DOGE and Program Review and Assessment

Abstract: DOGE appears to be taking a short-term approach to change. Audits are rearward looking and point-in-time. While important, they will not systematically change the federal government. DOGE must be transparent and work with all stakeholders and other government agencies such as the OMB, CBO, and GAO to conduct effective program evaluations to fully understand the second and third order effects of change and to make the changes lasting. We must tame the bureaucratic beast so that it works for the citizens rather than for themselves.

I have seen brief mentions of DOGE conducting audits. But I have not seen and discussions about Program Review and Assessment. There is a significant difference between an audit and a full program review and assessment.

An audit seeks to determine compliance with a specific law, regulation, or policy. An example is the ongoing series of Army audits to determine if they can account for their funding and how it was spent. The Army continually fails these audits with large amounts of funds for which the Army cannot account.

A program evaluation seeks to ensure the program is meeting design objectives. A detailed evaluation also looks at whether conditions to engender the program still exist and whether the program can be ended or needs to be modified. Notice the Theory of Change in the figure. Most audits do not have this. Interestingly, most of the literature surrounding Program Evaluation is for academic programs. The process, however, can be used for virtually any program, to include government programs. However, while the Government Accounting Office (GAO) may conduct audits, they rarely seem to extend to program effectiveness.

Perhaps an oversimplification, but audits are point-in-time functions that seek to determine compliance and program evaluations are designed to evaluate programs over longer times and find ways to improve or terminate them. Audits look at the past and a good program evaluation looks at the future.

So far, DOGE is performing spot audits of targeted agencies and programs. The intent seems to be to:

• Find potential fraudulent payments (compliance with laws and regulations).
• Find potential conflicts of interest.
• Sensationalize their findings to general momentum and a positive buzz.

While I understand this approach and it conforms to concepts such as the Breakthrough Strategy, I have some concerns, especially since this is a public activity this is, or should be, accountable to the citizens. The figure to the right is a snapshot of the DOGE website. This is nothing there. Just a statement that is an “official website of the United States Government”. There is no policy statement there. No stated goals and objectives. No scorecard showing progress. No discussion of obstacles. Nothing. No mention of how DOGE will work with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) or the GAO.

If we want long-term change that stays in place regardless of administration, DOGE needs to address these issues and start looking long term and how to work with the CBO and the GAO.

While GAO writes some interesting reports; they do not seem to drive fundamental change. The same issues and problems repeat, perhaps because there do not seem to be real penalties for the behaviors that cause the issues and problems. Some of the blame may be from the way we created and manage the federal bureaucracy (see Creating the Monster: The American Bureaucracy and Responsibility and Accountability Part 3: The Bureaucracy and Accountability).

I discussed how to set up a program with assessment and effectiveness goals built into it in Part 4: Policy Development. Critical Thinking and Policy Development and Analysis provide a framework for analysis.

Firing federal workers or offering them early retirement will not tame the monster. We need to address the issues in the Power Shift blog series. Just as Belle transformed the Beast in Beauty and the Beast, DOGE must work with other key offices to transform the bureaucracy. While doing this, DOGE must be transparent and open to the citizens, who are the true owners of the government. Long-term change needs to be completely open and address the key stakeholders in the US government and society, even when those stakeholders appear to disagree with fundamental change.

A good example is the Department of Education (ED). Education reform needs to address all stakeholders, to include the Teachers’ Unions, parents, employers, and students. Simply eliminating the department will not address the fundamental problems we have in education. A reform could involve scaling back the department to manage grants, program evaluations, and audits rather than eliminating it completely.

These are complex issues that require a comprehensive approach.