Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views on Key Management  
Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies (25-MAY-01, GAO-01-592).	 
								 
For federal agencies to become high-performing organizations, top
management needs to foster performance-based cultures, find ways 
to measure performance, and use performance information to make  
decisions. GAO's survey of federal managers found wide		 
differences in how well individual agencies demonstrated a	 
results-based climate. However, transforming organizational	 
cultures is an arduous and long-term effort. Managers' responses 
suggest that although some agencies are clearly showing signs of 
becoming high-performing organizations, others are not. The	 
survey provides important information that agency leadership can 
use to build higher-performing organizations throughout 	 
government. GAO will continue to work with senior leadership in  
the individual agencies to help address the issues raised by	 
their managers in responding to the survey. Congress has a vital 
role to play as well. As part of its confirmation, oversight,	 
authorization, and appropriation responsibilities, Congress could
use the information from GAO's survey, as well as information	 
from agencies' performance plans and reports and GAO's January	 
2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk Series, 
to emphasize performance-based management and to underscore	 
Congress' commitment to addressing long-standing challenges.	 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-592 					        
    ACCNO:   A01061						        
    TITLE:   Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views on Key     
             Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies                    
     DATE:   05/25/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Performance measures				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Productivity in government 			 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Surveys						 
	     High Risk Series 2001				 
	     Performance and Accountability Series		 
	     2001						 
								 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Testimony.                                               **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-592
     
A

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management,
Restructuring, and the

District of Columbia, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U. S. Senate

May 2001 MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Federal Managers? Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies

GAO- 01- 592

Letter 5 Results in Brief 8 Agencies Face Challenges in Instilling Aspects
of Agency Climate That Contribute to Performance- Based Cultures 12

Survey Responses Indicate That the Types of Measures Managers Had To Gauge
Program Performance Varied 21 Managers? Responses Across Agencies on Using
Performance

Information Were Mixed 29 Concluding Observations 38 Agency Comments 38

Appendixes Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 40 Appendix II: Department of
Agriculture: Selected Survey

Results 43 Appendix III: Agency for International Development: Selected

Survey Results 48 Appendix IV: Department of Commerce: Selected Survey

Results 53 Appendix V: Department of Defense: Selected Survey

Results 58 Appendix VI: Department of Education: Selected Survey

Results 63 Appendix VII: Department of Energy: Selected Survey Results 68

Appendix VIII: Environmental Protection Agency: Selected Survey Results 73

Appendix IX: Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results 78

Appendix X: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Selected Survey Results 84

Appendix XI: Forest Service: Selected Survey Results 89 Appendix XII:
General Services Administration: Selected

Survey Results 95 Appendix XIII: Health Care Financing Administration:
Selected Survey Results 101

Appendix XIV: Department of Health and Human Services: Selected Survey
Results 107 Appendix XV: Department of Housing and Urban

Development: Selected Survey Results 112 Appendix XVI: Department of the
Interior: Selected Survey

Results 118 Appendix XVII: Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results
123

Appendix XVIII: Department of Justice: Selected Survey Results 129

Appendix XIX: Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results 134

Appendix XX: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey
Results 139

Appendix XXI: National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results 145

Appendix XXII: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results 151

Appendix XXIII: Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results 157
Appendix XXIV: Small Business Administration: Selected

Survey Results 163 Appendix XXV: Social Security Administration: Selected

Survey Results 169 Appendix XXVI: Department of State: Selected Survey
Results 175 Appendix XXVII: Department of Transportation: Selected

Survey Results 180 Appendix XXVIII: Department of the Treasury: Selected
Survey

Results 185 Appendix XXIX: Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected

Survey Results 191 Appendix XXX: Comments From the Office of Management

and Budget 197

Abbreviations

AID U. S. Agency for International Development CFO Chief Financial Officers
CPDF Central Personnel Data File DOD Department of Defense DOT Department of
Transportation EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation
Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency GM General
Management GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 GS General
Schedule GSA General Services Administration HCFA Health Care Financing
Administration HHS Department of Health and Human Services HUD Department of
Housing and Urban Development IRS Internal Revenue Service NASA National
Aeronautics and Space Administration NRC Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSF
National Science Foundation OMB Office of Management and Budget OPM Office
of Personnel Management SBA Small Business Administration SES Senior
Executive Service SSA Social Security Administration VA Department of
Veteran Affairs VHA Veterans Health Administration VISN Veterans Integrated
Service Network

Lett er

May 25, 2001 The Honorable George V. Voinovich Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the District of
Columbia Committee on Governmental Affairs United States Senate

Dear Mr. Chairman: During the past decade, Congress has sought to encourage
a greater focus on results and improve federal management by enacting a
results- oriented statutory framework with the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) as its centerpiece. Performance- based
management, as envisioned by GPRA, requires transforming organizational
cultures to improve decisionmaking, maximize performance, and assure
accountability. This transformation is not an easy one and requires

investments of time and resources as well as sustained leadership commitment
and attention. In that regard, our January 2001 Performance and
Accountability Series and High- Risk Series described the major management
challenges and program risks at major agencies. 1 Addressing these
challenges is central to agencies? effectively, efficiently, and
economically accomplishing their missions and achieving better results for
the benefit of the American people.

At your request, in calendar year 2000, we surveyed a statistically
representative sample of managers and supervisors across the federal
government on their experiences with and perceptions about performance and
management issues as a follow- up to a survey we did in 1996- 97 (1997
survey), when governmentwide implementation of GPRA was about to begin. 2 In
October 2000, as one part of our response to your request, we reported to
you on selected governmentwide results of our 2000 survey

1 2001 High- Risk/ Performance and Accountability Series: Full Set (GAO- 01-
240, Jan. 2001). 2 The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997
Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/ GGD- 97- 109, June 2,
1997). The results of our 1997 survey, as well as its scope and methodology,
were included in this report.

with comparisons to governmentwide results of our 1997 survey. 3 On the
basis of those results, we reported that managers? experiences and
perceptions as reflected in our 2000 survey indicated some positive changes
since our 1997 survey, but there were still many areas where such changes
had not occurred.

In contrast to the sample for our 1997 survey, the sample for the 2000
survey allowed for individual agency analyses. Thus, as the next part of our
response to your request, the specific objective of this report is to
provide results from our 2000 survey of federal managers for each of the 28
agencies included in our survey for selected items regarding resultsoriented

agency climate, measurement of program performance, and use of performance
information to make decisions that our work looking at highperforming
organizations has found to be relevant to the success of those
organizations. 4 In subsequent reports, we plan to continue to explore the
relationships among survey responses to identify areas where agencies can
take specific actions to foster a greater focus on results.

3 Managing for Results: Federal Managers? Views Show Need for Ensuring Top
Leadership Skills (GAO- 01- 127, Oct. 20, 2000). 4 The 28 agencies include
the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO
Act) with an additional breakout of 4 selected agencies from their
departments- the Federal Aviation Administration at the Department of
Transportation, the Forest Service at the Department of Agriculture, the
Health Care Financing Administration at the Department of Health and Human
Services, and the Internal Revenue Service at the Department of the

Treasury. In this report, the results for these four agencies are not
included in the results for the departments that they are a part of. In
reporting the questionnaire data, when we use the term ?governmentwide? and
the phrase ?across the federal government,? we are referring to these 24 CFO
Act executive branch agencies, and when we use the terms ?federal managers?
and ?managers,? we are referring to both managers and supervisors.

Our 2000 sample was a stratified random sample of 3, 816 out of a population
of about 93,000 full- time, mid- and upper- level civilian managers and
supervisors in 28 executive branch departments and agencies. We drew the
sample from the Office of Personnel Management?s (OPM) Central Personnel
Data File (CPDF) using file designators indicating

performance of managerial and supervisory functions. 5 Our sample included
both Senior Executive Service (SES) and non- SES managers and supervisors in
General Schedule (GS), General Management (GM), or equivalent schedules, at
levels comparable to GS/ GM- 13 through career SES. 6 Our overall response
rate was about 70 percent of the resulting

eligible sample, ranging from 59 percent to 82 percent at the 28 agencies.
The survey results are generalizable to the 28 departments and agencies. All
reported percentages are estimates based on the sample and are subject to
some sampling error as well as nonsampling error. Unless otherwise

noted, figures 1 through 14 and related discussions provide analyses of the
percentage of managers at each of the 28 agencies choosing ?to a great
extent? or ?to a very great extent? on a five- point response scale ranging

from ?to no extent? to ?to a very great extent.? These figures do not show
when individual agencies are statistically significantly different from each
other. 7 However, we do note when differences between 1997 and 2000
governmentwide data are statistically significant. Also, in our discussions
of agency- specific data in appendixes II through XXIX, we note when an
agency is statistically significantly different from the rest of the

government. An expanded description of the scope and methodology for our
2000 survey is included in appendix I. We conducted our work between January
1999 and March 2001 in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards.

5 These CPDF file designators identified individuals who accomplish work
through the direction of other people and/ or are responsible for such
things as directing the work of an organizational unit and establishing or
adjusting objectives, plans, schedules, and resource requirements.

6 We do not compare the responses of SES and non- SES managers on an agency-
by- agency basis in this report as our sample was not designed or large
enough to adequately support such comparisons. However, in our October 2000
report, we did compare responses of SES and non- SES respondents
governmentwide for selected items.

7 In this report, the term ?statistical significance? is defined as a
difference that is significant at the .05 or lower probability level.

It is important to keep in mind that the survey data included in this report
represent managers? views at a certain point in time. As such, the actions,
if any, that individual agencies may need to take in response to the survey
results need to be considered within the context of the challenges that
agency faces and ongoing and planned efforts to transform its culture.
Nevertheless, the survey results provide important data on the views of
agency managers that agency leaders, other executive branch officials, and

Congress can use to strengthen the performance of government, improve the
quality and timeliness of services to citizens, and address longstanding
management challenges and program risks.

Results in Brief Our survey data show that federal managers? views varied
widely across the 28 agencies regarding the extent to which basic elements
are in place that enable agencies to be successful today and respond
effectively to the emerging opportunities and challenges to government in
the 21 st century. Managers? responses for each of the 28 agencies included
in our survey on

aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and using performance
information to make critical decisions are included in this report and are
compared to managers? responses for the rest of government in appendixes II
through XXIX. Our survey data show that some agencies appear to be making
progress in instilling the essential attributes of high- performing
organizations. However, the data also suggest that many of the 28 agencies
face significant

challenges in instilling key aspects of agency climate that contribute to a
performance- based culture, as the following examples illustrate:

 At 11 agencies, less than half of the managers perceived a strong top
leadership commitment to achieving results to at least a great extent.

 At 26 agencies, less than half of the managers perceived that employees
received positive recognition for helping the agency accomplish its
strategic goals to at least a great extent.

 At 22 agencies, more than half of the managers reported that they were
held accountable for the results of their programs to at least a great
extent, but at only 1 agency did more than half of the managers report that
they had the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the agency
accomplish its strategic goals to a comparable extent.

When viewed on an individual agency basis, there was considerable variation
in our 2000 survey results on these aspects of agency climate related to
creating performance- based cultures, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Lowest and Highest Percentages of Federal Managers, by Agency, Who
Agreed to a Great or Very Great Extent on Selected Statements About Their
Agency?s Climate Managers responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent
Lowest percentage

Highest percentage and 28 agencies

Agency climate statement and agency agency overall

Agency?s top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to 23% at the
Federal 69% at the National 53%

achieving results. Aviation Administration Science Foundation (FAA) (NSF)

Employees in agency receive positive recognition for helping 12% at FAA 52%
at the General 31% the agency accomplish its strategic goals. Services
Administration (GSA)

Agency managers at their level are held accountable for the 40% at the
Forest 79% at the Department 63%

results of programs they are responsible for. Service of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)

Agency managers at their level have decisionmaking authority 15% at the
Internal 58% at OPM 36% they need to help agency accomplish strategic goals.
Revenue Service (IRS) Source: GAO survey data.

In addition, measuring performance in assessing a program?s efforts to
achieve its goals is essential to fostering a performance- based culture and
managing for results. Encouragingly, significantly more managers overall
reported having performance measures for the programs they were involved
with in 2000 (84 percent) than in 1997 (76 percent). At 17 of the 28
agencies, 50 percent or more of managers responded that they had performance
measures that tell how many things are produced or services provided (output
measures) to a great or very great extent. However, at only 8 agencies did
50 percent or more of managers report that they had

performance measures that would demonstrate to someone outside of their
agency whether or not intended results are being achieved (outcome measures)
to that extent. Yet for both output and outcome measures, as well as for
efficiency measures, there were statistically significant increases between
1997 and 2000 in the percentage of managers

governmentwide responding that they had them to a great or very great
extent. Across the 28 agencies included in our survey, managers? responses
on the types of measures they reported having for their programs varied, as
shown in table 2.

Table 2: Lowest and Highest Percentages of Federal Managers, by Agency, Who
Reported Having Specific Types of Performance Measures to a Great or Very
Great Extent

Managers responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent Lowest percentage
and Highest percentage and Type of performance measure agency agency 28
agencies overall

Outcome measures that would demonstrate to someone 17% at the Health Care
63% at the National

44% outside of the agency whether or not intended results are

Financing Administration Aeronautics and Space being achieved.

(HCFA) Administration (NASA)

and HUD Output measures that tell how many things are produced 19% at HCFA
75% at the Small

50% or services provided. Business Administration

(SBA) and HUD Customer service measures that tell whether or not 14% at the
Nuclear

54% at 38%

customers are being satisfied. Regulatory Commission GSA and the Department
(NRC)

of Veterans Affairs (VA) Quality measures that tell about the quality of
products or

14% at HCFA 61% at NASA 39% services provided. Efficiency measures that tell
if programs are operating 9% at HCFA 56% at GSA 35%

efficiently. Source: GAO survey data.

In another important area- use of performance information for program
management activities- managers? responses across agencies were
discouraging. At no more than 7 of the 28 agencies did 50 percent or more of
managers respond that they used performance information to a great or very
great extent for any of 5 of the key management activities we asked about.
However, on a positive note, at 3 agencies- HUD, VA, and GSA- 50 percent or
more of managers reported such use for all 5 of these activities. The ranges
of managers? responses are shown in table 3.

Table 3: Lowest and Highest Percentages of Federal Managers, by Agency, Who
Reported Using Information Obtained From Performance Measurement to a Great
or Very Great Extent for Various Management Activities

Managers responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent Lowest percentage

Highest percentage Management activity and agency and agency 28 agencies
overall

Setting program priorities. 26% at NSF 64% at HUD 45% Allocating resources.
24% at NSF 66% at OPM 43% Adopting new program approaches or changing work
processes. 25% at the Forest 64% at OPM 42%

Service Coordinating program efforts with other internal or external 17% at
FAA 57% at HUD 35% organizations. Setting individual job expectations. 16%
at HCFA 66% at SBA 41%

Source: GAO survey data.

