The World According to Dana: Part 1: How Federal Programs Really Get Made

In the Federal Insider’s Glossary, I noted that ‘program’ is one of the most inconsistently used terms in the federal enterprise – what one agency calls a program, another calls an initiative, a project, or simply an activity.   

I've spent years asking program leadership, as a toddler would, "Why?” And been met with surprise when a leader indicates ‘everyone knows’, which seems to reinforce that they don’t need to dig up long dusty program files to answer the question. But, that answer never seems to satisfy me. The impact of a federal program should be in neon signs in front of everyone involved in that program, the announcement, the award, and in routine reporting.   

In my world – affectionately known as the World According to Dana (WAD)* – programs in the federal space fall into one of three categories, which explains a lot about how they approach the program and how they answer “Why?”

Category 1: Legacy programs
Legacy programs are ones that have been running for decades or even longer. They were designed and implemented several careers ago.  The following is typically true: a) all defining paperwork, scientific literature review, or other basis is often long filed, gathering dust, or on a floppy disk or punch card somewhere and b) there is strong support to keep the program as is regardless of new science, evaluation evidence, or other rationale.  Often Legacy programs will include the same set of grantees year after year and reporting requirements that rarely, if ever, change (e.g., block grants, formula grants, and mandatory programs). In Legacy programs, both program leadership and grantee partners can be resistant to change (e.g., setting goals or targets).
Question: Why do we fund this program?
Answer: Because we always have. 

Category 2: ‘Good Idea’ programs 
I have been known to refer to Congress and OMB (with all my love and respect because neither job is easy) as the ‘Good Idea Fairies.’ What I mean is that they tend to come up with good ideas based on ‘something’, wave their wands and expect the executive branch to know how to get from those good ideas to implementation with little assistance and lots of oversight (see Congressional Intent). That ‘something’ can be legitimate new data, a well-timed lobbying push, or – as much as I hate to admit it – just a wild hair. 

These Good Idea programs are often dropped into omnibus language (at some unknown point in the fiscal year) with an expectation of implementation often in that same federal fiscal year (which is often half over). Drafting a new grant announcement, publishing it, receiving applications and awarding funds in six months is actually a highly ambitious timeline. Because these programs are usually against a time clock and are often fulfilling a specific ask, details can sometimes be really limited leading to vague grants with unclear goals. 
Question: Why do we fund this program?
Answer: Because Congress said to. 

Category 3: ‘Based on data’ programs
The last group is a bit of a unicorn or, sadly, has become one. These are the programs that were developed from actual data analysis, scientific literature, or other ‘evidence’ and typically come from the agency, bureau, or part of the federal government that works in that policy area.  I would argue that these are the programs that should be the majority of our federal programs, but sadly they are a rarer and rarer breed, especially as political philosophy makes its way into research decisions (see 2 CFR 200). This is the kind of program where leaders want to use the data to validate the program and diagnose any issues in order to inform future delivery (e.g., programs built using learning agendas, evaluation and other evidence as required under the Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018, Pub. L. 115-435). 
Question: Why do we fund this program?
Answer: The evidence tells us…

When I explain the WAD program categories, reactions start to change.  No longer are there questions about what I did for a living. 

The questions that follow often pose much bigger questions (for future blogs): 

• Why doesn’t the budget pass on time? 

• Why can legislation be written without the input of experts? 

• Why do we allow this dysfunction? 

__________________________

*NOTE: The WAD is not a real place, full stop. I know, it would be lovely, but I digress.  WAD is a set of unspoken rules, parameters, and categories that are based on my experiences in the federal government. These three categories do not represent a formal analysis by me or anyone else. I can assert, anecdotally, that everyone I have shared this framework with seems to agree with it. WAD is ©2026 Fowler Federal.