Click here for the complete list of newly-elected Fellows and Directors, and here for the Press Release.

Following the issuance of the Academy Panel’s Phase I report, the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF) decided to limit the full scope of the pay-for-performance elements of the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS) to the National Geospatial Intelligence Agency.  This decision created a need for revisions in the fundamental design of DCIPS and ushered in a new set of requirements to transition most of the DCIPS workforce from pay bands to grades.

In light of the SECDEF decision, the Human Capital Management Office (HCMO) of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence (OUSD(I)) engaged the Academy to perform independent verification and validation of the continuing evolution of DCIPS. The SECDEF decision outlined several areas where OUSD(I) would need to focus its efforts in reshaping DCIPS to address the Academy Panel’s Phase I recommendations.  These focus areas, along with other priorities identified by HCMO, provided the framework for the Academy Panel’s Phase II review.  Specifically, the Phase II Panel reviewed OUSD(I)’s efforts in the following areas:

• Change Management, Communications, and Training;
• DCIPS Policies;
• DCIPS Evaluation and Performance Measures;
• DCIPS Performance Management System;
• Equity Analysis; and
• Band-Like Compensation Structure.

OUSD(I)’s original intent was for the Academy to validate DCIPS as a comprehensive, mission-supporting HR system.  However, as the Phase II review progressed, the Panel concluded that “validation” of DCIPS would not be possible since key foundational policies central to the evolution of the system were, and still are, under development.  Therefore, the Panel focused on reviewing OUSD(I)’s progress in working with the Defense Intelligence Components to reshape DCIPS, as well as identifying the gaps and remaining challenges that needed to be addressed to strengthen DCIPS’ design and further align it with the objectives originally set out for the system.

Key Findings

The Panel found that OUSD(I)’s HCMO was making significant progress in reshaping DCIPS to align the system with the SECDEF decision and other critical criteria.  However, the Panel identified gaps in each of the focus areas of the review.  To help move DCIPS forward and close the gaps in aligning DCIPS’ plans, policies, and other materials with the Defense intelligence mission, the Panel offered several overarching recommendations to help DCIPS meet its intended objectives, as well as several recommendations in each of the focus areas of the review. Of chief importance, the Panel recommended that OUSD(I)  make it a priority to develop and communicate a clear, compelling case for DCIPS based on the central goal of encouraging greater collaboration and information sharing within the Defense Intelligence Enterprise.  The Panel also recommended that OUSD(I) and the Defense Intelligence Components strive to adhere to established timelines for the transition to a graded environment so that once the transition has been completed, OUSD(I) can focus its full attention on the longer-term policy changes that are necessary to align DCIPS with the missions, goals, and objectives of the Defense Intelligence Components.

Former Representative Tom Davis gave the opening remarks, providing his own insight on the Federal response following the 9/11 attacks. In the first session, panelists discussed the evolution of the Federal government’s role in terrorism prevention and response since the 9/11 attacks, focusing special attention on the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. In the second session, panelists  discussed the federal role in state and local terrorism prevention and response efforts.

Video from the event is available below:

DATE: Thursday, September 22, 2011

TIME: 10 am

LOCATION: NAPA Offices, 900 7th St. NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC

MEETING HIGHLIGHTS:
Review work schedule over the fall for the Panel that would lead to a policy framework for a new intergovernmental and intersectorial approach that recognizes the fiscal constraints that the federal system is facing.

MEETING AGENDA:
1.     Discussion:  the transportation initiative that we are developing with ASSHTO that is looking at how states, cities, counties regions, and other sectors can put themselves together to use revenue raising and financing tools provided by federal policy.
·       Jack Basso (Invited), Association of State and Territorial Transportation Officers;
·       Dan Borut (Invited), National League of Cities;
·       Joe Mitchell, National Academy of Public Administration;
·       Ken Ryder, Ryder Analytics, Inc.

2.     Discuss review and modify the work plan for our meetings in October, November and December. These issues will be presented in future meetings.  At this session we get input and suggestions for these discussions.
Paul Posner and Mark Pisano will lead the discussion.
·       Review of research on lessons learned from implementation of AARA, the Obama stimulus programs–October
·       Review of local government  sustainability case studies and lessons for Federal Policy-November
·       Discussion of Outcome based procurement using lessons from defense and space that could be used in infrastructure procurement to introduce new technologies
·       Other discussions that could be used to formulate new approaches in the federal system to meet our changing realities and that could lead to a Panel Report.

You may join the meeting via conference telephone call: 866-939-8416; passcode: 8551779

Please inform Chloe Yang (yyang@napawash.org) if you plan to attend.

Paul Posner
Chair, Federal System Panel

November 16-19, 2011

National Academy of Public Administration
Washington, DC
900 7th Street, NW, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20001
and
Grand Hyatt
H Street NW, Washington DC 20001

Event Information:

• 2011 Academy Fall Meeting Agenda
• Fall Meeting Registration
• Hotel and Logistics
• Book Display Opportunity

Debra Bond, Deputy Controller of OMB, will give the keynote address. The keynote address will be followed by a Panel discussion among leaders from industry and government about efforts to apply Agile development approaches and lessons learned.

