Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next		 
Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve	 
Results (24-JUL-08, GAO-08-1026T).				 
                                                                 
Over the past 15 years, legislative and executive branch reform  
efforts have attempted to shift the focus of federal government  
management from a preoccupation with activities to the results or
outcomes of those activities. Based on over a decade of work in  
this area, GAO has found a transformation in the capacity of the 
federal government to manage for results, including an		 
infrastructure of outcome-oriented strategic plans, performance  
measures, and accountability reporting that provides a solid	 
foundation for improving the performance of federal programs.	 
However, agencies have made less progress in getting their	 
managers' to use performance information in their decision	 
making. GAO was asked to testify on the preliminary results of	 
ongoing work looking at (1) trends in federal managers' use of	 
performance information to manage, both governmentwide and at the
agency level; (2) how agencies can encourage greater use of	 
performance information to improve results; and (3) lessons	 
learned from prior management reforms for the next		 
administration. Our statement is based on prior GAO reports and  
surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007. For the	 
results of our 2007 survey, see e-supplement GAO-08-1036SP. GAO  
will be issuing a report at a later date that will explore the	 
use of performance results in management decision making at	 
selected agencies.						 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-08-1026T					        
    ACCNO:   A83047						        
  TITLE:     Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next     
Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve	 
Results 							 
     DATE:   07/24/2008 
  SUBJECT:   Accountability					 
	     Data collection					 
	     Data integrity					 
	     Decision making					 
	     Executive agencies 				 
	     Government information				 
	     Information resources management			 
	     Internal controls					 
	     Lessons learned					 
	     Performance appraisal				 
	     Performance management				 
	     Performance measures				 
	     Program evaluation 				 
	     Program management 				 
	     Regulatory agencies				 
	     Reporting requirements				 
	     Strategic planning 				 
	     Surveys						 
	     Assessments					 

******************************************************************
** 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-08-1026T

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to [email protected]. 

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. 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. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 2:30 p.m. EDT:
Thursday, July 24, 2008: 

Government Performance: 

Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance 
Information to Improve Results: 

Statement of Bernice Steinhardt: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 

GAO-08-1026T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-08-1026T, a testimony to the Subcommittee on Federal 
Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services and 
International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Over the past 15 years, legislative and executive branch reform efforts 
have attempted to shift the focus of federal government management from 
a preoccupation with activities to the results or outcomes of those 
activities. Based on over a decade of work in this area, GAO has found 
a transformation in the capacity of the federal government to manage 
for results, including an infrastructure of outcome-oriented strategic 
plans, performance measures, and accountability reporting that provides 
a solid foundation for improving the performance of federal programs. 
However, agencies have made less progress in getting their managersï¿½ to 
use performance information in their decision making. 

GAO was asked to testify on the preliminary results of ongoing work 
looking at (1) trends in federal managersï¿½ use of performance 
information to manage, both governmentwide and at the agency level; (2) 
how agencies can encourage greater use of performance information to 
improve results; and (3) lessons learned from prior management reforms 
for the next administration. Our statement is based on prior GAO 
reports and surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007. For the 
results of our 2007 survey, see e-supplement GAO-08-1036SP. GAO will be 
issuing a report at a later date that will explore the use of 
performance results in management decision making at selected agencies. 

What GAO Found: 

According to GAO surveys, since 1997 significantly more federal 
managers report having performance measures for the programs they 
manage. However, despite having more performance measures available, 
federal managersï¿½ reported use of performance information in management 
decision making has not changed significantly, as shown below. 

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

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal multiple bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Setting program priorities: 
1997: 65.8%; 
2007: 58.1%. 

Allocating resources: 
1997: 62.5%; 
2007: 59%. 

Adopting new program approaches or changing work processes[A]: 
1997: 66.1%; 
2007: 53%. 

Coordinating program efforts with other internal or external 
organizations: 1997: 56.8%; 
2007: 50.5%. 

Refining program performance measures: 
1997: 51.5%; 
2007: 46.3%. 

Setting new or revising existing performance goals: 
1997: 58.5%; 
2007: 52.1%. 

Setting individual job expectations for the government employees I 
manage or supervise: 
1997: 60.8%; 
2007: 61.9%. 

Rewarding government employees I manage or supervise[A]: 
1997: 52.6%; 
2007: 60.9%. 

Developing and managing contracts[B]: 
2007: 40.5%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the 
extent scale. 

[A] There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007 surveys. 

[B] This question was not asked in 1997. 

