (Deputy Secretary, Under Secretary,
Deputy Administrator) as a point of contact who
will have responsibility for this effort.
.4. The agency plan will be reviewed by OMB/PADs/DADs
with M&O doing necessary crosscutting summaries.
Director will respond to each Secretary on his/
her agency plan with ideas for modification revi-
sion, agreement, etc., within 10 days, and will
call for a revised plan ,and the first one-page_
monthly status report.
5, The OMB internal plan delineates the responsibi---
lities of and relationships between the PADs/DADs
and M&O.
6. The President will hold a meeting in September to
provide feedback on the plans, as modified, assess
progress and determine the appropriate future
direction.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467A003100100011-5
 Approved For ease 20hI&A='904603100100011-5
EVALUATION OF CUF:RENT PROCRAMS
.iiip.r.caveuent of the evaluation processes of departments and
agencies must be emphasized as ;-n essential priority in
achieving better management of the executive branch.
Statement of Problem:
There is widespread disenchantment with the pervasive growth
of oovernment, with its duplication, red tape and wast-e,
and with the seeming inability of many programs and
activities to accomplish their intended purposes. A good
part of the problem stems from the failure of agencies to
establish effective systems for accomplishing comprehensive,
program impact evaluations as well as efficiency evaluations,
which could demonstrate that programs are working well or
provide the basis for corrective action..
In addition, agency evaluation practices.; generally do not
provide for adequate input from the public or for inclusion
of evaluative findings in their budget and management pro-
cesses, and all.' too often the evaluations themselves are not
objective.
Analys.v
It is useful to distinguish between two basic types of eval-
uations in discussing this issue.
1. Program Impact Evaluations
The most complicated and time--consuming evaluations
are the comprehensive c sses :Itf'II;:S of program impact
so:!Ie"t1.me 3 called zero-base evaiuat1C7 r:i. 'Such evaluations
at'i.-.?,lpt to determine whether a program is a dequa.t.ely and
of fec:tively meeting its objectives as. CStabl s i.cd (or per-
ceived) iii statute or regulation. Program impact evaluations
also seek. to determine the extent. of unintended a dver_se.
Co)"l.st`qL: _'].Cr S of a pro rc: m. The ultimate question pr'oi ed in
such evaluations is whether it is wort.hwhil"e to continue the
program at all. Sometimes' the answer is yes. . Sometimes the
class Tel" is yes, but only if important changes are made.
Some times the answer i , no --?- the program is the wrong
capY:r oa.cib to the ob j ectivC -- in which case the solution may
range from no 'Feder a1_ involvement at all to something at
the other end of the so:nctrum, like a ptoposal of an even
r
broader Fedora.). p..ogram .
Approved For-Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467A003100100011-5
 S ~Xp~rdPiedlr& e s'e'2 /O i/J&: 1Ar 119MOO4 3 U 1 OO1 Qt1r5 a number
of ~,~f~ars to design and complete, and often crosscut other
prc3.:i am areas in one or a number of agencies or crosscut
other levels of government. For example:
An elaborate evaluation of Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Aet'is getting underway.
(Title I is aimed at meeting the special needs of
educationally disadvantaged children.) The eval.ua?-
tion study is expected to take seven years --- at a
cost of more than $6 million for the first two years.
The design and measurement techniques present a for-
midable task due to the diversity of projects and
the varied approaches taken by State and local edu-
.cational jurisdictions in pursuing corrective
programs. This evaluation illustrates another
problem -w- getting the timing of evaluations to fit.
necessary timing for corrective proposals. The
President's block grant proposal for education ante-
dates completion of the study; it would have been
more useful if we had had the benefits of the study
during the design of the block grant proposal.
0 Similarly complex is an-evaluation of the Compre-
hensive Employment and Training Act -- wherein a
national sample of participants in training and
employment programs and of State and local program
sponsors is followed to determine, over a period
of years, the impact of the programs on the employ-
ment and earnings of participants, and the effec
tiveness and cost of the delivery systems.
The present congressional efforts toward enactment of so-
called "sunset" laws (notably the Muskie-Poth bill presently
in mark---up in the Senate) which call for expiration of
almost all programs on a five=-year basis also incorporate
recsuircments for zero-base evaluations of each prograr:t on
More- or less the same five-year cycle. Not surprisingly,
they are encountering substantial drafting problems. For
example, not all activities are appropriate for zero--base
rev iew (e.g. , * whether to have U.S. attorneys) . Further,
fixed timetables do not provide sufficient flexibility.