The new administration and Congress confront a series of daunting
operational and strategic challenges to improving the performance and
assessing the accountability of the federal government. Building
performance- based organizational cultures within agencies is key to
addressing these challenges. However, doing so is not easy and takes both

time and a substantial degree of commitment. At the most fundamental level,
our survey data indicate top leadership must send strong and consistent
messages that they are results- oriented. This entails holding managers
accountable for their contributions to results and recognizing

and rewarding those contributions. Equally important, it also entails
providing managers with the authorities, tools, and flexibilities they need
to be successful. Measuring program performance and using the resulting

performance information to make decisions within agencies are also critical.
Congress can play a constructive role as well. The confirmation, oversight,
authorization, and appropriation processes all provide important
opportunities to consider progress that the executive branch in general and

individual agencies in particular are making in improving performance and
accountability for the benefit of the American people. We are continuing to
work with the agencies where we surveyed managers to identify actions that
can be taken in response to the data presented in this report.

We provided the Director, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) with a draft
of this report for his review and comment because of OMB?s

leadership responsibility in the executive branch for issues addressed by
our survey. In OMB?s written response, the Deputy Director said that its
findings appeared to be consistent with OMB?s views on the extent of
agencies? progress in implementing GPRA. He also outlined the new
administration?s planned initiatives to make the federal government more
results- oriented, including strengthening the linkage between budget

decisionmaking and program performance. We did not obtain individual agency
comments because the agency- specific data reported consist solely of survey
responses from our randomly selected sample of managers in the 28 agencies
and we did not assess the individual change initiatives underway at any
agency. However, we provided a draft of this letter and the relevant
appendix to the heads of each of the 28 agencies included in our survey for
their information in advance of the publication of this report.

Agencies Face High- performing organizations reinforce a focus on results
through

Challenges in Instilling demonstrated top leadership commitment, through
positive recognition to

employees for their contributions to organizational goals, and by holding
Aspects of Agency

managers accountable for results while giving them the necessary Climate
That decisionmaking authority to achieve them. Our survey data suggest that
Contribute to across the 28 agencies there are ample opportunities to better
instill these

key attributes of a performance- based culture. Performance- Based Cultures

Demonstrated Top Successfully addressing the challenges that federal
agencies face in

Leadership Commitment to becoming high- performing organizations requires
agency leaders who are

Achieving Results fully committed to achieving results. Top leadership?s
commitment to

achieving results is essential in driving continuous improvement to achieve
excellence throughout an agency and inspiring employees to accomplish
challenging goals. Without clear and demonstrated commitment of agency
leadership- both political and career- organizational cultures will not be
transformed, and new visions and ways of doing business will not take root.

However, the responses of many managers in the 28 agencies did not indicate
a strong perception that their agencies? top leadership demonstrated a
strong commitment to achieving results. 8 Managers? positive responses
across the 28 individual agencies varied widely from a

low at FAA (23 percent) to 3 times that percentage at NSF (69 percent), as
shown in figure 1. Specifically, at only four agencies- NSF, the Social
Security Administration (SSA), NASA, and NRC- did more that two- thirds of
managers perceive such commitment to a great or very great extent. At 11
agencies, less than half of the managers perceived that there was such a

degree of commitment. 8 We did not specify in the survey which positions in
the agencies would constitute ?top

leadership.?

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated to a Great or Very Great Extent a Strong Commitment
to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

67 68 68 69 63 64 64 65 62 63 60

59 59 60 56 52 54 49 50 46 46 47 47 42 42 44

40

39 26 23 20

0 FAA

a IRS

State VA

c SBA

OPM GSA

HUD NRC

SSA NSF

Service AID

FEMAb Interior

HCFA Agriculture

Justice Energy

EPA Labor

DODd DOTe

HHSf Education

Treasury Commerce

NASA Forest a U. S. Agency for International Development

b Federal Emergency Management Agency c Environmental Protection Agency d
Department of Defense e Department of Transportation f Department of Health
and Human Services

Source: GAO survey data.

The clear and demonstrated top leadership commitment needed to sustain high
levels of performance is not widely perceived among managers across the
government overall and progress in fostering such leadership has

remained stagnant. Governmentwide, our survey results show that in 2000,
just over half of managers- 53 percent- reported strong top leadership
commitment, while 57 percent had this perception in 1997- not a
statistically significant change. Positive Recognition for Incentives are
important in steering an agency?s workforce to high levels of

Helping Accomplish performance and they are critical to establishing a
results- oriented Strategic Goals

management environment. A key element in agencies? efforts to achieve
results is their ability to motivate and reward their employees for
supporting results through effective incentives, such as positive
recognition.

However, both our agency- specific and governmentwide survey results suggest
that positive recognition has not been an extensively used technique for
motivating employees. On an individual agency basis, there are no agencies
that stand out as notable at the top of the range for providing positive
recognition to employees for helping the agency accomplish its strategic
goals. The percentage of managers responding to a great or very great extent
at the 28 agencies ranged from 12 percent at FAA to 52 percent at GSA. Even
at the top of the range, the percentage of managers who reported that
employees received such positive recognition

barely exceeded 50 percent at GSA and SBA. At 14 of the 28 agencies
surveyed, less than one- third of managers perceived that employees in their
agencies were receiving positive recognition to at least a great extent for
contributing to the achievement of agency goals. (See fig. 2.)

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported to a Great or Very
Great Extent That Employees Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their
Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

51 52 47 47 49 45 46 40

37 39 39 36 36 33 33 30 31 31 29 26 26 27 27 23 23 24 20

18 12 14

0 FAA

AID Labor

Education Agriculture

VA Justice

FEMA IRS

Service EPA

HCFA DOD

DOT Interior

Energy SSA

State NSF

Treasury Commerce

NRC HHS

NASA HUD

OPM SBA

GSA Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Governmentwide, few managers (31 percent) reported in 2000 that employees in
their agencies received positive recognition to a great or very great extent
for helping their agencies accomplish their strategic goals. This was not a
statistically significant change from the 26 percent reporting this extent
of positive recognition in 1997. Because effective incentive programs can
help federal agencies maximize the results they achieve by both reinforcing
personal accountability for high performance and motivating and rewarding
employees, the results of our survey suggest that in most cases agencies are
missing opportunities to positively affect

program results through more widespread use of effective positive
recognition techniques. Accountability for Results

Agencies need to create organizational cultures that involve employees and
and Necessary empower them to improve operational and program performance
while Decisionmaking Authority

ensuring accountability and fairness for those employees. Devolving to
Achieve Them

decisionmaking authority to program managers in combination with holding
them accountable for results is one of the most powerful incentives for
encouraging results- based management. Additionally, providing managers with
such authority gives those who know the most about an agency?s programs the
power to make those programs work.

The range of responses across individual agencies regarding managers being
held accountable for the results of their programs to a great or very great
extent ranged from a low of 40 percent at the Forest Service to 79 percent
at HUD. At 22 of the 28 agencies included in our survey, more than 50
percent of managers reported such accountability, with 66 percent or more at
10 of these agencies reporting such accountability. (See fig. 3.)

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting to a Great or Very Great
Extent That They Were Held Accountable for Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

79 75 76

67 68 68 68 69 69 65 66 60 60 60 62 62

60

59 59 57 55 53 49 49 49 51 42 43

40

40 20 0

Service HCFA

AID State

GSA Energy

Education EPA

DOT Commerce

FAA Agriculture

Interior Justice

IRS NSF

Labor Treasury

DOD VA

NASA HHS

SSA NRC

FEMA SBA

OPM HUD

Forest Source: GAO survey data.

In comparison, for each of the individual agencies included in our survey,
the percentage of managers who reported that they had, to a great or very
great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help their

agencies accomplish their strategic goals ranged from 15 percent at IRS to
58 percent at OPM. At only one agency- OPM- was the percentage of managers
reporting that they had the decisionmaking authority they needed above 50
percent. In fact, at 10 of the 28 agencies, only one- third or less of
managers responded that they had such decisionmaking authority. (See fig.
4.)

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting to a Great or Very Great
Extent That They Had Decisionmaking Authority They Needed to Help the Agency
Accomplish Its Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

58 44 46 42 43 43 43 39 40 40 41 41 41 40

37 38 35 36 36 32 33 33 27 28 25 25 23 20

15 16

0 IRS

FAA SSA

AID Education

SBA HCFA

NRC Justice

Energy State

GSA HUD

Agriculture VA

Treasury Labor

DOD NASA

Service EPA

FEMA Interior

HHS DOT

NSF Commerce

OPM Forest Source: GAO survey data.

The differences reflected in managers? responses to our questions on
authority and accountability suggest that many agencies can better balance
accountability for results with the authority needed to help achieve agency
goals. For managers at 27 agencies, the percentage reporting that they were
held accountable for results exceeded the percentage reporting that

they had the authority they needed. At 16 of these 27 agencies, the
percentage by which being held accountable exceeded having the authority
needed was more than 20 percent. At only one agency- the Forest Service-
were the percentages approximately equal. However, they were

not very high, with the percentage of Forest Service managers responding
positively at 41 percent for authority and at 40 percent for accountability.

Governmentwide, the differences between the level of accountability and the
level of authority managers perceived was great in both our 1997 and 2000
surveys. In 2000, 63 percent of federal managers overall reported that they
were held accountable for program results but only 36 percent reported that
they had the decisionmaking authority they needed to help

their agencies accomplish their strategic goals. These percentages were not
statistically significantly different than those from our 1997 survey, when
55 percent of managers reported such accountability for results while 31
percent reported such decisionmaking authority, We recently reported that
several agencies have begun to use resultsoriented

performance agreements for their senior political and career executives to
define accountability for specific goals, monitor progress during the year,
and then contribute to performance evaluations. 9 Although

each agency developed and implemented agreements that reflected its specific
organizational priorities, structure, and culture, we identified common
emerging benefits from each agency?s use of performance agreements. For
example, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) decentralized its
management structure from 4 regions to 22 Veterans

Integrated Service Networks (VISN). VHA gave each VISN substantial
operational autonomy and established performance goals in the agreements to
hold network and medical center directors accountable for achieving
performance improvements. Senior VHA officials we spoke to as part of that
review credit the use of performance agreements to improvements in key
organizational goals. 9 Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From
Selected Agencies? Use of Performance

Agreements (GAO- 01- 115, Oct. 30, 2000).

Survey Responses A fundamental element in an organization?s efforts to
manage for results is Indicate That the Types its ability to set meaningful
goals for performance and to measure

performance against those goals. High- performing, results- oriented of
Measures Managers

organizations establish a set of measures to gauge progress over various Had
To Gauge Program

dimensions of performance. As discussed in our January 2001 Performance
Varied

Performance and Accountability Series, a major challenge that agencies face
in implementing GPRA is articulating and reinforcing a results orientation.
10 Encouragingly, more managers overall reported having performance measures
in 2000 than in 1997. Specifically, 84 percent of federal managers
governmentwide said they had performance measures for the programs they were
involved with, a statistically significant increase over the 76 percent of
managers who responded that way in 1997. The degree to which managers
reported having each of the five types of performance measures we asked
about- outcome, output, customer

service, quality, and efficiency- varied by agency. However, managers?
responses at most federal agencies showed that they still may have room for
improvement in this regard.

Outcome and Output Output measures that tell how many things are produced or
services

Measures provided are an essential management tool in managing programs for

results, but they represent only one basic dimension in the measurement of
program performance. Rather, it is outcome measures that demonstrate whether
or not program goals are being achieved and gauge the ultimate success of
government programs. Collectively, managers? responses across the 28
agencies suggest a need for further emphasizing and developing both

outcome and output measures to address the multidimensional aspects of
performance.

For outcome measures specifically, the percentage of managers responding
that they had them to a great or very great extent ranged from 17 percent at
HCFA to 63 percent at NASA and HUD. At only eight agencies did more

than 50 percent of managers report having outcome measures. (See fig. 5.) 10
Performance and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: A Governmentwide Perspective (GAO- 01- 241, Jan. 2001).

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Outcome
Measures to a Great or Very Great Extent 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63 63

60

58 55 55 56 56 56 48 48 49

46 46 47 43 44 40

39 39 40 37 38 34

32 29 30 28 28 20

17

0 HCFA

IRS FEMA

Service NRC

DOT FAA

State Justice

EPA Interior

Labor Agriculture

SBA DOD

HHS Commerce

Education SSA

VA NSF

Energy Treasury

GSA AID

OPM HUD

NASA Forest Source: GAO survey data.

In comparison, at 17 of the 28 agencies, 50 percent or more of managers
reported that they had output measures to a great or very great extent. The
percentage of managers responding that they had output measures to that
extent ranged from 19 percent at HCFA to 75 percent at SBA and HUD, as shown
in figure 6.

Figure 6: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Output Measures
to a Great or Very Great Extent 100

Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent 80

73 75 75 68 66 62

60

58 59 55 56 56 52 54 50 50 51 51 47 48 49 46 42 43 44 44 40

32 27

20

19

0 HCFA

FEMA IRS

DOT State

HHS Justice

FAA NSF

Interior DOD

Commerce Agriculture AID

Energy Education

EPA Labor

Service OPM

GSA NASA

VA Treasury

NRC SSA

HUD SBA

Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Governmentwide, 50 percent of managers reported in 2000 that they had output
measures to a great or very great extent for their programs, a statistically
significant increase over the 38 percent reporting having these measures in
1997. In comparison, 44 percent of managers governmentwide reported in 2000
that they had outcome measures to a similar extent, significantly more than
the 32 percent reporting in this way in 1997. Although more managers overall
said they had output measures than outcome measures in 2000, at 7 of the 28
agencies- the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Health
and Human Services, the Department of Energy (Energy), the U. S. Agency for
International

Development, NSF, NASA, and OPM- slightly more managers said they had
outcome measures than output measures.

Customer Service Measures Among GPRA?s stated purposes is the improvement of
federal program effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new
focus on customer satisfaction. However, our survey results suggest that
having the measures to determine whether or not agencies are satisfying
their customers is still at an early stage in the federal government, and
that, as such, there is ample room for improvement.

Managers? responses indicated that the presence of customer service measures
for programs in the 28 individual agencies was low. For the 28 individual
agencies, the percentage of managers responding to a great or very great
extent ranged from 14 percent at NRC to a high of 54 percent at GSA and VA.
At only four agencies- GSA, VA, OPM, and NASA- did even

slightly over half of the managers report that they had customer service
measures to such an extent. In 10 of the agencies, less than one- third of
managers reported positively on having these measures. (See fig. 7.)

Figure 7: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Customer
Service Measures to a Great or Very Great Extent 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

54 54 52 52 45 46

40 42

40

39 40 36 36 37 38 35 35 36 34 32 28 28 29 29 27 21

20

20 16 14 0

NRC HCFA

Justice State

FAA Labor

EPA Service

SBA DOT

Agriculture Education

IRS HUD

Commerce AID

Treasury Interior

HHS NSF

SSA FEMA

DOD Energy

NASA OPM

VA GSA

Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Managers? responses did not reflect any notable progress in further
expanding the presence of customer service measures since our previous
survey. Specifically, in 2000, 38 percent of managers reported having
customer service measures for their programs to a great or very great extent
compared with 32 percent reporting that way in 1997, not a

statistically significant increase. Quality and Efficiency In crafting GPRA,
Congress expressed its interest in American taxpayers Measures getting
quality results from the programs they pay for as well as its concern

about waste and inefficiency in federal programs. However, managers?
responses indicate that the extent to which agencies have developed measures
of either quality or efficiency is not very high. In only three agencies-
NASA, VA, and OPM- did more that 50 percent of managers report having
quality measures to a great or very great extent. In 14 of the agencies,
less than one- third of managers reported having quality measures to a
comparable extent. For the 28 individual agencies, this response ranged from
14 percent at HCFA to 61 percent at NASA. (See fig. 8.)

