Lapas attēli
PDF
ePub

THE INFORMATION CRISIS-THE NEED

On June 25, 1968, I first spoke on the House floor of an information crisis. I called it a crisis since I firmly believe that the right and need to know is a basic principle of representative government, a requirement that is not currently being met. That right and need to know includes, among other things, ready access to complete, factual information about all assistance programs administered by the Federal Government. Most importantly, this information should be readily available to the people back home to those the programs are intended to help.

But this information is also required by Members of Congress. In discussing this legislation, Members have repeatedly told me they do not have adequate program information. As a result, they often are unable to direct cities, schools, or other applicants to the programs best suited to their specific needs. Without adequate information on file, congressional offices are compelled to use the hunt and peck approach to determine what assistance may be available; this, in turn, not only forces them to rely on the willingness of a particular agency to disclose information, but frequently wastes countless man-hours.

As a legislator, I believe it is especially important to have this information in order to evaluate the effectiveness of the executive branch in implementing the broad authorizations enacted by Congress, to determine the relative need for funding existing programs, and to evaluate the need for new legislation. It is often difficult, if not impossible, to determine, with certainty, what related programs are already in existence when considering new legislation.

Certainly the executive branch itself needs such information to avoid unnecessary duplication and overlapping between departments and agencies. I do not believe any business would long exist in the competitive market if new products were manufactured and sold without management being kept fully apprised. Yet, no one in the Federal Government at any level has, at least until recently, full knowledge of what Federal assistance programs do, in fact, exist. Furthermore, employees in the various agencies have advised me that they, in turn, are unable to direct applicants to the best source of assistance because they too have little or no knowledge about other programs. I believe the lack of adequate information within the executive branch has been underscored by the fact that the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare ordered 1,800 copies of my 1969 catalog, while the Department of Housing and Urban Development purchased 2,000 copies.

Finally, full disclosure of Federal assistance program information to the public is necessary to insure fair and efficient practices in program management. The public watchdog, the news media, cannot operate effectively if Government operations are covered with a cape of confusion. Confusion-and the resulting secrecy and protective screen-only helps those who would indulge in favoritism or other undesirable practices. The taxpayer, likewise, needs to know where his money goes and to see what good it actually accomplishes—to pinpoint areas of strength and pride, as well as areas of waste, misdirection, and failure.

But the most important reason for improving program information, as I have already indicated, is to help those for whom the programs were created. Meaningful information is the "open sesame" to Federal assistance programs. The lack of adequate program information handicaps everyone, but especially those in the greatest need. Under most of these programs, action must be initiated by either a local official or the individual desiring help. This means the advantage lies with those with the knowledge and means to take action. By definition, the disadvantaged have neither the means nor the knowledge. Hence, small cities, counties or schools are greatly handicapped. They cannot afford experts or private intelligence services; they cannot maintain Washington libraries, staffed with "grantmanship" experts and replete with Government circulars, publications, regulations, and correspondence; they cannot maintain liaison men to gumshoe applications. Typically and tragically, the lack of adequate information has resulted in advantaging the advantaged and disadvantaging the disadvantaged. The seriousness of this situation is underscored in the June 1968 issue of American County Government, the official publication of the National Association of Counties (NACO), which states at page 47:

If Federal assistance programs are to be of maximum benefit, every local official should have complete information on the full scope of Federal programs. Without this information to assist their officials in formulating programs and making decisions, many communities fail to participate in Federal assistance programs for which they are eligible. Others are slow in getting programs into operation, and still others pursue programs poorly suited to meet their priorities even though more effective programs are available.

The vastness of the Federal aid administrative jungle reflects the urgency of developing an information system to keep local leaders and administrators informed so they can fulfill their responsibilities. The present Federal aid system emphasizes the ability of grant applicants to know what aids are available and to obtain the necessary program information to prepare the actual application correctly. Most counties have no mechanism for collecting current information about the flow of Federal grant funds into local government, much less for coordinating such programs. Information is a primary source for achieving the objectives sought by local government. Getting the right information to the right people at the right time can benefit all types of management action and decision making.

This same publication recommends that each county establish a development coordination office to collate and disseminate information on Federal programs. Now, if each one of more than 3,000 counties has been advised to set up such an office, it can likewise be contended that cities, schools, and other potential recipients need similar information centers. We are faced with the incredible possibility then, that thousands and thousands of talented men and women actually need to spend thousands and thousands of hours at the job of ferreting out information on Federal assistance programs. Could not their energy and intelligence be better utilized in solving problems?