Some programs, night well be so evaluated more oaten than
once every five years. Others less often than five,
particularly in view of the fact that the par_ticul.ar
evaluation just completed may have taken three to seven
years.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467A003100100011-5
 Approved For aga 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M0046W'03100100011-5
!IC i plc utti is that to achieve the desired objective
requisite flexibility, systematic processes for
p o(:,ram impact evaluations are best left to exec Live branch
action; that is what the Administration is al.r.eady` doing
to a- limited extent and will be improving by virtue-of
Presidential directions following the management meeting.
conqressional. coopera- i.on is' most needed is in cettinj
cot~c;sessional COiilI ittees to pay attention to clood evaluations.
U:auc r interest group pressures to keep_a_I1o_ d programs,
no matter how bad, and to keep adding new ones, the committees
ic;nore evaluations that would, support substantially changed
policies and programs. A good example is that- nowhere in
the committee reports or conference report on the recently
enacted housing bills can we find even one reference to the
1973 housing study which points out the problems of public
housing.
2. Efficiency Evaluations
The second type of evaluation may be generally cate-
gorized as efficiency evaluations. Such studies do not
question the need for or intent of the program. Efficiency
evaluations may focus on a given segment of a program to
determine if there are --ways of. achieving costs savings, or
a more efficient approach to providing service delivery under
the program, or a less burdensome way to achieve the program-
mlFatic objectives.
Not of the self-initiated evaluations undertaken by agencies
are of this type, such as: -
An evaluation of cost-reduction alternatives in
meat, poultry, and egg inspection;
? An evaluation of improved procedures for collecting,
organizing, and disseminuting environmental- dat-a--
to the public; and
? An evaluation of OSIIA regulations and FEA oil regula-
tions to see how they can be made less burdensome
is being done on a White House Task Force basis)
Tito importance of efficiency evaluations can hardly be
oxac;gera-tted. Over a period of time most programs become
encrusted with barnacles of regulations and paperwork which
have little or no bearing on achieving then objectives of
their underlying statutes. One of the most pressing needs,
is for each agency to select (systematically each year)
programs for evaluation on what the OI'S]3 Director calls a
it brand 31ew law basis." Using this technique., the agency
should ignore_ all the regulations and forms that have been
bU?..~.T_ tip under a p:rog _-am (or group of related program .' with
objectives) , and look at the program as if the
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 l ppr~vecl~F~ ~~p S'e~'~b6 /0 %b` bAc!KDPIIN004&1 O ib010b;d1%i15 flexibii-
c ou .I~'*r;tatute allow? 1`hat do ?,r?_} really want the
Pi O nram to do? What regu:Lat_ions and for s a.r. e r. Bally
necessary? What amendments to the authorizing law would
help? Usually, agencies should hold public hearings and
~nvate written submissions from the public to get a wide
raxn:je of views before answerinLi these questions. This
kind of review can .have big payoffs, not only in programs
that deliver more, but also reduce administrative costs,
paperwork, and other burdens on the public, whether
individuals, businesses, or State and local governments.
By and large, there is little evidence of broad. personal
interest in evaluation on the part of agency heads.
There is substantial activity --- Federal expenditures for
evaluation studies (narrowly defined) are now approaching
$150 million annually. However, many of the studies
prove to be of marginal relevance to policy deliberations;.
evaluation priorities are rarely established at the
agency head level. Too often, an evaluation is made
simply as "insurance" -- to be able to point to the oiit-
side contractor's blessing of the program if and when
criticism of the program comes. The situation is
characterized by general unevenness --~ some successes,
some failures Unfortunately, good evaluation systems ---
either for program impact evaluations or efficiency
evaluations -- are still the exception, not the rule.
OMB has been stressing the need for the development of
priorities and schedules for evaluations of various kinds
and the importance of linking these findings to the budget
process. 0MB has been selling the concept of b e-t_ter ----
not more _--- evaluations and prior l.ti.zing the evaluations
to be done as tools for improving program management and
for identifying both the programs that should b junked
and the new approaches that should replace the -old
There has been a little progress, but we still have a
very substantial way to go.
Prouosed Actions:
The. agencies should-
1. Within 60 days after the meeting, report to OMB with
respect to the establishment (or i_roprovement) of a
policy and evaluation unit within the agency
reporting directly to the agency head. Thin subject
will be more f ull.y discussed under "Dccisionmakincf
and Departmental Organization" (Tab F).
