Sensemaking
#7Key Findings
The United States performs comparatively well (rank 7) in the category of sensemaking.
No central body is responsible for strategic foresight. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy proposes science and tech research initiatives, while the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds high-risk, high-reward projects.
Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are not legally required, but various executive orders and agency guidelines encourage their use. However, some agencies do not have the resources to conduct comprehensive RIAs, and no uniform standards are in place.
There is no overarching statutory requirement for sustainability assessments in RIAs, but the Biden administration instructed federal agencies to prioritize environmental justice and consider climate change impacts in regulatory actions. Federal agencies widely use ex post evaluations to assess the impact and effectiveness of federal policies.
No central body is responsible for strategic foresight. The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy proposes science and tech research initiatives, while the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency funds high-risk, high-reward projects.
Regulatory impact assessments (RIAs) are not legally required, but various executive orders and agency guidelines encourage their use. However, some agencies do not have the resources to conduct comprehensive RIAs, and no uniform standards are in place.
There is no overarching statutory requirement for sustainability assessments in RIAs, but the Biden administration instructed federal agencies to prioritize environmental justice and consider climate change impacts in regulatory actions. Federal agencies widely use ex post evaluations to assess the impact and effectiveness of federal policies.
Graph View
Graph View
To what extent can the central government foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization?
10
9
9
The central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
8
7
6
7
6
Most of the time, the central government can foster the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
5
4
3
4
3
The central government is rarely capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
2
1
1
The central government is not capable of fostering the capacity for strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation within its organization.
There is no central body that coordinates strategic foresight and anticipatory innovation for the entire federal government. However, a wide range of entities within the federal government provides this functionality (Halloran).
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) proposes initiatives aimed at shaping trends in science and technological research (Hart 2014).
The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 created Chief Information Officers (CIOs) in executive branch agencies (Daminescu 2016). The Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council brings together CIOs from various government agencies to enhance IT practices throughout the federal government. The initiative aimed to foster “mid-stream” connections across agencies to improve information technology management (McClure and Bertot 2000).
One of the most significant areas of federal government support for innovative research is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA funds high-risk but potentially high-reward science projects, helping to keep the United States at the cutting edge of science and technology research (Fuchs 2010).
Citations:
Erica Fuchs. 2010. “Rethinking the Role of the State in Technology Development: DARPA and the Case for Embedded Network Governance.” Research Policy.
Valentin Daminescu. 2016. “The Competencies of the Chief Information Officer (CIO): An Analysis of the Federal US CIO Council Members’ Background.” Journal of Defense Resources Management.
Charles McClure and John Bertot. 2000. “The Chief Information Officer: Assessing Its Impact.” Government Information Quarterly.
Halloran, John. 2015. “Coordinating Science: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Influence in Federal R&D Budgets.” Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.
David Hart. 2013. “An Agent, Not a Mole: Assessing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.” Science and Policy.
The White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) proposes initiatives aimed at shaping trends in science and technological research (Hart 2014).
The Information Technology Management Reform Act of 1996 created Chief Information Officers (CIOs) in executive branch agencies (Daminescu 2016). The Chief Information Officers (CIO) Council brings together CIOs from various government agencies to enhance IT practices throughout the federal government. The initiative aimed to foster “mid-stream” connections across agencies to improve information technology management (McClure and Bertot 2000).
One of the most significant areas of federal government support for innovative research is the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA). DARPA funds high-risk but potentially high-reward science projects, helping to keep the United States at the cutting edge of science and technology research (Fuchs 2010).
Citations:
Erica Fuchs. 2010. “Rethinking the Role of the State in Technology Development: DARPA and the Case for Embedded Network Governance.” Research Policy.
Valentin Daminescu. 2016. “The Competencies of the Chief Information Officer (CIO): An Analysis of the Federal US CIO Council Members’ Background.” Journal of Defense Resources Management.
Charles McClure and John Bertot. 2000. “The Chief Information Officer: Assessing Its Impact.” Government Information Quarterly.
Halloran, John. 2015. “Coordinating Science: White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) Influence in Federal R&D Budgets.” Unpublished PhD thesis, MIT.
David Hart. 2013. “An Agent, Not a Mole: Assessing the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.” Science and Policy.
Graph View
To what extent does the government conduct high-quality impact assessments to evaluate the potential effects of prepared legislation before implementation?
10
9
9
The government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
8
7
6
7
6
In most cases, the government draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
5
4
3
4
3
The government rarely draws on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
2
1
1
The government does not draw on high-quality RIAs to assess the potential impact of prepared legislation before implementation.