The magnitude of the information crises with which we are faced is staggering. There are 50 States, 3,000 counties, 18,000 municipalities, 17,000 townships, 25,000 school districts, and 2,500 institutions of higher education—in fact, more than 200 million Americans-who are indeeed potential recipients of Federal assistance.

In dollar terms, the assistance available to these various beneficiaries is unprecedented. Federal outlays for domestic assistance have more than tripled during 1960–71. Based on budget estimates for the fiscal year 1971, the yearly total is now more than $78 billion; in 1960, it was under $25 billion. (For tabulation, see exhibit 1.)

In program terms, this assistance, by my count, is fragmented into over 1,300 operating entities or administrative routes for obtaining Federal aid. (For breakdowns of these programs by type, see exhibit 2.) As these exhibits indicate, there is considerable overlap and duplication in many different agencies throughout the Federal Government.

This multiplicity of programs, with the resulting multiplicity of regulations, administrative practices, and reporting and auditing requirements, causes great confusion and frustration at home.

This undesirable situation must be changed if we are to succeed in solving the problems of the 1970's. The Federal-aid delivery system must be as understandable and responsive as possible.

THE NEED FOR LEGISLATION

To meet the need created by this information crisis, I have introduced in the House the "Program Information Act", which has been introduced in the Senate as S. 60. The "Program Information Act" would require the President to publish an annual comprehensive compendium of Federal assistance programs, and to update this compendium on a regular basis. This legislation, as you know, has bipartisan cosponsorship from 181 Congressmen and 15 Senators. (For sponsorship, see exhibit 3).

The National Governors' Conference has unanimously endorsed the concept outlined in the Program Information Act, while the National Association of County Officials and the National Legislative Conference endorsed this specific measure last year. The Council of State Governments and the Advisory Commis sion on Intergovernmental Relations have both recorded support of a unified catalog as envisioned in this proposal. Copies of these endorsements are attached as part of my testimony, as exhibit 4.

I believe that the record demonstrates that legislation is essential to insure adequate information. The OEO catalogs of 1967 and 1969, the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs and the Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance were both inadequate, as I have pointed out 2 years ago, on June 25, 1968, at page H5434 of the Congressional Record, and last year, on April 24, at page H3062.

Improvements were made in the 1969 catalog only after the shortcomings of earlier catalogs were carefully delineated and spotlighted. I am happy to say that substantial improvements were made in the 1970 Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, as I pointed out in my House speech on June 4, 1970, at page H5167. But again, I believe it can be fairly said that these improvements came

about only as a result of congressional prodding, not executive initiative. Without this prodding, I suspect change would have come about slowly since the Bureau of the Budget (now, the Office of Management and Budget) has, in the past, viewed the development of a catalog as an "evolutionary" matter. In a report submitted to this subcommittee on July 11, 1969, BOB stated that "we believe that the evolutionary approach which we are taking is the most practical and economical way to continue to improve the catalog." The proposal for "evolutionary" development was, in my opinion, a way of avoiding hard decisions. I say this not in criticism of the Bureau of the Budget, but in recognition of the difficulty in obtaining agreement in the executive branch of the Government without a congressional mandate.

Let me cite one example of this. In May 1967, the Bureau of the Budget established a 12-man committee, with representatives from various departments and agencies, to plan the next OEO catalog. After 12 months' deliberation, the committee concluded in its final report that it was impractical to define a Federal assistance program. The lack of a definition meant, of course, that there was no consistency among departments and agencies on the most basic informational decision-what constitutes a program. As a result, each department and agency was free to decide what constituted a "program," which "programs" it would highlight and which programs it would cloak from the public view. Notwithstanding this report, the Bureau of the Budget was able, in connection with the recent Senate hearings on the Program Information Act, to formulate such a definition which has now been incorporated as part of the bill before us. This sort of response indicates that a congressional mandate is necessary. I also believe that Congress, not civil servants, should establish the basic elements of information to be supplied in the catalog, that is the name and description of the program, eligibility requirements, the level of funding and other financial information, the obligations on the part of the recipient receiving assistance of support, application deadlines, and closely related programs.

