Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century
Challenges (18-SEP-03, GAO-03-1166T).
Congress asked GAO to discuss the Government Performance and
Results Act's (GPRA) success in shifting the focus of government
operations from process to results and to evaluate the extent to
which agency managers have embraced GPRA as a management tool.
Further, Congress was interested in any recommendations GAO may
have to improve the effectiveness of GPRA. GAO is conducting a
comprehensive review of the effectiveness of GPRA since its
enactment, including updating the results of our federal managers
survey. The results of this review will be available next month.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-1166T
ACCNO: A08539
TITLE: Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st
Century Challenges
DATE: 09/18/2003
SUBJECT: Federal agencies
Agency missions
Performance measures
Productivity in government
Accountability
Strategic planning
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** 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-03-1166T
A
Test i mony Before the Committee on Government Reform, House of
Representatives
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10: 00 a. m. EDT RESULTS- ORIENTED
Thursday, September 18, 2003 GOVERNMENT
Using GPRA to Address 21st Century Challenges
Statement of David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States
GAO- 03- 1166T
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: Now that the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has reached its 10 th anniversary, I
appreciate the opportunity to address the progress made in creating a
government- wide focus on results and how the federal government could
make better use of GPRA in meeting the significant, emerging challenges we
face as a nation while, at the same time, becoming more economical,
effective, and efficient in doing
government business. We are currently performing a comprehensive review of
the effectiveness of GPRA since its enactment in 1993* including updating
the results of our federal managers survey* for this and other
congressional committees. Those results will be available later next
month. Therefore, my statement today draws primarily from our many
previous reports assessing GPRA*s implementation.
Over the last decade, the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB), and other 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 decision making.
1 The core elements of this framework include financial management and
information technology reforms as well as resultsoriented management
legislation, particularly 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. For example, in contrast to pre- GPRA planning and
performance measurement, agencies are now producing more results- oriented
goals and performance information. They have also begun to identify their
plans to coordinate with other federal agencies on program areas that cut
across agency boundaries. Finally, all of this information is much more
transparent to the Congress, OMB, and the public in the form of published
plans and reports, which were not generally available prior to GPRA.
However, moving beyond the realm of individual agency performance, we now
have both an opportunity and an obligation to take a look across the
federal government at what it should be doing and how it should go about
1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: The Statutory
Framework for Performance- Based Management and Accountability, GAO/ GGD/
AIMD- 98- 52 (Washington, D. C.: Jan. 28, 1998).
doing its work. GPRA, with its focus on strategic planning, the
development of long- term goals, and accountability for results, provides
a framework the Congress and the executive branch can use to consider the
appropriate mix of long- term strategic goals and strategies needed to
address the challenges we face, given the significant resource constraints
that will exist long into the future.
As I discussed in my speech before the National Press Club on September
17, 2 the federal government is in a period of profound transition and
faces an array of challenges and opportunities to enhance performance,
ensure accountability, and position the nation for the future. A number of
overarching trends, such as diffuse security threats and homeland security
needs, increasing global interdependency, the shift to a knowledge- based
economy, and the looming fiscal challenges facing our nation drive the
need to reconsider the role of the federal government in the 21 st
century, how the government should do business (including how it
should be structured), and in some instances, who should do the
government*s business.
GAO has sought to assist the Congress and the executive branch in
considering the actions needed to support the transition to a more high
performing, results- oriented, and accountable federal government. We
believe that it is crucial for both the Congress and the executive branch
to work together constructively and on a bipartisan basis in addressing a
range of *good government* issues.
My statement today will focus on four points: the impact of current
trends and increasing fiscal challenges; the foundation for results-
oriented management created in response to
GPRA; the need to make better use of GPRA as a tool to address the
trends and
challenges; and options for strengthening congressional oversight.
2 David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, Truth and
Transparency: The Federal Government*s Financial Condition and Fiscal
Outlook, speech delivered before the National Press Club, September 17,
2003.
