Federalism: Comments on S.1214--The Federalism Accountability Act of 1999
(Statement/Record, 07/14/1999, GAO/T-GGD-99-143).
The Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 (S. 1214) addresses issues
affecting intergovernmental relations, including the rules of
construction regarding preemption, legislative requirements, agency
rulemaking requirements, and performance measures for state-run federal
grant programs. This testimony focuses on the agency rulemaking and
performance measurement requirements. GAO discusses two earlier
initiatives by Congress and the executive branch that were, like section
7 of the bill, designed to highlight the impact of federal rules on
state and local government. Past GAO work showed the limited effect of
those initiatives, which suggests a need for this section of the
proposed legislation. GAO also points out similarities and differences
between the bill and the executive order. Finally, GAO comments on the
experience of one agency in setting the type of goals and performance
measures with states in a federal grant program that are contemplated in
section 8 of the bill.
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-GGD-99-143
TITLE: Federalism: Comments on S.1214--The Federalism
Accountability Act of 1999
DATE: 07/14/1999
SUBJECT: Agency proceedings
Performance measures
State-administered programs
Regulatory agencies
Federal/state relations
Proposed legislation
Reporting requirements
Legislative procedures
Economic analysis
IDENTIFIER: Federal Agency Major Rules
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO report. This text was extracted from a PDF file. **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles, **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into **
** body text in the adjacent column. Graphic images have **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included. **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been **
** preserved. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO **
** Document Distribution Center. For further details, please **
** send an e-mail message to: **
** **
** **
** **
** with the message 'info' in the body. **
******************************************************************
United States General Accounting Office GAO
Testimony Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs U.S. Senate
Not to be Released Before 3:00 p.m. EDT Wednesday
FEDERALISM July 14, 1999 Comments on S. 1214--The Federalism
Accountability Act of 1999 Statement for the Record of L. Nye
Stevens Director, Federal Management and Workforce Issues General
Government Division GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism:
Comments on S. 1214--The Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 Mr.
Chairman and Members of the Committee: We welcome this opportunity
to comment on S. 1214, the "Federalism Accountability Act of
1999." The bill addresses a number of issues affecting
intergovernmental relations, including rules of construction
regarding preemption, legislative requirements, agency rulemaking
requirements, and performance measures for state-administered
federal grant programs. My comments are directed to the agency
rulemaking and performance measurement requirements. I will focus
most of my comments on two previous executive and legislative
branch initiatives that, like section 7 of the bill, were designed
to highlight the impact of federal rules on state and local
governments. Our past work showed the limited effect of those
previous initiatives during the period of our review, which
suggests a need for this section of the proposed legislation. I
will also point out a few similarities and differences between the
bill and the executive order. Finally, I will briefly comment on
the experience of one agency in cooperatively setting the type of
goals and performance measures with states in a federal grant
program that are contemplated in section 8 of the bill. During the
past 20 years, state, local, and tribal governments as well as
Executive Order and businesses have expressed concerns
about congressional and regulatory UMRA Had Little
preemption of traditionally nonfederal functions and the costs of
complying with federal regulations. The executive and the
legislative Effect on Agencies' branch have each attempted
to respond to these concerns by issuing Rulemaking Actions
executive orders and enacting statutes requiring rulemaking
agencies to take certain actions when they issue regulations with
federalism or intergovernmental relations effects. Two prime
examples of these responses are Executive Order 12612
("Federalism") and the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
(UMRA). Executive Order 12612, issued by President Reagan in 1987,
established a Few Federalism set of fundamental
principles and criteria for executive departments and Assessments
Prepared agencies to use when formulating and implementing
policies that have Under Executive Order federalism
implications. The executive order says that federal agencies 12612
Between April 1996 should refrain from establishing uniform,
national standards for programs with federalism implications, and
when national standards are required, and December 1998
they should consult with appropriate officials and organizations
representing the states in developing those standards. The order
says that regulations and other policies have federalism
implications if they "have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the Page 1
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government." Executive Order 12612 also
contains specific requirements for agencies. For example, the
order requires the head of each agency to designate an official to
be responsible for ensuring the implementation of the order. That
