At the federal level there has been a lot of buzz this year about government efficiency and what it means. However, efforts to improve the efficiency of government have been a consistent focus of many state and local governments over the past decade. For many mayors, county executives and governors, the purpose of government efficiency is clear: deliver better services for the public — faster, clearer, fairer and more transparent — while spending dollars wisely.
In what is a challenging budgetary and regulatory environment, the need for more efficient approaches is now more important than ever. Recognizing this, the Center for Digital Government (CDG) and Governing are cataloging practical, actionable ways to improve efficiency as part of a three-part series.
This first part of the series, “Better Budgeting and Spending,” focuses on how budgeting, grants and procurement can be used as levers to deliver better services more efficiently. Part two, “Modern Tools and Services,” looks at customer experience, artificial intelligence, shared services and information technology. These are all tools that governments can use to design better services that people can use while also equipping staff to deliver with increased efficiency. The final installment will focus on “Operations and Stewardship,” addressing facilities, permitting, fraud prevention and hiring, which are the backbone functions that determine whether front-line services are reliable and cost-effective.
Budgeting For Outcomes
A budget is the clearest statement of a government’s priorities. It funds investments to increase efficiency but the budget creation process can also be an important efficiency lever in itself. Yet budgeting often rolls forward year to year with 95 percent of spending on autopilot. This kind of pro forma budget process is organized around line items and positions, which tells us what we spend — not whether people are better off.
Solutions. A better way to budget ties dollars to a few measurable goals — safer neighborhoods, stronger schools, healthier families — and reports progress in plain language. As one example, Washington state embeds outcome targets into statewide management and reporting, anchoring decisions to results rather than inertia. Baltimore organizes its budget around citizen-focused outcomes and asks each agency to show how programs contribute to those goals. Results for America offers many practical examples of how states are using the budget process to increase efficiency and impact by linking spending to results.
What to do next. A first step for governments to increase efficiency in budgeting is to define three to five governmentwide outcomes. Based on these priority outcomes, budget forms can be updated so every department’s request includes concrete metrics that allow reviewers to compare proposals on impact and cost. Building on this, governments can establish an evidence review function to bring consistency to those judgments by ensuring rigor. Further, a quarterly reallocation cadence that moves even 1 to 2 percent of funds from lower-evidence activities to higher-impact ones can help improve spending efficiency; the share can be small at first, but the habit matters.
Measuring success. Public reporting — short summaries that link dollars to outcomes and show year-over-year movement — can build trust and keep attention on results. Even a small amount of dollars reallocated toward stronger programs and a few headline outcomes can turn “efficiency” from a slogan into a management practice.
Streamlined Grants: Fund Faster, Reduce Burden
Grants are one of the main ways governments spend money, with funds spent on public health, housing, workforce development, child care and more. When grant applications are long and technical or when documentation is duplicative, then what should be a bridge becomes a bottleneck. Staff lose time and smaller providers are crowded out.
Barriers. The barriers are straightforward: requests for proposals can be too long and written in technical language. Templates vary across agencies, which forces applicants to rebuild the same basic materials. Scoring rubrics are not always public or clear. Paper-based or multistep routing slows awards and contracts. First-time or smaller nonprofits may struggle with multiple registrations and repeated attachments.
Solutions. A better way to fund draws on lessons from both state and federal reforms. Illinois created a statewide framework — shared rules, prequalification and common templates — through the Grant Accountability and Transparency Act, which reduced burden for both agencies and grantees. At the federal level, a concerted effort to simplify grant announcements, emphasizing plain language and burden reduction led to important improvements. Those principles can be applied directly to state and local programs.
What to do next. A first step for governments to increase efficiency in grants is to simplify the application itself. By capping length, reducing reading level, and using short, plain language summaries, reviewers and applicants focus on substance, not wading through complex legal language. To reduce repeated paperwork, leaders might consider launching a single registration portal where providers enter organizational details once and then reuse them across agencies. The federal government’s single-front-door approach to identity is one model for this “enter it once” principle. Time-boxing the process with public targets, such as 45 days from application close to award and 30 days from award to executed contract, can maintain momentum. Simple supports — virtual office hours, template budgets and checklists — can level the playing field for smaller organizations.
Measuring success. Ultimately government grants are about delivering services to communities. Tracking metrics like days from posting to award, the percentage of renewals using the streamlined lane, the share of dollars reaching new and smaller providers, and grantee satisfaction can reveal whether residents will feel the difference in faster program starts and fewer service gaps.
Smarter Procurement: Buy Together, Buy Once
Procurement is where priorities become purchases. Across levels of government, public buying is a large share of spending, yet fragmented processes often lead governments to pay different prices for the same item and conduct duplicative competitions. The result can be slower services, higher costs and staff attention pulled away from higher-value needs.
Barriers. Procurement barriers are familiar. Catalogs are decentralized, so it is hard to see what is already on contract. There are minor differences in specifications across agencies, which creates unnecessary product variation. Vendor onboarding requires repeated data entry. And risk controls designed for major buys are sometimes applied to low-risk purchases, adding steps without adding protection.
Solutions. A better way to buy emphasizes shared standards and scale. Governments could consider adopting category management for common purchases — such as laptops, janitorial supplies and building maintenance — so products and prices are standardized where it makes sense. Cooperative purchasing can also help. NASPO ValuePoint offers competitively bid master agreements that states and localities can adopt directly, which reduces the need for separate solicitations and leverages scale. Modern e-procurement systems that centralize vendor enrollment, standardize solicitations and make status visible can simplify work for staff and vendors alike. New York City’s PASSPort shows how a single system can streamline the process and strengthen oversight.
What to do next. A first step for governments to increase efficiency in procurement is to publish a 12-month sourcing calendar for high-volume categories so agencies and vendors can plan around known needs. Setting targets for shifting a greater share of spend to cooperative or statewide contracts reduces duplicative solicitations and improves pricing. Standardizing specifications for common items and choosing a default model that meets price and performance needs can cut product sprawl and shortens evaluations. Creating a fast-track path for low-dollar, low-risk buys — with short, plain language solicitations and same-week awards — can keep staff focused on the complex procurements where scrutiny matters most.
Measuring success. As with grants, measurement helps leaders manage the work. A simple dashboard — cycle time from requisition to purchase order, share of spend on cooperative or statewide contracts, price variance on common items, on-time delivery rates, and participation by small and diverse suppliers — can keep attention on speed, value and downstream service impact.
What Success Looks Like
With closer proximity to service delivery and constituents, state and local leaders are focusing on practical efficiency approaches that deliver better impact and value for their communities. The steps above can help them meet the needs of their constituents. In particular, when governments budget and spend more efficiently, residents feel the difference. Budgets become tools for results rather than ledgers. Grants move faster with clearer, shorter applications. Procurements close more quickly through standardized and competitively priced contracts, and staff time shifts to higher-value work. These steps are not the whole story, but they can help ensure that efficiency means better service for the public — not just less of it.
Jed Herrmann, a senior fellow at the Center for Digital Government, provides budget and program implementation consulting services to state and local governments. He previously served as a senior official at the White House Office of Management and Budget.