My statement is based on our large body of work in recent years assessing
GPRA implementation as well as other management and budget issues. We
conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government
auditing standards. Impact of Emerging
With the 21 st century challenges we are facing, it is more vital than
ever to Trends and Fiscal
maximize the performance of federal agencies in achieving their long- term
goals. The federal government must address and adapt to major trends in
Challenges
our country and around the world. At the same time, our nation faces
serious long- term fiscal challenges. Increased pressure also comes from
world events: both from the recognition that we cannot consider ourselves
*safe* between two oceans* which has increased demands for spending on
homeland security* and from the U. S. role in combating terrorism in an
increasingly interdependent world. To be able to assess federal agency
performance and hold agency managers accountable for achieving their long-
term goals, we need to know what the level of performance is. GPRA
planning and reporting requirements can provide this essential
information.
Our country*s transition into the 21 st century is characterized by a
number of key trends, including
the national and global response to terrorism and other threats to our
personal and national security;
the increasing interdependence of enterprises, economies, markets, civil
societies, and national governments, commonly referred to as
globalization;
the shift to market- oriented, knowledge- based economies; an aging
and more diverse U. S. population; rapid advances in science and
technology and the opportunities and
challenges created by these changes; challenges and opportunities to
maintain and improve the quality of life
for the nation, communities, families, and individuals; and the changing
and increasingly diverse nature of governance structures
and tools.
As the nation and government policymakers grapple with the challenges
presented by these evolving trends, they do so in the context of rapidly
building fiscal pressures. GAO*s long- range budget simulations show that
this nation faces a large and growing structural deficit due primarily to
known demographic trends and rising health care costs. The fiscal
pressures created by the retirement of the baby boom generation and rising
health costs threaten to overwhelm the nation*s fiscal future. As figure 1
shows, by 2040, absent reform or other major tax or spending policy
changes, projected federal revenues will likely be insufficient to pay
much beyond interest on publicly held debt. Further, our recent shift from
surpluses to deficits means the nation is moving into the future in a
weaker fiscal position.
Figure 1: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming Discretionary
Spending Grows with GDP after 2003 and All Expiring Tax Provisions Are
Extended
50 Percentage of GDP
40 30 20 10
0 2003 2015 2030 2040
Fiscal year
Net interest Social Security Medicare and Medicaid All other spending
Source: GAO.
Notes: Although all expiring tax cuts are extended, revenue as a share of
gross domestic product (GDP) increases through 2013 due to (1) real
bracket creep, (2) more taxpayers becoming subject to the Alternative
Minimum Tax, and (3) increased revenue from tax- deferred retirement
accounts. After
2013, revenue as a share of GDP is held constant. This simulation assumes
that currently scheduled Social Security benefits are paid in full
throughout the simulation period.
The United States has had a long- range budget deficit problem for a
number of years, even during recent years when we had significant annual
budget surpluses. Unfortunately, the days of surpluses are gone, and our
current and projected budget situation has worsened significantly. The
bottom line is that our projected budget deficits are not manageable
without significant changes in *status quo* programs, policies, processes,
and operations.
Doing nothing is simply not an option, nor will marginal efforts be
enough. Difficult choices will have to be made. Clearly, the federal
government must start to exercise more fiscal discipline on both the
spending side and
the tax side. While many spending increases and tax cuts may be popular,
they may not all be prudent. However, there is not a single solution to
the problems we face; a number of solutions are needed. It will take the
combined efforts of many parties over an extended period for these efforts
to succeed.
GPRA Provides a GPRA, which was enacted 10 years ago, provides a
foundation for
Foundation for examining agency missions, performance goals and
objectives, and results.
While this building effort is far from complete, it has helped create a
Results- Oriented
governmentwide focus on results by establishing a statutory framework for
Management
performance management and accountability. The necessary infrastructure
has been built to generate meaningful performance information. For
example, through the strategic planning requirement, GPRA has required
federal agencies to consult with the Congress and key stakeholders to
reassess their missions and long- term goals as well as the strategies and
resources they will need to achieve their goals. It also has required
agencies to articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are aligned
with their long- term strategic goals. Finally, agencies are required to
report annually on their progress in achieving their annual performance
goals. Therefore, information is available about current missions, goals,
and results.