official is required to determine which proposed policies have
sufficient federalism implications to warrant preparation of a
"federalism assessment." The assessment must contain certain
elements (e.g., identify the extent to which the policy imposes
additional costs or burdens on the states) and must accompany any
proposed or final rule submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) for review under Executive Order 12866. 1 OMB, in
turn, is required to ensure that agencies' rulemaking actions are
consistent with the policies, criteria, and requirements in the
federalism executive order. In May 1998, President Clinton issued
Executive Order 13083 ("Federalism"), which was intended to
replace both Executive Order 12612 and Executive Order 12875
("Enhancing the Intergovernmental Partnership").2 However, in
August 1998, President Clinton suspended Executive Order 13083 in
response to concerns raised by state and local government
representatives and others about both the content of the order and
the nonconsultative manner in which it was developed. Therefore,
Executive Order 12612 remains in effect. To determine how
Executive Order 12612 had been implemented in recent years, we
reviewed (1) how often the preambles to covered agencies' final
rules issued between April 1, 1996, and December 31, 1998,
mentioned the executive order and how often they indicated the
agencies had conducted federalism assessments under the order;3
(2) what selected agencies have done to implement the requirements
of the order; and (3) what OMB has 1Executive Order 12612 actually
refers to rulemaking procedures under Executive Order 12291, which
was revoked and replaced by Executive Order 12866 in 1993. Because
only "significant" rules are submitted to OMB for review under
Executive Order 12866, federalism assessments for nonsignificant
rules are not required to be submitted to OMB. For a description
of the review process under this order, see Regulatory Reform:
Implementation of the Regulatory Review Executive Order (GAO/T-96-
185, Sept. 25, 1996). 2Executive Order 12875, among other things,
requires federal agencies to "develop an effective process to
permit elected officials of state, local, and tribal governments
to provide meaningful and timely input in the development of
regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded mandates."
3It is unclear whether Executive Order 12612 covers regulations
and other policies issued by independent regulatory agencies, such
as the Federal Communications Commission and the Securities and
Exchange Commission. Therefore, we focused our review on executive
departments and agencies that are not independent regulatory
agencies. Page 2
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 done to oversee federal
agencies' implementation of the order in the rulemaking process.4
We focused on the April 1996 through December 1998 time frame
because we were able to use our database to identify which rules
were "major" under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act (SBREFA) (e.g., those that have a $100-million impact
on the economy). As a result, we cannot comment on rules issued
outside of that time frame. Although Executive Order 12612 does
not require agencies to mention the order in the preamble to their
final rules or to note in those preambles whether a federalism
assessment was prepared, doing so is a clear indication that the
agency was aware of and considered the order's requirements. Also,
if an agency prepared a federalism assessment for a final rule, it
would be logical for the agency to describe the assessment in the
preamble to the rule. Agencies Prepared Few Our work
showed that Executive Order 12612 had relatively little visible
Federalism Assessments During effect on federal agencies'
rulemaking actions during this time frame. To Review Timeframe
summarize the nearly 3 years of data depicted in figure 1,
agencies covered by the order mentioned it in the preambles to
about 26 percent of the 11,414 final rules they issued between
April 1996 and December 1998. 4Federalism: Implementation of
Executive Order 12612 in the Rulemaking Process (GAO/T-GGD-99-93,
May 5, 1999). Page 3
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 Figure 1: Agencies Indicated
Only Five Final Rules Issued Between April 1996 and December 1998
Had Federalism Assessments Note: The data for 1996 covers only
those rules issued from April 1 to December 31. Source: Federal
Register and GAO analysis. Five agencies issued the bulk of the
final rules published during this period-the Departments of
Agriculture (USDA), Commerce (DOC), Health and Human Services
(HHS), and Transportation (DOT); and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). As figure 2 shows, these agencies varied
substantially in the degree to which they mentioned the executive
order. For example, DOT mentioned the order in nearly 60 percent
of its nearly 4,000 final rules, whereas EPA did not mention the
order in any of the more than 1,900 rules it issued. Page 4
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 Figure 2: Agencies Differed
In Degree to Which They Mentioned Executive Order 12612 in Final
Rules Issued Between April 1996 and December 1998 Source: Federal
Register and GAO analysis. However, mentioning the order in the
preamble to a rule does not mean the agency took any substantive
action. The agencies usually just stated that no federalism
assessment was conducted because the rules did not have federalism
implications. Nearly all of these statements were standard,
"boilerplate" certifications with little or no discussion of why
the rule did not trigger the executive order's requirements. In
fact, the preambles to only 5 of the 11,414 final rules that the