Figure 8: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Quality
Measures to a Great or Very Great Extent 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

61

60

57 54

48 45 45 41 41 42 42

40

38 37 37 35 29 30 30 31 31

29 29 29 27 24 25 25 25 20

14

0 HCFA

SBA State

Service Justice

NRC SSA

EPA FAA

DOT FEMA

Interior Education

Labor Agriculture

HUD IRS

NSF Commerce

Treasury HHS

GSA DOD

Energy AID

OPM VA

NASA Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Similarly for efficiency measures, at only two agencies- GSA and Energy- did
50 percent or more of managers report having such measures to a great or
very great extent. At almost half of the agencies, less than one- third of
managers reported having them to this extent. For the 28 agencies included
in our survey, this percentage ranged from 9 percent at HCFA to 56 percent
at GSA, as shown in figure 9.

Figure 9: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Efficiency
Measures to a Great or Very Great Extent 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

56 50 47

43 43 44 45 41 40

37 37 38 35 36 36 36 31 32 32 28 29 30 30 27 28 24 24 21

20

9

0 HCFA

EPA Service

Interior DOT

AID FEMA

State Commerce

IRS SBA

FAA Justice

NSF Education

DOD Labor

Agriculture HHS

NRC Treasury

NASA OPM

VA SSA

HUD Energy

GSA Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Governmentwide, 39 percent of federal managers in 2000 reported having
quality measures for their programs, not a statistically significant
increase from the 31 percent in 1997. In 2000, 35 percent of managers cited
that they had measures that gauged the efficiency of program operations, a
significant increase from the 26 percent reporting such measures in 1997.

Managers? Responses The fundamental reason for collecting information on a
program?s

Across Agencies on performance is to take action in managing the program on
the basis of that

information. For five of the management activities we asked about in 1997
Using Performance

and 2000- setting program priorities, allocating resources, adopting new
Information Were

program approaches or changing work processes, coordinating program Mixed
efforts, and setting individual job expectations- the reported use to a
great or very great extent decreased to a statistically significant extent
in 2000.

Setting Program Priorities, In setting program priorities, the information
obtained from measuring a

Allocating Resources, and program?s performance provides a basis for
deciding whether parts of the

Adopting New Program program or the entire program itself should be given a
higher or lower

Approaches or Changing priority. Across the 28 individual agencies, the
percentage of managers

reporting this use to a great or very great extent ranged from 26 percent at
Work Processes

NSF to 64 percent at HUD. At only seven agencies- HUD, SSA, SBA, VA, GSA,
OPM, and NASA- did more than 50 percent of managers respond positively
regarding this use. (See fig. 10.)

Figure 10: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Setting Program Priorities
100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

64 60 61 62 60

57 56 53

48 49 46 46 46 47 47 44 44 45 40

40 40 37 37 38 35 36 33 34 26 27

20 0

NSF HCFA

Interior Service

FAA IRS

State DOT

Justice FEMA

HHS AID

Energy Commerce

Labor DOD

NRC Agriculture

EPA Treasury

Education NASA

OPM GSA

VA SBA

SSA HUD

Forest Source: GAO survey data.

When we examined the responses of only those managers who answered on the
extent scale, 56 percent of managers overall reported in 2000 that they used
performance information when setting program priorities.

Although this percentage decreased to a statistically significant extent
from 66 percent in 1997, it was the activity for which the highest
percentage of managers governmentwide reported this use to a great or very
great extent in 2000.

In addition, performance information allows program managers to compare
their programs? results with goals and thus determine where to target
program resources to improve performance. When managers are forced to reduce
their resources, the same analysis can help them target the reductions to
minimize the impact on program results. Across the 28 individual agencies,
the percentage of managers reporting that they used performance information
to a great or very great extent when allocating resources ranged from 24
percent at NSF to 66 percent at OPM, with 50 percent or more of managers
reporting such use at only 7 agencies- OPM, SBA, HUD, NASA, GSA, the
Department of Treasury, and VA. (See fig. 11.)

Figure 11: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Allocating Resources 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

66 61

60

58 54 51 52 49 50 44 45 45

42 42 43 43 40 41 40

39 39 35 35 37 34 34 31 32 29 24

20 0

NSF HCFA

FAA AID

Interior DOT

State IRS

Service Justice

HHS NRC

Labor FEMA

Education Energy

EPA Agriculture

DOD Commerce

SSA VA

Treasury GSA

NASA HUD

SBA OPM

Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Governmentwide, 53 percent of those managers who expressed an opinion on the
extent scale reported in 2000 that they used performance information to a
great or very great extent when allocating resources, a statistically
significant decrease from the 62 percent responding in this way in 1997.

Third, by using performance information to assess the way a program is
conducted, managers can consider alternative approaches and processes in
areas where goals are not being met and enhance the use of program
approaches and processes that are working well. Across the 28 individual
agencies, the percentage of managers reporting such use to a great or very
great extent ranged from 25 percent at the Forest Service to 64 percent at
OPM. At only seven of the agencies- OPM, SBA, VA, GSA, NASA, HUD, and SSA-
did 50 percent or more of managers report such use. (See fig.

12.)

Figure 12: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Adopting New Program
Approaches or Changing Work Processes 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

64 61

60

56 56 52 52 50 45 45 45 45

43 43 39 41 40

37 38 35 35 36 32 32 33 29 29 25 27 27 20

0 Service

FAA NSF

FEMA IRS

EPA HCFA

State Interior

DOT NRC

Justice Agriculture

Energy Commerce

AID HHS

DOD Education

Labor Treasury

SSA HUD

NASA GSA

VA SBA

OPM Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Governmentwide in 2000, 51 percent of those managers who expressed an
opinion on the extent scale reported that they used performance information
when adopting new program approaches or changing work processes,
statistically significantly lower than the 66 percent in 1997.

For these three key management activities- setting program priorities,
allocating resources, and adopting new program approaches or changing work
processes- the percentage of managers governmentwide that reported using
performance information to a great or very great extent

decreased significantly between 1997 and 2000. Moreover, for each of these
activities, at only 7 of the 28 agencies did 50 percent or more of managers
report such use. These data suggest that in the majority of agencies, the
number of managers highly engaged in the application of one of the most
fundamental and clear tenets of results- based management-

using program performance information to make government programs work
better- is in the minority. Coordinating Program

GPRA?s emphasis on results implies that federal programs contributing to
Efforts the same or similar outcomes should be closely coordinated to ensure
that goals are consistent and complementary and that program efforts are

mutually reinforcing. For programs that are related, program managers can
use performance information to lay the foundation for improved coordination.
The survey data show that such use may not be widespread. At the 28
individual agencies, the percentage of managers reporting such use to a
great or very great extent ranged from 17 percent at FAA to 57 percent at
HUD. Moreover, one- third or less of managers at more than half of the
agencies reported using performance information when coordinating

program efforts. At only three agencies- HUD, VA, and GSA- was the
percentage of managers reporting such use over 50 percent. (See fig. 13.)

Figure 13: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Coordinating Program
Efforts With Other Internal or External Organizations 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

57 52 53 49 47 43

40

38 39 39 39 37 33 33 33 35 35 31 32 29 30 30 27 27 24 21 21 21 20

17

0 FAA

Service HCFA

State Interior

Labor IRS

NSF Justice

DOT Commerce

EPA Education

Energy Agriculture

FEMA HHS

DOD NRC

SSA NASA

OPM AID

SBA Treasury

GSA VA

HUD Forest Source: GAO survey data.

Overall, 43 percent of those managers who expressed an opinion on the extent
scale reported in 2000 that they used performance information when
coordinating program efforts with other internal or external organizations-
14 percent less than the 57 percent reporting this use in 1997, a
statistically significant change.

Setting Individual Job In high- performing organizations, employees?
performance expectations Expectations

are aligned with the competencies and performance levels needed to support
the organizations? missions, goals and objectives, and strategies.

When federal managers use performance information to set individual job
expectations, they both emphasize the role their individual employees should
play in accomplishing program goals and reinforce the importance

of employee responsibility for achieving results. However, the results of
our survey suggest that many managers are not consistently using performance
information in this important way. At the 28 individual agencies, the
percentage of managers reporting the use of performance information to a
great or very great extent when setting individual job expectations ranged
from 16 percent at HCFA to 66 percent at SBA. As indicated by managers?
responses to our survey, less than half of managers in 21 of the 28 agencies
are extensively engaged in taking this important step in reinforcing the
relationship between employees? efforts to implement their agencies?
programs and the results those programs

realize. Only seven agencies- SBA, HUD, GSA, the Department of Commerce, VA,
OPM, and NASA- had 50 percent or more of managers reporting such use. (See
fig. 14.)

Figure 14: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Setting Individual Job
Expectations 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

66

60

59 55 55

49 50 50 50 45 45 42 43 43 43 40

39 40 40 37 38 38 38 35 33 31 31 28 22

20

16

0 HCFA

NSF Education

FAA DOT

IRS Energy

State AID

EPA FEMA

DOD Justice

Service Labor

Agriculture Interior

NRC SSA

HHS Treasury

NASA OPM

Commerce VA

GSA HUD

SBA Forest Source: GAO survey data.

When we examined the responses of only those managers who answered on the
extent scale, 51 percent of managers overall reported in 2000 that they used
performance information to a great or very great extent when setting
individual job expectations, a statistically significant difference

from the 61 percent responding in this way in 1997. The executive branch has
taken steps to reinforce the connection between employee performance and
agency goals. For example, OMB?s latest Circular No. A- 11 guidance on
preparing fiscal year 2002 annual

performance plans states that those plans should set goals to cover human
capital management in areas such as linking individual performance
appraisals to program performance. Also, on October 13, 2000, OPM published
final regulations, effective November 13, 2000, that change the

way agencies are to evaluate the performance of members of the SES.
Specifically, agencies are to place increased emphasis on appraising
executive performance on results and using results as the basis for
performance awards and other personnel decisions. Concluding For agencies to
successfully become high- performing organizations, their Observations

leaders need to foster performance- based cultures, find ways to measure
performance, and use performance information to make decisions. At a
fundamental level, results from our 2000 federal managers survey indicate
wide differences among individual agencies? levels of success in

demonstrating a results- based climate. However, transforming organizational
cultures is an arduous and long- term task. In addition, managers? responses
suggest that while some agencies are clearly showing signs of becoming high-
performing organizations, others are not.

The survey results provide important information that agency leadership can
use to help identify key opportunities to build higher- performing
organizations across the federal government. We will continue to work with
senior leadership in the individual agencies to identify actions that can

be taken to address the issues raised by their managers? survey responses.
Congress has a vital role to play as well. As part of its confirmation,
oversight, authorization, and appropriation responsibilities, Congress also
has the opportunity to use the information from our 2000 managers survey, as
well as information from agencies? performance plans and reports and our
January 2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High- Risk Series, to
emphasize performance- based management and to underscore Congress?
commitment to addressing long- standing challenges.

Agency Comments On April 9, 2001, we provided the Director, Office of
Management and Budget, with a draft of this report for his review and
comment. In his May

11, 2001 written response, included in appendix XXX, OMB?s Deputy Director
acknowledged the importance of the report providing a basis for comparison
to our 1997 survey results as well as allowing for individual analysis of 28
agencies. He said that the report?s findings appeared to be consistent with
OMB?s views regarding the extent of agencies? progress in

implementing GPRA, stating that while all agencies are in full compliance
with the requirements of the law, most are not yet at a stage where they are
truly managing for results. In addition, he outlined the new
administration?s planned initiatives to make the federal government more
results- oriented, including strengthening the linkage between budget

decisionmaking and program performance. As agreed with your office, unless
you announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further
distribution until 30 days after its issue date. At that time, we will send
copies of the report to Senator Richard J. Durbin, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring, and the
District of Columbia, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs; Senator Fred
Thompson, Chairman,

and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs; and Representative Dan Burton, Chairman, and
Representative Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, House Committee on
Government Reform. We will also send copies to the Honorable Mitchell E.
Daniels, Jr., Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and the heads
of the 28 agencies included in our survey. In addition, we will make copies
available to others upon request.

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact J.
Christopher Mihm or Joyce Corry on (202) 512- 6806. Peter Del Toro and
Thomas Beall were key contributors to this report.

Sincerely yours, David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States

Appendi Appendi xes x I

Scope and Methodology A questionnaire on performance and management issues
was sent to a stratified random sample of 3,816 out of a population of about
93, 000 fulltime, mid- and upper- level civilian managers and supervisors
working in the 24 executive branch agencies covered by the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act). These agencies represent about 97 percent of
the

executive branch full- time workforce, excluding the U. S. Postal Service.
In reporting the questionnaire data, when we use the term ?governmentwide?
and the phrase ?across the federal government,? we are referring to these 24
CFO Act executive branch agencies, and when we use the terms ?federal

managers? and ?managers,? we are referring to both managers and supervisors.
The sample was drawn from the March 1999 Office of Personnel Management?s
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)- the most recent version of the CPDF
available when we began drawing our sample-

using file designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory
functions.

The questionnaire was designed to obtain the observations and perceptions of
respondents on such results- oriented management topics as the presence,
use, and usefulness of performance measures; hindrances to measuring and
using performance information; agency climate; information technology;
program evaluation; and various aspects of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). Most of the items on the questionnaire were
closed- ended- that is, depending on the particular item, respondents could
choose one of two or more response categories or rating the strength of
their perception on a 5- point extent scale ranging from ?to no extent? to
?to a very great extent.? In most cases,

respondents also had an option of choosing the response category ?no

basis to judge/ not applicable.? About half of the items on the
questionnaire were contained in a previous survey that was conducted between
November 1996 and January 1997 as part of the work we did in response to a
GPRA requirement that we report on implementation of the act. 1 This
previous survey, although done with a smaller sample size of 1,300 managers,
covered the same agencies as the 2000 survey, which was sent out between
January and August, 2000.

