HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.
![handle is hein.gao/gaobaaxhc0001 and id is 1 raw text is:
DOCOVENT 113N
05976 - [ B1506531J
(Decentralization vs. Centralization of Federal Agqncien].
GGD-78-71; B-191694o Hay 25, 1978. 7 pp. # enclosure 15 pp.).
Report to Sen. Varren G. Nagnuson; Sen. Beary s. Jackson; by
Victor L. Lowe, Directorp general Government Div.
Issue Area: Intergovernmental Policies and Fiscal Relations:
Consolidation/Reorganization of Federal Programs and
Agencies (p05).
Contact: General Government Div.
Budget Function: General Government: Executive Direction and
management (802).
Organization Concerned: Department of Health, 3ducatiin, and
Welfare; Departqent of Transportation; Department of
Agricrlture; Nnvironmenital Protection agency.
Congressional Relevance: Sen. Oirran 6. lagnuson; Sen. Henry 3.
Jackson.
The impact of Federal ageacy reorganizations ou the
State of Washington and other States in Federal Region I wore
analyzed following expressions of concern about the ispact of
theme reoi'gan iations 4.n intergovernmental working
relationships# the delivery of program services9 and on Pederal
amployment levels. In a review of Federal ageacy reorganizations
which hive taken place since January 1977, no cucrant Federal
policy or plan mas foqnd to favor either cetrali.ation or
decentralization. The President's teorganization Project
DiL~ctor confirmed that no such overall policy or plan exists to
guide reorganization efforts in either direction.
Intergovernmental experts agreed that no clear trend bad been
established and that reorganizations were being undertaken
without apparent insight into how one agency's structural
chauges affect another agancyes program delivery or
intergovernmental relations in general. The impact of most of
the reorganizations is generally not clear, and State and local
officials were frequently unable to suggest what tLe service
delivery impacxs night be. (iRS)](ViewImageLocal?handle=hein.gao/gaobaaxhc0001&div=1&collection=&method=preview&ext=.png&size=3)