[End of figure] 

For the collection of performance information to be considered more 
than meaningless paperwork exercises, it must be useful to and used by 
federal decision makers at all levelsï¿½including Congress. To reach this 
state, GAO believes that the next administration should promote three 
key practices that we have identified in our work over the last 10 
years: (1) demonstrate leadership commitment to results-oriented 
management; (2) develop a clear ï¿½line of sightï¿½ linking individual 
performance with organizational results; and (3) build agency capacity 
to collect and use performance information. In addition to encouraging 
agencies to employ these practices, the next administration should: (1) 
adopt a more strategic and crosscutting approach to overseeing 
governmentwide performance; (2) improve the relevance of performance 
information to Congress; and (3) build agency confidence in assessments 
for use in decision making. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1026T]. For more 
information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6806 or 
[email protected]. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the results of our 2007 Survey 
on Performance and Management Issues and lessons learned over the past 
15 years through legislative and executive efforts to improve the 
management and performance of the federal government. Recent events, 
such as lead paint in imported children's products, tainted meat, 
predatory mortgage lending, contract fraud, and national disasters like 
Hurricane Katrina and the attacks of September 11, 2001, raise 
questions among the American people about the capacity of the federal 
government to meet their most pressing needs. Additionally, the 
nation's long-term fiscal imbalance drives the need for federal 
agencies to allocate increasingly scarce resources in the most 
efficient and effective way possible. The next administration can 
continue to bring a greater focus on improving the performance of 
federal programs and ensuring that federal funds are allocated 
effectively by building on the strengths of prior performance 
improvement initiatives. 

Over the past 15 years, various reform efforts have attempted to shift 
the focus of federal government management from a preoccupation with 
activities to the results or outcomes of those activities. Congress 
enacted the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) 
[Footnote 1] to inform congressional and executive decision making by 
providing objective information on the relative effectiveness and 
efficiency of federal programs and spending. That same year, the 
Clinton administration launched the National Performance Review (NPR), 
which was intended to make the government "work better and cost less." 
The current administration has also attempted to resolve long-standing 
federal management weaknesses through its five governmentwide 
management priorities under the President's Management Agenda (PMA), 
which was first announced in 2001.[Footnote 2] A central element in the 
Performance Improvement Initiative of the PMA is the Office of 
Management and Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), 
which was created in 2002 and serves as a diagnostic tool that is 
intended to provide a consistent approach for evaluating federal 
programs as part of the executive budget formulation process. Through 
PART, OMB has sought to create better ties between program performance 
and the allocation of resources. Prior to these efforts, our work on 
performance measurement in the federal government showed that federal 
agencies generally lacked the infrastructure needed to manage and 
report on the results of federal programs in a way that was transparent 
to Congress and the American people. 

Based on over a decade of work in this area, we can say that there has 
been 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 has significantly increased over time and provides a 
solid foundation for improving the performance of federal programs. 
[Footnote 3] However, we have found that progress is still needed to 
further integrate information about program performance into federal 
managers' decision making and ensure continued progress. 

You asked us to discuss: (1) the trends in federal managers' reported 
use of performance information governmentwide and at the agency level 
as identified through four surveys we conducted over the past 10 years; 
(2) how agencies can encourage greater use of performance information 
to improve federal program management; and (3) lessons learned to be 
considered by the next Congress and administration for future 
performance improvement initiatives. 

In summary, our surveys show that, while significantly more federal 
managers' have performance measures for their programs and some 
agencies have shown greater use of information, overall the use of 
performance information in management decision making has not changed 
over the last 10 years. To remedy this situation, the next 
administration should focus its efforts on ensuring that performance 
information is both useful and used. First, the next administration 
should promote three key practices that we have identified in our work 
over the last decade to ensure that the performance information 
gathered is used in making management decisions: Our statement is based 
on survey data collected in response to your request that we examine 
the extent to which federal agency managers are using performance 
information and how selected agencies could improve their use of 
performance information to achieve results. We will be issuing a report 
at a later date that addresses both these questions, including an 
analysis of practices at selected agencies. Our survey, which included 
a random, stratified, governmentwide sample of federal managers at the 
GS-13 level and above, was conducted from October 2007 through January 
2008, and is comparable to surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, and 
2003. Our 2000 and 2007 surveys included a larger sample of government 
managers--over 4,000 in 2007--that allowed for analysis of individual 
agency-level results. Significant differences are reported at the 95 
percent confidence interval. In reporting federal managers' positive 
responses to survey questions asking about the extent to which a 
condition or practice was present (ranging in five categories from "no" 
to "very great" extent), we are reporting responses that indicated to a 
"great" or "very great" extent. Concurrently with this statement, we 
are issuing an electronic supplement that shows the responses to all 
survey items.[Footnote 4] In addition to the survey results, we also 
drew from our extensive prior work on GPRA, PART, transformational 
change, and performance management. We conducted our work from March 
2007 to July 2008, in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform 
the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Governmentwide Use of Performance Information in the Past 10 Years 
Remains Unchanged Although Some Agencies Show Improvements: 

Based on federal managers' responses on our four governmentwide surveys 
conducted over the past 10 years, performance planning and measurement 
have slowly, yet increasingly, become a part of agencies' cultures. In 
particular, as shown in figure 1, significantly more federal managers 
today report having the types of performance measures called for by 
GPRA and PART than they did 10 years ago.[Footnote 5] 

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting Having Performance 
Measures to a "Great" or "Very Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal multiple bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Output measures[A]:
1997: 37.8%; 
2007: 54.2%. 

