Pulling Together

Managing effectively across different levels of government never has been more critical to the nation's security and prosperity, yet our capacity to do so has eroded. Citizens expect intergovernmental programs to deliver and be fair. Yet managing across jurisdictions and determining accountability for results can be blurry and complex.

Homeland security is a prime example. The Homeland Security Department has centralized federal efforts, but the intergovernmental system through which it operates is fragmented. For instance, there are 115 signatories to the regional disaster plan for the Seattle area. More than 20 federal grant programs for first responders weave a tangled web of funding streams that delays progress where it matters most.

Former U.S. Sen. Edmund S. Muskie once described America's intergovernmental system as government's "hidden dimension," because it "has no direct electorate . . . is under no special control, and moves in no particular direction." Beginning in the 1960s, relationships among levels of government became far more significant as federal grant-in-aid programs, mandates and pre-emptions proliferated, and the Supreme Court issued decisions affecting federalism. In one domestic program after another, financing, administration and regulation became interwoven. This increased complexity demands more effective and innovative intergovernmental management.

In the 1970s, the federal executive and legislative branches developed institutional capacities for improving consultation with state and local officials and coordination among agencies. Federal officials sought to devolve responsibility, decentralize decision-making, deregulate activities, debug program administration, and demystify the grant and regulatory processes. Pioneering research by the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations and what was then the General Accounting Office complemented those ambitious initiatives by analyzing their impact and recommending improvements.

Alarmingly, however, this institutional capacity to study and measure cooperative efforts has dwindled to virtual nonexistence just as intergovernmental approaches have increased. So Muskie's words are truer today than when he spoke them decades ago: Intergovernmental management has indeed become government's "hidden dimension."

The next president should consider three steps to restore this institutional capacity.

1. Reassert a central role for the executive branch in intergovernmental management.

The president could order the Office of Management and Budget to the front lines of intergovernmental management once again by bolstering the "M" in OMB's mission, which would require appropriate professional staff support. Either OMB or another agency in the Executive Office of the President could spearhead the efforts that involve many levels of government by reviewing federal program proposals to balance national goals and standards with state and local circumstances, clearing proposed rules and regulations that would affect other jurisdictions, monitoring headquarters and field implementation of executive orders, and identifying unfunded or underfunded mandates.

2. Reconstitute the White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs.

During the Carter and Reagan administrations, a White House unit developed federalism philosophies and agendas, maintained relations with state and local public interest groups, coordinated department and agency federalism officers, and drafted presidential intergovernmental policy statements. Since then, White House staffers have functioned as liaisons, but the intergovernmental management role has not been underscored by an institutional commitment. It's time to restore White House attention to these vital relationships.

3. Re-establish a nonpartisan, independent intergovernmental organization.

Since the demise in 1996 of the Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, no organization has assumed its leadership role. But objective information and insights on the status of federal, state and local government management are more urgently needed than ever. Such an entity could serve as a research focal point for the administration, Congress, state and local officials, the news media and the public by:

• Gathering, analyzing and disseminating data on federal program performance and intergovernmental fiscal trends.
• Synthesizing information on best practices and innovations.
• Identifying friction points and emerging issues in federal-state-local relationships.
• Consulting on the design and execution of federal aid programs as well as related problem-solving issues.
• Conducting polls on the state of the federal system.

Strong presidential leadership in these areas would anchor and advance institutional capacity-building toward effective intergovernmental management. Such leadership also would engender key congressional involvement. Most important, it would bring intergovernmental management out of the shadows of the "hidden dimension" and into the spotlight.