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : -CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
2 , Su , :'~ :. in ur .. ~c.ancc . h O !D i.c?~rnc hick will
fol. G' : this plan (La CcNnple-
mer1t th ag nc.:?,' budget: submission for FY 1978)'-?_
and as part thereof describe the agency's propoed
program impact evaluations to be completed or at
least started in FY 1977, FY 1978, and FY 1979.
These plans will be reviewed and finalized in the
course of development of the FY 1978 budget.
3. Submit to OMB within 30 days after this meeting ten
efficiency evaluations -- determined on a priority
basis -- now under way or planned (a) for the
period through December 31, 1976 and (b) to the end
of FY 1977, all with timetables for completion. If
the acency can't identify or handle ten, it must at
least explain why not.
4. In the management plan referred to above, provide
for systems that will assure (a) identification of
those programs that should receive program impact
and/or efficiency evaluations on a regular, basis,
(b) the proper timing .and frequency, (c) proper
design, (d) proper public participation in design
and irmmplemontation, (e) proper interagency coordina-
tion in such evaluations, a f.hat such eval ua
Lions are prope_,_l.y coordinated with the budget
process and pc7_a.cy-maki.T~.g.?
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved For tease 2005/06/06 :CIA-RDP79M00467,QP03100100011-5
PEDUC'r'IO;~ BURDEN OF FEDERAL
RECULAT1:0N A D I:EL'ORT1 G _ _~
The initiative is to accomplish a substantial reduction in
the time spent by individuals, State and local officials,
and businesses in dealing with Federal regulations, including
paperwork, filling out forms and providing information _re--
quired or requested by the Federal Government. -
Statement. of Problem:
The public believes that Federal Government agencies ask
too many 'questions about too many things too often for no
understandable purpose. This is clear from: (1) corres-
pondence received from individuals, from, organizations, -
from Congressmen, from businesses, farmers, State and. local
governments and universities and hospitals; (2) from a con-
tinuing flow. of complaints in: con,g es.sional. hearings and
from_hear~ ngs before the,-Comm ssion on Federal Paperwork;
and (3) from comments in the Congressional Record and from.
wide variety of legislation introduced -to deal with this
probleni.
In addition, the administrative management burden. that the
;Federal grant system imposes on State and local governments
as well as on the t~rivat:e sector. is s a.gc erilxq. The com-
plaints from State and local officials can be summarized
as follows: Federal administrative regulations are incon-
sistent, unnecessarily restrictive, inflexible, overlapping
and insensitive to :Local needs and differences. - Their----
combined. impact increases program costs', complicates pro-
gram aenlini.stration; expands State and local bureaucracies,
and distorts or slows the original- intent of the Federal
program.
Ana ,L i.s:
I _ Roport:i_ng Burden Reduction
To the e tent that the public outcry reflects opposition
to certain public policies or aspects of public polio:
that the Jbc_Lieves are sound, there is no
solution within i h ilc~ii ework of ,..iy manacler i al initiative
directed at public report-'121(j per SO. There will always
be soice coiLL :i_c?i.sm o"f governmental paperwork.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467A003100100011-5
 ti I App jbit4P- r- AoQS/M/0~ ` K'RDP79TAG f467 tOWDOQM-5r:ot~ con._
g ` y ' their actual needs for and
use of information collected from the public. .
If tho' executive branch is to be responsive to public
criticism in this area, there must be a continuing top--
level conunit'i ent in each agency to holding down public
repo rt:i-n , requirements, and this commitment must be
supported by operational means which will assure that the
comrn_i.-t__ment is met.
The President's letter of March 1, 1976, to agency heads
assi ~rr,:'d personal responsibility to them to make this
commitment. The guidelines established by th(A Director
of OMB on March 2 provided an outline for them to use in
establishing operational procedures to secure continuing
adherence to this commitment.
The President's short--term goal of reducing the number of
reports by 10% by June 30 was an effective means &r-secur-
ing top--level attention to the problem but only a beginning.
The task of reducing the reporting burden. remains.
Because 80% of the burden of Federal reporting, measured
in work-hours,. is related to responding to some 200 Federal
forms,. which is a small fraction of the total number of
formn.s, -eliminating forms does not necessarily have much
impact on overall burden. Among relatively burdensome
forms are many applications, such as those for passports
and. Medicare payments. Benefits are involved and clearly
the forms are not going to be eliminated completely. Also
Congress continues to pass laws which add to reporting
burden as, for example, the recent pension legislat-;.ol.
Reducing burce.n, therefore, means working to simplify
forms, looking for ways to reduce the total number of
respondents, collecting data le -s frequently, and review-
ing exista ng legislative requirements. These- tasks are,
eonsi derabl.y more difficult than elimination of obsolete
or marginally useful forms.