Our prior assessments of the quality of agency planning and reporting
documents indicate that significant progress has been made in meeting the
basic requirements of GPRA. For example, we found improvements in
agencies* strategic plans, such as clearer mission statements and long-
term
goals. 3 Also, after we found many weaknesses in agencies* first annual
performance plans, subsequent plans showed improvements, such as the
frequent use of results- oriented goals and quantifiable measures to
address performance. 4
Finally, a high and increasing percentage of federal managers we surveyed
in 1997 and 2000 reported that there were performance measures for the
programs with which they were involved. 5 Those managers who reported
having performance measures also increasingly reported having outcome,
output, and efficiency measures. We will be updating our analysis of the
quality of agency planning and reporting efforts and our survey of federal
managers as part of our 10- year retrospective review of GPRA. The report
will be available next month.
Using GPRA as a Tool As we move further into the 21 st century, it becomes
increasingly important
to Address 21 st Century for the Congress, OMB, and other executive
agencies to consider how the
federal government can maximize performance and results, given the Trends
and Challenges
significant fiscal limitations I have described. GPRA can help address
this question by linking the 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.
Clearly, federal agencies have made strides in laying the foundation of
planning and performance information that will be needed to address our
3 U. S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Observations on
Agencies' Strategic Plans, GAO/ T- GGD- 98- 66 (Washington, D. C.: Feb.
12, 1998). 4 U. S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results:
Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans,
GGD/ AIMD- 99- 215 (Washington, D. C.: July
20, 1999). 5 For additional details on our two previous governmentwide
surveys, see U. S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results:
Federal Managers* Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across
Agencies, GAO- 01- 592 (Washington, D. C.: May 25, 2001),
Managing for Results: Federal Managers* Views Show Need for Ensuring Top
Leadership Skills, GAO- 01- 127 (Washington, D. C.: Oct. 20, 2000), and
The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven, GAO/ GGD- 97- 109, Washington, D. C.: June
2, 1997).
21 st century challenges. 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* day- to- day
management, and congressional and executive branch decision making.
To achieve a greater focus on results and maximize performance, federal
agencies will need to make greater use of GPRA documents, such as
strategic plans, to guide how they do business every day* both internally,
in terms of guiding individual employee efforts, as well as externally, in
terms of coordinating activities and interacting with key stakeholders.
However, much work remains before this framework is effectively
implemented across the government, including (1) transforming agencies*
organizational cultures to improve decision making and strengthen
performance and accountability, (2) developing meaningful, outcomeoriented
performance goals and measures and collecting useful performance data, (3)
addressing widespread mission fragmentation and overlap, and (4) using
performance information in allocating resources.
Uneven Progress in Building The cornerstone of federal efforts to
successfully meet current and
Results- Oriented emerging public demands is to adopt a results
orientation, that is, to
Organizational Cultures 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 decision making, maximize
performance, and ensure 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.
Our prior work on GPRA implementation has found that many agencies face
significant challenges in establishing an agency- wide resultsorientation.
6 Federal managers we surveyed have reported that agency
leaders do not consistently demonstrate a strong commitment to achieving
results. Furthermore, these managers believed that agencies do not always
positively recognize employees for helping the agency accomplish its
strategic goals.
6 GAO- 01- 592, GAO- 01- 127, and GAO/ GGD- 97- 109.
In addition, we have reported that high- performing organizations seek to
shift the focus of management and accountability from activities and
processes to contributions and achieving results. However, although many
federal managers in our survey reported that they were held accountable
for the results of their programs, only a few reported that they had the
decision making authority they needed to help the agencies accomplish
their strategic goals. Finally, although managers we surveyed increasingly
reported having results- oriented performance measures for their programs,
the extent to which these managers reported using performance information
for any of the key management activities we asked about mostly declined
from earlier survey levels. 7 To be positioned to address the array of
challenges we face, federal
agencies will need to transform their organizational cultures so that they
are more results- oriented, customer- focused, and collaborative. Leading
public organizations here in the United States and abroad have found that
strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any serious
change management initiative and efforts to transform the cultures of
government agencies. Performance management systems are integral to
strategic human capital management. Such systems can be key tools to
maximizing performance by aligning institutional performance measures with
individual performance and creating a *line of sight* between individual
and organizational goals. Leading organizations use their performance
management systems as a key tool for aligning institutional, unit, and
employee performance; achieving results; accelerating change; managing the
organization day to day; and facilitating communication throughout the
year so that discussions about individual and organizational performance
are integrated and ongoing. 8
7 We asked about five key management activities: setting program
priorities, allocating resources, adopting new program approaches or
changing work processes, coordinating program efforts with other
organizations, and setting individual job expectations.