This legislation is also necessary to chart future courses of action. For example, studies have shown that one of the most frustrating problems faced by local officials is the lack of adequate funding and other financial information for each program. According to a Midwest Research Institute study, Federal Aid Program Information, completed September 1967 for the Department of Housing and Urban Development by project leader, Peter L. Shoup, "Information on Processing Time and Program Funding Status are considered major information blocks.” Even though local officials urgently require such financial information to plan intelligently, the required data is not forthcoming. Federal officials have said under current accounting procedures it is impossible to obtain up-to-date financial information for use by local officials. Presumably, better information shall become available as fiscal data is both standardized and computerized. Accordingly, the bill makes it clear that the Congress intends the catalog "to indicate the magnitude of the program and any funding remaining available" for each program.

This legislation is also designed to facilitate the collection of data. Members of both my staff and OEO commonly encountered difficulty in gathering information because some agencies, for one reason or another, did not desire to cooperate. Some administrators opposed supplying information for fear that it might draw congressional attention to needless overlap or duplication. Others were said to be uncooperative because they had a self-interest in maintaining their own catalog or publications. Agencies should be required to supply information according to a single form prescribed by law. One catalog should identify all programs. As already indicated, part of the current difficulty encountered by local officials is an overabundance of material in a host of Government publications. The Program Information Act would specifically establish the principle of one basic catalog for all Federal assistance programs. Other publications will be permitted, but only as the need is established.

Finally, legislation will help insure the accuracy of the material supplied by the 57 different departments and agencies. An individual responsible for supplying the information for his agency will undoubtedly take a congressional mandate much more seriously than a request from a sister agency. We have already noted the difficulties encountered within the agencies when they were left free to determine what constitutes a Federal assistance program.

OUTLINE OF THE PROGRAM INFORMATION ACT

The overall objective of this bill is to establish a single Federal catalog, suitably indexed, that will identify and describe, in a meaningful breakdown, all types of domestic aid to a potential applicant, furnish sufficient information to enable him to make a preliminary decision as to which programs are best suited to his needs, and advise him where to obtain additional information.

Specifically, this objective shall be accomplished as follows:

1. The President shall be required to publish no later than May 1 of each year a catalog to identify and describe in a meaningful breakdown all Federal domestic assistance programs. This catalog, which shall be the sole official compendium of all Federal aid, shall be updated at no less than quarterly intervals.

2. A Federal domestic assistance program is defined as any assistance or benefit whether provided in the United States or abroad, that must be requested or applied for by an individual, a domestic corporation or political unit, other than the U.S. Government. The catalog does not cover foreign assistance.

3. The catalog shall identify and describe the program, including the type of assistance; provide financial information as available; state obligations of those receiving aid; identify appropriate officials to contact; describe the application process, including pertinent deadlines; and identify closely related programs. This information has been found by the Midwest Research Institute and my office to be of the kind most needed by those seeking assistance. Flexibility is provided by authorizing the President to include such other information as he or his designee finds desirable.

4. The President shall determine what agency shall prepare and distribute the_catalog. Distribution of 10,000 copies shall be made gratis to Members of Congress and others to be determined by the President.

HISTORY OF THE PROGRAM INFORMATION ACT

The first governmentwide catalog was produced for the Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations of the Senate Committee on Government Operations by the Legislative Reference Service of the Library of Congress. The Catalog of Federal Aids to State and Local Governments, compiled by Mr. I. M. Labovitz, dated April 15, 1964, broke the ground for this kind of effort. The Office of Economic Opportunity used this as the jumping-off point for its catalog in 1965. Congress so liked this first OEO effort that it directed the publication of a second catalog. The second OEO catalog, the Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, published in June 1967 with 459 programs, stated in the introduction that "the book now contains all domestic assistance programs of the Federal Government." On June 25, 1968, after an intensive 8-month study by my office, my listing of over 1,050 operating Federal assistance programs was introduced into the Congressional Record. This listing made clear that the second OEO catalog was neither complete nor did it contain in a consistent manner the information most needed. As a result, I introduced the Program Information Act, which was ultimately cosponsored in the 90th Congress by 131 Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

The demand for the 1968 listing was overwhelming. My office received hundreds of telephone calls and thousands of letters requesting the information. The demand for the June 25 Congressional Record was so great that my listing was reprinted, with the unanimous consent of the Congress, as a House document (H. Doc. 399, 90th Cong.). Over 300 newspaper columns and editorials in more than 40 States mentioned the proposed legislation favorably. (For editorial support, see exhibit 5).

