Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid	 
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results (31-MAR-04,		 
GAO-04-594T).							 
                                                                 
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in	 
effect for 10 years. In that context, the subcommittee asked GAO 
to discuss our recent report, Results- Oriented Government: GPRA 
Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results.
Our testimony addresses the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a  
focus on results in the federal government.			 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-04-594T					        
    ACCNO:   A09623						        
  TITLE:     Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results			 
     DATE:   03/31/2004 
  SUBJECT:   Performance measures				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Agency missions					 
	     Federal agencies					 
	     Productivity in government 			 
	     Reporting requirements				 

******************************************************************
** 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-04-594T

United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management,
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST RESULTS-ORIENTED

Wednesday, March 31, 2004

GOVERNMENT

     GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results

Statement of Patricia A. Dalton, Director Strategic Issues

GAO-04-594T

Highlights of GAO-04-594T, testimony before the Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee on Government Reform, House
of Representatives

The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in effect for
10 years. In that context, the subcommittee asked GAO to discuss our
recent report, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. Our testimony addresses the
effectiveness of GPRA in creating a focus on results in the federal
government.

In our recent report, we recommended that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA implementation, as
well as develop a governmentwide performance plan. We also suggested that
Congress consider amending GPRA to require that (1) agencies update their
strategic plans at least once every 4 years, consult with congressional
stakeholders at least once every new Congress, and make interim updates to
strategic and performance plans as appropriate, and (2) the President
develop a governmentwide strategic plan.

OMB generally agreed with our recommendations, but stated that the
President's Budget can serve as both a governmentwide strategic and annual
plan. However, we believe the budget provides neither a long-term nor an
integrated perspective on the federal government's performance.

March 2004

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT

GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results

GPRA's requirements have established a solid foundation of
results-oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the
federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having
significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA
(see fig. below). GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of
resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area to
increase the use of performance information to make decisions about
resources. In our report, we also found agency strategic and annual
performance plans and reports have improved over initial efforts.

Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant
challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top leadership
commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can hinder the
development of results-oriented cultures in agencies. Furthermore, in
certain areas, federal managers continue to have difficulty setting
outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking
institutional, program, unit, and individual performance measurement and
reward systems. Finally, there is an inadequate focus on addressing issues
that cut across federal agencies.

OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is
responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these
challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management issues
during the past several years. However, OMB has showed less commitment to
GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and is not using the
governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to develop an
integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view, governmentwide
strategic planning could better facilitate the integration of federal
activities to achieve national goals.

Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of
Performance Measures Called for by GPRA

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-594T.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at (202)
512-6806 or [email protected].

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report, Results-Oriented
Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater
Results.1 The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) was enacted in
1993 to bring about a greater focus on results in the federal government.
Prior to the enactment of GPRA, our work on performance measurement in the
federal government showed that federal agencies generally lacked the
infrastructure needed to manage and report on results of federal programs
in a way that was transparent to Congress and the American people. Today,
based on a decade of work in this area, we can safely say we have seen a
transformation in the capacity of the federal government to manage for
results. This capacity includes an infrastructure of outcome-oriented
strategic plans, performance measures, and accountability reporting that
have significantly improved over time and provide a solid foundation for
improving the performance of federal programs. However, a number of
challenges to GPRA implementation remain.

In light of the serious fiscal, security, and other emerging challenges
the nation faces, having such a capacity has never been more important.
Without effective short-and long-term planning, which takes into account
the changing environment and needs of the American public, recognizes the
challenges they face, and establishes goals to be achieved, federal
agencies risk delivering programs and services that may or may not meet
society's most critical needs. At a cost to taxpayers of over $2 trillion
annually, the federal government should be able to demonstrate to the
American public that it can anticipate emerging issues, develop sound
strategies and plans to address them, and be accountable for the results
that have been achieved.

