This Never Would Have Happened if Sir Humphrey Was in Charge
If you are familiar with the BBC series, Yes, Minister, you may recall an episode entitled "The Challenge" where the Minister of Administrative Affairs, Jim Hacker, plans on implementing pre-set failure standards on local governments plans to determine if they are successes or failures. The criteria were to be described in the documentation for the plan so that everyone would know if something worked or not.
I came across and interesting website today put up by the United States government called ExpectMore.gov.
This website purports to show what government programs are "Performing" and "Not Performing." I take it that there are some performance standards built-in to every government program that makes it possible to gauge if they are a success or failure.
Programs that are "Performing" are rated as "Effective," "Moderately effective," or "Adequate." Programs that are "Not Performing" are either "Ineffective" or "Results not Demonstrated."
In fact, if you go through the listings and select a program, you can find out for yourself what the measures of success are, how the program is doing, and what the future plans are.
For example, the African Development Foundation is designed to stimulate "economic growth and security in poor communities in Africa." This program is rated as "Effective" because it has been successful in creating jobs, improving its business model, and "Continuing a focus on performance measurement and conducting independent evaluations."
This "Effective" program was funded at $26 million in 2006, $33 million in 2007, and $46 million in 2008.
Hm, if my math is correct that works out to be 105 million dollars over three years.
Excuse me, but when did the United States start running Africa? I can think of plenty of domestic programs that could be funded with this money, or perhaps even going toward reducing the national debt. Of note this "Effective" program planned for 70% profitability in 2006, but only realized 44%.
If you are in college, try telling your professor you deserve an "A" when you score 44 out of 100 on a test. If it helps, you can refer to this government report as proof that even though your performance wasn't perfect, it was "Effective" and therefore worthy of the very best possible grade. I'm sure when you put it that way he'll understand.
On the other side of the coin, the Treasury Department's African Development Fund, which "provides long-term interest free loans, grants, and policy assistance" to finance "investments in health, education, agriculture, sanitation, and infrastructure." In other words, they fund this "Effective" program. Their evaluation gives it a "Results not demonstrated" rating.
According to this report, they need to establish "a new anti-corruption and fraud unit and improved internal financial controls." To improve their performance, they plan on asking Congress "to secure $136 million annually for the period 2006 to 2008 to fund the US commitment."
So part of the solution appears to be to throw additional money at the problem. Instead of paying 105 million over three years, they want to spend 408 million dollars over three years. I know it's only millions of dollars, so it's not like we're talking about real money, anyway.
It's interesting to note the assesments are made by the government, specifically, the Office of Management and Budget and other Federal agencies. If you go to the end of the About Us page, you'll see that one of the goals was to have completed the assessment of all Federal program by 2006.
Excuse me a moment while I check my calender, okay?
I came across and interesting website today put up by the United States government called ExpectMore.gov.
This website purports to show what government programs are "Performing" and "Not Performing." I take it that there are some performance standards built-in to every government program that makes it possible to gauge if they are a success or failure.
Programs that are "Performing" are rated as "Effective," "Moderately effective," or "Adequate." Programs that are "Not Performing" are either "Ineffective" or "Results not Demonstrated."
In fact, if you go through the listings and select a program, you can find out for yourself what the measures of success are, how the program is doing, and what the future plans are.
For example, the African Development Foundation is designed to stimulate "economic growth and security in poor communities in Africa." This program is rated as "Effective" because it has been successful in creating jobs, improving its business model, and "Continuing a focus on performance measurement and conducting independent evaluations."
This "Effective" program was funded at $26 million in 2006, $33 million in 2007, and $46 million in 2008.
Hm, if my math is correct that works out to be 105 million dollars over three years.
Excuse me, but when did the United States start running Africa? I can think of plenty of domestic programs that could be funded with this money, or perhaps even going toward reducing the national debt. Of note this "Effective" program planned for 70% profitability in 2006, but only realized 44%.
If you are in college, try telling your professor you deserve an "A" when you score 44 out of 100 on a test. If it helps, you can refer to this government report as proof that even though your performance wasn't perfect, it was "Effective" and therefore worthy of the very best possible grade. I'm sure when you put it that way he'll understand.
On the other side of the coin, the Treasury Department's African Development Fund, which "provides long-term interest free loans, grants, and policy assistance" to finance "investments in health, education, agriculture, sanitation, and infrastructure." In other words, they fund this "Effective" program. Their evaluation gives it a "Results not demonstrated" rating.
According to this report, they need to establish "a new anti-corruption and fraud unit and improved internal financial controls." To improve their performance, they plan on asking Congress "to secure $136 million annually for the period 2006 to 2008 to fund the US commitment."
So part of the solution appears to be to throw additional money at the problem. Instead of paying 105 million over three years, they want to spend 408 million dollars over three years. I know it's only millions of dollars, so it's not like we're talking about real money, anyway.
It's interesting to note the assesments are made by the government, specifically, the Office of Management and Budget and other Federal agencies. If you go to the end of the About Us page, you'll see that one of the goals was to have completed the assessment of all Federal program by 2006.
Excuse me a moment while I check my calender, okay?
Comments