Efficiency measures[A]:	
1997: 25.9%; 
2007: 44.1%. 

Customer Service|measures[A]: 
1997: 31.5%; 
2007: 41.6%. 

Quality measures[A]: 
1997: 30.9%; 
2007: 40.2%. 

Outcome measures[A]: 
1997: 31.8%; 
2007: 48.9%. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007 surveys. 

[End of figure] 

However, unless federal managers use performance data to make 
management decisions and to inform policymakers, the benefit of 
collecting performance information cannot be realized and real 
improvement in management and program results are less likely to be 
achieved. We have found that despite having more performance measures, 
the extent to which managers make use of this information to improve 
performance has remained relatively unchanged. As shown in figure 2, 
seven of the nine categories of management activities we asked about 
showed no significant change over the past 10 years. 

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information 
Obtained from Performance Measurement for Various Management Activities 
to a "Great" or "Very Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal multiple bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Setting program priorities: 
1997: 65.8%; 
2007: 58.1%. 

Allocating resources: 
1997: 62.5%; 
2007: 59%. 

Adopting new program approaches or changing work processes[A]: 
1997: 66.1%; 
2007: 53%. 

Coordinating program efforts with other internal or external 
organizations: 1997: 56.8%; 
2007: 50.5%. 

Refining program performance measures: 
1997: 51.5%; 
2007: 46.3%. 

Setting new or revising existing performance goals: 
1997: 58.5%; 
2007: 52.1%. 

Setting individual job expectations for the government employees I 
manage or supervise: 
1997: 60.8%; 
2007: 61.9%. 

Rewarding government employees I manage or supervise[A]: 
1997: 52.6%; 
2007: 60.9%. 

Developing and managing contracts[B]: 
2007: 40.5%. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the 
extent scale. 

[A] There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007 surveys. 

[B] This question was not asked in 1997. 

[End of figure] 

In particular, despite efforts through GPRA and PART to help government 
better inform resource allocation decisions with performance 
information, over the past decade, there has been no significant shift 
in the percent of managers reporting they use information obtained from 
performance measurement when allocating resources. In addition, 
contract management remains the management activity with the least 
reported use of performance information, despite recommendations for 
better management of federal contracts from Congress and GAO and 
efforts to improve contract management through the PMA Competitive 
Sourcing Initiative.[Footnote 6] In 2007, 41 percent of managers 
reported that they use performance information when developing and 
managing contracts, a 3 percentage point increase from 2000, when we 
first asked the question. Given the growing fiscal imbalance, the 
government must get the best return it can on its investment in goods 
and services by improving its development, management, and assessment 
of contracts; using performance information in these activities can 
help to focus contract management on results.[Footnote 7] 

Of interest, there were two areas relating to managers' use of 
performance information in management decision making that did change 
significantly between 1997 and 2007. First, there was a significant 
decrease in the percentage of managers who reported that their 
organizations used performance information when adopting new program 
approaches or changing work processes. Performance information can play 
a valuable role in highlighting the need to take a closer look at the 
effectiveness of existing approaches and processes. Such an examination 
could lead to identifying needed changes to bring about performance 
improvements. Second, there was a significant increase in the 
percentage of managers who reported that they reward the employees they 
manage or supervise based on performance information. We believe this 
is an important development that can play a role in getting managers to 
pay attention to their performance; we will discuss this in more detail 
later in this statement. 

While in general there has been little change in federal managers' 
reported use of performance information governmentwide, agency level 
comparisons between 2000 and 2007 reveal that some agencies have made 
notable progress. For example, over the last 7 years, the Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission (NRC) showed a significant increase in positive 
responses to eight questions related to use of performance information 
in management activities. At the same time, DOD showed no change in 
their responses to questions related to the use of performance 
information and the Small Business Administration (SBA) reported 
significantly lower use of performance in 2007 than 2000 on two 
questions. 

As seen in table 1, the range of use also varied considerably among 
agencies with Forest Service (FS) and Department of the Interior 
(Interior) managers among the lowest users, and the Social Security 
Administration (SSA) and National Aeronautics and Space Administration 
(NASA) among the highest. 

Table 1: Agencies with Lowest and Highest Percent of Federal Managers 
Who Reported Using Performance Information for Various Management 
Activities: 

Setting program priorities: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 43 (Interior); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 78 (SSA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 58. 

