Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Oversight and	 
Decisionmaking (19-JUN-01, GAO-01-872T).			 
								 
This testimony discusses the Government Performance and Results  
Act (GPRA) of 1993. Over the last decade, Congress, the Office of
Management and Budget, and executive agencies have worked to	 
implement a statutory framework to improve the performance and	 
accountability of the executive branch and to enhance executive  
branch and congressional decisionmaking. This framework includes 
as its core elements financial management legislation, especially
GPRA. As a result of this framework, there has been substantial  
progress in the last few years in establishing the basic	 
infrastructure needed to create high-performing federal 	 
organizations. The issuance of agencies' fiscal year 2000	 
performance reports, in addition to updated strategic plans,	 
annual performance plans, and the governmentwide performance	 
plans, completes two full cycles of annual performance planning  
and reporting under GPRA. However, much work remains before this 
framework is effectively implemented across the government,	 
including transforming agencies' organizational cultures to	 
improve decisionmaking and strengthen performance and		 
accountability. 						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-01-872T					        
    ACCNO:   A01214						        
  TITLE:     Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Oversight and 
             Decisionmaking                                                   
     DATE:   06/19/2001 
  SUBJECT:   Decision making					 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Personnel management				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Government Performance and Results Act		 
	     GPRA						 

******************************************************************
** 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-01-872T
     
Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial
Management and Intergovernmental Relations, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives

United States General Accounting Office

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 2: 30 p. m. EST Tuesday, June 19,
2001 MANAGING FOR

RESULTS Using GPRA to Assist Oversight and Decisionmaking

Statement of J. Christopher Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues

GAO- 01- 872T

Page 1 GAO- 01- 872T

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Schakowsky, and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased
to be here today to discuss the Government Performance and Results Act of
1993 (GPRA). As agreed with the Subcommittee, I will highlight how GPRA can
be used as a tool to assist the Congress in oversight and decisionmaking and
to help address the challenges facing the federal government in the 21st
century. My statement is based on our large body of work in recent years
assessing GPRA implementation and on strategic human capital management, as
well as recent reports presenting the results of our survey of federal
managers at 28 agencies and our analysis of human capital management
discussions in agencies? fiscal year 2001 performance plans. 1

Over the last decade, the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and executive agencies have worked to implement a statutory framework
to improve the performance and accountability of the executive branch and to
enhance executive branch and congressional decisionmaking. 2 This framework
includes as its core elements financial management and information
technology reforms as well as resultsoriented management legislation,
especially GPRA. As a result of this framework, there has been substantial
progress in the last few years in establishing the basic infrastructure
needed to create high- performing federal organizations. The issuance of
agencies? fiscal year 2000 performance reports, in addition to updated
strategic plans, annual performance plans, and the governmentwide
performance plans, completes two full cycles of annual performance planning
and reporting under GPRA.

However, much work remains before this framework is effectively implemented
across the government, including transforming agencies? organizational
cultures to improve decisionmaking and strengthen performance and
accountability. Moreover, we are now moving to a more difficult but more
important phase of GPRA implementation, that is, using results- oriented
performance information as a routine part of agencies?

1 Managing for Results: Human Capital Management Discussions in Fiscal Year
2001 Performance Plans (GAO- 01- 236, Apr. 24, 2001) and Managing for
Results: Federal Managers? Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across
Agencies (GAO- 01- 592, May 25, 2001).

2 Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance- Based
Management and Accountability (GAO/ GGD/ AIMD- 98- 52, Jan. 28, 1998).

Page 2 GAO- 01- 872T

day- to- day management, and congressional and executive branch
decisionmaking.

As we move further into the 21st century, it becomes increasingly important
for the Congress, OMB, and executive agencies to face two overriding
questions:

 What is the proper role for the federal government?