Individuals who did not respond to the initial questionnaire were sent up to
two follow- up questionnaires. In some cases, we contacted individuals by 1
The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven (GAO/ GGD- 97- 109, June 2, 1997).

telephone and faxed the questionnaire to them to expedite completion of the
survey. The current survey was designed to update and further elaborate on
the results of the previous survey. Similar to the previous survey, the
sample was stratified by whether the manager or supervisor was Senior
Executive

Service (SES) or non- SES. The management levels covered General Schedule
(GS), General Management (GM), or equivalent schedules at levels comparable
to GS/ GM- 13 through career SES or equivalent levels of

executive service. Stratification was also done by the 24 CFO Act agencies,
with an additional breakout of 4 selected agencies from their departments-
Forest Service, Health Care Financing Administration, Federal Aviation
Administration, and Internal Revenue Service. These four agencies were
selected on the basis of our previous work identifying them

as facing significant managerial challenges. The sample was also stratified
to include special pay plans at some agencies to improve our coverage of
managers and supervisors working at those agencies. For example, Senior
Foreign Service executives from the

State Department and the Agency for International Development were included
in the sample. We included these special pay plan strata to ensure at least
a 90- percent coverage of all managers and supervisors at or comparable to
the GS/ GM- 13 through career SES level at the 28 departments and agencies
we surveyed. Finally, we added additional strata to include a group of
respondents who answered the previous survey and

who still worked in the same agency at the same management level at the time
of the 2000 survey. During the course of the survey, we deleted 212 persons
from our sample who had either retired, separated, died, or otherwise left
the agency or had some other reason that excluded them from the population
of interest. We received useable questionnaires from 2,510 sample
respondents, or about 70 percent of the remaining eligible sample. The
response rate across the

28 agencies ranged from 59 percent to 82 percent. We took several steps to
check the quality of our survey data. We reviewed and edited the completed
questionnaires, made internal consistency checks on selected items, and
checked the accuracy of data entry on a

sample of surveys. We also followed up on a sample of nonrespondents to
assess whether their views differed from the views of those who returned the
survey. We randomly selected a subsample of 136 persons across all strata
from that group of individuals who had not returned a completed

questionnaire a month or more after the last of 3 attempts were made to
elicit their participation in our survey. We received 67 useable surveys
from this group. In addition, there were 41 individuals who, when contacted
by telephone, refused to participate in the survey but were willing to
answer 3 key questions from the survey. We included their answers to the
three questions in our analysis of nonrespondents on those three questions.
We analyzed the responses of these groups on selected items compared with
the responses received from all other respondents. Our analyses of selected
items did not show a sufficient or consistent

degree of difference between survey nonrespondents and respondents, and,
thus, we included the responses of our subsample with all other responses.

Except where noted, percentages are based on all respondents returning
useable questionnaires. The survey results are generalizable to the 28
departments and agencies we surveyed. All reported percentages are estimates
that are based on the sample and are subject to some sampling error as well
as nonsampling error. In general, percentage estimates in this report for
the entire sample have confidence intervals ranging from about ï¿½2 to ï¿½7
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. In other words, if
all CFO Act agency managers and supervisors in our population

had been surveyed, the chances are 95 out of 100 that the result obtained
would not differ from our sample estimate in the more extreme cases by more
than ï¿½7 percent. In the appendixes of this report comparing each agency to
the rest of government, confidence intervals for the reported agency
percentages and the rest of government percentages range from ï¿½2 to ï¿½16
percentage points.

Because a complex sample design was used and different types of statistical
analyses are being done, the magnitude of sampling error will vary across
the particular groups or items being compared due to differences in the
underlying sample sizes and associated variances. Consequently, in some
instances, a difference of a certain magnitude may be statistically
significant. In other instances, depending on the nature of the comparison
being made, a difference of equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve
statistical significance. We note when

differences are significant at the .05 probability level between 1997 and
2000 governmentwide data throughout the report and between an agency?s data
and data for the rest of government in appendices II through XXIX. Figures 1
through 14 in the letter report do not show when individual agencies are
statistically significantly different from each other.

Department of Agriculture: Selected Survey

Appendi x II

Results Of all the agencies surveyed, the responses from managers at the
Department of Agriculture most closely paralleled those of other managers
governmentwide in the aspects of agency climate, performance measurement,
and using performance information. That is, Agriculture was not
significantly different from the rest of the government for any of the
survey questions we examine in this appendix. Agriculture is the only

agency of the 28 we surveyed for which this is true. Survey results for one
component of Agriculture, the Forest Service, are not included here but are
reported in a separate appendix. Top Leadership Less than half (47 percent)
of Agriculture?s managers expressed the view that their agency?s top
leadership was strongly committed to achieving

results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. For the rest of the
government, 53 percent of managers indicated a similar level of commitment
by top leadership to achieving results. Figure 15: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported That Agency Top Leadership Demonstrated a Strong
Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent 80 60

53 47

40 20

0 Agriculture Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Less than a quarter (24 percent) of managers at
Agriculture reported that employees received positive recognition to a great
or very great extent for helping their agencies accomplish their strategic
goals, as shown below. Agriculture ranked in the lowest quarter of the 28
agencies surveyed.

Figure 16: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees
Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish Their
Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent

80 60 40

31 24

20 0

Agriculture Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- eight percent of managers at Agriculture reported that
they had, to a

Accountability great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they
needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 59 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63 respectively. Figure 17: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported
That

Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80

63

60

59

40

38 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Agriculture Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures they
had for their

Measures programs, output measures and customer service measures had,

respectively, the highest and lowest percentage of managers at Agriculture
(51 and 34 percent) responding positively.

Figure 18: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent

80 60

51 50

43 44

40

37 39 39

35 34 35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures service

measures measures measures

Agriculture Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Using Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
managers at

Information Agriculture reported that they used performance information for
each of the management activities shown below.

Figure 19: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information
Obtained From Performance Measurement for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

47 45 44

43 42 43 41

40

38 33

35

20 0

Setting Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting program

resources new/ different

program individual job

priorities approaches

efforts expectations

Agriculture Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Agency for International Development: Appendi x II I Selected Survey Results
Overall, the Agency for International Development (AID) was largely similar
to the rest of government except for being lower in aspects of agency
climate. AID was statistically significantly lower than the rest of

the government in the percentage of managers who reported the following to
at least a great extent: top leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to
achieving results; managers were held accountable for results; and employees
who helped the agency achieve its strategic goals

were positively recognized. In addition, the percentage of managers
responding to at least a great extent on positive recognition was the second
lowest, after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), of the 28 agencies
surveyed. In all other areas, AID was not statistically significantly
different from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Thirty- nine percent of AID managers expressed the view that
their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great
or very great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is 14 points lower
than that of the rest of the government (53 percent). This difference is
statistically significant. Figure 20: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That Agency Top

Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

53 39

40 20

0 AID Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Fourteen percent of AID managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is 17
points lower than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of
the government (31 percent). This difference is statistically significant.
AID was the second lowest ranking agency in this regard, after FAA, of the
28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 21: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31

20

14

0 AID Rest of Government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Twenty- five percent of AID managers reported that they had,
to a great or Accountability

very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 43 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
AID managers? response concerning the extent to which managers were held
accountable for results (43 percent) was statistically significantly lower
than the 63 percent reported for the rest of the government. AID was one of
six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers reporting that
they were held accountable to at least a great extent. (The others were the
Department of Energy, Department of State, Forest Service, General Services
Administration, and Health Care Financing

Administration.)

Figure 22: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63

60

43

40

36 25

20 0

Had decision Were held accountable

making authority for results

AID Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of AID managers (56 percent) reported having

outcome measures and the lowest (28 percent) cited efficiency measures, as
shown below. AID was one of only seven agencies where outcome measures were
cited more frequently than output measures. (The others were the Department
of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,

Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Science Foundation, and Office of Personnel
Management.)

In addition, the percentages of AID managers who reported having quality
measures (48 percent) and outcome measures (56 percent) to a great or very
great extent were both in the highest quarter of the 28 agencies surveyed.

Figure 23: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

56 50

50 48 44

40

35 36

39 39 28

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures measures

AID Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
AID managers

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. AID ranked in the lowest quarter of the
agencies for the percentage of managers who reported that they used
performance information when allocating resources (32 percent).

Figure 24: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

44 45

43 43 42 43 38 41 40

35 32

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

AID Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Commerce: Selected Survey

Appendi x V I Results Overall, the Department of Commerce was largely
similar to the rest of the government except on two aspects of agency
climate and using performance information. Commerce was statistically
significantly higher than the rest of the government in the percentage of
managers who reported that their agency?s top leadership was strongly
committed to achieving results to at least a great extent, and the
percentage of managers

who indicated that they used performance information when setting individual
job expectations for staff to a similar extent. In all other areas, Commerce
was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the
government.

Top Leadership Almost two- thirds (65 percent) of managers at Commerce
expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to a great or very great extent, as shown below, and this
percentage is 12

points higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent). This
difference is statistically significant. Figure 25: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported That Agency Top

Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

65

60

53

40 20

0 Commerce Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- nine percent of Commerce managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, whereas
30 percent of managers responded this way for the rest of the government.

Figure 26: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

39

40

30

20 0

Commerce Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- six percent of managers at Commerce reported that they
had, to a

Accountability great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they
needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 57 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 35
and 63 respectively.

Commerce managers? responses concerning the extent of their decisionmaking
authority placed the agency in the highest quarter of the agencies surveyed,
although the difference between Commerce and the rest of the government was
not statistically significant. Figure 27: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That

Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80

63

60

57 46

40

35

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Commerce Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of Commerce managers (50 percent) reported

having output measures and the lowest (30 percent) cited efficiency
measures, as shown below. Forty- seven percent of managers reported having
outcome measures to at least a great extent.

Figure 28: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

50 50

47 41

44

40

36 36 39

39 30

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures service

measures measures measures

Commerce Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Commerce ranked statistically significantly higher (55
percent) than the

Information rest of the government (41 percent) in the percentage of
managers who

indicated that they used performance information when setting individual job
expectations for staff, as shown below.

Figure 29: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

55 45

45 45 43 41

42 41 40

35 31

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

Commerce Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Defense: Selected Survey

Appendi x V

Results Overall, the Department of Defense (DOD) was largely similar to the
rest of government, except in aspects of agency climate and performance
measurement. DOD was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the
government for survey items concerning the percentage of managers

who reported that their agency's top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to at least a great extent, and the percentage of managers
who reported having customer service and quality measures to at least a
great extent. In all other areas, DOD was not statistically significantly
different from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Fifty- nine percent of DOD managers expressed the view that
their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great
or very great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is 9 points higher
than that of the rest of the government (50 percent). This difference is
statistically significant. Figure 30: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That Agency Top

Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

59

60

50

40 20

0 DOD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- one percent of DOD managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and
this percentage is about the same as managers who responded this way for the
rest of the government (30 percent).

Figure 31: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 30 20

0 DOD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty percent of managers at DOD reported that they had, to a
great or very

Accountability great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to
help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 66 percent indicated
that they were

held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below. For the
rest of the government, these percentages were 34 and 61 respectively.

Figure 32: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

66 61

60 40

40 34

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

DOD Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of DOD managers (49 percent) reported having
output measures and the lowest (36 percent) cited efficiency measures, as

shown below. Forty- six percent of managers reported having outcome measures
to at least a great extent.

In addition, the percentages of DOD managers who reported having customer
service and quality measures to a great or very great extent (both 45
percent) were significantly higher than the percentages of managers who
responded in this way for the rest of the government (35 and 36 percent,
respectively).

Figure 33: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

49 51

45 45 46 43

40

36 35 35

36 20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

DOD Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
DOD managers

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below.

Figure 34: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

46 44

45 45 42 40 42 40

37 39 34

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

DOD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Education: Selected Survey

Appendi x VI

Results The Department of Education was statistically significantly lower
than the rest of the government on one aspect of using performance
information: the percentage of managers who reported using performance
information when setting individual job expectations for staff. Education
had the third lowest percentage of managers, after the Health Care Financing
Administration and the National Science Foundation, among the 28 agencies
surveyed who reported using performance information in this way to a great
or very great extent. In all other areas, Education was not significantly
different from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Sixty- two percent of managers at Education expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, compared with 53 percent for the rest of
the government, as shown below. Figure 35: Percentage of Federal Managers
Who Reported That Agency Top

Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

62

60

53

40 20

0 Education Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twenty- three percent of managers at Education reported
that employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent
for helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below,
compared with 31 percent for the rest of the government.

Figure 36: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 23

20 0

Education Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Twenty- five percent of managers at Education reported that
they had, to a

Accountability great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they
needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 51 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63 respectively. Figure 37: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported
That

Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80

63

60

51

40

36 25

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Education Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of Education managers (52 percent) reported

having output measures and the lowest (31 percent) cited quality measures,
as shown below. Forty- eight percent of managers reported having outcome
measures to at least a great extent.

Figure 38: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

52 50

48 44

40

36 35 39

39 35 31

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

Education Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
managers at

Information Education reported that they used performance information for
each of the

management activities shown below. In addition, Education was significantly
lower (28 percent) than the rest of the government (41 percent) in the
percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance information
when setting individual job expectations for staff. Education was the third
lowest agency surveyed, after the Health Care

Financing Administration and the National Science Foundation, in the
percentage of managers who reported using performance information in this
way to a great or very great extent.

Figure 39: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

49 45

42 43 45 42 41

40

35 33

28 20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

Education Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Energy: Selected Survey

Appendi x VII

Results The Department of Energy was largely similar to the rest of the
government except for aspects of performance measurement and agency climate.
It was statistically significantly higher than the rest of government in the
percentage of managers who reported having outcome and efficiency measures
to a great or very great extent. Energy was significantly below the rest of
the government in the percentage of managers who reported that managers were
held accountable for results to at least a great extent. In all other areas,
the agency was not statistically significantly different

from the rest of the government. Top Leadership Exactly half (50 percent) of
managers at Energy expressed the view that

their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great
or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent for the rest
of government.

Figure 40: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

53 50

40 20

0 Energy Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- three percent of managers at Energy reported
that employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent
for helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below,
which was about the same as managers who responded this way for the rest of
the government (31 percent).

Figure 41: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

33 31

20 0

Energy Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- three percent of managers at Energy reported that they
had, to a Accountability

great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help
the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 49 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
Energy managers' response concerning the extent to which managers were held
accountable for results (49 percent) was statistically significantly lower
than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government. Energy was one
of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers reporting
that they were held accountable to at least a great extent. (The others were
the Agency for International Development, Department of State, Forest
Service, General Services Administration, and Health Care Financing
Administration.)

Figure 42: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63

60

49

40

33 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Energy Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of managers at Energy (55 percent) reported
having

outcome measures and the lowest percentage (45 percent) cited quality
measures, as shown below. Energy was one of only seven agencies where
outcome measures were cited more frequently than output measures. (The
others were the Agency for International Development, Federal Emergency
Management Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and
Office of Personnel Management.) In addition, the percentages of managers at
Energy who reported having

efficiency (50 percent) and outcome measures (55 percent) to a great or very
great extent were significantly higher than the percentages of managers who
responded in this way for the rest of the government (35 and 44 percent,
respectively).

Figure 43: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

51 55 50

50 46

45 44 38

39 40

35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

Energy Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
managers at Energy Information

reported that they used performance information for each of the management
activities shown below. Figure 44: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management Activities 100
Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent 80 60

44 45 43

43 42 41 40

39 35 35 33

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

Energy Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Environmental Protection Agency: Selected

Appendi x VI II

Survey Results In general, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was
largely similar to the rest of the government except for two aspects of
performance measurement. The agency was statistically significantly lower
than the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who reported
having efficiency and customer service measures to at least a great extent.
In all other areas, EPA was not statistically significantly different from
the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Slightly more than half (52 percent) of EPA managers
expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to a great or very great extent, as shown below, and this
percentage is about the

same as reported by managers in the rest of the government (53 percent).

Figure 45: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

53 52

40 20

0 EPA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twenty- nine percent of EPA managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is about
the same as that reported by managers in the rest of the government (31
percent).

Figure 46: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

29 31 20

0 EPA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- one percent of EPA managers reported that they had, to
a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 53 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63 respectively.