There is no statutory legal requirement for the use of Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs) for new legislation. However, executive orders and agency guidelines encourage the use of RIAs, especially as part of the executive rule-making process (Jacobs 2007).
Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12291 in 1981 was the first attempt to use RIAs systematically to improve regulatory outcomes in the federal government (Harrison 2009). In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This executive order requires all federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions (Hahn et al. 1999). Agencies are encouraged to take a systematic and consistent approach to regulatory planning and review.
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues guidance to agencies on how they should conduct RIAs, especially when it comes to assessing the economic impacts of their proposed legislation (Kirkpatrick and Parker, 2010). OMB Circular-4 sets out this information. The OMB contains the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), to which agencies must submit their RIA. OIRA evaluates the quality of these RIAs and may provide feedback. This helps ensure consistency across departments.
There are limitations with this approach, however. Some agencies have limited resources to conduct comprehensive RIAs, which affects the depth and rigor of these documents. Uniform standards are not possible in all contexts, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable.
Citations:
Robert Hahn, Jason Burnett, Yee-Ho Chan, Elizabeth Mader, and Peter Moyle. 1999. “Assessing Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to Comply with Executive Order 12866.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Scott Jacobs. 2007. “Current Trends in the Process and Methods of Regulatory Impact Assessment: Mainstreaming RIA into Policy Processes.” In Regulatory Impact Assessment: Towards Better Regulation?, eds. D. Parker and C. Kirkpatrick. Elgar.
Colin Kirkpatrick and David Parker. 2004. “Regulatory Impact Assessment: An Overview.” Public Money and Management.
Ronald Reagan’s Executive Order 12291 in 1981 was the first attempt to use RIAs systematically to improve regulatory outcomes in the federal government (Harrison 2009). In 1993, President Bill Clinton issued Executive Order 12866, titled “Regulatory Planning and Review.” This executive order requires all federal agencies to assess the costs and benefits of significant regulatory actions (Hahn et al. 1999). Agencies are encouraged to take a systematic and consistent approach to regulatory planning and review.
In addition, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issues guidance to agencies on how they should conduct RIAs, especially when it comes to assessing the economic impacts of their proposed legislation (Kirkpatrick and Parker, 2010). OMB Circular-4 sets out this information. The OMB contains the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA), to which agencies must submit their RIA. OIRA evaluates the quality of these RIAs and may provide feedback. This helps ensure consistency across departments.
There are limitations with this approach, however. Some agencies have limited resources to conduct comprehensive RIAs, which affects the depth and rigor of these documents. Uniform standards are not possible in all contexts, so a degree of subjectivity is inevitable.
Citations:
Robert Hahn, Jason Burnett, Yee-Ho Chan, Elizabeth Mader, and Peter Moyle. 1999. “Assessing Regulatory Impact Analyses: The Failure of Agencies to Comply with Executive Order 12866.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy.
Scott Jacobs. 2007. “Current Trends in the Process and Methods of Regulatory Impact Assessment: Mainstreaming RIA into Policy Processes.” In Regulatory Impact Assessment: Towards Better Regulation?, eds. D. Parker and C. Kirkpatrick. Elgar.
Colin Kirkpatrick and David Parker. 2004. “Regulatory Impact Assessment: An Overview.” Public Money and Management.
To what extent does the government effectively incorporate sustainability assessments within the framework of RIAs?
10
9
9
High-quality sustainability assessments are incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality sustainability assessments are, for the most part, incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality sustainability assessments are rarely incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
2
1
1
Sustainability assessments are not incorporated within regulatory impact assessments.
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires all federal agencies to prepare Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) and Environmental Assessments (EAs) when pursuing policies that affect the environment (Eccleston and Doub 2016). However, some types of actions can be granted a categorical exclusion (Tzoumis and Finegold 2000).
NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which sits within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and is tasked with coordinating environmental and sustainability objectives across the federal departments (Conant and Balint 2011).
There is no overarching statutory requirement for sustainability assessments in RIAs. However, several executive orders and agency guidelines address this issue. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which instructs federal agencies to prioritize environmental justice and consider climate change impacts in regulatory actions (Polk 2021).
The Office for Management and Budget (OMB) has issued circulars (A-4 and A-11) that instruct agencies to include environmental impact assessments in the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) (Ellig and Brito 2009). Although the term “sustainability” is not explicitly used, the instructions effectively aim at sustainable goals.