My statement today will focus on the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a
focus on results in the federal government. Specifically, I will discuss
(1) the effect of GPRA over the last 10 years in creating a governmentwide
focus on results and the government's ability to deliver results to the
American public, including an assessment of the changes in the overall
quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual

1U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has
Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38
(Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 2004).

performance reports, (2) the challenges agencies face in measuring
performance and using performance information in management decisions, and
(3) how the federal government can continue its shift toward a more
results-oriented focus.

To meet our reporting objectives, we reviewed our extensive prior work on
GPRA best practices and implementation and collected governmentwide data
to assess the government's overall focus on results. We conducted a
random, stratified, governmentwide survey of federal managers comparable
to surveys we conducted in 1997 and 2000. We also held eight in-depth
focus groups-seven composed of federal managers from 23 federal agencies
and one with GPRA experts. We also interviewed top appointed officials
from the current and previous administrations. Finally, we judgmentally
selected a sample of six agencies that we reviewed for changes in the
quality of their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance
reports since their initial efforts. The agencies we selected included the
Departments of Education (Education), Energy (DOE), Housing and Urban
Development (HUD), and Transportation (DOT) and the Small Business (SBA)
and Social Security Administrations (SSA). We performed our work in
Washington, D.C., from January through November 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

GPRA is the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in
place during the 1990s to help resolve the long-standing management
problems that have undermined the federal government's efficiency and
effectiveness and to provide greater accountability for results. GPRA was
intended to address several broad purposes, including strengthening the
confidence of the American people in their government; improving federal
program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing
congressional decision making by providing more objective information on
program performance.

As a key part of the framework, GPRA requires executive agencies to
complete strategic plans in which they define their missions, establish
results-oriented goals, and identify the strategies that will be needed to
achieve those goals. GPRA also requires executive agencies to prepare
annual performance plans that articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal
year that are aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Finally, GPRA
requires agencies to measure performance toward the achievement of the
goals in the annual performance plan and report annually on their progress
in program performance reports.

  GPRA Established a Management Framework

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays an important role in the
management of federal government performance and, specifically, GPRA
implementation. Part of OMB's overall mission is to ensure that agency
plans and reports are consistent with the President's budget and
administration policies. OMB is responsible for receiving and reviewing
agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. To improve the quality and consistency of these
documents, OMB issues annual guidance to agencies for their preparation,
including guidelines on format, required elements, and submission
deadlines. Further, GPRA requires OMB to prepare a governmentwide
performance plan, based on agencies' annual performance plan submissions.

  GPRA Laid the Foundation for a More Results-Oriented Federal Government

Ten years after enactment, GPRA's requirements have laid a solid
foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and
reporting. Focus group participants and high-level political appointees,
as well as OMB officials we interviewed, cited positive effects of GPRA
that they generally attributed to GPRA's statutory requirements for
planning and reporting. Performance planning and measurement have slowly
yet increasingly become a part of agencies' cultures. The results of our
survey of federal managers indicate that since GPRA went into effect
governmentwide in 1997, federal managers reported having significantly
more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA- particularly
outcome-oriented performance measures. Survey data also suggested that
more federal managers, especially at the Senior Executive Service (SES)
level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their agencies' efforts
under GPRA.

One of the premises of GPRA is that both congressional and executive
branch oversight of federal agency performance were seriously hampered by
a lack of adequate results-oriented goals and performance information. Our
1992 review of the collection and use of performance data by federal
agencies revealed that, although many agencies collected performance
information at the program level, few agencies had results-oriented
performance information to manage or make strategic policy decisions for
the agency as a whole.2 GPRA addressed agencies' shortcomings by

2United States General Accounting Office, Program Performance Measures:
Federal Agency Collection and Use of Performance Data, GAO/GGD-92-65
(Washington, D.C.: May 4, 1992).

creating a comprehensive and consistent statutory foundation of required
agencywide strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. Participants in all eight of our focus groups cited
the creation of this statutory foundation as one of the key
accomplishments of GPRA. Furthermore, prior to GPRA few agencies reported
their performance information externally. In contrast, OMB officials we
interviewed as part of our current review suggested that OMB has been a
key consumer of agency performance information produced under GPRA and
that it has provided a foundation for their efforts to oversee agency
performance. Focus group participants also suggested that a major
accomplishment of GPRA is the improved the transparency of government
results to the American public.