 How should the federal government do business? GPRA serves as a bridge
between these two questions by linking results that the federal government
seeks to achieve to the program approaches and resources that are necessary
to achieve those results. The performance information produced by GPRA?s
planning and reporting infrastructure can help build a government that is
better equipped to deliver economical, efficient, and effective programs
that can help address the challenges facing the federal government. Among
the major challenges are

 instilling a results orientation,

 ensuring that daily operations contribute to results,

 understanding the performance consequences of budget decisions,

 coordinating crosscutting programs, and

 building the capacity to gather and use performance information. The
cornerstone of federal efforts to successfully meet current and emerging
public demands is to adopt a results orientation; that is, to develop a
clear sense of the results an agency wants to achieve as opposed to the
products and services (outputs) an agency produces and the processes used to
produce them. Adopting a results- orientation requires transforming
organizational cultures to improve decisionmaking, maximize performance, and
assure accountability- it entails new ways of thinking and doing business.
This transformation is not an easy one and requires investments of time and
resources as well as sustained leadership commitment and attention. Using
GPRA to Assist

Congressional Oversight and Decisionmaking

Instilling a Results Orientation

Page 3 GAO- 01- 872T

Based on the results of our governmentwide survey in 2000 of managers at 28
federal agencies, 3 many agencies face significant challenges in instilling
a results- orientation throughout the agency, as the following examples
illustrate.

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

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

 At 22 agencies, at least 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.

Additionally, in 2000, significantly more managers overall (84 percent)
reported having performance measures for the programs they were involved
with than the 76 percent who reported that in 1997, when we first surveyed
federal managers regarding governmentwide implementation of GPRA. However,
at no more than 7 of the 28 agencies did 50 percent or more of the managers
respond that they used performance information to a great or very great
extent for any of the key management activities we asked about. 4

3 These 28 agencies include the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial
Officers Act of 1990 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. For additional details on the governmentwide surveys, see GAO- 01-
592 and Managing for Results: Federal Managers Views Show Need for Ensuring
Top Leadership Skills (GAO- 01- 127, Oct. 20, 2000) and The Government
Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be
Uneven (GAO/ GGD- 97- 109, June 2, 1997).

4 We asked about five key management activities including setting program
priorities, allocating resources, adopting new program approaches or
changing work processes, coordinating program efforts with other
organizations, and setting individual job expectations.

Page 4 GAO- 01- 872T

As I mentioned earlier, we are now moving to a more difficult but more
important phase of GPRA- using results- oriented performance information on
a routine basis as a part of agencies? day- to- day management and for
congressional and executive branch decisionmaking. GPRA is helping to ensure
that agencies are focused squarely on results and have the capabilities to
achieve those results. GPRA is also showing itself to be an important tool
in helping the Congress and the executive branch understand how the
agencies? daily activities contribute to results that benefit the American
people.

To build leadership commitment and help ensure that managing for results
becomes the standard way of doing business, some agencies are using
performance agreements to define accountability for specific goals, monitor
progress, and evaluate results. The Congress has recognized the role that
performance agreements can play in holding organizations and executives
accountable for results. For example, in 1998, the Congress chartered the
Office of Student Financial Assistance as a performancebased organization,
and required it to implement performance agreements. In our October 2000
report on agencies? use of performance agreements, we found that although
each agency developed and implemented agreements that reflected its specific
organizational priorities, structure, and culture, our work identified five
common emerging benefits from agencies? use of results- oriented performance
agreements. 5 (See fig. 1.)

Figure 1: Emerging Benefits From Using Performance Agreements

 Strengthens alignment of results- oriented goals with daily operations

 Fosters collaboration across organizational boundaries

 Enhances opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance
information to make program improvements

 Provides results- oriented basis for individual accountability

 Maintains continuity of program goals during leadership transitions

Source: GAO analysis.

5 Managing for Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected Agencies? Use of
Performance Agreements (GAO- 01- 115, Oct. 30, 2000). Ensuring That Daily

Operations Contribute to Results

Performance Agreements

Page 5 GAO- 01- 872T

Performance agreements can be effective mechanisms to define accountability
for specific goals and to align daily activities with results. For example,
at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), each Veterans Integrated
Service Network (VISN) director?s agreement includes performance goals and
specific targets that the VISN is responsible for accomplishing during the
next year. The goals in the performance agreements are aligned with VHA?s,
and subsequently the Department of Veterans Affairs? (VA), overall mission
and goals. A VHA official indicated that including corresponding goals in
the performance agreements of VISN directors contributed to improvements in
VA?s goals. For example, from fiscal years 1997 through 1999, VHA reported
that its performance on the Prevention Index had improved from 69 to 81
percent. 6 A goal requiring VISNs to produce measurable increases in the
Prevention Index has been included in the directors? performance agreements
each year from 1997 through 1999.