Figure 47: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent 80

63

60

53 41

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

EPA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of EPA managers reported having output
measures (54 percent) and the lowest percentage (21 percent) cited
efficiency

measures, as shown below. Thirty- nine percent of managers reported having
outcome measures to at least a great extent. In addition, the percentages of
EPA managers who reported having efficiency measures (21 percent) and
customer service measures (28 percent) to a great or very great extent were
significantly below the

percentages of managers who responded in this way for the rest of the
government (36 and 39 percent, respectively).

Figure 48: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

54 50

44

40

39 39 39 36

28 29

21

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

EPA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
EPA managers Information

reported that they used performance information for each of the management
activities shown below.

Figure 49: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

47 45 43

43 42

41

40

35 38

32 32

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

EPA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Federal Aviation Administration: Selected

Appendi x IX

Survey Results In general, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was
worse than the rest of the government on multiple aspects of agency climate,
performance measurement, and the use of performance information. The agency
was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the

percentage of managers who reported that top agency leadership demonstrated
a strong commitment to achieving results; that employees who helped the
agency achieve its strategic goals received positive recognition; managers
had the decisionmaking authority they needed; that they had outcome,
customer service, or quality performance measures; and

that they used performance information for all five management activities
discussed in this appendix. For other survey items- being held accountable
for results and having output and efficiency measures- FAA was not
significantly different from the rest of the government. Of the 28 agencies
surveyed, FAA rated significantly lower than the rest of the government on
more of the survey items discussed in this appendix than any other agency.

FAA had the lowest percentage of managers who reported to at least a great
extent that their agency?s top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results, that employees received positive recognition for helping
their agency accomplish its strategic goals, and using performance

information when coordinating program efforts with other internal or
external organizations.

Top Leadership Less than a quarter (22 percent) of FAA managers expressed
the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving
results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is
33 points lower than that of the rest of the government (55 percent), and
this difference is statistically significant. For this item, FAA ranked last
of the 28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 50: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

55

40

22

20 0

FAA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twelve percent of FAA managers reported that employees
received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping
their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This percentage is 20 points
lower than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of the
government (32 percent), and is statistically significant. For this item,

FAA was the lowest ranking agency of the 28 agencies included in the survey.
Figure 51: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their

Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish
Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60 40

32

20

12

0 FAA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Sixteen percent of FAA managers reported that they had, to a
great or very Accountability

great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the agency
accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 59 percent indicated that they were
held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below. FAA was
among five agencies surveyed where the gap between accountability and
authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points. (The others were the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Social Security Administration, Small
Business Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban

Development.) FAA managers? response concerning the extent of their
decisionmaking authority was the second lowest, after IRS, among the 28
agencies surveyed. FAA?s 16 percent is significantly lower than the 37
percent reported by the rest of the government.

Figure 52: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63

60

59

40

37

20

16

0 Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

FAA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures output measures were reported by the highest percentage of FAA
managers

(46 percent) and customer service measures were cited by the lowest
percentage (27 percent), as shown below. In addition, the percentages of FAA
managers who reported having customer service measures (27 percent), quality
measures (29 percent), and outcome measures (34 percent) to a great or very
great extent were all

significantly below the percentages of managers who responded in this way
for the rest of the government (39, 40, and 44 percent, respectively).

Figure 53: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

46 50

44

40

39 40 36

34 32

29 27

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

FAA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance FAA ranked significantly lower than the rest of the
government in the

Information percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance

information for each of the management activities shown below. In addition,
the agency ranked lowest (17 percent) among the 28 agencies surveyed
concerning the use of such information when coordinating program efforts
with internal or external organizations.

Figure 54: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

46 44 43 42

40

35 36 31 31

27

20

17

0 Setting program

Allocating Adopting

Coordinating Setting individual

priorities resources

new/ different program efforts

job expectations approaches

FAA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Federal Emergency Management Agency:

Appendi x X

Selected Survey Results The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was
generally similar to the rest of the government except for being lower on
two aspects of performance measurement and one aspect of how managers use
performance information. The agency was statistically significantly lower
than the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who reported
having output and outcome measures and who reported using performance
information when adopting new program approaches or changing work processes
to at least a great extent. In all other areas,

FEMA was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the
government.

Top Leadership Forty- two percent of FEMA managers expressed the view that
their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great
or very great extent, compared with 53 percent for the rest of the
government, as shown below. Figure 55: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That Agency Top

Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

53 42

40 20

0 FEMA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Slightly more than a quarter (26 percent) of FEMA
managers reported that employees received positive recognition to a great or
very great extent for helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals,
as shown below, compared with 31 percent for the rest of the government.

Figure 56: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 26

20 0

FEMA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- two percent of FEMA managers reported that they had, to
a great or Accountability

very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 69 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,
respectively.

Figure 57: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

69 63

60

42

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

FEMA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of FEMA managers (42 percent) reported
having customer service measures and the lowest percentage (27 percent)
cited

output measures, as shown below. FEMA was the only agency of the 28 we
surveyed where managers identified customer service measures as the most
prevalent of the 5 performance measures asked about.

In addition, the percentages of FEMA managers who reported having output
measures (27 percent) and outcome measures (28 percent) to a great or very
great extent were significantly below the percentages of managers who
responded in this way for the rest of the government (50 and 44 percent
respectively).

Figure 58: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

50 42 44

40

35 39

39 27 28 30 28

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

FEMA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
FEMA managers

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. In addition, the percentage of

managers who indicated that they used performance information when adopting
new program approaches or changing work processes at FEMA was significantly
lower (29 percent) than that in the rest of the government

(42 percent).

Figure 59: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 42

43 42 40 38

41

40

35 35

29

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

FEMA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Appendi x XI

Forest Service: Selected Survey Results Overall, the Forest Service was
below the rest of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance
measurement, and the use of performance information. It was statistically
significantly lower than the rest of the government in the percentage of
managers who reported that top agency leadership demonstrated a strong
commitment to achieving results; managers were held accountable for results;
they had outcome, quality, or efficiency performance measures; and they used
performance information

to set priorities, adopt new program approaches, or coordinate program
efforts. Of the 28 agencies surveyed, Forest Service rated significantly
lower than the rest of the government on more of the survey items discussed
in this appendix than any other agency except for the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) and Health Care Financing Administration.

Forest Service was the lowest among the agencies we surveyed in the
percentage of managers who reported that they were held accountable for
achieving results to at least a great extent. In addition, the agency ranked
the lowest among the 28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers who
reported using performance information when adopting new approaches or
changing work processes and the second lowest, next to FAA, in the
percentage of managers who indicated that they used

performance information when coordinating efforts with internal or external
organizations. In all other areas, the agency was not statistically
significantly different from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Slightly more than a quarter (26 percent) of managers at the
Forest Service expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly
committed to achieving results to a great or very great extent, as shown
below. This

percentage is 28 points lower than that of the rest of the government (54
percent), and this difference is statistically significant. Forest Service
ranked second from last, just ahead of FAA, of the 28 agencies included in
the survey.

Figure 60: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

54

40

26

20 0

Forest Service Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twenty- seven percent of Forest Service managers
reported that employees received positive recognition to a great or very
great extent for helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as
shown below, compared with 31 percent of managers that responded this way
for the rest of the government.

Figure 61: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 27

20 0

Forest Service Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- one percent of Forest Service managers reported that
they had, to a Accountability

great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help
the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas almost the same
percentage of managers- 40 percent- indicated that they were held
accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below. Forest Service
managers? response concerning the extent to which managers were held
accountable for results (40 percent) was the lowest among the 28 agencies
surveyed and is statistically significantly lower than the 63 percent
reported by managers in the rest of the government. Forest Service was one
of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers reporting
that they were held accountable to at least a great extent. (The others were
the Agency for International Development, Department of Energy, Department
of State, General Services

Administration, and Health Care Financing Administration.)

Figure 62: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63

60

41 40

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Forest Service Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of Forest Service managers (56 percent)
reported

having output measures and the lowest (24 percent) cited efficiency
measures, as shown below. In addition, the percentages of Forest Service
managers who reported having outcome measures (29 percent), efficiency
measures (24 percent), or quality measures (25 percent) to a great or very

great extent were all significantly below the percentages of managers who
responded in this way for the rest of the government (44, 36, and 39
percent, respectively).

Figure 63: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

56 50

44

40

36 39

39 29 29 24 25

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

Forest Service Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Forest Service was statistically significantly lower than
the rest of the

Information government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they
used performance information when setting program priorities (34 percent),
adopting new program approaches or changing work processes (25

percent), and coordinating program efforts with internal or external
organizations (21 percent).

Figure 64: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 43 42 40

41

40

34 37 35

25 21

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

Forest Service Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

General Services Administration: Selected

Appendi x XII

Survey Results The General Services Administration (GSA) was above the rest
of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and
the use of performance information. The agency was statistically
significantly higher than the rest of the government in the percentage of
managers who reported that employees who helped the agency achieve its

strategic goals received positive recognition; they had outcome, customer
service, or efficiency performance measures; and they used performance
information for four different management tasks. For the survey items
discussed in this appendix, GSA and the Small Business Administration had
the greatest number of items for which they were statistically significantly
higher than the rest of the government. GSA was also significantly lower
than the rest of the government concerning the percentage of managers

who reported that they were held accountable for results. In all other
areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the
rest of the government. GSA ranked first among the 28 agencies surveyed in
the percentage of managers reporting that employees received positive
recognition for helping the agency accomplish its strategic goals to at
least a great extent. The agency also had the highest percentage of managers
who indicated that they had efficiency measures for their programs to at
least a great extent and, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA), GSA had the highest percentage of managers who reported having
customer service measures to a similar extent.

Top Leadership Almost two- thirds (63 percent) of GSA managers expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent
for the rest of the government.

Figure 65: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

63

60

53

40 20

0 GSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Fifty- two percent of GSA managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This
percentage is 22 points higher than that of managers who responded in this
way for the rest of the government (30 percent) and the difference is
statistically significant. GSA was the highest- ranking agency of the 28
agencies included in the survey for this item.

Figure 66: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

52

40

30

20 0

GSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- six percent of GSA managers reported that they had, to
a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 49 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. GSA managers? response concerning the extent to which
managers were held accountable for results (49 percent) was statistically
significantly

lower than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government. GSA was
one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers
reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great extent. (The
others were the Agency for International Development, Department of Energy,
Department of State, Forest Service, and Health Care Financing
Administration.)

Figure 67: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

63

60

49

40

36 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

GSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of GSA managers (58 percent) reported having
output measures and the lowest (42 percent) cited quality measures, as

shown below. In addition, the percentages of GSA managers who reported
having efficiency measures (56 percent), customer service measures (54
percent), and outcome measures (56 percent) to a great or very great extent
were

significantly above the percentages of managers who responded in this way
for the rest of the government. GSA ranked first among the 28 agencies
surveyed in the percentage of managers who reported that they had efficiency
measures for their programs to at least a great extent and also ranked
first, along with VA, for the percentage reporting customer service measures
to a similar extent.

Figure 68: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

58 56 56 54 50

42 44

40

38 39 35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

GSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance GSA was statistically significantly higher than the rest
of the government in

Information the percentage of managers who indicated that they used
performance

information for the management activities shown below, except for the
allocation of resources. Figure 69: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management Activities 100
Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

57 56

55 52 52 45 43 42 41

40

34

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

GSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Health Care Financing Administration:

Appendi x XI II

Selected Survey Results Overall, the Health Care Financing Administration
(HCFA) was below the rest of the government in aspects of agency climate,
the use of performance information, and especially, performance measurement.
The agency was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the
government for survey items concerning the percentages of managers who
reported that managers were held accountable for results; reported having
five different types of performance measures; and indicated that they used

performance information for four management tasks. In all other areas, HCFA
was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the
government. Of the 28 agencies surveyed, HCFA rated significantly lower than
the rest of the government on more of the survey items discussed in this
appendix than any other agency except for the Federal Aviation

Administration. HCFA had the lowest percentage of managers who reported
having four of the five types of performance measures we asked about:
output, efficiency, quality, and outcome measures. For the fifth type-
customer service measures- the agency ranked second lowest ahead of the
Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC). In addition, the agency had the lowest
percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance

information when setting individual job expectations for staff. HCFA was
also second lowest among the agencies we surveyed in the percentage of
managers who reported that they were held accountable for results to at
least a great extent.

Top Leadership Less than half (46 percent) of HCFA managers expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent
for the rest of the government.

Figure 70: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

53 46

40 20

0 HCFA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty percent of HCFA managers reported that employees
received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping
their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this
percentage is almost the same as that of managers who responded this way for
the rest of the government (31 percent).

Figure 71: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

30 31 20

0 HCFA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Twenty- eight percent of HCFA managers reported that they had,
to a great Accountability

or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 42 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
HCFA managers? response concerning the extent to which managers were held
accountable for results (42 percent) was significantly lower than the

63 percent reported by the rest of the government. HCFA was second lowest of
the agencies we surveyed, after Forest Service, in the percentage of
managers who reported that they were held accountable to at least a great
extent. The agency was also one of six agencies surveyed that had less than
half of its managers reporting that they were held accountable to at least a
great extent. (The others were the Agency for International Development,
Department of Energy, Department of State, Forest Service, and General
Services Administration.)

Figure 72: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results. 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63

60

42

40

36 28

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

HCFA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of HCFA managers (19 percent) reported
having output measures and the lowest (9 percent) cited efficiency measures,
as shown below. Seventeen percent of managers reported having outcome

measures to at least a great extent. The percentages of HCFA managers who
reported having each of the five types of performance measures shown below
were all statistically significantly below the percentages of managers who
responded in this way for the rest of the government. In addition, HCFA was
the lowest ranking agency of the 28 agencies surveyed for each type of
performance measure shown below- except for customer service measures, where
it ranked second lowest next to NRC.

Figure 73: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

50 44

36 39

39 40

19 17

20

16 14

9

0 Output

Efficiency Customer

Quality Outcome

measures measures

service measures

measures measures

HCFA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance HCFA was statistically significantly lower than the rest
of the government Information

in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance
information for all of the management activities shown below, except for
adopting new program approaches and changing work processes. In addition,
the agency ranked lowest among the 28 agencies surveyed

concerning the use of such information when setting individual job
expectations for staff (16 percent), and second lowest ahead of the National
Science Foundation, when using performance information to set program
priorities (27 percent).

Figure 74: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 43 42 41

40

35 29 32 27 20

21 16 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

HCFA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Health and Human Services:

Appendi x XI V

Selected Survey Results The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
was largely similar to the rest of the government, except for one aspect of
agency climate. HHS was statistically significantly higher than the rest of
the government in the percentage of managers who reported that employees
received positive

recognition to at least a great extent for helping the agency achieve its
strategic goals. In all other areas, the agency was not significantly
different from the rest of the government. Survey results for one component
of HHS, the Health Care Financing Administration, are not included here but
are reported in a separate appendix.

Top Leadership Sixty percent of HHS managers expressed the view that their
top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or
very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent for the rest of
the government.

Figure 75: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

60

60

53

40 20

0 HHS Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Forty- six percent of HHS managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This
percentage is 16 points higher than that of managers who responded this way
for the rest of the government (30 percent) and this difference is
statistically significant.