A key purpose of GPRA was "to improve the confidence of the American
people in the capability of the Federal Government, by systematically
holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results." When
asked about the direct effects of GPRA on the public, an estimated 23
percent of the federal managers surveyed agreed to a moderate or greater
extent that GPRA improved their agency's ability to deliver results to the
American public. High-level political appointees we interviewed cited a
number of examples of how the structure of GPRA created a greater focus on
results in their agencies. Participants in our focus groups had mixed
perceptions of GPRA's effect on their agencies' ability to deliver results
to the American public. Participants indicated GPRA has had a positive
effect by shifting the focus of federal management from program activities
and processes to achieving the intended results of those programs. Other
focus group participants had difficulty attributing the results their
agencies achieved directly to GPRA's requirements.

Focus group and survey results suggest that performance planning and
measurement have slowly, but increasingly, become a part of agencies'
cultures. Compared to the results of our 1997 governmentwide survey of
federal managers, in our 2003 governmentwide survey more managers reported
having performance measures for their programs. When we asked managers who
said they had performance measures which of the five types of measures
they used to a "great" or "very great" extent, they

reported statistically significant increases in all five types of measures
between 1997 and 20033 (see fig. 1).

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures To a Great or Very Great Extent

aThere was a statistically significant difference between the 1997 and
2003 surveys.

Similarly, focus group participants commented on certain cultural changes
that had taken place within their agencies since the passage of GPRA in
which the "vocabulary" of performance planning and measurement-that is, a
greater focus on performance measurement, orientation toward outcomes over
inputs and outputs, and an increased focus on program evaluation-had
become more pervasive. This perception is partly borne out by our survey
results. Consistent with our survey results indicating

3Types of measures were defined in the questionnaire as follows:
Performance measures that tell us how many things we produce or services
we provide (output measures); performance measures that tell us if we are
operating efficiently (efficiency measures); performance measures that
tell us whether or not we are satisfying our customers (customer service
measures); performance measures that tell us about the quality of the
products or services we provide (quality measures); and performance
measures that would demonstrate to someone outside of our agency whether
or not we are achieving our intended results (outcome measures).

increases in results-oriented performance measures and increasing GPRA
knowledge, we also observed a significant decline in the percentage of
federal managers who agreed that certain factors hindered measuring
performance or using the performance information. For example, of those
who expressed an opinion, the percentage of managers who noted that
determining meaningful measures was a hindrance to a "great" or "very
great" extent was down significantly from 47 percent in 1997 to 36 percent
in 2003. Likewise, the percentage that agreed to a "great" or "very great"
extent that different parties' use of different definitions to measure
performance was a hindrance also declined significantly from 49 percent in
1997 to 36 percent in 2003.

Our survey data suggested that more federal managers, especially at the
SES level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their agencies'
efforts under GPRA (see fig. 2), but with no corresponding increase in
their concern that OMB would micromanage the programs in their agencies.
In our survey, we asked respondents to assess the extent to which OMB pays
attention to their agencies' efforts under GPRA. In 2003, the percentage
of respondents who responded "great" or "very great" to this question (31
percent) was significantly higher than in 2000 (22 percent). Of those, SES
respondents showed an even more dramatic increase, from 33 to 51 percent.
We also asked respondents to describe the extent to which their concern
that OMB would micromanage programs in their agencies was a hindrance to
measuring performance or using performance information. The percentage
among those expressing an opinion that it was a hindrance to a "great" or
"very great" extent was low-around 24 percent in 2003-with no significant
difference between 2000 and 2003.