agencies issued between April 1996 and December 1998 indicated
that a federalism assessment had been done-2 in 1996 and 3 in
1997. Those five rules are listed in table 1. Page 5
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 Table 1: Preambles Indicated
Four Date final rule
Agencies Issued Five Final Rules With Department or agency
was published Title Federalism Assessments Between April
Department of Health and Aug. 28, 1996 Regulations
Restricting the Sale and 1996 and December 1998
Human Services Distribution of
Cigarettes and Smokeless Tobacco to Protect Children and
Adolescents Department of Dec. 16, 1996
Roadway Worker Protection Transportation Department of Commerce
Jan. 30, 1997 Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
Mar. 28, 1997 Hawaiian Islands Humpback Whale National Marine
Sanctuary Department of Labor Mar. 31, 1997
(Hazard) Abatement Verification Source: Federal Register and GAO
analysis. Many of the final rules that federal agencies issue are
administrative or routine in nature, and therefore unlikely to
have significant federalism implications. As a result, it is not
particularly surprising that agencies would not prepare federalism
assessments for many of those rules. However, rules that are
"major" under SBREFA and that involve or affect state and local
governments would seem more likely to have federalism implications
that would warrant preparation of an assessment. However, that
does not appear to have been the case. As figure 3 shows, of the
117 major final rules issued by covered agencies between April
1996 and December 1998, the preambles indicated that only 1 had a
federalism assessment. The agencies had previously indicated that
37 of these rules would affect state and local governments, and
the preambles to 21 of the rules indicated that they would preempt
state and local laws in the event of a conflict. At least one of
the four state and local government organizations that we
consulted during the review said that federal agencies should have
done assessments for most of these 117 major rules. In response,
the agencies said that their rules did not have sufficient
federalism implications to trigger the executive order's
requirements. Page 6
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 Figure3: Only One Major Rule
Issued Between April 1996 and December 1998 Had A Federalism
Assessment Sources: Federal Register and GAO's major rule
database. EPA Established High Threshold All three of the agencies
we visited during our review (USDA, HHS, and for Federalism
Assessments EPA) had some kind of written guidance on
the executive order and had designated an official or office
responsible for ensuring its implementation.5 However, the
criteria the agencies used to determine whether federalism
assessments were needed varied among the agencies. USDA's guidance
did not establish any specific criteria, with agency attorneys
making their own determinations regarding federalism implications
in the context of each rulemaking. HHS' guidance listed four
threshold criteria that could be used to determine whether a
federalism assessment was required, but said an assessment must be
prepared if an action would directly create significant effects on
states even if the action was mandated by law or the department
otherwise had no discretion. 5The agencies that we visited were
those with the most major rules that state and local government
representatives believed should have had a federalism assessment.
Page 7
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 The criteria in EPA's
guidance established a high threshold for what constitutes
"sufficient" federalism implications-perhaps explaining why none
of the agency's more than 1,900 final rules issued during the
April 1996 to December 1998 time frame had a federalism
assessment. For example, in order for an EPA rule to require an
assessment, the agency's guidance said the rule must meet all four
of the following criteria: * have an "institutional" effect on
the states, not just a financial effect (regardless of magnitude);
* change significantly the relative roles of federal and state
governments in a particular program context, lead to federal
control over traditional state responsibilities, or decrease the
ability of states to make policy decisions with respect to their
own functions; * affect all or most of the states; and * have a
direct, causal effect on the states (i.e., not a side effect). At
least one of these criteria appeared to go beyond the executive
order on which it is based. Although EPA said a rule must affect
all or most of the states in order to have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant preparation of an assessment, Executive
Order 12612 defines "state" to "refer to the States of the United
States of America, individually or collectively." (Emphasis
added.) EPA's guidance also said that, even if all four of these
criteria are met, a rule would not require a federalism assessment
if a statute mandates the action or the means to carry it out are
implied by statute. However, EPA's actions appear to be allowable
because the executive order does not define what is meant by
"sufficient" federalism implications, leaving that determination
up to the agencies. OMB Has Taken Little Recent OMB officials
told us that they had taken little specific action to ensure
Action to Ensure implementation of the executive
order, but said the order is considered Implementation of
Executive along with other requirements as part of the
regulatory review process Order 12612 under
Executive Order 12866. They said that agencies had rarely
submitted separate federalism assessments to OMB but have
addressed federalism considerations, when appropriate, as a part
of the cost-benefit analysis and other analytical requirements.