Allocating resources: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 39 (Interior); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 70 (NASA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 59. 

Adopting new program approaches or changing work processes: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 30 (FS); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 71 (NSF); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 53. 

Coordinating program efforts with other internal or external 
organizations: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 28 (FS); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 62 (VA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 50. 

Refining program performance measures: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 28 (FS); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 66 (Education); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 46. 

Setting new or revising existing performance goals: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 33 (FS); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 73 (Energy); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 52. 

Setting individual job expectations for the government employees I 
manage or supervise: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 44 (FS); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 79 (SSA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 62. 

Rewarding government employees I manage or supervise: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 47 (FEMA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 78 (NASA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 61. 

Developing and managing contracts: 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Lowest percent 
(agency): 24 (FS); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Highest 
percent (agency): 70 (NASA); 
Managers responding to a "great" or "very great" extent: Governmentwide 
percent: 41. 

Source: GAO. 

Notes: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the 
extent scale. Education = Department of Education. Energy = Department 
of Energy. FEMA = Federal Emergency Management Agency. VA = Department 
of Veterans Affairs. 

[End of table] 

The PART has been used by the current administration to increase the 
government's focus on improving program performance results. 
Specifically, OMB includes an assessment of whether programs use 
performance information for program management as one element of its 
overall program assessment. In judging agency progress on the 
Performance Integration Initiative of the PMA, OMB also considers 
whether PART findings and performance information are used consistently 
to justify funding requests, management actions, and legislative 
proposals. However, of the federal managers familiar with PART, 
[Footnote 8] a minority--26 percent--indicated that PART results are 
used in management decision making, and 14 percent viewed PART as 
improving performance. 

Key Practices for Improving Government through the Use of Performance 
Information: 

As our survey results show, despite legislative and administration 
efforts to focus federal management decisions on the achievement of 
results and maximize the use of federal funds, changing the way federal 
managers make decisions is not simply a matter of making program 
performance information available. Based on our work on management 
reform efforts as well as analysis of federal managers' responses to 
our surveys over the past 10 years, we have identified three key 
practices that can contribute to greater attention to results when 
making management decisions. Regardless of the form of future 
initiatives, the next administration should take steps to ensure that 
agencies emphasize these practices to make sure that performance 
information is used in management decision making: 

1. demonstrate leadership commitment to results-oriented management; 

2. create a clear "line of sight" linking individual performance with 
organizational results; and: 

3. build agency capacity to collect and use performance information. 

Demonstrate Leadership Commitment to Results-Oriented Management: 

Perhaps the single most important element in successfully implementing 
organizational change is the demonstrated, sustained commitment of top 
leaders.[Footnote 9] Leaders can demonstrate their support for results- 
oriented management and facilitate the use of performance information 
by agency managers through frequent and effective communication of 
performance information.[Footnote 10] On our survey, we found a 
positive relationship between agency managers who reported that 
performance information is effectively communicated on a routine basis 
and managers' reported use of performance information in key management 
activities--in other words, greater communication of performance 
information is associated with greater use. Leaders can communicate 
performance information in their organizations by promoting the use of 
visual tools such as poster displays, performance scorecards, and 
intranet sites. In prior reviews, officials have told us that 
publicizing performance information can inspire a greater sense of 
ownership on the part of employees in their unit's performance; it can 
also spur competition between units. Additionally, we found that 
frequently reporting performance information can help to identify 
program problems before they escalate, identify the factors causing the 
problems, and modify services or processes to try to address problems. 
Leaders can play a key role in this process by following up on problems 
identified during discussions of performance information and by holding 
managers accountable for addressing the problems. 

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Top Leadership 
Demonstrated Commitment to Results-Oriented Management to a "Great" or 
"Very Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a vertical bar graph depicting the following data: 

Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Top Leadership Demonstrated 
Commitment to Results-Oriented Management to a "Great" or "Very Great" 
Extent: 

Year: 1997; 
Percent: 56.9%. 

Year: 2007: 
Percent: 67.1%. 

Note: There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007 surveys. 

[End of figure] 

From 1997 to 2007, we saw a significant increase in the percent of 
managers--from 57 to 67 percent---who reported that top leadership 
demonstrates a strong commitment to achieving results (see fig. 3.) Our 
survey results confirm the relationship between leadership commitment 
to results-oriented management and managers' reported use of 
performance information in key management activities, such as 
developing program strategy and making decisions about funding or 
allocating resources.[Footnote 11] Similarly, managers who believed 
their immediate supervisor paid attention to the use of performance 
information in decision making also perceived that managers at their 
level made greater use of performance information. Regarding the 
contribution of PART to improving this practice, 37 percent of federal 
managers familiar with PART reported that upper management has paid 
greater attention to performance and achieving results. More than any 
other items we asked about concerning the effect of PART, this item 
received the greatest degree of endorsement from federal managers. 