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers and SES Managers Who Reported
That OMB Paid Attention to Their Agency's Efforts Under GPRA to a Great or
Very Great Extent

aThere was a statistically significant difference between 2000 and 2003
surveys.

The foundation of results-oriented planning and reporting that has been
established is also reflected in the quality of the plans and reports of
six federal agencies we reviewed for our report. Beginning with federal
agencies' initial efforts to develop effective strategic plans in 1997 and
annual performance plans and reports for fiscal year 1999, Congress, GAO,
and others have commented on the quality of those efforts and provided
constructive feedback on how agency plans and reports could be improved.
On the basis of our current review of the strategic plans, annual
performance plans, and annual performance and accountability reports of
six selected agencies-Education, DOE, HUD, DOT, SBA, and SSA-we found that
these documents reflect much of the feedback that was provided.

The quality of the six agencies' strategic plans we reviewed reflected
improvements over these agencies' initial strategic plans. In our current
review, the six strategic plans we looked at reflected many new and
continuing strengths as well as improvements over the 1997 initial draft
plans, but we continued to find certain persistent weaknesses. Of the six
elements required by GPRA, the plans generally discussed all but one-
program evaluation-an area in which we have found agencies often lack
capacity. Although the strategic plans listed the program evaluations
agencies intended to complete over the planning period, they generally did
not address how the agencies planned to use their evaluations to establish
new or revise existing strategic goals, as envisioned by GPRA. Finally,
although not required by GPRA, the strategic plans would have benefited
from more complete discussions of how agencies planned to coordinate and
collaborate with other entities to address common challenges and achieve
common or complementary goals and objectives.

The six selected agencies' fiscal year 2004 annual performance plans
addressed some weaknesses of earlier plans, but there is still significant
room for improvement. Most of the 2004 plans that we reviewed showed
meaningful improvements over the fiscal year 1999 plans by showing a
clearer picture of intended performance, providing strategies and
resources that were more specifically related to achieving agency goals,
and providing a greater level of confidence that performance data would be
credible. But these plans also contained a number of serious weaknesses,
such as inadequate discussion of coordination and collaboration and
inconsistent or limited discussions of procedures used to verify and
validate performance data, which limited their quality and undermined
their usefulness.

Our review of the six agencies' fiscal year 2002 performance and
accountability reports showed a number of strengths and improvements over
their fiscal year 1999 performance reports, as well as areas that needed
improvement. These fiscal year 2002 reports generally allowed for an
assessment of progress made in achieving agency goals. In addition, the
majority of agencies discussed the progress achieved in addressing
performance and accountability challenges identified by agency inspectors
general and GAO. However, many of the weaknesses we identified in the
agencies' fiscal year 2002 reports were related to the significant number
of performance goals not achieved or for which performance data were
unavailable. In addition, the majority of the reports we reviewed did not
include other GPRA requirements, such as a summary of the findings from
program evaluations. Finally, only one of the six agencies clearly linked
its costs to the achievement of performance goals or objectives.

  Challenges to GPRA Implementation Exist

While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies
more results oriented, we found numerous challenges remain. These
challenges included (1) top leadership does not consistently show
commitment to achieving results, (2) managers reported mixed results in
the use of performance information, (3) managers continue to confront a
range of human capital management challenges, (4) managers face persistent
challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals, measuring performance, and
collecting useful data, (5) crosscutting issues are not adequately
addressed, and (6) managers' views that Congress' use of performance
information is limited.

Top Leadership Commitment

As we noted in previous GAO reports, top leadership commitment and
sustained attention to achieving results, both within the agencies and at
OMB, are essential to GPRA implementation. While one might expect an
increase in agency leadership commitment since GPRA was implemented, our
governmentwide surveys of federal managers have not shown significant
increases. Furthermore, although OMB has recently demonstrated leadership
in its review of performance information from a budgetary perspective
using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) tool,4 it is unclear
whether the results of those reviews, such as changes in program
performance measures, will complement and be integrated with the
long-term, strategic focus of GPRA. OMB provided significantly less
guidance on GPRA implementation for the fiscal year 2005 budget, compared
to the very detailed guidance provided in prior years. Without consistent
guidance from OMB on meeting GPRA requirements and following best
practices, it may be difficult to maintain the improvements in agency
performance plans and reports or bring about improvements in areas where
weaknesses remain.