8 U. S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles From Nine
Private Sector Organizations, GAO/ GGD- 00- 28 (Washington, D. C.: Jan.
31, 2000).
Developing Meaningful, Another key challenge to achieving a governmentwide
focus on results is
Outcome- Oriented that of developing meaningful, outcome- oriented
performance goals and Performance Goals and
collecting performance data that can be used to assess results. Collecting
Useful
Performance measurement under GPRA is the ongoing monitoring and reporting
of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward Performance Data
preestablished goals. It tends to focus on regularly collected data on the
level and type of program activities, the direct products and services
delivered by the program, and the results of those activities. For
programs that have readily observable results or outcomes, performance
measurement may provide sufficient information to demonstrate program
results. In some programs, however, outcomes are not quickly achieved or
readily observed, or their relationship to the program is uncertain. In
such
cases, more in- depth program evaluations may be needed, in addition to
performance measurement, to examine the extent to which a program is
achieving its objectives.
However, our work has raised concerns about the capacity of federal
agencies to produce evaluations of program effectiveness. 9 Few of the
agencies we reviewed deployed the rigorous research methods required to
attribute changes underlying outcomes to program activities. Yet we have
also seen how some agencies have profitably drawn on systematic program
evaluations to improve their measurement of program performance or
understanding of performance and how it might be improved. 10 For example,
to improve performance measurement, two agencies we reviewed used the
findings of effectiveness evaluations to provide data on program results
that were otherwise unavailable.
Our work has also identified substantial, long- standing limitations in
agencies* abilities to produce credible data and identify performance
improvement opportunities that will not be quickly or easily resolved. 11
For example, policy decisions made when designing federal programs,
9 U. S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Agencies Challenged
by New Demand for Information on Program Results, GAO/ GGD- 98- 53
(Washington, D. C.: Apr. 24, 1998).
10 U. S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped
Agencies Measure or Explain Program Performance, GAO/ GGD- 00- 204
(Washington, D. C.: Sept. 29, 2000). 11 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible
Performance Information, GAO/ GGD- 00- 52 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 4,
2000).
particularly intergovernmental programs, may make it difficult to collect
timely and consistent national data. In administering programs that are
the joint responsibility of state and local governments, the Congress and
the executive branch continually balance the competing objectives of
collecting uniform program information to assess performance with giving
states and localities the flexibility needed to effectively implement
intergovernmental programs. Using GPRA to Address
While progress has been made by federal agencies in laying a foundation of
Mission Fragmentation and
performance information for existing program activities and structures,
the Overlap federal government has not realized the full potential of GPRA
to address program areas that cut across federal agency boundaries. The
government has made strides in this area in recent years. For example, in
reviewing agencies* crosscutting plans in the area of wildland fire
management, we
found that both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service,
within the Department of Agriculture, discussed their joint participation
in developing plans and strategies to address the growing threats to our
forests and nearby communities from catastrophic wild fires. 12 The
Congress could make greater use of agency performance information to
identify potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among federal
programs. Virtually all of the results that the federal government strives
to achieve require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more
agencies. Our work has shown that mission fragmentation and program
overlap are widespread, and that crosscutting federal program efforts are
not well coordinated. 13 For example, we have reported that seven federal
agencies administer 16 programs that serve the homeless population, with
the
Department of Housing and Urban Development responsible for most of the
funds. We have also frequently commented on the fragmented nature of our
food safety system, with responsibility split between the Food Safety and
Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture, the Food and
12 U. S. General Accounting Office, Results- Oriented Management: Agency
Crosscutting Actions and Plans in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and
Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland Fire Management, GAO- 03- 321
(Washington, D. C.: Dec. 20, 2002). 13 U. S. General Accounting Office,
Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination, GAO/ GGD- 00-
106 (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 29, 2000), and Managing for Results: Using
the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap,
GAO/ AIMD- 97- 146 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 29, 1997).
Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services,
and 10 other federal agencies.
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 each agency to ensure that its 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 information on agencies and
programs addressing similar results. 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. Using Performance
A key objective of GPRA is to help the Congress, OMB, and other executive
Information to Inform the
agencies develop a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in
Allocation of Resources
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 2005 budget process, OMB called for
agencies to prepare a performance budget that can be used for the annual
performance plan required by GPRA.
Credible outcome- based performance information is absolutely critical to
fostering the kind of debate that is needed. Linking performance
information to budgeting carries great potential to improve the budget
debate by changing the kinds of questions and information available to
decision makers. However, performance information will not provide
mechanistic answers for budget decisions, nor can performance data
eliminate the need for considered judgment and political choice. If budget
decisions are to be based in part on performance data, the integrity,
credibility, and quality of these data and related analyses become more
important. Moreover, in seeking to link resources to results, it will be
necessary to improve the government*s capacity to account for and measure
the total costs of federal programs and activities.
GPRA expanded the supply of performance information generated by federal
agencies. OMB*s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) proposes to build on
GPRA by improving the demand for results- oriented information in the
budget. It has the potential to promote a more explicit
discussion and debate between OMB, the agencies, and the Congress about
the performance of selected programs. Presumably, PART will identify
expectation gaps, questions, and areas where further inquiry and analysis
would be most useful.
Oversight Is Critical to Fifty years of past efforts to link resources
with results has shown that any
Achieving Results successful effort must involve the Congress as a
partner. In fact, the
administration acknowledged that performance and accountability are shared
responsibilities that must involve the Congress. It will only be through
the continued attention of the Congress, the administration, and federal
agencies that progress can be sustained and, more important, accelerated.
Ultimately, the success of GPRA will be reflected in whether and how the
Congress uses agency performance information in the congressional budget,
appropriations, authorization, and oversight processes. As a key user of
performance information, the Congress also needs to be considered a
partner in shaping agency goals at the outset.
More generally, effective congressional oversight can help improve federal
performance by examining the program structures agencies use to deliver
products and services to ensure that the best, most cost- effective mix of
strategies is in place to meet agency and national goals. As part of this
oversight, the Congress should consider the associated policy, management,
and policy implications of crosscutting programs.
Options for Information produced in response to GPRA can be useful for
congressional
Strengthening GPRA oversight as well as program management. As I have
testified before, there
are several ways that GPRA could be enhanced to provide better
governmentwide information. First, there are many users of agencies*
performance information* the Congress, the public, and the agency itself.
One size does not fit all. To improve the prospect that agency performance
information will be useful
to and used by these different users, agencies need to consider the
different information needs and how to best tailor their performance
information to meet those needs. This might entail the preparation of
simplified and
streamlined plans and reports for the Congress and other external users.
Second, we have previously reported that GPRA could provide a tool to
reexamine federal government roles and structures governmentwide. GPRA
requires the President to include in his annual budget submission a
federal government performance plan. The Congress intended that this plan
provide a *single cohesive picture of the annual performance goals for the
fiscal year.* The governmentwide performance plan could help the Congress
and the executive branch address critical federal performance and
management issues, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in how we
do business. It could also provide a framework for any restructuring
efforts. Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully implemented.
If the governmentwide performance plan were fully implemented, it could
also provide a framework for congressional oversight. For example, in
recent years, OMB has begun to develop common measures for similar
programs, such as job training. By focusing on broad goals and objectives,
oversight could more effectively cut across organization, program, and
other traditional boundaries. Such oversight might also cut across
existing committee boundaries, which suggests that the Congress may
benefit from using specialized mechanisms to perform oversight (i. e.,
joint hearings and special committees).