Figure 76: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

46

40

30

20 0

HHS Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- three percent of HHS managers reported that they had,
to a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 68 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 35
and 62 respectively. HHS managers ranked in the top quarter of the 28
agencies surveyed for

managers' perceptions concerning both the extent of decisionmaking authority
and the degree to which managers were held accountable for results, although
the differences between HHS and the rest of the government on these two
items were not statistically significant. Figure 77: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported That

Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80

68 62

60

43

40

35

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

HHS Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of HHS managers (46 percent) reported having
outcome measures and the lowest (37 percent) cited efficiency measures,

as shown below. HHS was one of only seven agencies where outcome measures
were cited more frequently than output measures. (The others were the Agency
for International Development, Department of Energy,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, National Science Foundation, and Office of Personnel
Management.) The agency ranked in the lowest quarter of the agencies
surveyed for the percentage of managers reporting that their programs had
output measures (44 percent), although the difference between HHS and the
rest of the government was not statistically significant. Figure 78:
Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of
Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great?
extent

80 60

51 44

46 44

39 39 42 39 40

37 35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

HHS Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
HHS managers Information

reported that they used performance information for each of the management
activities shown below. Figure 79: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management Activities 100
Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 43 43 42

45 40 39 41

40

35 35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

HHS Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Housing and Urban

Appendi x XV

Development: Selected Survey Results The Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) was above the rest of the government in aspects of agency
climate, performance measurement, and particularly, in the use of
performance information. The agency was statistically significantly higher
than the rest of the government in the percentages of managers who reported
that employees received positive recognition for helping the agency achieve
its strategic goals; managers are held accountable for results; they have
output and outcome

measures; and they use performance information to set program priorities,
allocate resources, coordinate program efforts, and set job expectations. Of
the 28 agencies surveyed, HUD had the second greatest number of total items
for which the agency was significantly higher than the rest of the

government after the General Services Administration and the Small Business
Administration (SBA), both of which had 1 more. In all other areas, HUD was
not significantly different from the rest of the agencies we surveyed.

Top Leadership Almost two- thirds (64 percent) of HUD managers expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, whereas 53 percent of managers responded
this way for the rest of the government, as shown below. HUD managers were
in the top quarter of agencies surveyed for this item.

Figure 80: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

64

60

53

40 20

0 HUD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Forty- seven percent of HUD managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This
percentage is 17 points higher than that of managers who responded this way
for the rest of the government (30 percent) and is a statistically
significant difference.

Figure 81: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

47

40

30

20 0

HUD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- six percent of HUD managers reported that they had, to
a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help their agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 79 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. HUD was among five agencies surveyed where the gap between

accountability and authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points.
(The others were the Federal Aviation Administration, Internal Revenue
Service, SBA, and Social Security Administration.) HUD managers? response
concerning the extent of their decisionmaking authority (36 percent) was
identical to that of the rest of the government. Their response concerning
the extent to which managers were held accountable for results (79 percent)
was statistically significantly higher than the 63 percent reported by
managers in the rest of the government. HUD ranked highest in its response
concerning accountability among the

28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 82: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

79 63

60 40

36 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

HUD Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of HUD managers reported having output
measures (75 percent) which was statistically significantly higher than the
rest of the

government (50 percent). In addition, HUD and SBA were first among the 28
agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers reporting this type of
performance measure. HUD was also significantly higher than the rest of the
government in the percentage of its managers who reported having outcome
measures. HUD and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration were
first among the agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers reporting
outcome measures (63 percent). Of the five measures

we asked about, HUD managers cited customer services measures least
frequently (36 percent), as shown below. Figure 83: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of Performance Measures 100
Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

75 63

60

50 47

44 39

37 39 40

35 36

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

HUD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance HUD ranked statistically significantly higher than the
rest of the

Information government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they
used performance information for each of the management activities shown

below, except for adopting new program approaches or changing work
processes. In addition, the agency ranked first among the 28 agencies we
surveyed concerning the use of performance information when setting program
priorities (64 percent) and coordinating program efforts with internal or
external organizations (57 percent). HUD also ranked second to SBA in the
percentage of managers who reported using performance information when
setting individual job expectations for staff (59 percent).

Figure 84: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80

64

60

58 57

59 45 43 42

39 41 40

35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

HUD Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of the Interior: Selected Survey

Appendi x XVI

Results The Department of the Interior was below the rest of the government
in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of
performance information. The agency was statistically significantly lower
than the rest of the government in the percentages of managers who expressed
the view that the agency's top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to at least a great extent; reported having efficiency and
quality measures; and indicated that they used performance

information for setting program priorities, allocating resources, and
coordinating program efforts. In all other areas, the agency was not
statistically significantly different from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Less than half (44 percent) of managers at Interior expressed
the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving
results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is
10 points lower than that of the rest of the government (54 percent) and
this difference is statistically significant. Interior ranks in the bottom
quarter of the 28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 85: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

54 44

40 20

0 Interior Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- three percent of Interior's managers reported
that employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent
for helping

their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this is
about the same as the percentage of managers who responded this way for the
rest of the government (30 percent). Figure 86: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported That Employees in Their

Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish
Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60 40

33 30 20

0 Interior Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- three percent of managers at Interior reported that
they had, to a Accountability

great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help
the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 60 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
For the rest of the government, these percentages were 35 and 63,
respectively. Figure 87: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That
Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

60 63

60

43

40

35

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Int er i or Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of Interior managers (48 percent) reported
having output measures and the lowest (24 percent) cited efficiency
measures, as

shown below. Thirty- nine percent of managers reported having outcome
measures. In addition, the percentages of Interior managers who reported
having efficiency measures (24 percent) and quality measures (30 percent) to
a great or very great extent were statistically significantly below the
percentages of managers reporting these results for the rest of the

government. Interior also ranked in the lowest quarter of the agencies
surveyed for efficiency measures.

Figure 88: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

48 50

44 38

39 40 39 40

36 30 24

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures

measures service

measures measures

measures

Int er i or Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Interior was statistically significantly lower than the
rest of the government Information

in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance
information for all of the management activities shown below, except for
adopting new program approaches/ changing work processes and setting

individual job expectations for staff. Figure 89: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management
Activities 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80
60

45 43 42

43 41

40

33 34 35 35

24

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities

resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations

approaches

Int er i or Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey

Appendi x XVII

Results The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was below the rest of the
government in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and the
use of performance information. The agency was significantly lower than the
rest of government in the percentage of managers who reported that top

leadership at their agency demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving
results; that managers had the decisionmaking authority they needed to help
their agency accomplish its strategic goals; that their programs had output
and outcome performance measures; and that they used performance information
when setting program priorities, adopting new program approaches or changing
work processes, and coordinating program efforts. In all other areas, the
agency was not statistically

significantly different from the rest of the government. IRS had the lowest
percentage of managers who reported that they had the decisionmaking
authority they needed to help their agency accomplish its strategic goals to
at least a great extent. The agency also ranked second to last, next to the
Health Care Financing Administration, among the agencies surveyed in the
percentage of managers who indicated that they had outcome measures for
their programs.

Top Leadership Forty- two percent of managers at IRS expressed the view that
their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great
or very

great extent, as shown below. This result is 12 percentage points lower than
the rest of government (54 percent) and this difference is statistically
significant. IRS ranked in the lowest quarter of the agencies surveyed.

Figure 90: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

54 42

40 20

0 I RS Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twenty- seven percent of IRS managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, not
significantly different from the percentage of managers who responded this
way for the rest of the government (31 percent).

Figure 91: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 27

20 0

I RS Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Fifteen percent of IRS managers reported that they had, to a
great or very

Accountability great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to
help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 60 percent indicated
that they were

held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below. IRS was
among five agencies surveyed where the gap between accountability and
authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points. (The others were the
Federal Aviation Administration, Social Security Administration, Small
Business Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban Development.)
IRS managers' response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking
authority was the lowest among the 28 agencies surveyed. The IRS' 15 percent
is statistically significantly lower than 37 percent reported by the

rest of the government.

Figure 92: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent 80

63 60

60 40

37

20

15

0 Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

IRS Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of IRS managers (37 percent) reported having

quality measures and the lowest (28 percent) cited outcome measures, as
shown below. In addition, the percentages of IRS managers who reported
having output measures (32 percent) and outcome measures (28 percent) to a
great or very great extent were significantly below the percentages of
managers

reporting these results for the rest of the government. Figure 93:
Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of
Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great?
extent 80 60

51 45

40

36 39

37 39 32 35 30

28

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures

measures measures

IRS Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance IRS ranked statistically significantly lower than the
rest of the government

Information in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used
performance

information for setting program priorities (36 percent), adopting new
program approaches or changing work processes (29 percent), and coordinating
program efforts (27 percent), as shown below. Figure 94: Percentage of
Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance Information for Various
Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 44 43 42

40

36 35 35

33 29

27

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

IRS Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Justice: Selected Survey

Appendi x XVI II

Results The Department of Justice was largely similar to the rest of the
government, except for two aspects of performance measurement. It was
statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the
percentages of managers who reported having customer service and quality
performance measures. In all other areas, Justice was not statistically
significantly different from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership Less than half (49 percent) of managers at Justice expressed
the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving
results to a great or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 54
percent for the rest of the government.

Figure 95: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

54 49

40 20

0 Justice Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twenty- six percent of managers at Justice reported
that employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent
for helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.
This percentage is not significantly different from that of managers who
responded this way in the rest of the government (31 percent).

Figure 96: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 26

20 0

Justice Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- three percent of managers at Justice reported that
they had, to a

Accountability great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they
needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 60 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63, respectively.

Figure 97: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

60 63

60 40

33 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Justice Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of managers at Justice (44 percent) reported
having output measures and the lowest (20 percent) cited customer service

measures, as shown below. Thirty- eight percent of managers reported having
outcome measures.

In addition, percentages of managers at Justice who reported having customer
service measures (20 percent) and quality measures (25 percent) to a great
or very great extent were significantly below that of the rest of the
government.

Figure 98: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types
of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

51 44

44

40

40 40 38

32 36

25

20

20

0 Output

Efficiency Customer

Quality Outcome

measures measures service

measures measures

measures

Justice Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
managers at Justice

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. In addition, Justice ranked in the

second lowest quarter of the agencies surveyed for the percentage of
managers who reported using performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. Figure 99: Percentage of Federal Managers
Who Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

46 43 39 42

40 41

40

38 37 35

30

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

Justice Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Appendi x XIX

Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results The Department of Labor was
largely similar to the rest of the government, except in one aspect of
agency climate and one aspect of performance measurement. The agency was
statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the
percentage of managers who reported that employees received positive
recognition for helping their agency achieve

its strategic goals to at least a great extent and the percentage of
managers reporting that they had customer service measures for their
programs. In all other areas, Labor was not statistically significantly
different from the rest of the government. Top Leadership Over half (56
percent) of managers at Labor expressed the view that their

top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or
very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is about the same as that
of the rest of the government (53 percent).

Figure 100: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

56 53 40

20 0

Labor Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Eighteen percent of managers at Labor reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This
percentage is 13 points lower than that of managers who responded this way
for the rest of the government (31 percent) and this difference is
statistically significant. For this survey item, Labor was the third lowest
ranking agency, after the

Federal Aviation Administration and the Agency for International
Development, of the 28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 101: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60 40

31

20

18

0 Labor Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty percent of managers at Labor reported that they had, to
a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 62 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63,

respectively.

Figure 102: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

62 63

60

40 36

40 20

0 Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Labor Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of managers at Labor (55 percent) reported
having output measures and the lowest (28 percent) cited customer service

measures, as shown below. In addition, the percentage of managers at Labor
who reported having customer service measures to a great or very great
extent was significantly below the percentage of managers for the rest of
the government (39 percent). Forty percent of managers at Labor reported
having outcome measures.

Figure 103: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

55 50

44

40

39 39 40

36 35

31 28

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

Labor Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
managers at Labor

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. In addition, the agency ranked in the

lowest quarter of agencies we surveyed concerning the use of such
information when coordinating program efforts with internal or external
organizations (27 percent).

Figure 104: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

46 45

45 41 43 42

42 41 40

35 27

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

Labor Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

National Aeronautics and Space

Appendi x XX

Administration: Selected Survey Results The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) was above the rest of the government in aspects of
agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of performance
information. It was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the
government in the percentages of managers who reported that the agency?s top
leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving results; that the
agency provided positive recognition of employees who helped the agency
achieve its strategic goals; that they had outcome, quality, and customer
service measures; and that they used performance information to allocate
resources. In all other areas, the agency was not statistically
significantly different from the rest of the government. For the items
discussed in this appendix, NASA was in the top quarter of the 28 agencies
we surveyed when ranked by the total

number of items they had that were statistically significantly higher than
the rest of the government. The percentage of NASA managers reporting that
the agency?s leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving
results to at least a great extent was second highest, along with the Social
Security Administration (SSA), and just behind the National Science
Foundation (NSF), among the agencies we surveyed. The agency also had the
highest percentage of managers reporting that their programs had quality
measures and was tied

for second highest with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), after the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the General Services Administration
(GSA), in the percentage of managers reporting that they had customer
service measures.

Top Leadership Over two- thirds (68 percent) of NASA managers expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is 15
points higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and this
difference is statistically significant. NASA ranked second highest, along
with SSA and after NSF, of the 28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 105: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

68

60

53

40 20

0 NASA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Forty- seven percent of NASA managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This percentage is 17 points
higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of the
government (30 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.
Figure 106: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

47

40

30

20 0

NASA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- one percent of NASA managers reported that they had, to
a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 68 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63,

respectively. Figure 107: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That
Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

68 63

60

41

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

NASA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of NASA managers (63 percent) reported
having outcome measures and the lowest (43 percent) cited efficiency
measures,

as shown below. NASA was one of only seven agencies where outcome measures
were cited more frequently than output measures. (The others were the Agency
for International Development, Department of Energy,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and Human
Services, National Science Foundation, and Office of Personnel Management.)
In addition, the percentages of NASA managers who reported having

outcome measures (63 percent), quality measures (61 percent), or customer
service measures (52 percent) to a great or very great extent were all
significantly above the percentages of managers reporting these

results for the rest of the government. NASA ranked highest of 28 agencies
in the percentage of managers reporting that their programs had quality
measures and second highest, along with OPM and after VA and GSA, in the
percentage citing customer service measures.

Figure 108: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

61 63 59

60

50 52

43 43

40

38 39 35

20 0

Output Customer

Quality Outcome

Efficiency measures measures

service measures measures

measures

NASA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance NASA ranked statistically significantly higher than the
rest of the

Information government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they
used performance information when allocating resources (54 and 43 percent,

respectively), as shown below. Figure 109: Percentage of Federal Managers
Who Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management Activities
100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

54 53 52 50

45 43 42

39 41 40

35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

NASA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

National Science Foundation: Selected Survey

Appendi x XXI

Results The National Science Foundation (NSF) was above the rest of the
government in one aspect of agency climate, and the agency was below the
rest of the government in aspects of the use of performance information. It
was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government and

ranked first of the 28 agencies included in the survey in the percentage of
managers who reported that their agency?s top leadership was strongly
committed to achieving results to at least a great extent.