Additionally, we found that timing issues may affect the development of
agency strategic plans that are meaningful and useful to top leadership.
The commitment and sustained attention of top leadership within agencies,
OMB, and Congress is critical to the success of strategic planning
efforts. A strategic plan should reflect the policy priorities of an
organization's leaders and the input of key stakeholders if it is to be an
effective management tool. However, GPRA specifies time frames for

4PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that it has been using to rate
the effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus on program
results. OMB's goal is to review all federal programs over a 5-year period
using the PART tool.

updating strategic plans that do not correspond to presidential or
congressional terms. As a result, an agency may be required to update its
strategic plan a year before a presidential election and without input
from a new Congress. If a new president is elected, the updated plan is
essentially moot and agencies must spend additional time and effort
revising it to reflect new priorities. Our focus group participants,
including GPRA experts, strongly agreed that this timing issue should be
addressed by adjusting time frames to correspond better with presidential
and congressional terms.

    Use of Performance Information to Manage

The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized
when this information is actually used by managers to bring about desired
results. Federal managers reported mixed results in the use of performance
information (see fig. 3). Focus group participants and survey respondents
noted that although many federal managers understand and use
results-oriented management concepts in their day-to-day activities, such
as strategic planning and performance measurement, they do not always
connect these concepts to the requirements of GPRA. According to our 2003
survey results, the reported use of performance information to a "great"
or "very great" extent for nine management activities, such as setting
program priorities or setting individual job expectations for staff,
ranging from 41 to 66 percent, has not changed significantly since our
first survey in 1997. One exception was the reported use to a "great" or
"very great" extent of performance information to adopt new program
approaches or change work processes, which was significantly lower than
the 1997 results. GPRA's usefulness to agency leaders and managers as a
tool for management and accountability was cited as a key accomplishment
numerous times by focus group participants. However, a number of
alternative views indicated that the usefulness of GPRA as a management
tool has been limited. Our survey data also indicate that managers
perceive their participation in activities related to the development of
performance information has been limited.

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information
Obtained From Performance Measurement to a Great or Very Great Extent for
Various Management Activities

Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the extent
scale. aThere was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys. bThis question was not asked in 1997.

Human Capital Human capital management considerations also pose challenges
to GPRA

Management implementation. In our survey, federal managers reported that
they are held accountable for program results, but may not have the
decisionmaking authority they need to accomplish agency goals. When asked
the extent to which managers or supervisors at their levels were held

accountable for the accomplishment of agency strategic goals, 57 percent
responded to a "great" or "very great" extent in 2003. Also, there was
little difference between the views of SES and non-SES managers in the
area of accountability. (See fig. 4.)

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers, SES, and Non-SES in 2003
Reporting to a Great or Very Great Extent That They Were Held Accountable
for the Accomplishment of Agency Strategic Goals

In contrast, there was a significant difference between SES and non-SES
managers' perceptions of having the decision-making authority they needed
to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals. Compared to the 57
percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great or
very great extent in 2003, only 38 percent of non-SES managers reported
having such authority to a great or very great extent. (See fig. 5.)

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting To a Great or Very
Great Extent That Managers/Supervisors at Their Levels Had the
Decision-making Authority They Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its
Strategic Goals

aThere was a statistically significant difference between the 1997 and
2003 surveys.

bThere was a statistically significant difference between SES compared to
non-SES for each survey.

Moreover, fewer than half of managers reported receiving relevant
training. Managers also perceived a lack of positive recognition for
helping agencies achieve results. Unfortunately, most existing federal
performance appraisal systems are not designed to support a meaningful
performancebased pay system in that they fail to link institutional,
program, unit, and individual performance measurement and reward systems.
In our view, one key need is to modernize performance management systems
in executive agencies so that they link to the agency's strategic plan,
related goals, and desired outcomes and are therefore capable of
adequately supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel
decisions.