Commenting on the results of our review, the Acting Administrator
of OMB's Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs said it was
not surprising that agencies were not focused on implementing
Executive Order 12612 during the covered time period because they
knew that the order was soon to be revised by Executive Order
13083. However, he also said that Executive Order 12612 had not
been implemented to any significant extent by the Reagan
Administration "or its successors," Page 8
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 suggesting that the lack of
implementation was unrelated to any pending revision of the order.
In addition, the Acting Administrator said that the primary
vehicles for improving federal-state consultation in the past 6
years have been Executive Order 12875 and UMRA. We have not
examined the implementation of Executive Order 12875. However, we
have examined the implementation of UMRA, and concluded that it
has had little effect on agencies' rulemaking activities. Title II
of UMRA is one of Congress' primary efforts to address the effects
UMRA Had Little Effect on of federal agencies' rules on state
and local governments. Section 202 of Agency Rulemaking
the act generally requires federal agencies (other than
independent regulatory agencies) to prepare "written statements"
containing specific information for any rule for which a notice of
proposed rulemaking was published that includes a federal mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any
1 year by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
or the private sector. UMRA defines a "mandate" to be an
"enforceable duty" that is not a condition of federal assistance
and does not arise from participation in a voluntary federal
program. For rules requiring a written statement, section 205
requires agencies to consider a number of regulatory alternatives
and select the one that is the least costly, most cost-effective,
or least burdensome and that achieves the purpose of the rule.
Other sections of the act focus even more specifically on the
interests of state and local representatives. For example, section
203 states that agencies must develop plans to involve small
governments in the development of regulatory proposals that have a
significant or unique effect on those entities. Section 204
requires agencies to develop processes to consult with
representatives of state, local, and tribal governments in the
development of regulatory proposals containing "significant
[f]ederal intergovernmental mandates." Last year, we reported that
these and other requirements in title II of UMRA appeared to have
had only limited direct impact on agencies' rulemaking actions in
the first 2 years of the act's implementation.6 Most of the
economically significant rules promulgated during UMRA's first 2
years were not subject to the written statement requirements of
title II. Some did not have an associated notice of proposed
rulemaking that triggered the act's requirements. Many did not
impose an enforceable duty other than as a condition of federal
financial assistance or as a duty arising from participation in a
voluntary program. Other rules did not result in "expenditures" of
$100 million. Because no written statement was required 6Unfunded
Mandates: Reform Act Has Had Little Effect on Agencies' Rulemaking
Actions (GAO/GGD- 98-30, Feb. 4, 1998). Page 9
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 for these rules, the
requirements in section 205 regarding the identification and
selection of regulatory alternatives were not applicable to these
rules. Also, title II of UMRA contains exemptions that allowed
agencies not to take certain actions if they determined the
actions were duplicative or not "reasonably feasible." Other
provisions in title II also had little effect. During the first 2
years of UMRA's implementation, the requirement in section 204
that agencies develop an intergovernmental consultation process
appears to have applied to no more than four EPA rules and no
rules from other agencies. EPA generally used a consultation
process that was in place before UMRA was enacted. Also, section
203 small government plans were not developed for any of the 73
final rules promulgated during this 2-year period. Officials in
the four agencies that we contacted said none of their final rules
had a significant or unique effect on small governments. Section
208 of UMRA requires the Director of OMB to submit an annual
report to Congress on agency compliance with UMRA. The fourth such
report is scheduled to be delivered within the next few weeks. In
his third UMRA report published in June 1998, the OMB Director
noted that federal agencies had identified only three rules in the
more than 3 years since the act was passed that affected the
public sector enough to trigger the written statement
requirements. Nevertheless, he said federal agencies had embraced
the act's "overall philosophy," as evidenced by the range of
consultative activities the report described. Section 7 of S. 1214
contains several provisions that are similar to the Federalism Act
Similar requirements in Executive Order 12612. For example, the
bill would, if to But Different From enacted, require
the head of each agency to designate a "federalism officer" with
responsibilities similar to the "designated official" in the
Executive Order executive order. Both the bill
and the order require this individual to determine whether
proposed or final rules have sufficient federalism implications to
warrant preparation of an assessment. The content of the
assessments required in the bill and the order are also similar.