Create a Clear "Line of Sight" Linking Individual Performance with 
Organizational Results: 

To be successful, governmentwide performance improvement initiatives 
must ensure that all employees involved in the process understand the 
rationale for making the changes and their role and responsibility in 
the process. Performance management systems are a vital tool for 
managing and directing such organizational transformations because they 
create a "line of sight" showing how team, unit, and individual 
performance can contribute to overall organizational results. 
Additionally, performance management systems can be used to hold 
employees accountable for achieving and incorporating results into 
management and employee decision making.[Footnote 12] 

Over the past 10 years, we found positive trends in federal managers' 
responses to several questions relating to how agencies are managing 
their employees, which agencies can build upon to further emphasize the 
importance of managing by results (see fig. 4.) Specifically, we saw a 
statistically significant increase--from 53 percent in 1997 to 61 
percent in 2007--in the percentage of federal managers that reported 
using performance information when rewarding government employees they 
manage. Additionally, a significantly higher number of federal managers 
reported that employees in their agency receive positive recognition 
for helping the agency accomplish its strategic goals from 1997 to 
2007. 

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers' Indicating Performance 
Information Plays a Role in Recognizing or Rewarding Individuals to a 
"Great" or "Very Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a horizontal multiple bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Percentage of Federal Managers' Indicating Performance Information 
Plays a Role in Recognizing or Rewarding Individuals to a "Great" or 
"Very Great" Extent: 

Employees in my agency receive positive recognition for helping the 
agency accomplish its strategic goals[A]: 
1997: 26.2%; 
2007: 42%. 

I use performance information when rewarding staff I manage or 
supervise[A]: 
1997: 52.6%; 
2007: 60.9%. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007 surveys. 

[End of figure] 

At the same time, an increasing portion of senior executives report 
they are being held more accountable for results. In recent years, 
Congress and the administration modernized the performance appraisal 
and pay systems for senior executives by requiring a clearer link 
between individual performance and pay.[Footnote 13] Specifically, 
agencies are allowed to raise Senior Executive Service (SES) base pay 
and total compensation caps if their performance appraisal systems are 
certified by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) with concurrence 
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as, among other things, 
linking performance for senior executives to the organization's goals 
and making meaningful distinctions based on relative performance. 

In our past work on performance management and pay issues, we have 
reported that performance-based pay cannot be simply overlaid on most 
organizations' existing performance management systems.[Footnote 14] 
Rather, as a precondition to effective pay reform, individual 
expectations must be clearly aligned with organizational results, 
communication on individual contributions to annual goals must be 
ongoing and two-way, meaningful distinctions in employee performance 
must be made, and cultural changes must be undertaken. Most important, 
leading organizations have recognized that effective performance 
management systems create a "line of sight" showing how unit and 
individual performance can contribute to overall organizational goals 
and can help them drive internal change and achieve external results. 
[Footnote 15] Effective performance-management systems that hold 
executives accountable for results can help provide continuity during 
times of leadership transition, such as the upcoming change in the 
administration, by maintaining a consistent focus on organizational 
priorities. 

Interestingly, since our 2003 survey, SES responses regarding 
accountability show a significant increase. Between 2003 and 2007, 
there was a 14 percentage point increase in the number of SES who 
responded that managers/supervisors at their level are held accountable 
for accomplishment of agency strategic goals. In 2007, there was a 12 
percentage point increase in the number of SES who reported that they 
are held accountable for the results of the programs, operations, or 
projects for which they are responsible as compared to 2003 (see fig. 
5.) There was no significant change in responses from 2003 to 2007 in 
non-SES level responses to either of these questions. 

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That They Were 
Held Accountable for the Results of the Program/Operations/Projects for 
Which They Are Responsible to a "Great" or "Very Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a multiple vertical bar graph depicting the following 
data: 

Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That They Were Held 
Accountable for the Results of the Program/Operations/Projects for 
Which They Are Responsible to a "Great" or "Very Great" Extent: 


All[A]: 
1997: 54.6%; 
2000: 62.7%; 
2003: 70.7%; 
2007: 71.9%. 

SES[A]: 
1997: 61.6%; 
2000: 66.2%; 
2003: 69.6%; 
2007: 81.4%. 

Non-SES[A]: 
1997: 54.1%; 
2000: 62.4%; 
2003: 70.8%; 
2007: 71.2%. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007 surveys. 

[End of figure] 

As we have previously reported, it is important to ensure that managers 
have the authority to implement changes to the programs for which they 
are held accountable.[Footnote 16] Our 2007 survey results, however, 
indicate a growing gap between senior executives' perceptions of their 
accountability for program performance as opposed to their decision- 
making authority (see fig. 6). In 2007, 81 percent of senior executives 
reported that they are held accountable for the results of the programs 
for which they are responsible, while 62 percent reported that they 
have the decision-making authority they need to help the agency achieve 
its strategic goals, a 19 percentage point difference. Managers' 
ability to effect change within their organization is limited if they 
do not have the decision-making authority to help the agency accomplish 
its strategic goals. 

