Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: THURSDAY, January 5, 1995                   TAG: 9501070081
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: A10   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: 
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

DIFFERENT ROADS TO A COMMON GOAL

Realignment does hold considerable promise for more effective, more efficient government - if some of the obsolete baggage that surrounds the question can be shed. The state of Oregon is offering an example of how it can.

The baggage is toted by both the left and the right.

On the left, the notion lingers that the states cannot be trusted to do the right thing, and that the federal government therefore must oversee detailed regulations for the administration of federally funded programs.

This notion had validity in an era of grossly malapportioned state legislatures and blatant racial discrimination by some state governments, including Virginia. Those times, however, are gone.

On the right, the notion lingers that realigning the federal-state relationship means getting the feds off the states' backs and thereby absolving the states of any responsibility for ensuring a competitive workforce and investing in their own futures. This notion has been rendered obsolete by modern economic realities.

What isn't obsolete is the principle that programs and policies work best when the details are devised and carried out not by a central management far from the scene, but by the front-line people who provide the service directly or are in everyday contact with the problem and with varying local circumstances.

This principle is built in part on the truth that one size seldom fits all, that what's important or makes sense in one part of the nation may require a somewhat different coloration in another. It is built in part, too, on the honorable tradition of viewing the states as laboratories of government, of places where different innovations can be tested simultaneously, and can be refined and assessed without forcing the whole of America to participate in the experiment.

That tradition dates at least to the Progressive movement in the early decades of the 20th century; Oregon, with its strong Progressive legacy, is an appropriate venue for a 1990s revival. In December, state and local officials signed a first-of-its-kind memorandum of understanding with the federal government, involving seven Cabinet secretaries.

The aim is not to deactivate government, but rather to make federally assisted programs in Oregon more effective by liberating them from constant federal regulation and oversight. This is possible because of the state's earlier work in developing and adopting a benchmark system for evaluating progress toward commonly accepted goals.

To meet the benchmark of increasing the immunization rate for 2-year-olds from 53 percent to 90 percent, for example, teams from the private sector and government at all levels have come up with several strategies. With the memorandum of understanding, those strategies can be pursued: No longer will Oregon's accountability for federal money lie in how closely it complies with arcane and complicated federal rules; accountability will lie, rather, in whether the goal is met.

After all, it's reaching the destination that should count, not which road you take to get there.