Third, a strategic plan for the federal government, along with key
national indicators to assess the government*s performance, could provide
an additional tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs,
as well as proposals for new programs. If fully developed, a
governmentwide strategic plan can potentially provide a cohesive
perspective on the longterm goals of the federal government and provide a
much needed basis for fully integrating, rather than merely coordinating,
a wide array of federal activities. Successful strategic planning requires
the involvement of key stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism
for building consensus. Further, it could provide a vehicle for the
President to articulate long- term goals and a road map for achieving
them. In addition, a strategic plan can provide a more comprehensive
framework for considering organizational changes and making resource
decisions. In addition to the annual budget resolution on funds, the
Congress could also have a performance resolution that specifies
performance expectations.
Developing a strategic plan for the federal government would be an
important first step in articulating the role, goals, and objectives of
the federal government. It could help provide critical horizontal and
vertical linkages. Horizontally, it could integrate and foster synergies
among components of the federal government as well as help to clarify the
role of the federal government vis- a- vis other sectors of our society.
Vertically, it could provide a framework of federal missions and goals
within which
individual federal agencies could align their own missions and goals that
would cascade down to individual employees. It also could link to a set of
key national performance indicators.
A set of key national indicators could also help to assess the overall
position and progress of our nation in key areas, frame strategic issues,
support public choices, and enhance accountability. Developing a key
national indicator system goes beyond any one sector (e. g., public,
private, or nonprofit). It requires designing and executing a process
whereby diverse elements of society can participate in formulating key
questions and choosing indicators in a way that increases consensus over
time. Such a system will take time to develop. The federal government is
an important and vital player in establishing such indicators. 14
Fourth, the traditional oversight that the Congress provides to individual
organizations, programs, and activities has an important role in
eliminating redundancy and inefficiencies. Important benefits can be
achieved through focused oversight if the right questions are asked about
performance and management. Six key questions for program oversight are as
follows:
Does the program make sense given 21 st century trends and challenges,
including whether it is appropriate as an initiative of the federal
government?
Are there clear performance goals, measures, and data with which to
track progress? Is the program achieving its goals? If not, why not?
Does the program duplicate or even work at cross purposes with related
programs and tools?
14 U. S. General Accounting Office, Forum on Key National Indicators:
Assessing the Nation's Position and Progress, GAO- 03- 672SP (Washington,
D. C.: May 1, 2003).
Is the program targeted properly? Is the program financially
sustainable and are there opportunities for
instituting appropriate cost- sharing and recovery mechanisms? Can the
program be made more efficient through reengineering or
streamlining processes or restructuring organizational roles and
responsibilities?
Fifth, creating the results- oriented cultures needed to make GPRA a
useful management tool depends on committed, top- level leadership and
sustained attention to management issues. A chief operating officer (COO)
could provide the sustained management attention essential for addressing
key infrastructure and stewardship issues and could facilitate the
transformation process. Establishing a COO position in selected federal
agencies could provide a number of benefits. A COO would be the focal
point for elevating attention on management issues and transformational
change, integrating various key management and transformation efforts, and
instituting accountability for addressing management issues and leading
transformational change. A COO would provide a single organizational
position for key management functions, such as human capital, financial
management, information technology, acquisition management, and
performance management as well as for transformational change initiatives.
To be successful, in many cases, a COO will need to be among an agency*s
top leadership (e. g., deputy secretary or under secretary). However,
consistent with the desire to integrate responsibilities, the creation of
a senior management position needs to be considered with careful regard to
existing positions and responsibilities so that it does not result in
unnecessary *layering* at an agency. Consideration also should be given to
providing a term appointment, such as a 5* 7 year term. A term appointment
would provide sustained leadership. No matter how the positions are
structured, it is critical that the people appointed to these positions
have proven track records in similar positions and be
vested with sufficient authority to achieve results. To further clarify
expectations and responsibilities, the COO should be subject to a clearly
defined, results- oriented performance contract with appropriate
incentives, rewards, and accountability mechanisms. For selected agencies,
a COO should be subject to a Senate confirmation. In creating such a
position, the Congress might consider making certain subordinate
positions, such as the chief financial officer, not subject to Senate
confirmation.