Discussion Panel

Moderator:   Karen Evans, former Administrator, Office of E-Government and Information Technology, Office of Management and Budget

Panel (in alphabetical order): 

• Zal Azmi, Senior Vice President for Strategic Law Enforcement and National Security Programs, CACI International Inc.
• Gregor Bailar, former Chief Information Officer of Capital One and NASDAQ
• Michael Wood, Exec. Dir., Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board
• Walter Meslar, Chief of Corporate Capital Planning Office (and former Chief Acquisition Officer), Federal Bureau of Investigation

Management Concepts is the Gold sponsor of this event. Management Concepts unleashes the full potential and productivity of professionals through practical, effective training courses; customized professional development programs; performance improvement consulting services; and award-winning publications. We have substantially improved the effectiveness of over 1 million professionals working in both the public and private sectors. For more information, please visit our website at www.ManagementConcepts.com.

To register, please contact Chloe Yang at yyang@napawash.org. There is no cost to attend.

In March 2011, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) contracted with the Academy for a review of the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)’s Fee Care Program after the department’s Inspector General identified problems with inaccurate payments and inefficient claims processing by the program.  Although VHA provides most of its medical services to veterans within its healthcare system, Fee Care pays for veterans to go outside of the VA system when a VA medical center cannot provide a clinical service, when a veteran does not have a VA healthcare facility that is geographically accessible, or in emergencies.  Over the past decade, this program has grown significantly to become a critical element of veterans’ clinical care delivery.  With projected expenditures of $5.1 billion in FY 2012, the Fee Care program will constitute nearly 10 percent of VA’s veteran healthcare budget.

The Academy reviewed relevant reports, studies, and audits of the Fee Care program. Additionally, the Academy conducted targeted interviews with more than 70 knowledgeable individuals, including VA senior leaders, program staff, and officials from other federal and commercial health care payer programs. The Academy study team visited the VHA Chief Field Office and National Fee Care Program Office in Denver; Veterans Integrated Services Networks (VISNs) with consolidated claims processing centers; and VISNs that still process claims in individual medical centers.

Key Findings/Recommendations

The Academy Panel found that the corporate management of the Fee Care Program has improved significantly over the last several years. However, the program continues to face major challenges, including VA having a limited understanding of the quality of services procured through the program and their costs; erroneous payments at unacceptably high levels; error rates greater than comparable federal programs; and program productivity varying widely across operating sites.  Based on the findings outlined in a White Paper, the Panel recommended that VHA consolidate its Fee Care Program from the more than 100 claims processing locations to no more than 3 to 5 strategically located regional sites; senior VA officials should provide clearer policy direction about performance goals and expectations for purchased care; and VHA should procure and implement an enterprise-wide technology solution that would reduce errors and increase efficiency.

KEYNOTE SPEAKER:  John Kamensky, Senior Fellow with the IBM Center for The Business of Government

WHAT:

This half-day session will  feature a keynote address and a roundtable discussion  on:

• Clarifying the role of mission-support functions in enhancing agency missions;
• Identifying existing strategies and tools for assessing the effectiveness and impact of mission-support  functions; and
• Identifying gaps in existing measurement techniques and possible standards and criteria for
  assessing the impact of these programs.

WHY:

While significant progress has been made over the past two decades to ensure accountability in critical mission-support programs, there has been little effort to  provide agencies with specific guidance or a defined methodology for determining the actual impact of these programs on an agency’s overall performance. In the face of ever-shrinking resources and anticipated steep  budget reductions, it is important to begin to define clear strategies and tools to help federal agencies formally assess the impact of these programs.

WHEN:

November 9, 2011; 9:30 a.m. to 12:00 p.m.

WHERE:

National Academy of Public Administration;  900 7th Street, N.W., Suite 600, Washington, D.C. 20001

TO ATTEND:

Send an email to aprice@napawash.org by COB November 2, 2011.

TO CONFIRM ATTENDANCE:

Send an email to aprice@napawash.org

The week-long online dialogue went live in October 2011 and allowed participants to share their ideas on tools and solutions to prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in Recovery Act funded programs. Upon conclusion of the Dialogue, the Academy Panel and study team analyzed the input and supplemented the insights gained with expert interviews and research to ensure that future enhancements to the Recovery Board’s oversight efforts would reflect the best ideas of America’s leading thinkers. The report from the Panel of Academy Fellows contained two sets of recommendations: the first aimed at Recovery Board activities and the second for government-wide consideration.

Key Findings
The Panel recommended that the Recovery Board : (1) increase its emphasis on predictive analysis, particularly to prevent and detect contract/grant fraud; (2) increase its use of sophisticated textual analysis tools to mine the abundance of unstructured narrative information that is available; (3) increase its data sources, particularly state and local government data and proprietary business data, to improve data validation; and (4) work across government to establish and publicize more consistent performance metrics for fund recipients and increase transparency of outcomes from taxpayer funded programs.