Citations:
Kelly, Tzoumis, and Linda Finegold. 2016. “Looking at the Quality of Draft Environmental Impact Statements over Time in the United States: Have Ratings Improved?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
Charles Eccleston and J. Peyton Doub. 2016. Effective Environmental Assessments. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
James Conant and Peter Balint. 2011. “Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: The Council on Environmental Quality at 40.” Environmental Practice.
Amber Polk. 2021. “President Biden’s Executive Orders on the Environment: Praiseworthy Policy, Political Red Herring, or Both.” University of Illinois Law Review.
Jerry Ellig and Jerry Brito. 2009. “Toward a More Perfect Union: Regulatory Analysis Performance Management.” Florida State University Business Law Review.
NEPA also established the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), which sits within the Executive Office of the President (EOP) and is tasked with coordinating environmental and sustainability objectives across the federal departments (Conant and Balint 2011).
There is no overarching statutory requirement for sustainability assessments in RIAs. However, several executive orders and agency guidelines address this issue. President Joe Biden issued Executive Order 13990, which instructs federal agencies to prioritize environmental justice and consider climate change impacts in regulatory actions (Polk 2021).
The Office for Management and Budget (OMB) has issued circulars (A-4 and A-11) that instruct agencies to include environmental impact assessments in the Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) (Ellig and Brito 2009). Although the term “sustainability” is not explicitly used, the instructions effectively aim at sustainable goals.
Citations:
Kelly, Tzoumis, and Linda Finegold. 2016. “Looking at the Quality of Draft Environmental Impact Statements over Time in the United States: Have Ratings Improved?” Environmental Impact Assessment Review.
Charles Eccleston and J. Peyton Doub. 2016. Effective Environmental Assessments. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
James Conant and Peter Balint. 2011. “Environmental Reviews and Case Studies: The Council on Environmental Quality at 40.” Environmental Practice.
Amber Polk. 2021. “President Biden’s Executive Orders on the Environment: Praiseworthy Policy, Political Red Herring, or Both.” University of Illinois Law Review.
Jerry Ellig and Jerry Brito. 2009. “Toward a More Perfect Union: Regulatory Analysis Performance Management.” Florida State University Business Law Review.
To what extent do government ministries utilize ex post evaluations to improve existing policies?
10
9
9
High-quality ex post evaluations serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
8
7
6
7
6
High-quality ex post evaluations frequently serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
5
4
3
4
3
High-quality ex post evaluations rarely serve as the basis for making adjustments to public policies.
2
1
1
High-quality ex post evaluations are not utilized to make adjustments to public policies.
Federal agencies commonly use ex post evaluations – sometimes called post-implementation reviews – to assess the impact and effectiveness of federal policies (Kovacic 2006). For example, the Department of Education or the Department of Health and Human Services will conduct ex post evaluations to determine if federal grants have achieved the desired program goals and, if not, identify and correct the shortcomings. The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) uses such reviews to determine whether housing programs are reducing homelessness or ensuring housing stability. The Department of Transportation regularly conducts evaluations of infrastructure projects to assess their impact on safety, efficiency, economic development, and other factors. There are many more examples across federal departments and agencies, demonstrating the importance of ex post evaluations to federal policymaking.
Since 2018, the Evaluation Officer Council has served as a forum to exchange information between departments, consult and advise the OMB on issues that affect evaluation functions, and coordinate and collaborate on areas of common interest.
Although no statute requires such activities, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to federal agencies on how to conduct such reviews, encouraging them to be rigorous and to use their results to inform better evidence-based policymaking. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts its own independent evaluations and audits of federal programs. These reports usually contain recommendations for improvement in the future (Kinney and Nelson 1996).
Citations:
William Kinney and Mark Nelson. 1996. “Outcome Information and the Expectation Gap: The Case of Loss Contingencies.” Journal of Accounting Research.
William Kovacic. 2006. “Using Ex Post Evaluations to Improve the Performance of Competition Policy Authorities.” Journal of Corporation Law.
Since 2018, the Evaluation Officer Council has served as a forum to exchange information between departments, consult and advise the OMB on issues that affect evaluation functions, and coordinate and collaborate on areas of common interest.
Although no statute requires such activities, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has issued guidance to federal agencies on how to conduct such reviews, encouraging them to be rigorous and to use their results to inform better evidence-based policymaking. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducts its own independent evaluations and audits of federal programs. These reports usually contain recommendations for improvement in the future (Kinney and Nelson 1996).
Citations:
William Kinney and Mark Nelson. 1996. “Outcome Information and the Expectation Gap: The Case of Loss Contingencies.” Journal of Accounting Research.
William Kovacic. 2006. “Using Ex Post Evaluations to Improve the Performance of Competition Policy Authorities.” Journal of Corporation Law.