Suchergebnisse

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, along with other legislation passed by Congress, are stimulating major financial management reform in the federal government. This article evaluates reform implementation against nine criteria developed in previous research on this topic. The criteria are accounting system adequacy, congressional intent, ability of Congress to use financial statement data, executive branch implementation incentives, capability of the Office of Management and Budget, utility of financial statements for decision making, use of performance measures in budgeting, coordination of federal organizations charged with implementation responsibility, and executive and congressional support for reform.

Public Budgeting & Finance / Winter 1992 ; This study analyzes the development of financial management reform in the federal government. A series of reform initiatives culminated in passage of the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act that prescribes a wide spectrum of changes in federal accounting, budgeting, and financial reporting. The CFO Act may well be the most significant executive branch federal financial management reform since the adoption of the Budget and Accounting Act of 1921.

Current trends in federal budgeting move us to conclude that the argument for implementing capital budgeting in the federal government should be revisited. It is clear that significant changes would have to occur in the present system if private sector capital budgeting methods were adopted by the DoD and other agencies of the federal government. However, there are examples of public organizations that have made this leap. The governments of New Zealand, Australia and the United Kingdom, as well as most of the states in the US, have adopted some private budgeting methods with varying degrees of success. This report explores how capital budgeting is practiced in the private sector, in other governments and how some of this could be applied in the federal government and Department of Defense. The report also provides a brief critique of DOD acquisition budgeting.--report documentation page. ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Resource decision making for the Department of Defense (DOD) is one of the most challenging tasks in all of public financial management. DOD coordinates national security threat assessment, long‐ and intermediate‐range planning and programming with annual budget formulation and execution. Between 2001 and 2004, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld changed the system significantly, simplifying, and synchronizing it with presidential terms of office. We assess Planning, Programming, Budgeting System (PPBS) reform through application of applied budget theory. We review system evolution, document recent reforms, explain why change was necessary, and assess implementation feasibility. Only preliminary evaluation is possible because change implementation will require five or more years.

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, along with other legislation passed by Congress, are stimulating major financial management reform in the federal government. This article evaluates reform implementation against nine criteria developed in previous research on this topic. The criteria are accounting system adequacy, congressional intent, ability of Congress to use financial statement data, executive branch implementation incentives, capability of the Office of Management and Budget, utility of financial statements for decision making, use of performance measures in budgeting, coordination of federal organizations charged with implementation responsibility, and executive and congressional support for reform.