The Office of Personnel Management recently amended its regulations for
members of the Senior Executive Service requiring agencies to appraise
senior executive performance using measures that balance organizational
results with customer, employee, and other perspectives in their next
appraisal cycles. The regulations also place increased emphasis on using
performance results as a basis for personnel decisions, such as pay, awards,
and removal. We are planning to review agencies? implementation of the
amended regulations.

Program evaluations are important for assessing the contributions that
programs are making to results, determining factors affecting performance,
and identifying opportunities for improvement. The Department of
Agriculture?s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) provides an
example of how program evaluations can be used to help improve performance
by identifying the relationships between an agency?s efforts and results. 7
Specifically, APHIS used program evaluation to identify causes of a sudden
outbreak of Mediterranean Fruit Flies along

6 The Prevention Index measures the percentage of patients who receive
certain medical interventions, such as alcohol screening, and is designed to
assess how well VHA follows nationally recognized approaches for primary
prevention and early detection of diseases with major social consequences,
such as alcohol abuse.

7 Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program
Performance (GAO/ GGD- 00- 204, Sept. 29, 2000). Program Evaluations

Page 6 GAO- 01- 872T

the Mexico- Guatemala border. The Department of Agriculture?s fiscal year
1999 performance report described the emergency program eradication
activities initiated in response to the evaluation?s findings and
recommendations, and linked the continuing decrease in the number of
infestations during the fiscal year to these activities. However, our work
has shown that agencies typically do not make full use of program
evaluations as a tool for performance measurement and improvement. 8

After a decade of government downsizing and curtailed investment, it is
becoming increasingly clear that today?s human capital strategies are not
appropriately constituted to adequately meet current and emerging needs of
the government and its citizens in the most efficient, effective, and
economical manner possible. Attention to strategic human capital management
is important because building agency employees? skills, knowledge, and
individual performance must be a cornerstone of any serious effort to
maximize the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal
government. GPRA, with its explicit focus on program results, can serve as a
tool for examining the programmatic implications of an agency?s strategic
human capital management challenges.

However, we reported in April 2001 that, overall, agencies? fiscal year 2001
performance plans reflected different levels of attention to strategic human
capital issues. 9 When viewed collectively, we found that there is a need to
increase the breadth, depth, and specificity of many related human capital
goals and strategies and to better link them to the agencies? strategic and
programmatic planning. Very few of the agencies? plans addressed

 succession planning to ensure reasonable continuity of leadership;

 performance agreements to align leaders? performance expectations with the
agency?s mission and goals;

 competitive compensation systems to help the agency attract, motivate,
retain, and reward the people it needs;

 workforce deployment to support the agency?s goals and strategies;

 performance management systems, including pay and other meaningful
incentives, to link performance to results;

8 Managing for Results: Agencies? Annual Performance Plans Can Help Address
Strategic Planning Challenges (GAO/ GGD- 98- 44, Jan. 30, 1998). 9 GAO- 01-
236. Strategic Human Capital

Management

Page 7 GAO- 01- 872T

 alignment of performance expectations with competencies to steer the
workforce towards effectively pursuing the agency?s goals and strategies;
and

 employee and labor relations grounded in a mutual effort on the strategies
to achieve the agency?s goals and to resolve problems and conflicts fairly
and effectively.

In a recent report, we concluded that a substantial portion of the federal
workforce will become eligible to retire or will retire over the next 5
years, and that workforce planning is critical for assuring that agencies
have sufficient and appropriate staff considering these expected increases
in retirements. 10 OMB recently instructed executive branch agencies and
departments to submit workforce analyses by June 29, 2001. These analyses
are to address areas such as the skills of the workforce necessary to
accomplish the agency?s goals and objectives; the agency?s recruitment,
training, and retention strategies; and the expected skill imbalances due to
retirements over the next 5 years. OMB also noted that this is the initial
phase of implementing the President?s initiative to have agencies
restructure their workforces to streamline their organizations. These
actions indicate OMB?s growing interest in working with agencies to ensure
that they have the human capital capabilities needed to achieve their
strategic goals and accomplish their missions.