Figure 6: Comparison of SES Responses Regarding Accountability and 
Decision-Making Authority: 

[See PDF for image] 

This figure is a combination vertical bar and line graph depicting the 
following data: 

Year: 1997; 
Managers at my level have the decision-making authority they need to 
help the agency accomplish its strategic goals[A]: 50.6%; 
Managers at my level are held accountable for the results of the 
programs they are responsible for[A,B]: 61.6%. 

Year: 2000; 
Managers at my level have the decision-making authority they need to 
help the agency accomplish its strategic goals[A]: 56%; 
Managers at my level are held accountable for the results of the 
programs they are responsible for[A,B]: 66.2%. 

Year: 2003; 
Managers at my level have the decision-making authority they need to 
help the agency accomplish its strategic goals[A]: 57.5%; 
Managers at my level are held accountable for the results of the 
programs they are responsible for[A,B]: 69.6%. 

Year: 2007; 
Managers at my level have the decision-making authority they need to 
help the agency accomplish its strategic goals[A]: 61.5%; 
Managers at my level are held accountable for the results of the 
programs they are responsible for[A,B]: 81.4%. 

Source: GAO. 

[A] There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 
2007. 

[B] There is a statistically significant difference between 2003 and 
2007. 

[End of figure] 

Build Agency Capacity to Collect and Use Performance Information: 

While agencies can require managers to collect and report performance 
information, this does not ensure that managers have the knowledge or 
experience necessary to use the information or will trust the 
information they are gathering. The practice of building analytical 
capacity to use performance information and to ensure its quality--both 
in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and availability of 
research and evaluation resources--is critical to using performance 
information in a meaningful fashion and plays a large role in the 
success of government performance improvement initiatives. 

Managers must understand how the performance information they gather 
can be used to provide insight into the factors that impede or 
contribute to program successes; assess the effect of the program; or 
help explain the linkages between program inputs, activities, outputs, 
and outcomes. In earlier work, we found a positive relationship between 
agencies providing training and development on setting program 
performance goals and the use of performance information when setting 
or revising performance goals.[Footnote 17] While our survey found a 
significant increase in training since 1997, only about half of our 
survey respondents in 2007 reported receiving any training that would 
assist in strategic planning and performance assessment. We previously 
recommended that OMB ensure that agencies 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.[Footnote 18] However, OMB has not yet implemented 
our recommendation. 

In addition to building agency capacity by educating staff on how to 
use performance information, it is also important to ensure that the 
information gathered meets users' needs for completeness, accuracy, 
consistency, timeliness, validity, and ease of use. Our survey results 
indicate that those federal managers who felt they had sufficient 
information on the validity of the performance data they use to make 
decisions were more likely to report using performance information in 
key management activities. Interestingly, this question regarding 
managers' perception of the validity of performance data was more 
strongly associated with managers' reported use of performance 
information than it was with any other question on the survey. 
Additionally, we found a significant relationship between federal 
managers reporting that managers at their level are taking steps to 
ensure that performance information is useful and appropriate and their 
reported use of performance information in key management activities. 
Getting buy-in from managers by involving them in the selection and 
development of measures for their programs can help increase their 
confidence in the data collected and the likelihood that they will use 
the information gathered in decision making. 

Lessons Learned from Prior Performance Improvement Initiatives: 

Regardless of the form, future governmentwide initiatives to improve 
performance should take into consideration key lessons learned that we 
have identified through our work. First, the next administration should 
promote the three key practices we found that facilitate the use of 
performance information by all levels of agency management. Beyond 
this, the next administration can better focus its efforts to improve 
performance by (1) adopting a more strategic and crosscutting approach 
to overseeing performance; (2) improving the relevance of performance 
information to Congress; and (3) building agency confidence in 
assessments for use in decision making. 

Adopt a More Strategic and Crosscutting Approach to Overseeing 
Governmentwide Performance: 

Given the time and effort required to assess agency and program 
performance, taking a more crosscutting, strategic approach to such 
assessments may better use limited resources. Additionally, focusing 
decision makers' attention on the most pressing policy and program 
issues and on how related programs and tools affect broader outcomes 
and goals may better capture their interest throughout the process. The 
current administration's PART initiative focuses on individual 
programs, which aligns with OMB's agency-by-agency budget reviews, but 
has been used infrequently to address crosscutting issues or to look at 
broad program areas in which several programs or program types address 
a common goal. Crosscutting analysis looking at broad program areas is 
necessary to determine whether a program complements and supports other 
related programs, whether it is duplicative and redundant, or whether 
it actually works at cross-purposes to other initiatives. While OMB has 
reported on a few crosscutting assessments in recent budget requests, 
[Footnote 19] we have suggested that OMB adopt this approach more 
widely and develop a common framework to evaluate all programs-- 
including tax expenditures and regulatory programs--intended to support 
common goals.[Footnote 20] 