II. flegt~_l_. at?..on Burden Reduction
This Administration has taken a number of steps to ease
the Federal regulatory problem from the standpoint of
the private sector of the economy. There is a need for
a Presidelntia].ly directed effort by the major grantmaking
agencies to a ;Mack the problem of 10ederal requlat-.ions
of f eC t_1..ng State and local gover nlflent . `This probl.e n has
now become the number one, complaint that .Governors, Mayors,
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 a ~i ~2~ravayl FCgr as~12~00p{A9/~6 I~lRD .779s40046 l ~~3100JOQ0~ 1 ~5c1~ of
thy. : e iousnes~_. and urgency of this problem has cot-in from.
many sources. ;e have testimony on the subject from State
and local officials at each of the Domestic Council Forums
held last fall.. Federal over-regulation and program manage-
ment were priority subjects discussed at the National
Governors' Conference in Fe;,ruary. The Advisory Commission
on Intergovern:ental Relations, the Commission on Federal
Paperwork, and the National Science Foundation all have
studied the issue recently.
Much of the problem is attributable to the great-number
and undue complexity of statutory programs. There has
been a little legislative progress (e.g., the Community
Development Block Grant program, and some new OMB, grant
simplification rules) but much more is needed, e.g.,
.enactment of the President's recent block grant proposals
and of the proposed Agenda for Regulatory Reform Act.
But much can also be done administratively. The proposed
new food stamp regulations are an effort in this direction.
It's obvious that systematic program impact and efficiency
evaluations discussed under Tab B are vital to attacking
both the paperwork and regulation problem.. For example,
"brand new law basis" reviews of existing programs (dis-
cussed under Tab B) may well be one of the best ways,
particularly if related programs addressed to the same
beneficiary or regulated groups, are reviewed together in
this-manner.
Proposed Actions
I. Reporting Burden Reduction
A. Agencies will be given the. task of reducing the---
reporting burden on the public by 15% by the end of FY
1978 (which gives enough time for enactment and imple-
mentation of substantial reform through legislation) , of
which not less than 5% shall be realized by, the end of
FY 1977.
B. Recognizing that the opportunities for achieving
these targets vary from agency to agency, 0".113 will direct
agency head attention to specific programs which appear
to have large reporting-burdens that might be reduced,
either by administrative action, new legislation or both.
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 pro 'tl'Pot 13 s610.~05/06/06 ~CLi=RDP7,9AM4&Z 31A;0I000d($-S '144 a
tell,
~ai. 'r C,_ p3.i1]i o:? ? C'C.L'. ::iT~.C3 JJaa-ily increases the expense
of Government, and i t must be rQst .~ ailed by
a serious reexam:i Y.ia,
tion of agency systems for position management and classi.ficati.
with appropriate corrective actions. Bach one-tenth of a
Government--wide aVerac7C arc'.,de incrc'. c cUStr~ 7 QUCT}11y `T12O
million at current. CS salal-y ratE s . - - _
Productivity MMeeasurement--Yet another aspect of- the inadequate
attention given to personnel management matters is the failure
of some agencies to develop and utilize meaningful productivity
measures for judging how effectively organizations and
individual managers are performing. Productivity measures
have been developed covering approximately 65 percent of
the Federal work force. Although it is t.r.ue that some
functions don't lend themselves to productivity measurement,
there is still a significant percentage of the work force
that should be covered and isn't. It also should be noted
that the validity of some of the productivity measures-
and the resulting data--is being questioned. 0MD is exploring
this problem on a continuing basis with the agencies
involved
Several agencies have developed or are initiating substantial
improvements in their measurement systems, and attempts are
being made to relate the systems to better management
control and evaluation. These include the Farmers Home
Adzainistraton and the Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service. Current. figures, availuL' his Or her t i me
is lim red. 1:1'1111 e: tort must be ont7:ustc?d. to__such-
a unit, whatever it is called.
Public H1eaa.rings. Another problem area is that agency
decision tenet to be made without. adequate opportunity
for those outside the Federal Government to he heard.
In this Ad}-ninistration there has been growing use of-
public hearings. Hear-incg s not only produce additional
knowledgee, possible solutions and a wide range of Per-
spectives reflecting differing priorities, but also:
a) toad to snake the ultimate decisions; more
acceptable to the people impacted by the it, and
by
Approved For Release 2005/06/06 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO03100100011-5
 Approved Fot.R&as9-,ZQP?J,0?/0,6--:P1P
AAgency and
than some U: the "sunshine" proposals.
;:,.