Council for Excellence in Government

Council for Excellence in Government
Name	Council for Excellence in Government
Founded	1989
Dissolved	2009
Headquarters	Washington, D.C.
Focus	Public sector performance, civic leadership

Council for Excellence in Government The Council for Excellence in Government was a Washington, D.C.–based nonprofit organization established in 1989 to promote public sector performance, civic leadership, and innovation in public administration. It engaged with federal, state, and local institutions to advance management reform, leadership development, and public service recruitment through programs, convenings, and research. The organization worked with elected officials, civil servants, private sector executives, and academic institutions to translate reform ideas into practice.

History

The organization emerged in the context of late-20th-century reform movements associated with the National Performance Review, Reinventing Government, and initiatives linked to the George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton administrations. Founders and early backers included figures from the Brookings Institution, Heritage Foundation, Kissinger Associates, and the private sector such as leaders from IBM, McKinsey & Company, General Electric, and AT&T. Early activities intersected with commissions and task forces convened by the National Governors Association, U.S. Office of Personnel Management, American Society for Public Administration, and think tanks including The Heritage Foundation, Center for Strategic and International Studies, and The Brookings Institution. During the 1990s the organization partnered with initiatives like the National Performance Review led by Al Gore and worked alongside programs associated with the Council on Competitiveness, Council of State Governments, National Academy of Public Administration, and the Harvard Kennedy School.

Mission and Programs

Programs reflected priorities advanced by leaders of reform movements such as Michael Bloomberg-era municipal innovation, Bill Clinton administration management reforms, and private sector practices promoted by Jack Welch and Peter Drucker. Signature initiatives included leadership development fellowships modeled after programs in the Kettering Foundation and the Aspen Institute, best-practice benchmarking similar to work by McKinsey & Company and Deloitte, and public service recruitment campaigns akin to efforts by the Peace Corps and Teach For America. The organization convened summits with stakeholders from the U.S. Congress, White House, Department of Defense, Department of Health and Human Services, Environmental Protection Agency, and state governments, and collaborated with academic partners at Princeton University, Stanford University, Columbia University, Yale University, and Georgetown University. Program outputs included case studies referencing reforms in cities such as New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Seattle, and policy recommendations drawing on examples from national systems like United Kingdom public administration and the Singapore Civil Service.

Leadership and Governance

Boards and advisory councils drew from former cabinet members, career executives, and nonprofit leaders with affiliations to institutions including The Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and Council on Foreign Relations. Prominent board members and advisors had prior roles in the U.S. Congress, State Department, Office of Management and Budget, and at multinational firms such as Goldman Sachs and Accenture. Governance structures referenced nonprofit standards advocated by the Independent Sector and legal forms regulated under the Internal Revenue Code section governing 501(c)(3) organizations. The organization reported to a board of directors and maintained program committees aligned with leaders from the National Academy of Public Administration, American Enterprise Institute, and the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Funding and Partnerships

Funding sources included foundations and corporate partners such as the Ford Foundation, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, Carnegie Corporation of New York, Rockefeller Foundation, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and corporate philanthropy from Microsoft, Google, Pfizer, and ExxonMobil. Government grants and contracts involved agencies such as the U.S. Agency for International Development, National Science Foundation, and the Department of Education. Partnerships extended to nonprofit organizations and associations including the National League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, Association of State Chief Executives, and international partners like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the World Bank.

Impact and Evaluations

Evaluations compared program outcomes to benchmarks used by the National Academy of Public Administration and metrics adopted in reforms promoted by the National Performance Review and Government Performance and Results Act initiatives. Independent assessments by research centers at Harvard Kennedy School, University of Chicago Harris School of Public Policy, and Syracuse University Maxwell School examined leadership fellowships, recruitment campaigns, and convening effectiveness. Reported impacts included diffusion of management techniques to agencies such as the Internal Revenue Service, Social Security Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and municipal administrations in Boston, San Francisco, and Denver. Comparative studies cited examples from international reforms in Canada, Australia, and New Zealand.

Controversies and Criticism

Critiques arose regarding nonprofit influence on public policy similar to debates involving Heritage Foundation, Brookings Institution, and the American Enterprise Institute, including concerns about corporate sponsorship, revolving-door relationships with the White House and U.S. Congress, and the effectiveness of market-oriented reforms championed by proponents like Milton Friedman and Peter Drucker. Critics from advocacy groups such as Public Citizen and scholars affiliated with George Washington University and University of California, Berkeley questioned evaluation methods and transparency standards compared to best practices promoted by the Nonprofit Quarterly and Charity Navigator. Debates paralleled controversies over other reform-minded nonprofits and their roles in public policy, illustrated in discussions involving the Cato Institute and Center for American Progress.

Category:Non-profit organizations based in Washington, D.C.