We have previously reported GPRA could provide OMB, agencies, and 
Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting 
program efforts.[Footnote 21] OMB, for example, could use the provision 
of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide performance plan 
to integrate expected agency-level performance. Unfortunately, this 
provision has not been implemented fully. OMB issued the first and only 
such plan in February 1998 for fiscal year 1999. Without such a 
governmentwide focus, OMB is missing an opportunity to assess and 
communicate the relationship between individual agency goals and 
outcomes that cut across federal agencies and more clearly relate and 
address the contributions of alternative federal strategies. The 
governmentwide performance plan also could help Congress and the 
executive branch address critical federal performance and management 
issues, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in how the 
government does business. It could also provide a framework for any 
restructuring efforts. 

In addition to the annual performance plan, a governmentwide strategic 
plan could identify long-term goals and strategies to address issues 
that cut across federal agencies.[Footnote 22] Such a plan for the 
federal government could be supported by a set of key national outcome- 
based indicators of where the nation stands on a range of economic, 
environmental, safety/security, social, and cultural issues. A 
governmentwide strategic plan combined with indicators could help in 
assessing the government's performance, position, and progress, and 
could be a valuable tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing 
programs, as well as proposals for new programs. Further, it could 
provide a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals of the federal 
government and provide a much needed basis for fully integrating, 
rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal activities. 

Improve the Relevance of Performance Information to Congress: 

In order for performance improvement initiatives to hold appeal beyond 
the executive branch, and to be useful to the Congress for its decision 
making, garnering congressional buy-in on what to measure and how to 
present this information is critical.[Footnote 23] In a 2006 review, 
congressional committee staff told us that although OMB uses a variety 
of methods to communicate the PART assessment results, these methods 
cannot replace the benefit of early consultation between Congress and 
OMB about what they consider to be the most important performance 
issues and program areas warranting review.[Footnote 24] However, a 
mechanism to systematically incorporate a congressional perspective and 
promote a dialogue between Congress and the President in the PART 
review process is missing. As a result of this lack of consultation, 
there have been several areas of disagreement between OMB and Congress 
about this executive branch tool, resulting in most congressional staff 
we spoke with not using the PART information. Most congressional staff 
reported that they would more likely use the PART results to inform 
their deliberations if OMB (1) consulted them early in the PART process 
regarding the selection and timing of programs to assess, (2) explained 
the methodology and evidence used or to be used to assess programs, and 
(3) discussed how the PART information can best be communicated and 
leveraged to meet their needs. 

OMB has recently taken some steps to more succinctly report agency 
performance information. In 2007, OMB initiated a pilot program that 
explores alternative approaches to performance and accountability 
reporting, including a "highlights report" summarizing key performance 
and financial information. However, more work could be done to better 
understand congressional information needs and communication 
preferences. We have reported previously that congressional staff 
appreciate having a variety of options for accessing the information 
they need to address key policy questions about program performance or 
to learn about "hot" issues.[Footnote 25] In a case study we conducted 
on FAA's communication of performance, budgeting, and financial 
information with Congress, congressional committee staff from the House 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee were interested in better 
using technology to gain additional agency data in a timely manner. For 
example, staff reported that agencies could create a For Congress page 
on their Web site dedicated to serve as a single repository of data for 
congressional requesters. In future initiatives, OMB could explore 
alternative communication strategies and data sources to better meet 
congressional needs and interest and ensure that the valuable data 
collected for performance improvement initiatives is useful and used. 

Additionally, Congress could consider whether a more structured 
oversight mechanism is needed to permit a coordinated congressional 
perspective on governmentwide performance issues. Just as the executive 
branch needs a vehicle to coordinate and address programs and 
challenges that span multiple departments and agencies, Congress might 
need to develop structures and processes that better afford a 
coordinated approach to overseeing agencies and tools where 
jurisdiction crosses congressional committees. We have previously 
suggested that one possible approach could involve developing a 
congressional performance resolution identifying the key oversight and 
performance goals that Congress wishes to set for its own committees 
and for the government as a whole. Such a resolution could be developed 
by modifying the annual congressional budget resolution, which is 
already organized by budget function.[Footnote 26] This may involve 
collecting the input of authorizing and appropriations committees on 
priority performance issues for programs under their jurisdiction and 
working with crosscutting committees such as the Senate Committee on 
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on 
Oversight and Government Reform, and the House Committee on Rules. This 
year, Congress issued its budget resolution for fiscal year 2009 
containing a section directing Committees of the House of 
Representatives and the Senate to review programs' performance within 
their jurisdiction for waste, fraud, and abuse and report 
recommendations annually to the appropriate Committee on the Budget. 
[Footnote 27] 