Performance Measurement �

Managers reported persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals,
measuring performance, and collecting useful data. Focus group
participants and survey respondents noted that outcome-oriented
performance measures were especially difficult to establish when the
program or line of effort was not easily quantifiable. For example,
implementing GPRA in a regulatory environment and meeting GPRA reporting
requirements for intergovernmental grant programs are particularly
challenging. Managers also identified difficulties in distinguishing
between the results produced by the federal program and results caused by
external factors or nonfederal actors, such as with grant programs.
Finally, managers reported that timely and useful performance information
is not always available.

                          Crosscutting Issues�

Crosscutting issues continue to be a challenge to GPRA implementation. Our
review of six agencies' strategic and annual performance plans showed some
improvement in addressing their crosscutting program efforts, but a great
deal of improvement is still necessary. We have previously reported and
testified that GPRA could provide OMB, agencies, and Congress with a
structured framework for addressing crosscutting policy initiatives and
program efforts. It can also be a valuable tool to address mission
fragmentation and program overlap. OMB could use the provision of GPRA
that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide performance plan to
integrate expected agency-level performance. It could also be used to more
clearly relate and address the contributions of alternative federal
strategies. Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully implemented.
Instead, OMB has used the President's Budget to present high-level
information about agencies and certain program performance issues.

The current agency-by-agency focus of the budget does not provide the
integrated perspective of government performance envisioned by GPRA. For
example, the fiscal year 2004 budget identified budget requests and
performance objectives by agency, such as the U.S. Department of Defense,
as opposed to crosscutting governmentwide themes. From this presentation,
one could assume that the only activities the U.S. government planned to
carry out in support of national defense were those listed under the
chapter "Department of Defense." However, the chapter on the fiscal year
2004 budget discussing "the Department of State and International
Assistance Programs," contains a heading titled, "Countering the Threat
from Weapons of Mass Destruction." And while OMB may have a technical
reason for not classifying this task as being related to national defense
or homeland security, it is unclear that a lay reader could make

that distinction. The fiscal year 2005 budget also identified budget
requests and performance objectives by agency, not by crosscutting theme.

A strategic plan for the federal government 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 could 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 could provide a more comprehensive framework for
considering organizational changes and making resource decisions. The
development of a set of key national indicators could be used as a basis
to inform the development of governmentwide strategic and annual
performance plans. The indicators could also link to and provide
information to support outcome-oriented goals and objectives in
agency-level strategic and annual performance plans.

Congressional Use of Performance Information

Finally, focus group members believed that one of the main challenges to
GPRA implementation was the reluctance of Congress to use performance
information when making decisions, especially appropriations decisions.
However, less than one quarter of federal managers in the 2003 survey
shared that concern. Further, a recent Congressional Research Service
review suggests that Congress uses performance information to some extent,
as evidenced by citations in legislation and committee reports. While
there is concern regarding Congress' use of performance information, it is
important to make sure that this information is useful. In other words,
the information presented and its presentation must meet the needs of the
user. Regular consultation with Congress about both the content and format
of performance plans and reports is critical.

As a key user of performance information, Congress also needs to be
considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRA provides
a vehicle for Congress to explicitly state its performance expectations in
outcome-oriented terms when consulting with agencies on their strategic
plans or when establishing new programs or exercising oversight of
existing programs that are not achieving desired results. This would
provide important guidance to agencies that could then be incorporated in
agency strategic and annual performance plans.

  Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration

The challenges we identified in our report are not new-most have not
changed significantly since we first reported on governmentwide
implementation of GPRA. However, we have frequently reported on approaches
that agencies, OMB, and Congress could use to address the challenges.
These approaches include strengthening the commitment of top leadership to
creating and sustaining a focus on results; taking a governmentwide
approach to achieving outcomes that are crosscutting in nature; improving
the usefulness of performance information to managers, Congress, and the
public; and improving the quality of performance measures and data.
Collectively, these approaches form the agenda that federal agencies, OMB,
and Congress will need to follow to bring about a more sustainable,
governmentwide focus on results.

In our report we recommended that the Director of OMB implement five
suggestions to improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA implementation:

o  To provide a broader perspective and more cohesive picture of the
federal government's goals and strategies to address issues that cut
across executive branch agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB
fully implement GPRA's requirement to develop a governmentwide performance
plan.

o  To achieve the greatest benefit from both GPRA and PART, we recommend
that the Director of OMB articulate and implement an integrated and
complementary relationship between the two. GPRA is a broad legislative
framework that was designed to be consultative with Congress and other
stakeholders, and allows for varying uses of performance information. PART
looks through a particular lens for a particular use-the executive budget
formulation process.

o  To improve the quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and performance and accountability reports and help agencies meet
the requirements of GPRA, we recommend that the Director of OMB provide
clearer and consistent guidance to executive branch agencies on how to
implement GPRA. Such guidance should include standards for communicating
key performance information in concise as well as longer formats to better
meet the needs of external users who lack the time or expertise to analyze
lengthy, detailed documents.

o  To help address agencies' performance measurement challenges, we
recommend that the Director of OMB engage in a continuing dialogue with
agencies about their performance measurement practices with a particular
focus on grant-making, research and development, and regulatory functions
to identify and replicate successful approaches agencies are using to
measure and report on their outcomes, including the use of program
evaluation tools. Additionally, we recommend that the Director of

OMB work with executive branch agencies to identify the barriers to
obtaining timely data to show progress against performance goals and the
best ways to report information where there are unavoidable lags in data
availability. Governmentwide councils, such as the President's Management
Council and the Chief Financial Officers Council, may be effective
vehicles for working on these issues.

o  To facilitate the transformation of agencies' management cultures to be
more results oriented, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with
agencies to ensure they are making adequate investments in training on
performance planning and measurement, with a particular emphasis on how to
use performance information to improve program performance.

We also identified two matters for congressional consideration to improve
the governmentwide focus on results:

o  To ensure that agency strategic plans more closely align with changes
in the federal government leadership, Congress should consider amending
GPRA to require that updates to agency strategic plans be submitted at
least once every 4 years, 12-18 months after a new administration begins
its term. Additionally, consultations with congressional stakeholders
should be held at least once every new Congress and interim updates made
to strategic and performance plans as warranted. Congress should consider
using these consultations along with its traditional oversight role and
legislation as opportunities to clarify its performance expectations for
agencies. This process may provide an opportunity for Congress to develop
a more structured oversight agenda.

o  To provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to

  Agency Comments

address issues that cut across federal agencies, Congress should consider
amending GPRA to require the President to develop a governmentwide
strategic plan.

In commenting on a draft of our report, OMB generally agreed with our
findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our
recommendations, but stated that the President's Budget represents the
executive branch's governmentwide performance plan and could also double
as a governmentwide strategic plan. However, because of the budget's focus
on agency-level expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, we believe that
the President's Budget provides neither a long-term nor an integrated
perspective on the federal government's performance. We also provided
relevant sections of the draft to the six agencies whose plans and reports
we reviewed. DOE, HUD, and SSA disagreed with some of our observations,
and we changed or clarified relevant sections of the report, as
appropriate.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to
answer any questions you or the other members of the Committee may have at
this time.

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Patricia A.
Dalton, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806. Other individuals
who made key contributions to this testimony were Elizabeth Curda and
Kimberly Gianopoulos.

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.

  GAO's Mission

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

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.

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 files of current reports and testimony and an expanding
archive of older 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: Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

  Waste, and Abuse in E-mail: [email protected]

Federal Programs Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800

Public Affairs U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
*** End of document. ***