Major management challenges and program risks confronting agencies continue
to undermine the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of federal programs.
As you know, Mr. Chairman, this past January, we updated our High- Risk
Series and issued our 21- volume Performance and Accountability Series and
governmentwide perspective that outlines the major management challenges and
program risks that federal agencies continue to face. 11 This series is
intended to help the Congress and the administration consider the actions
needed to support the transition to a more results- oriented and accountable
federal government.

10 Federal Employee Retirements: Expected Increase Over the Next 5 Years
Illustrates Need for Workforce Planning (GAO- 01- 509, Apr. 27, 2001). 11
High- Risk Series: An Update (GAO- 01- 263, Jan. 2001) and Performance and
Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A
Governmentwide Perspective (GAO- 01- 241, Jan. 2001). In addition, see the
accompanying 21 reports on specific agencies, numbered GAO- 01- 242 through
GAO- 01- 262. Management Capabilities

Page 8 GAO- 01- 872T

GPRA is a vehicle for ensuring that agencies have the internal management
capabilities needed to achieve results. OMB has required that agencies?
annual performance plans include performance goals for resolving their major
management problems. Such goals should be included particularly for problems
whose resolution is mission- critical, or which could potentially impede
achievement of performance goals. This guidance should help agencies address
critical management problems to achieve their strategic goals and accomplish
their missions. OMB?s attention to such issues is important because we have
found that agencies are not consistently using GPRA to show how they plan to
address major management issues.

A key objective of GPRA is to help the Congress, OMB, and executive agencies
develop a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in relation to
what is being spent. Linking planned performance with budget requests and
financial reports is an essential step in building a culture of performance
management. Such an alignment infuses performance concerns into budgetary
deliberations, prompting agencies to reassess their performance goals and
strategies and to more clearly understand the cost of performance. For the
fiscal year 2002 budget process, OMB called for agencies to prepare an
integrated annual performance plan and budget and asked the agencies to
report on the progress they had made in better understanding the
relationship between budgetary resources and performance results and on
their plans for further improvement. 12

In the 4 years since the governmentwide implementation of GPRA, we have seen
more agencies make more explicit links between their annual performance
plans and budgets. Although these links have varied substantially and
reflect agencies? goals and organizational structures, the connections
between performance and budgeting have become more specific and thus more
informative. We have also noted progress in agencies? ability to reflect the
cost of performance in the statements of net cost presented in annual
financial statements. Again, there is substantial variation in the
presentation of these statements, but agencies are developing ways to better
capture the cost of performance.

12 OMB Bulletin No. 00- 04, Integrating the Performance Plan and Budget,
June 6, 2000. Understanding the

Performance Consequences of Budget Decisions

Page 9 GAO- 01- 872T

Virtually all of the results that the federal government strives to achieve
require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more agencies. There
are over 40 program areas across the government, related to a dozen federal
mission areas, in which our work has shown that mission fragmentation and
program overlap are widespread, and that crosscutting federal program
efforts are not well coordinated. 13 To illustrate, in a November 2000
report, and in several recent testimonies, we noted that overall federal
efforts to combat terrorism were fragmented. 14 These efforts are inherently
difficult to lead and manage because the policy, strategy, programs, and
activities to combat terrorism cut across more than 40 agencies. As we have
repeatedly stated, there needs to be a comprehensive national strategy on
combating terrorism that has clearly defined outcomes. For example, the
national strategy should include a goal to improve state and local response
capabilities. Desired outcomes should be linked to a level of preparedness
that response teams should achieve. We believe that, without this type of
specificity in a national strategy, the nation will continue to miss
opportunities to focus and shape the various federal programs combating
terrorism.