NSF was significantly lower than the rest of the government in the
percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance information
when carrying out three management tasks: setting program priorities,
allocating resources, and setting individual job expectations. For all three
of these items, NSF ranked among the lowest of the agencies we surveyed. The
agency had the lowest percentage of managers reporting that they used
performance information when setting program priorities and when allocating
resources. NSF had the second lowest percentage,

next to the Health Care Financing Administration, for managers reporting
that they used this information when setting individual job expectations for
staff. In all other areas, NSF was not statistically significantly different
from the rest of the government.

Top Leadership More than two- thirds (69 percent) of NSF managers expressed
the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving
results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is
16 points higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and
this

difference is statistically significant. For this survey item, NSF ranks
first of the 28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 110: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

69

60

53

40 20

0 NSF Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- seven percent of NSF managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below,
compared with 31 percent for the rest of the government.

Figure 111: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60 40

37 31

20 0

NSF Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- four percent of NSF managers reported that they had, to
a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 62 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63,

respectively. NSF managers? response concerning the extent of their
decisionmaking authority ranked third highest among the 28 agencies surveyed
(after the Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Commerce),
although the difference from the rest of the government was not
statistically significant. Figure 112: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That

Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80

62 63

60

44

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

NSF Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of NSF managers reported having outcome

measures (55 percent) and the agency ranked in the top quarter of the
agencies surveyed for the percentage of managers citing this type of
measure. The lowest percentage of NSF managers responding on this topic were
those who reported having efficiency measures to at least a great extent in
their programs (35 percent), as shown below. NSF was one of

only seven agencies where outcome measures were cited more frequently than
output measures. (The others were the Agency for International Development,
Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration,
and Office of Personnel Management.) Figure 113: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of Performance Measures 100
Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

55 47

50 44

40

40 39

38 39 35 35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

NSF Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance NSF was significantly lower than the rest of the
government in the

Information percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance

information for each of the management activities shown below, except for
adopting new program approaches or changing work processes and coordinating
program efforts with internal or external organizations. In addition, the
agency ranked last among the 28 agencies we surveyed concerning the use of
performance information when setting program priorities (26 percent) and
allocating resources (24 percent) and second from last, ahead of HCFA, when
setting individual job expectations for staff (22 percent).

Figure 114: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 43 42 41

40

35 26 27

29 24 22

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

NSF Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected

Appendi x XXII

Survey Results The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was above the rest of
the government for aspects of agency climate, and the agency was both above
and below the rest of the government for different aspects of performance
measurement. It was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the
government in the percentages of managers who reported that their agency?s
top leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving results; that
the agency provided positive recognition of employees who

helped the agency achieve its strategic goals; and that they used output
measures. In addition, NRC was significantly lower in the percentage of
managers who reported having customer service, quality, and outcome
measures. In all other areas, the agency was not statistically significantly
different from the rest of the government.

NRC ranked fourth, after the National Science Foundation, Social Security
Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in the
percentage of managers who reported that their agency?s top leadership was
strongly committed to achieving results to at least a great extent and
ranked last among the agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers who
reported having customer service measures.

Top Leadership More than two- thirds (67 percent) of NRC managers expressed
the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving
results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is
14 points higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and
this

difference is statistically significant. Figure 115: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported That Agency Top Leadership Demonstrated a Strong
Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

67

60

53

40 20

0 NRC Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Forty- five percent of NRC managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This percentage is 14 points
higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of the
government (31 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.
Figure 116: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

45

40

31

20 0

NRC Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- two percent of NRC managers reported that they had, to
a great or Accountability

very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 69 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,
respectively. Figure 117: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That
Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results. 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

69 63

60 40

36 32

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

NRC Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of NRC managers (68 percent) reported having
output measures and the lowest (14 percent) cited customer service

measures, as shown below. NRC was statistically significantly higher than
the rest of the government in the percentage of its managers who identified
having output measures to a great or very great extent (68 percent). The
percentages of NRC managers who reported having customer service measures
(14 percent), quality measures (27 percent), or outcome measures (30
percent) were all statistically significantly below the percentages of
managers for the rest of

the federal government. In addition, NRC ranked last of the 28 agencies
included in the survey for the percentage of managers who reported that they
had customer service measures.

Figure 118: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures Source: GAO survey data.

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

68

60

50 44 38

39 39 40

35 27

30

20

14

0 Output

Customer Quality

Outcome Efficiency

measures measures service

measures measures measures

NRC Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
NRC managers

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. Figure 119: Percentage of Federal
Managers Who Reported Using Performance

Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

46 45 43 43

40 42

41

40

36 38

35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

NRC Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Office of Personnel Management: Selected

Appendi x XXI II

Survey Results The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was higher than the
rest of the government in aspects of agency climate and the use of
performance information. The agency was statistically significantly higher
than the rest of the government in the percentages of managers who reported
that their

agency provided positive recognition of employees who helped the agency
achieve its strategic goals; that managers had the decisionmaking authority
they needed to help their agency accomplish its strategic goals; and that
they used performance information when allocating resources and

adopting new program approaches or changing work processes. In all other
areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the
rest of the government.

Of the 28 agencies surveyed, OPM had the highest percentage of managers who
reported that they had the decisionmaking authority they needed to achieve
results to at least a great extent. The agency ranked third, after the
General Services Administration (GSA) and the Small Business Administration
(SBA), in the percentage of managers who indicated that employees received
positive recognition for achieving results to a great or very great extent.
OPM managers again ranked first among the agencies surveyed in their use of
performance information when allocating

resources and when adopting new or different program approaches.

Top Leadership Almost two- thirds (63 percent) of OPM managers expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, as shown below, which is not a
statistically significant difference from managers in the rest of government
(53 percent).

Figure 120: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

63

60

53

40 20

0 OPM Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Forty- nine percent of OPM managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This
percentage is 18 points higher than that of managers who responded this way
for the rest of the government (31 percent) and this difference is
statistically significant. OPM was the third highest- ranking agency, behind
GSA and SBA, of the 28 agencies included in the survey.

Figure 121: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

49

40

31

20 0

OPM Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Fifty- eight percent of OPM managers reported that they had,
to a great or Accountability

very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 76 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
OPM managers? response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking
authority was the highest among the 28 agencies surveyed. OPM?s 58 percent
is statistically significantly higher than the 36 percent reported by the
rest of the government. OPM managers? response concerning the extent to
which managers were held accountable for results (76 percent) was the second
highest of all agencies surveyed (after HUD), although

OPM was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the
government (63 percent).

Figure 122: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

76 63

60

58

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

OPM Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of OPM managers (58 percent) reported having
outcome measures and the lowest (43 percent) cited efficiency measures,

as shown below. OPM was one of only seven agencies where outcome measures
were cited more frequently than output measures. (The others were the Agency
for International Development, Department of Energy,

Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and Human
Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and National
Science Foundation.) In addition, OPM, along with the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) and behind the Department of Veterans
Affairs (VA) and GSA, had the second highest percentage of managers who

reported that their programs had customer service measures (52 percent) and
third highest after NASA and VA for quality measures (54 percent) and, after
NASA and HUD, for outcome measures (58 percent). OPM was not statistically
significantly different from the rest of the government on these

items. Figure 123: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having
Specific Types of Performance Measures 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

56 58

50 52

54 43 44

40

39 39 35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

OPM Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance OPM ranked statistically significantly higher than the
rest of the

Information government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they
used performance information when allocating resources (66 percent) and when
adopting new program approaches or changing work processes (64

percent), as shown below. The agency ranked first among the 28 agencies
surveyed for both of these items. In addition, the agency was among the top
quarter of agencies concerning the use of performance information when
setting program priorities (56 percent) or setting individual job
expectations for staff (50 percent). However, OPM was not statistically
significantly different from the rest of the government on either of these
two items. Figure 124: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using
Performance

Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent 80

66 64

60

56 45

50 43 42

41 40

39 35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

OPM Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Small Business Administration: Selected

Appendi x XXI V

Survey Results The Small Business Administration (SBA) was higher than the
rest of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance
measurement, and, particularly, the use of performance information. The
agency was lower than the rest of the government in one aspect of
performance measurement. It was statistically significantly higher than the
rest of the government for survey items concerning the percentage of
employees receiving positive recognition, accountability for results, having
output measures, and using performance information for all five key
activities

discussed in this appendix. SBA was significantly below the rest of the
government in the percentage of managers who reported having quality
measures. Of the survey items discussed in this appendix, SBA and the
General Services Administration (GSA) had the greatest number of items

for which they were significantly higher than the rest of the government. In
all other areas, SBA was not statistically significantly different from the
rest of the government. The agency ranked second after GSA among the 28
agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers reporting that employees
received positive recognition for helping the agency accomplish its
strategic goals to at least

a great extent. While generally comparable to the rest of the government for
the other types of performance measures we asked about, SBA was ranked first
among the agencies surveyed- along with the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD)- in the percentage of managers who reported that they had
output measures. SBA also ranked first in the percentage of managers who
indicated that they used performance information when setting individual job
expectations.

Top Leadership Slightly more than half (54 percent) of SBA managers
expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to a great or very great extent, as shown below, and this
percentage is about the

same as managers who responded this way for the rest of the government (53
percent).

Figure 125: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results.

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

54 53 40

20 0

SBA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Fifty- one percent of SBA managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below. This percentage is 21 points
higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of the
government (30 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.
SBA ranked second highest, after GSA, of the 28 agencies included in the

survey. Figure 126: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That
Employees in Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their
Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

51

40

30

20 0

SBA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Twenty- seven percent of SBA managers reported that they had,
to a great

Accountability or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they
needed to help the

agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 75 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
SBA was among five agencies surveyed where the gap between accountability
and authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points. (The others were
the Federal Aviation Administration, Internal Revenue Service, Social
Security Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban Development.)

SBA managers? response concerning the extent to which managers are held
accountable for results (75 percent) was statistically significantly higher
than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government. SBA managers?
response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking authority placed the
agency in the bottom quarter of agencies surveyed, although the difference
between SBA (27 percent) and the rest of the government (36 percent) was not
statistically significant. Figure 127: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That

Managers/ Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority
Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held
Accountable for Results 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80

75 63

60 40

36 27

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

SBA Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of SBA managers (75 percent) reported having

output measures and the lowest (24 percent) cited quality measures, as shown
below. Forty- four percent of managers reported having outcome measures.

SBA was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government
in the percentage of its managers who identified having output measures to a
great or very great extent (75 percent). However, the percentage of SBA
managers who reported having quality measures (24 percent) was significantly
below the percentage for the rest of the government (39 percent). In
addition, SBA was tied for first with HUD among the 28 agencies surveyed in
the percentage of managers who reported that they had output measures.

Figure 128: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

75

60

50 44

44

40

39 39 31 35

29 24

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

SBA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance SBA was statistically significantly higher than the rest
of the government in Information

the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance
information for all five management activities shown below. In addition, the
agency ranked first among the 28 agencies we surveyed concerning the

use of performance information when setting individual job expectations for
staff (66 percent). SBA was second from the top in the percentage of
managers reporting that they used such information when allocating resources
(61 percent), after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). SBA also
ranked second to OPM in the percentage of managers who cited

using this information when adopting new program approaches or changing work
processes (61 percent). Finally, it was third, after HUD and the Social
Security Administration, in the percentage of managers reporting that they
used such information when setting program priorities (61 percent).

Figure 129: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

66 61 61 61

60

45 43 42

47 41 40

35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

SBA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Social Security Administration: Selected

Appendi x XXV

Survey Results The Social Security Administration (SSA) was above the rest
of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and
the use of performance information, and it was below the rest of the
government in other aspects of agency climate and performance measurement.
The agency was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the
government in the percentage of managers reporting that their agency?s top
leadership had a strong commitment to achieving results; that

they used output measures, and that they used performance information to set
program priorities. SSA was significantly lower in the percentage of
managers reporting that they had the decisionmaking authority they needed,
and that they had quality performance measures. In all other

areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the
rest of the government. SSA and the National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA) were second highest among the 28 agencies, after the
National Science Foundation (NSF), in the percentage of managers who
reported that their

agency?s top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to at
least a great extent. Yet, SSA was the third lowest agency, before the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS), in the percentage of managers who believed that they had the
decisionmaking authority they needed to achieve results to a similar extent.

Top Leadership Over two- thirds (68 percent) of managers at SSA expressed
the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving
results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is
15 points higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and
this difference is statistically significant. SSA and NASA were second to
NSF for the 28 agencies included in the survey on this item.

Figure 130: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

68

60

53

40 20

0 SSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- six percent of SSA managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals compared with 30 percent
for the rest of the government, as shown below. Figure 131: Percentage of
Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in Their Agencies Received
Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic
Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

36 30

20 0

SSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Twenty- three percent of SSA managers reported that they had,
to a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 68 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. SSA was among five agencies surveyed where the gap between

accountability and authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points.
(The others were the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, Small Business Administration, and Department of Housing and
Urban Development.)

SSA managers? response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking
authority (23 percent) was the third lowest, ahead of FAA and IRS, among the
28 agencies surveyed and is statistically significantly lower than the 36
percent reported by the rest of the government.

Figure 132: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results. 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

68 62

60 40

36 23

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

SSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of SSA managers (73 percent) reported having

output measures and the lowest (29 percent) cited quality measures, as shown
below. Forty- eight percent of managers reported having outcome measures.

SSA was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government
in the percentage of its managers who identified having output measures to a
great or very great extent. The percentage of SSA managers who reported
having quality measures (29 percent) was significantly below the percentages
of managers for the rest of the government. Figure 133: Percentage of
Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types

of Performance Measures 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

73

60

49 48 45

44

40

40 38

39 35 29

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

SSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance In contrast to the rest of the federal government, 62
percent of managers at

Information SSA reported that they used performance information to a great
or very great extent when setting program priorities. This is a
statistically significant difference when compared to the 44 percent of
managers who

responded in this way across the rest of the government, as shown below.
Figure 134: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities 100 Percentage responding to a
?great? or ?very great? extent

80

62

60

49 50 44 43 42

45 39

41

40

35

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

SSA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Appendi x XXVI

Department of State: Selected Survey Results The Department of State was
below the rest of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance
measurement, and the use of performance information. It was statistically
significantly lower than the rest of the government in the percentage of
managers who reported that managers were held accountable by their agency
for results. State also ranked

significantly lower in the percentage of managers who reported having
customer service and quality measures and using performance information when
coordinating program efforts with other organizations. In all other areas,
State was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the

government. Top Leadership Less than half (46 percent) of managers at the
Department of State

expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to a great or very great extent, compared with 53 percent
for the rest of the government, as shown below. Figure 135: Percentage of
Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top Leadership Demonstrated a
Strong Commitment to Achieving Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

53 46

40 20

0 State Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- six percent of State managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, compared with 30 percent for
the rest of the government, as shown below. Figure 136: Percentage of
Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in Their Agencies Received
Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic
Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

36 30

20 0

State Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- five percent of managers at State reported that they
had, to a great Accountability

or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 49 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
State managers' response concerning the extent to which managers were held
accountable for results (49 percent) was statistically significantly

lower than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government. State was
one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers
reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great extent. (The
others were the Agency for International Development, Department of Energy,
Forest Service, General Services Administration, and Health Care Financing
Administration.)

Figure 137: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

63

60

49

40

35 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

State Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of managers at State (43 percent) reported
having

output measures and the lowest (21 percent) cited customer service measures,
as shown below. Thirty- seven percent of managers reported having outcome
measures.