Subsequently, in August 1968, the Bureau of the Budget promulgated BOB Circular A-89, a copy of which is attached as exhibit 6. This circular, based on a 12-month study by an ad hoc committee representing 12 departments and agencies, did not call for detailed program information, funding information, or frequent updating. The standards it set did not, in my judgment, reflect the needs of potential users.

Then, in April 1969, the Office of Economic Opportunity released the third Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, listing 581 programs. On April 24, 1969, I pointed out on the floor of the House that the new OEO catalog omitted programs contained in my 1968 listing and continued to exclude information of the greatest assistance to potential users.

On the first day of the 91st Congress, I reintroduced the Program Information Act, as H.R. 338. As indicated earlier, this legislation has been cosponsored by 181 Congressmen and 15 Senators. My office also began the compilation of a listing of Federal assistance programs, since several departments (Health, Education, and Welfare, Agriculture, Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development) had not fully cooperated the year before. On September 15, 1969, I inserted into the Congressional Record my second listing of 1,315 operating Federal assistance programs. This listing contained more than twice the 581 programs contained in the 1969 OEO catalog. This listing with its detailed descriptions for

each program was, with the unanimous consent of Congress, subsequently printed as a House document (H. Doc. 91-177).

Subsequently, the Bureau of the Budget revised its BOB Circular A-89, dated September 30, 1969, incorporating many of the concepts found in the Program Information Act. (See exhibit 7). These changes are reflected in the 1970 Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, which lists 1,019 programs. (For the instructions which provide for updating the 1970 catalog, see exhibit 8.)

Finally, on April 20, 1970, I introduced into the House, H.R. 17112, a revised version of the Program Information Act, which incorporates changes proposed by the Bureau of the Budget and witnesses before the Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations, which held hearings on the Program Information Act, S. 60, in September 1969. The principal changes included (a) redefining the term, "Federal domestic assistance program," (b) relaxing updating from at least monthly to quarterly periods, and (c) authorizing the President to delegate his functions under the act.

In a letter dated June 2, 1970, the Bureau of the Budget said:

"Hon. WILLIAM L. DAWSON,

"Chairman, Committee on Government Operations, House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington, D.C.

"DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: This letter is in response to your request of April 22, 1970, for our comments on H.R. 17112, a bill to create a catalog of Federal assistance programs, and for other purposes.

"We believe that H.R. 17112 represents a substantial improvement over H.R. 338 previously submitted to achieve the same purposes. The language of this bill overcomes all of the major reservations we had on H.R. 338 as reflected in our report to you dated July 11, 1969.

"We would recommend one additional change in wording to clarify the definition of the term "program" and minimize the possibility of future misinterpretation of the definition. It is suggested that section 2(b) be modified to read: “A Federal domestic assistance 'program' may in practice be called a program, an activity, a service, a project, or some other name regardless of whether it is identified as a separate program by statute or regulation." A "program" shall be identified in terms of differing legal authority, administering office, funding, financial outlays, purpose, benefits, and beneficiaries.

"With this change, we would recommend early enactment of H.R. 17112. "Sincerely,

"JAMES R. SCHLESINGER,
"Acting Deputy Director."

The Senate Subcommittee on Intergovernmental Relations has now reported the revised bill favorably to the full-committee. It is now before the full Senate Government Operations Committee, pending an executive session to be called by the chairman.

EXHIBIT I-FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OUTLAYS FOR MAJOR DOMESTIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS: FISCAL YEARS 1960 AND 1971

[blocks in formation]

Federal aid to State and local governments: Special analyses, Budget of the United States, fiscal year 1971, p. 226. Old-age, survivors, and disability insurance: 1971 from ibid., p. 173; 1960 from Budget of the U.S. Government, fiscal year 1962, p. 922.

Veterans' income security: 1971 from special analyses, 1971, p. 173; 1960 and 1971 from Budget of the U.S. Government, fiscal year 1971, p. 590.

Railroad retirement: 1971 from special analyses, 1971, pp. 173, 193; 1960 from Budget of the U.S. Government, fiscal year 1962, p. 922.

Medicare: Special analyses, 1971, p. 190.

Health research: 1971 from ibid., p. 149; 1960 from Budget, 1962, pp. M70, 620. (These yearly sums may include relatively small amounts for direct Federal research.)

Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service: 1. M. Labovitz.

« iepriekšējāTurpināt »