For example, both assessments require agencies to determine the
extent to which a proposed or final rule affects traditional state
authority. Whereas the executive order says the assessments
should identify the extent to which a rule imposes "additional
costs or burdens" on the states, the bill says the assessments
should describe "significant impacts" on state and local
governments-which logically would include (but not be limited to)
costs or burdens. Finally, neither the bill nor the executive
order require agencies to declare whether their proposed or final
rules have federalism implications. In contrast, the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980 requires Page 10
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 agencies to state whether or
not their rules have a "significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities."7 S. 1214 is also different
from the executive order in some respects. For example, unlike
the order, the bill requires agencies to notify and consult with
officials in governments potentially affected by the rule before
issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking.8 The bill also requires
pre-publication consultation when agencies do not issue notices of
proposed rulemaking. This is important because, as we reported
last year, about half of all final rules are published without a
proposed rule.9 Another requirement not found in the order is
that agencies publish a summary of any federalism assessment when
the rule is published in the Federal Register. Doing so would
clearly delineate when the designated officer believes a rule has
federalism implications.10 Under the executive order, agencies do
not have to publish the results of their federalism assessments.
S. 1214 also differs from Executive Order 12612 in that it more
clearly defines the type of rulemaking actions that should trigger
the preparation of a federalism assessment. Under the executive
order, the designated official has broad discretion to determine
whether a rule has "sufficient" federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of an assessment. Some designated officials have
used that discretion to conclude that preemption of state and
local authority does not, in itself, constitute sufficient
federalism implications. As I noted previously, the agencies
indicated in 21 of the major rules without a federalism assessment
that the rules would take precedence in the event they conflicted
with state or local laws or regulations. One of the 7However, the
Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy reports that
some agencies have used "boilerplate" certifications indicating
that their rules do not have a significant impact. Contributing to
this problem is the fact that the Regulatory Flexibility Act does
not define key terms, resulting in different agencies having
different interpretations. See Regulatory Flexibility Act:
Inherent Weaknesses May Limit Its Usefulness for Small Governments
(GAOHRD-91-16, Jan. 11, 1991). 8Executive Order 12866 says
"[w]herever feasible, agencies shall seek views of appropriate
State, local, and tribal officials before imposing regulatory
requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect those
governmental entities." Also, Executive Order 12875 requires
agencies to develop an effective process to permit representatives
of state, local, and tribal governments to provide meaningful and
timely input in the development of regulatory proposals containing
significant unfunded mandates. 9See Federal Rulemaking: Agencies
Often Published Final Actions Without Proposed Rules (GAO/GGD- 98-
126, Aug. 31, 1998). 10We have previously supported the use of
executive summaries in regulatory economic analyses. See
Regulatory Reform: Agencies Could Improve Development,
Documentation, and Clarity of Regulatory Economic Analyses
(GAO/RCED-98-142, May 26, 1998). Page 11
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 rules was an HHS regulation
on organ procurement and transplantation.11 In the preamble to the
rule, HHS noted that at least one state had passed a law that
limited organ-sharing policies, and that such limitations were in
conflict with a national organ-sharing system based on medical
need. Therefore, the agency added a section to the regulatory text
stating that "[n]o state or local governing entity shall establish
or continue in effect any law, rule, regulation, or other
requirement that would restrict" compliance with the regulations.
However, on the same page in the Federal Register preamble as its
preemption discussion, HHS said "[w]e have determined that this
rule will not have consequential effects on States, local
governments, or tribal governments." S. 1214 appears to require
agencies to prepare a federalism assessment if they determine that
their rules will have a preemptive effect on state and local
governments. Subsection 7(b) of the bill requires the previously-
mentioned consultation process with state and local officials "for
the purpose of identifying any preemption of State or local
government authority or other significant federalism impacts that
may result from the rule." Subsection 7(c) says that the
federalism officer "shall identify each proposed, interim final,
and final rule having a federalism impact, including each rule
with a federalism impact identified under subsection (b), that
warrants the preparation of a federalism assessment." (Emphasis
added.) However, it is less clear what other "federalism impacts"
might trigger a federalism assessment. For example, if an agency
proposes a rule that has a sizable financial impact on state or
local governments, the agency's federalism officer may determine
that those financial impacts alone do not require an assessment.
