Well Advised or Politically Informed? How Congress Directs Program Evaluation and Oversight

• In Event: Holding the Executive to Account in the 21st Century: lessons from the US Congress and the UK House of Commons

Abstract

The ability of elected officials to oversee, investigate, and ultimately hold executive agencies accountable depends on the quality of information they receive. Prior research has examined the importance of legislative staff, interest groups, the media, and nonpartisan research organizations for Congressional expertise and oversight. Yet, the relationship between Congress and its own support agencies (Government Accountability Office, Congressional Research Service, and Congressional Budget Office) has received little attention and comparatively little is known about the type of information legislators request. Drawing on the relationship between Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO), I investigate oversight of federal agencies and program implementation and find the sourcing of information from the GAO is not a neutral process. Rather, each party has a preference for the types of problems they want GAO to investigate. Using in-depth interviews and over 30 years of GAO reports, I offer the first comprehensive account of the types of information regarding federal agency operations and program implementation members of Congress request and the differences in issue attention between parties, over time, and committees within the legislature. GAO is the “congressional watchdog,” but it’s bite only reaches as far as elected officials wish.

Author

• Cody Drolc, University of Missouri