Concluding Remarks In view of the broad trends and long- term fiscal
challenges facing the nation, there is a need to consider how the
Congress, OMB, and executive agencies can make better use of GPRA*s
planning and accountability framework to maximize the performance of not
only individual programs and agencies but also the federal government as
whole in addressing these challenges. The Congress can play a vital role
in increasing the demand for such performance information by monitoring
agencies* performance results, asking critical questions about goals not
achieved, and considering whether adjustments are needed to maximize
performance in the future. The large and growing fiscal gap means that
tough, difficult choices will have to be made. Doing nothing is not an
option. The Congress and the
administration will need to use every tool at their disposal to address
these challenges. In addressing these challenges, it will be important to
set clear goals, involve all key players, and establish viable processes
that will lead to positive results. Credible, timely, results- oriented
performance information will be vital to this decisionmaking.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We in GAO take our
responsibility to assist in these crucial efforts very seriously. I would
be pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the
Committee may have.
(450270)
GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this
list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
$2 each. A check
or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs
Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548
a
GAO United States General Accounting Office
GPRA, which was enacted in 1993, provides a foundation for examining
agency missions, performance goals and objectives, and results. While this
building effort is far from complete, it has helped create a government-
wide focus on results by establishing a statutory framework for management
and accountability. This framework can improve the performance and
accountability of the executive branch and enhance executive branch and
congressional decisionmaking. In view of the broad trends and long- term
fiscal challenges facing the nation, there is a need to consider how the
Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and executive agencies can
make better use of GPRA*s planning and accountability framework to
maximize the performance of not only individual programs and agencies, but
also of the federal government as whole in addressing these challenges.
The necessary infrastructure has been built to generate meaningful
performance information. For example, through the strategic planning
requirement, GPRA has required federal agencies to consult with the
Congress and key stakeholders to reassess their missions and long- term
goals as well as the strategies and resources they will need to achieve
their goals. It also has required agencies to articulate goals for the
upcoming fiscal year that are aligned with their long- term strategic
goals. Finally, agencies are required to report annually on their progress
in achieving their
annual performance goals. Therefore, information is available about
current missions, goals, and results.
We are now moving to a more difficult but more important phase of GPRA
implementation, that is, using results- oriented performance information
as a part of agencies* day- to- day management, and congressional and
executive branch decision- making. However, much work remains before this
framework is effectively implemented across the government, including (1)
transforming agencies* organizational cultures to improve decisionmaking
and strengthen performance and accountability, (2) developing meaningful,
outcome- oriented performance goals and measures and collecting useful
performance data, and (3) addressing widespread mission fragmentation and
overlap. Furthermore, linking planned performance with budget requests and
financial reports is an essential step in building a culture of
performance management. Such an alignment can help to infuse performance
concerns into budgetary deliberations. However, credible outcome- based
performance information is critical to foster the kind of debate that is
needed. The Committee asked GAO to discuss the Government
Performance and Results Act*s (GPRA) success in shifting the focus of
government operations from process to results and to evaluate the extent
to which agency managers have embraced GPRA as a management tool. Further,
the Committee was interested in any recommendations GAO may have to
improve the effectiveness of GPRA. GAO is conducting a comprehensive
review of the
effectiveness of GPRA since its enactment, including updating the results
of our federal managers survey. The results of this review will be
available next month. We did not make recommendations in this testimony.
However, we suggested a range of options that the Congress could use to
strengthen GPRA as a tool to meet the challenges the federal government
faces at the beginning of the 21st century. These options include
simplifying and streamlining agency performance information, developing
governmentwide strategic and
annual performance plans, enhancing congressional oversight, and
establishing chief operating officers in selected agencies.
www. gao. gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 1166T. To view the full product,
including the scope and methodology, click on the link above. For more
information, contact Patricia Dalton at (202) 512- 6737 or daltonp@ gao.
gov. Highlights of GAO- 03- 1166T, a testimony
before the Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
September 18 2003
RESULTS- ORIENTED GOVERNMENT
Using GPRA to Address 21st Century Challenges
Page 1 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 2 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 3 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 4 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 5 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 6 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 7 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 8 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 9 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 10 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 11 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 12 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 13 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 14 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 15 GAO- 03- 1166T
Page 16 GAO- 03- 1166T
This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
*** End of document. ***