Therefore, the drafters of S. 1214 may want to consider clarifying
in the bill what is meant by a "federalism impact." Finally, I
would like to briefly comment on section 8 of S. 1214, which says
Consultation Enhances that federal agencies may not include any
agency activity that is a state- Intergovernmental
administered federal grant program in its annual performance plans
developed pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act
of Partnership 1993 (Results Act) "unless the
performance measures for the activity are determined in
cooperation with public officials." The bill defines "public
officials" as elected officials of state and local governments,
including certain organizations that represent those officials
(e.g., the National Governors' Association and the United States
Conference of Mayors). 11See 63 FR 16296, April 2, 1998. Page 12
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 The Results Act already
requires agencies developing their strategic plans to "solicit and
consider the views and suggestions of those entities potentially
affected by or interested in the plan." The Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee report on the Results Act noted that the
strategic plan "is intended to be the principal means for
obtaining and reflecting, as appropriate, the views of Congress
and those governmental and nongovernmental entities potentially
affected by or interested in the agencies' activities." In that
regard, we believe that working with state and local governments
or their representative organizations to develop goals and
performance measures in federal grant-in-aid programs can
strengthen the intergovernmental partnerships embodied in those
programs. For example, in 1996, we reported on a joint goal and
performance measure-setting effort between the federal Office of
Child Support Enforcement (OCSE) and state governments.12
Initially, the federal-state relationship was not so cooperative.
In 1994, OCSE specified the performance levels that states were
expected to achieve in such areas as the establishment of
paternity and collections of child support. State program
officials strongly objected to this federal mandate because they
did not have an opportunity to participate in the planning
process. Following these initial planning efforts, OCSE sought to
obtain wider participation from program officials at the federal,
state, and local government levels. OCSE also established task
forces consisting of federal, state, and local officials to help
focus management of the program on long- term goals. During the
planning process, participants agreed that the national goals and
objectives would be based on the collective suggestions of the
states and that the plan's final approval would be reached through
a consensus. For each goal, the participants identified interim
objectives that, if achieved, would represent progress toward the
stated goal. At the time of our review, OCSE and the states were
also developing performance measures to identify progress toward
the goals, and planned to develop performance standards to judge
the quality of state performance. They created a Performance
Measures Work Group to develop statistical measures for assessing
state progress toward achieving national goals and objectives.
OCSE also encouraged its regional staff to develop performance
agreements with states, specifying both general working
relationships between OCSE regional offices and state program
officials and performance goals for each state. 12Child Support
Enforcement: Reorienting Management Toward Achieving Better
Program Results (GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-14, Oct. 25, 1996). Page 13
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Statement Federalism: Comments on S. 1214--The
Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 Overall, OCSE and most state
officials that we contacted said the joint planning process
strengthened the federal/state partnership by enabling them to
help shape the national program's long-term goals and objectives.
State and local government stakeholder involvement has also been
important in the development of practical and broadly accepted
performance measures in other federal programs, including some
block grants.13 We believe that these kinds of intergovernmental
cooperation can serve as models for the kinds of efforts that
section 8 of the Federalism Accountability Act of 1999 seeks to
encourage. Contacts and Acknowledgment For future contacts
regarding this testimony, please contact L. Nye Stevens or Curtis
Copeland at (202) 512-8676. Individuals making key contributions
to this testimony included Elizabeth Powell, Joseph Santiago, Alan
Belkin, and V. Bruce Goddard. 13Managing for Results: Measuring
Program Results That Are Under Limited Federal Control (GAO/GGD-
99-16, Dec. 11, 1998); Grant Programs: Design Features Shape
Flexibility, Accountability, and Performance Information (GAO/GGD-
98-137, June 22, 1998). Page 14
GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Page 15 GAO/T-GGD-99-143 Page 16 GAO/T-GGD-
99-143 Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report and
testimony is free. Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be
sent to the following address, accompanied by a check or money
order made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary.
VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for
100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted
25 percent. Order by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box
37050 Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW
(corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each
day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony.
To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the
past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone.
A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the
INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
info@www.gao.gov or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
http://www.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office
Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001 Postage & Fees Paid GAO
Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
Address Correction Requested (410482)
*** End of document. ***