In addition, the percentages of State managers who reported having customer
service measures (21 percent) and quality measures (25 percent) to a great
or very great extent were statistically significantly below the percentages
of managers reporting these results for the rest of the government.

Figure 138: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

50 43

44

40

39 39 37

35 29

25 21

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures

service measures measures

measures

State Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance State ranked statistically significantly lower than the
rest of the

Information government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they
used performance information when coordinating program efforts with internal
or external organizations (21 percent).

Figure 139: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 43 42

41

40

37 35 35 37

33 21

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

State Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Transportation: Selected

Appendi x XXVII

Survey Results The Department of Transportation (DOT) was below the rest of
the government in one aspect of performance measurement. It was
statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the
percentage of managers who reported having outcome measures for their
programs. In all other areas, DOT was not significantly different from the
rest of the government. Survey results for one component of DOT, the Federal
Aviation Administration, are not included here but are reported in a
separate appendix.

Top Leadership Fifty- nine percent of managers at DOT expressed the view
that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a
great or very great extent, compared with 53 percent of managers in the rest
of the government, as shown below.

Figure 140: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60

59 53

40 20

0 DOT Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- one percent of DOT managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and
this percentage is equal to that of managers in the rest of the government.

Figure 141: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in
Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies
Accomplish Their Strategic Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60 40

31 31 20

0 DOT Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Forty- three percent of DOT managers reported that they had,
to a great or

Accountability very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 55 percent
indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent,
as shown below. For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36
and 63,

respectively.

Figure 142: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

63

60

55 43

40

36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

DOT Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of DOT managers (42 percent) reported having
output measures and the lowest (27 percent) cited efficiency measures, as

shown below. In addition, the percentage of DOT managers who reported having
outcome measures to a great or very great extent (32 percent) was
statistically significantly below the percentage of managers reporting these
results for the rest of the government (44 percent). Figure 143: Percentage
of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types

of Performance Measures 100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very
great? extent 80 60

50 42

39 44

40

36 39 32

32 27

29

20 0

Output Customer

Quality Outcome

Efficiency measures measures

service measures measures

measures

DOT Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of
managers at DOT

Information reported that they used performance information for each of the
management activities shown below. In addition, DOT ranked in the lowest
quarter of the agencies surveyed for the percentage of managers who

reported using performance information when allocating resources (34
percent) and when setting individual job expectations with staff (31
percent).

Figure 144: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

45 43 42 41

40

37 34 35 35 30

31 20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

DOT Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey

Appendi x XXVI II

Results The Department of the Treasury was above the rest of the government
in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of
performance information. The agency was statistically significantly higher
than the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who expressed
the view that their agency?s top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to at least a great extent; who reported that they had
both output and outcome measures for their programs; and who

indicated that they used performance information when coordinating program
efforts. For the items discussed in this appendix, Treasury was in the top
quarter of the 28 agencies we surveyed when ranked by the total number of
items they had that were statistically significantly higher than the rest of
the government. In all other areas, Treasury was not statistically

significantly different from the rest of the government. Survey results for
one component of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, are not included
here but are reported in a separate appendix.

Top Leadership Almost two- thirds (64 percent) of managers at Treasury
expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to
achieving results to a great or very great extent, as shown below. This
percentage is 11 points higher than the rest of the government (53 percent)
and is statistically

significantly different.

Figure 145: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80

64

60

53

40 20

0 Treasury Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Thirty- nine percent of Treasury managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping

their agency accomplish its strategic goals, compared with 30 percent for
the rest of the government, as shown below. Figure 146: Percentage of
Federal Managers Who Reported That Employees in Their Agencies Received
Positive Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic
Goals 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60 40

39 30

20 0

Treasury Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- nine percent of Treasury managers reported that they
had, to a great

Accountability or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they
needed to help the

agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 65 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,
respectively.

Figure 147: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

65 63

60 40

39 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

Treasury Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of Treasury managers (66 percent) reported
having

output measures and the lowest (37 percent) cited customer service measures,
as shown below.

In addition, the percentages of Treasury managers who reported having output
measures (66 percent) and outcome measures (56 percent) to a great or very
great extent were significantly above the percentages of managers reporting
these results for the rest of the government (50 and 43 percent,
respectively).

Figure 148: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

66

60

56 50

41 41

39 43

40

37 39

35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures service

measures measures measures

Treasury Rest of government Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance Treasury was significantly higher than the rest of the
government in the

Information percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance

information when coordinating program efforts with internal or external
organizations (49 percent).

Figure 149: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

48 51 49 49 45

43 45 42

41 40

34

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

Treasury Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected

Appendi x XXIX

Survey Results The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was above the rest of
the government in aspects of performance measurement and the use of
performance information. It was statistically significantly higher than the
rest of the government in the percentage of managers who reported having
output, customer service, and quality measures and those who reported using
performance information to set program priorities, adopt new

program approaches or change work processes, and coordinate program efforts
with other organizations. In all other areas, the agency was not
statistically significantly different from the rest of the government.

For the items discussed in this appendix, VA was in the top quarter of the
28 agencies we surveyed when ranked by the total number of items they had
that were statistically significantly higher than the rest of the
government. In addition, VA and the General Services Administration (GSA)
ranked highest among the 28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers
who reported having customer service measures for their

programs.

Top Leadership Less than half (47 percent) of managers at VA expressed the
view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results
to a great or very great extent, compared with 54 percent for the rest of
the government,

as shown below. Figure 150: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That
Agency Top Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Achieving Results
100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80 60

54 47

40 20

0 VA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Positive Recognition Twenty- three percent of VA managers reported that
employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for
helping their agency

accomplish its strategic goals, compared with 31 percent for the rest of the
government, as shown below. Figure 151: Percentage of Federal Managers Who
Reported That Employees in Their Agencies Received Positive Recognition for
Helping Their Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic Goals

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent

80 60 40

31 23

20 0

VA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Authority and Thirty- seven percent of VA managers reported that they had,
to a great or Accountability

very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the
agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 67 percent indicated that
they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 62,
respectively.

Figure 152: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Managers/
Supervisors at Their Levels (1) Had the Decisionmaking Authority Needed to
Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals and (2) Were Held Accountable
for Results 100

Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

67 62

60 40

37 36

20 0

Had decisionmaking authority Were held accountable for results

VA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Types of Performance When asked about the types of performance measures in
their programs,

Measures the highest percentage of VA managers (62 percent) reported having
output measures and the lowest (44 percent) cited efficiency measures, as
shown

below. Forty- nine percent of managers reported having outcome measures. In
addition, the percentages of VA managers who reported having customer
service measures (54 percent), quality measures (57 percent), and output
measures (62 percent) to a great or very great extent were significantly
above the percentages of managers reporting these results for the rest of
the government. VA and GSA were the highest among the agencies surveyed for
the percentage of managers who reported having customer service measures for
their programs.

Figure 153: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures

100 Percentage responding to a "great" or "very great" extent 80

62

60

57 54 50

49 44 43

40

38 38 35

20 0

Output Efficiency

Customer Quality

Outcome measures measures service

measures measures measures

VA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Use of Performance VA was significantly higher than the rest of the
government in the

Information percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance

information when setting program priorities (60 percent), adopting new
program approaches or changing work processes (56 percent), and coordinating
program efforts with internal or external organizations (53 percent).

Figure 154: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Performance
Information for Various Management Activities

100 Percentage responding to a ?great? or ?very great? extent 80

60

60

56 53 50

50 44 43 41

40

40

34

20 0

Setting program Allocating

Adopting Coordinating

Setting individual priorities resources new/ different

program efforts job expectations approaches

VA Rest of government

Source: GAO survey data.

Comments From the Office of Management

Appendi x XXX and Budget

(450018) Lett er

Ordering Information The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional
copies of reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to
the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are
accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail: U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington,
DC 20013

Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U. S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC

Orders by phone: (202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone

phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
lists.

Orders by Internet: For information on how to access GAO reports on the
Internet, send an e- mail message with ?info? in the body to:

info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov

To Report Fraud, Contact one:

Waste, or Abuse in  Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet.
htm

Federal Programs

 e- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov

 1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system)

GAO United States General Accounting Office

Page 1 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Contents

Contents Page 2 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Contents Page 3 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 4 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 5 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency United States
General Accounting Office

Washington, D. C. 20548 Page 5 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by
Agency

Page 6 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 7 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 8 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 9 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 10 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 11 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 12 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 13 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 14 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 15 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 16 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 17 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 18 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 19 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 20 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 21 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 22 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 23 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 24 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 25 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 26 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 27 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 28 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 29 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 30 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 31 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 32 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 33 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 34 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 35 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 36 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 37 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 38 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 39 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 40 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix I

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 41 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix I Scope and Methodology

Page 42 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 43 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix II

Appendix II Department of Agriculture: Selected Survey Results

Page 44 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix II Department of Agriculture: Selected Survey Results

Page 45 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix II Department of Agriculture: Selected Survey Results

Page 46 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix II Department of Agriculture: Selected Survey Results

Page 47 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 48 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix III

Appendix III Agency for International Development: Selected Survey Results

Page 49 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix III Agency for International Development: Selected Survey Results

Page 50 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix III Agency for International Development: Selected Survey Results

Page 51 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix III Agency for International Development: Selected Survey Results

Page 52 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 53 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IV

Appendix IV Department of Commerce: Selected Survey Results

Page 54 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IV Department of Commerce: Selected Survey Results

Page 55 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IV Department of Commerce: Selected Survey Results

Page 56 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IV Department of Commerce: Selected Survey Results

Page 57 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 58 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix V

Appendix V Department of Defense: Selected Survey Results

Page 59 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix V Department of Defense: Selected Survey Results

Page 60 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix V Department of Defense: Selected Survey Results

Page 61 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix V Department of Defense: Selected Survey Results

Page 62 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 63 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VI

Appendix VI Department of Education: Selected Survey Results

Page 64 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VI Department of Education: Selected Survey Results

Page 65 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VI Department of Education: Selected Survey Results

Page 66 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VI Department of Education: Selected Survey Results

Page 67 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 68 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VII

Appendix VII Department of Energy: Selected Survey Results

Page 69 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VII Department of Energy: Selected Survey Results

Page 70 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VII Department of Energy: Selected Survey Results

Page 71 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VII Department of Energy: Selected Survey Results

Page 72 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 73 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VIII

Appendix VIII Environmental Protection Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 74 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VIII Environmental Protection Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 75 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VIII Environmental Protection Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 76 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix VIII Environmental Protection Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 77 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 78 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IX

Appendix IX Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 79 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IX Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 80 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IX Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 81 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IX Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 82 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix IX Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 83 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 84 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix X

Appendix X Federal Emergency Management Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 85 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix X Federal Emergency Management Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 86 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix X Federal Emergency Management Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 87 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix X Federal Emergency Management Agency: Selected Survey Results

Page 88 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 89 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XI

Appendix XI Forest Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 90 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XI Forest Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 91 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XI Forest Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 92 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XI Forest Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 93 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XI Forest Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 94 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 95 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XII

Appendix XII General Services Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 96 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XII General Services Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 97 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XII General Services Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 98 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XII General Services Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 99 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XII General Services Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 100 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 101 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIII

Appendix XIII Health Care Financing Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 102 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIII Health Care Financing Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 103 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIII Health Care Financing Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 104 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIII Health Care Financing Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 105 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIII Health Care Financing Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 106 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 107 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIV

Appendix XIV Department of Health and Human Services: Selected Survey
Results

Page 108 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIV Department of Health and Human Services: Selected Survey
Results

Page 109 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIV Department of Health and Human Services: Selected Survey
Results

Page 110 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIV Department of Health and Human Services: Selected Survey
Results

Page 111 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 112 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XV

Appendix XV Department of Housing and Urban Development: Selected Survey
Results

Page 113 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XV Department of Housing and Urban Development: Selected Survey
Results

Page 114 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XV Department of Housing and Urban Development: Selected Survey
Results

Page 115 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XV Department of Housing and Urban Development: Selected Survey
Results

Page 116 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XV Department of Housing and Urban Development: Selected Survey
Results

Page 117 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 118 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVI

Appendix XVI Department of the Interior: Selected Survey Results

Page 119 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVI Department of the Interior: Selected Survey Results

Page 120 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVI Department of the Interior: Selected Survey Results

Page 121 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVI Department of the Interior: Selected Survey Results

Page 122 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 123 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVII

Appendix XVII Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 124 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVII Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 125 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVII Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 126 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVII Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 127 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVII Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results

Page 128 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 129 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVIII

Appendix XVIII Department of Justice: Selected Survey Results

Page 130 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVIII Department of Justice: Selected Survey Results

Page 131 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVIII Department of Justice: Selected Survey Results

Page 132 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XVIII Department of Justice: Selected Survey Results

Page 133 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 134 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIX

Appendix XIX Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results

Page 135 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIX Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results

Page 136 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIX Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results

Page 137 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XIX Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results

Page 138 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 139 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XX

Appendix XX National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey
Results

Page 140 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XX National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey
Results

Page 141 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XX National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey
Results

Page 142 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XX National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey
Results

Page 143 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XX National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey
Results

Page 144 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 145 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXI

Appendix XXI National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results

Page 146 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXI National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results

Page 147 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXI National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results

Page 148 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXI National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results

Page 149 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXI National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results

Page 150 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 151 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXII

Appendix XXII Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results

Page 152 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXII Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results

Page 153 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXII Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results

Page 154 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXII Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results

Page 155 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXII Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results

Page 156 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 157 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIII

Appendix XXIII Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results

Page 158 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIII Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results

Page 159 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIII Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results

Page 160 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIII Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results

Page 161 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIII Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results

Page 162 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 163 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIV

Appendix XXIV Small Business Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 164 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIV Small Business Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 165 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIV Small Business Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 166 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIV Small Business Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 167 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIV Small Business Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 168 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 169 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXV

Appendix XXV Social Security Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 170 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXV Social Security Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 171 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXV Social Security Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 172 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXV Social Security Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 173 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXV Social Security Administration: Selected Survey Results

Page 174 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 175 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVI

Appendix XXVI Department of State: Selected Survey Results

Page 176 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVI Department of State: Selected Survey Results

Page 177 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVI Department of State: Selected Survey Results

Page 178 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVI Department of State: Selected Survey Results

Page 179 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 180 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVII

Appendix XXVII Department of Transportation: Selected Survey Results

Page 181 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVII Department of Transportation: Selected Survey Results

Page 182 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVII Department of Transportation: Selected Survey Results

Page 183 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVII Department of Transportation: Selected Survey Results

Page 184 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 185 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVIII

Appendix XXVIII Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey Results

Page 186 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVIII Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey Results

Page 187 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVIII Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey Results

Page 188 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVIII Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey Results

Page 189 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXVIII Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey Results

Page 190 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 191 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIX

Appendix XXIX Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected Survey Results

Page 192 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIX Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected Survey Results

Page 193 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIX Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected Survey Results

Page 194 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIX Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected Survey Results

Page 195 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXIX Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected Survey Results

Page 196 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Page 197 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

Appendix XXX

Appendix XXX Comments From the Office of Management and Budget

Page 198 GAO- 01- 592 Managers? Views on Key Issues by Agency

United States General Accounting Office Washington, D. C. 20548- 0001

Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested Presorted Standard

Postage & Fees Paid GAO Permit No. GI00
*** End of document. ***