If you have lived in or visited the South, you know about Kudzu, the weed that spreads along the ground in a most amazing way, the weed that never dies, or so it seems.. If it is not stopped in some way or other it continues to spread inexorably. It is hearty and doesn’t require any intervention at all to make it grow. It grows naturally all by itself, The problem is not how to get it to grow, but how to stop its spread. Large bureaucratic agencies are analogous to Kudzu–maybe even harder to limit. We call it Mission Creep.
Mission Creep (MC) is the extension of an organization’s function as defined by its mission, beyond the original purpose of its existence. Mission Creep in other words is “empire building” by stealth rather than by conquest and violence. We see it in private organizations and we see it in public agencies as well. Let’s take an example from the private sector. Let’s say a university has established an office to deal with student life. Over time, and this is true at many universities, that office begins to interject itself into the academic division, even to offer academic events and programs, such as conferences, panels, symposia, all on academic subjects. This is most definitely MC—unless of course the university had already included that function in the office. Such MC can be at the least a bit frustrating to those being infringed, though it might not rise to the level of unethical overreach. In a Christian university it has the potential to create significant discord in the overall mission, especially if one office is using the MC strategy to undermine the efforts of another. One office might be quite theologically liberal while another “victim” of its MC is operating consistently with the overall university mission. The problem is pretty obvious.
But what about MC in government agencies that have been established by law to fulfill certain goals of the enabling statute. Let’s take the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), one of our all-time favorites I am certain. Its original purpose was to protect and preserve clean water and air, to deal with pollution of both in order to reduce danger to health from externalities and costs of other kinds to those not parties to economic transactions. I would say that is, within limits, a valuable goal—though we can argue with the constitutionality of the EPA’s origin, a different question.
To fulfill its mission, the EPA of course must, or so it would argue, issue regulation intended to implement the intent and language of the statute. So far so good, in theory, though again one might argue that the statute was too vague and could have been made self-enforcing through some different policy approach. That is, also again, however, a different issue. Let’s just assume regulations are required to actually implement the law. How can the issuing of such rules turn into mission creep?
Under the Clean Air Act, an amendment to the Environmental Protection Act, the EPA has authority to address pollution problems with interstate waterways. Thus far, that authority extended only to clearly interstate waters—creeks, rivers, large lakes (Erie, etc.), estuaries, bays, inlets, harbors and the like. But recently the EPA has proposed rules that would govern virtually all waters, including ponds, runoff water from heavy rain, otherwise dry water beds (gulches, etc.), even if they have no connection to the interstate movement of water. Farmers and others are rightly worried. They think, with some supporting evidence, that such rules would at the least create a burdensome and time-consuming bureaucratic process requiring assessments and permitting that would harm their ability to engage in their various businesses. The EPA claims that the rules do exempt such bodies of water from the regulations, but the response to that claim is skepticism and a belief that since the EPA itself interprets its own rules, the tendency will be to encompass those waters.
Given the history of the EPA, I am led also to be skeptical. The EPA has shown a propensity to Mission Creep since 1969, and not merely a superficial endeavor, but an imperialistic expansion of authority. And the courts have also shown a willingness to be the EPA’s accomplice in extending its power.
So what is next if these regulations are issued intact (though they may not be)? Conspiracy theorists and cynics would say the agency will attempt to regulate swimming pools, indoor bathtub water (?), temporary standing water in one’s backyard, and on and on. This may seem far-fetched, and probably is, but is it that much different from the EPA’s recent proposals to regulate cow flatulence to improve air quality? I don’t know, but I remain skeptical that any large and essentially unaccountable government agency can be trusted to stay within the limits of its power as reasonably construed.
If you don’t like Mission Creep, then one place to start is in your own backyard. Be sure to establish enforceable checks on power—the key word is “enforceable.” That way, if the organization attempts to take more power to itself, there is a mechanism to stop it in its tracks. Congress failed to do that with almost every Federal agency, and most state agencies are little better. The time has come to give the problem more publicity. A movement to limit bureaucratic authority would be most welcome.
Andrew B Robertson
April 7, 2014
Regulatory agencies have become a great problem in our nation. Before regulatory agencies had the influence in Congress that they do now, Congress would be able to hear opinions from “experts” and make a more or less “objective” law. Now regulatory agencies have enough influence on Congress to pass laws that allow them to expand.
Mission Creep can have devastating effects on the economy. As government agencies expand into different areas and increase regulation, the economy slows down. Fewer people are able to comply with the new regulations causing businesses to shut down and jobs to disappear.
David Miller
April 8, 2014
What do you think about TSA? Do you think that they fall into the category of an agency undergoing “mission creep”? Isn’y their goal to keep to screen weapons and explosives but now they don’t let you carries on finger nail clippers, certain size deodorant, or even extensive questions if you have an excess amount of cash on you. Maybe I am wrong and all those things are good things to keep off a plane it just seems like they are going to far with some of it.
Sarah Howland
April 8, 2014
Agencies and other government offices “mission creep” because they can. Even if they break the constitution, they know that few cases will ever make their way to the US Supreme Court and Congress rarely stops agencies from making new regulations (in fact, they often do the exact opposite). The lack of “parental supervision” on the part of the American people, Congress, and the Supreme Court over these agencies have provided the perfect mixture for unrelenting growth. If anyone ever wants to clean this overgrowth of regulation, they often do not know where to begin or even how to begin.
grantmfriedrich
April 24, 2014
“Mission Creep” is definitely the preferred method of most organizations to implement change. I am reminded of the story of boiling a frog. If you put a frog into a boiling pot, it will jump out because it realizes it is hot, but if you put a frog in a pot of room temperature water and gradually raise the heat it will adjust to the increasing temperature and will sit in the pot as it boils to death. People do not usually like change, and the key that most organizations use to solve this problem is time. If you slowly adjust, the people will barely notice a change.
Kevin Lotz
April 26, 2014
It seems to me that another dimension of mission creep that was not mentioned in this article is amount or severity of the regulations imposed. As the organization grows out to affect more and more parties, I think it also tends to start imposing regulations that are increasingly restrictive in order to better accomplish their mission. They do a great job of accomplishing their mission, but oftentimes at that point they are infringing on the mission of the overall organization.
bethanygustin
April 28, 2014
I looked into “Mission Creep” on the internet and YouTube and saw just how devastating the government can be. I just have a bad feeling about a group that can have this much deceiving power. It is startling how much power they even have within Congress to pass laws. Any group with that much power will very quickly get out of hand and eventually spin out of control.
Byron Brown
April 30, 2014
“Mission Creep” certainly has dangerous potential. Agencies mask it as necessary or good changes, but it can have effects that encourage unequal power structures. The “Creep” part of this implies the most important part. By subtly, and gradually, implementing their policies they keep people from noticing them until their full effects are felt.