Crosscutting program areas that are not effectively coordinated waste scarce
funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and undercut the overall
effectiveness of the federal effort. GPRA offers a structured and
governmentwide means for rationalizing these crosscutting efforts. The
strategic, annual, and governmentwide performance planning processes under
GPRA provide opportunities for agencies to work together to ensure that
agency goals for crosscutting programs complement those of other agencies;
program strategies are mutually reinforcing; and, as appropriate, common
performance measures are used. If GPRA is effectively implemented, the
governmentwide performance plan and the agencies? annual performance plans
and reports should provide the Congress with new information on agencies and
programs addressing similar results.

13 Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination (GAO/ GGD- 00-
106, Mar. 29, 2000) and Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to
Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap (GAO/ AIMD- 97- 146, Aug.
29, 1997).

14 Combating Terrorism: Federal Response Teams Provide Varied Capabilities;
Opportunities Remain to Improve Coordination (GAO- 01- 14, Nov. 30, 2000),
Combating Terrorism: Comments on Bill H. R. 4210 to Manage Selected
Counterterrorist Programs

(GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 172, May 4, 2000), Combating Terrorism: Linking Threats
to Strategies and Resources (GAO/ T- NSIAD- 00- 218, July 26, 2000),
Combating Terrorism: Comments on Counterterrorism Leadership and National
Strategy (GAO- 01- 556T, March 27, 2001), and

Combating Terrorism: Comments on H. R. 525 to Create a President?s Council
on Domestic Terrorism Preparedness (GAO- 01- 555T, May 9, 2001).
Coordinating Crosscutting

Programs

Page 10 GAO- 01- 872T

Once these programs are identified, the Congress can consider the associated
policy, management, and performance implications of crosscutting programs as
part of its oversight of the executive branch.

Credible performance information is essential for the Congress and the
executive branch to accurately assess agencies? progress towards achieving
their goals. However, limited confidence in the credibility of performance
information is one of the major continuing weaknesses with GPRA
implementation.

The federal government provides services in many areas through the state and
local level, thus both program management and accountability
responsibilities often rest with the state and local governments. 15 In an
intergovernmental environment, agencies are challenged to collect accurate,
timely, and consistent national performance data because they rely on data
from the states. For example, earlier this spring, the Environmental
Protection Agency identified, in its fiscal year 2000 performance report,
data limitations in its Safe Drinking Water Information System due to
recurring reports of discrepancies between national and state databases, as
well as specific misidentifications reported by individual utilities. Also,
the Department of Transportation could not show actual fiscal year 2000
performance information for measures associated with its outcome of less
highway congestion. Because such data would not be available until after
September 2001, Transportation used projected data. According to the
department, the data were not available because they are provided by the
states, and the states? reporting cycles for these data do not match its
reporting cycle for its annual performance.

Discussing data credibility and related issues in performance reports can
provide important contextual information to the Congress. The Congress can
use this discussion, for example, to raise questions about the problems
agencies are having in collecting needed results- oriented information and
the cost and data quality trade- offs associated with various collection
strategies.

15 Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible
Performance Information (GAO/ GGD- 00- 52, Feb. 4, 2000) and Managing for
Results: Challenges in Producing Credible Performance Information (GAO/ T-
GGD/ RCED- 00- 134, Mar. 22, 2000). Building the Capacity to

Gather and Use Performance Information

Page 11 GAO- 01- 872T

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the Congress and the executive branch, working
together, have put in place a management infrastructure- with GPRA as its
centerpiece. More needs to be done before this infrastructure is effectively
implemented across the federal government. However, the planning and
reporting efforts under GPRA to date are generating new and important
information that had not been available in the past- information that
congressional and executive branch decisionmakers can use to help assess
what government should do in the 21st century and how it should do it.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I will be pleased to
respond to any questions that you or the Members of the Subcommittee may
have.

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact J. Christopher
Mihm on (202) 512- 6806. Individuals making key contributions to this
testimony include Susan Barnidge, Ben Crawford, Joyce Corry, Michael Curro,
Emily Dolan, Peter Del Toro, Janice Lichty, Steven Lozano, Allen Lomax, Lisa
Shames, Dorothy Self, and Sarah Veale. Contacts and

Acknowledgments

(450056)
*** End of document. ***