Build Agency Confidence in Assessments for Use in Decision Making: 

As the primary focal point for overall management in the federal 
government, OMB plays a critical role in the planning and 
implementation of the President's initiatives. During the current 
administration, OMB has reported that is has reviewed over 1,000, or 98 
percent, of all federal programs through its PART initiative. Moreover, 
through its PMA and PART initiatives, OMB has set the tone of 
leadership at the top by holding agencies accountable for their 
implementation of recommendations intended to improve program 
management. However, regardless of the mechanism that the next 
administration employs to oversee agency and program performance, OMB's 
efforts could be enhanced by building agency confidence in the 
credibility and usefulness of its assessments for management decision 
making. To build this confidence, OMB could further its efforts to 
increase OMB examiners' knowledge of the programs they are assessing 
and agency knowledge about how to develop and use the information 
gathered for PART. 

Our survey results indicate that concerns exist among federal managers 
regarding the quality of OMB's assessments. Specifically, managers 
responding to our survey expressed concerns that OMB examiners may be 
spread too thinly and do not have sufficient knowledge of the programs 
they are reviewing necessary for accurate assessments. On our survey, 
the suggested improvement to PART with the highest level of endorsement 
from federal managers familiar with PART was to ensure that OMB's 
examiners have an in-depth knowledge of the programs they review. 
Seventy percent of respondents indicated that this was a high to very 
high priority for improving PART. For example, one respondent told us 
that "the PART reviewer does not have time to try to understand [their] 
program" and another stated that "some PART reviewers are not familiar 
with their agency mission and scope." These responses echo previous 
statements officials have given us regarding PART, in particular that 
PART assessments can be thoughtful when OMB is knowledgeable about a 
program and has enough time to complete the reviews, but that 
assessments are less useful when OMB staff are unfamiliar with programs 
or have too many PART assessments to complete. By taking a more 
targeted, strategic approach as we previously recommended, OMB could 
allow examiners time to conduct more in-depth assessments of selected 
programs and build their knowledge base about the programs. 

OMB can also help to facilitate implementation of future initiatives by 
offering training to agency officials on the reporting requirements of 
the initiatives and how the information gathered for these efforts 
might be incorporated into management decision making. As we previously 
mentioned, it is important to build agency capacity in terms of the 
capability of staff to analyze and use performance information in their 
decision making. Nearly half of managers familiar with PART indicated 
that agency-level training on developing acceptable performance 
measures for PART as well as training on how to use performance 
measures identified as a result of the PART process should be high to 
very high priorities for improving PART. One survey respondent 
commented that "PART is a great concept but poorly understood by many 
in federal service; more training and interaction among managers 
[working on PART] could lead to substantial improvements in performance 
and overall efficiencies." Another survey respondent emphasized that 
training needed to be provided to field offices "so field supervisors 
and front-line employees understand how their work outcomes/outputs 
roll up to highest levels in government goals and initiatives." 
Building agency officials familiarity with and confidence in the 
performance assessments being conducted will be critical to improving 
the integration and use of the information gathered in management 
decision making. 

Conclusions: 

Each new administration has the opportunity to learn from and build 
upon the experiences of its predecessors. While the last decade has 
seen the creation of an infrastructure for government performance 
improvement efforts, and a more results-oriented culture in the federal 
government, we still see more that can be done to make this 
transformation more widespread among federal agencies. Adopting the key 
practices we have highlighted--demonstrating leadership commitment to 
performance, aligning individual performance with the goals of the 
organization, and building the capacity to use information--would be an 
important first step, and OMB can play an important role in fostering 
these practices across government. OMB could also adopt some of these 
practices in its own engagement with agencies--particularly, by helping 
to provide the training and development that both OMB analysts and 
agency program managers will need to make sure that any OMB-led 
performance review is useful and used. 

Beyond this, Congress and the administration can help bring a more 
strategic approach to how government performance is monitored and 
measured. As we have noted repeatedly in our work, a governmentwide 
strategic plan, underpinned by a set of key national indicators (KNI), 
would, in defining outcomes shared by multiple agencies and programs, 
help keep sight of how well agency programs are working collectively to 
produce intended results. Whatever performance improvement initiatives 
the next administration adopts, it will be vital to engage the Congress 
in helping to identify the meaningful measures of success, as well as 
the form in which performance information will be useful to Congress 
itself in carrying out its oversight, legislative, and appropriations 
roles. 

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

GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: 

For further information on this testimony, please contact Bernice 
Steinhardt at (202) 512-6806 or [email protected] Elizabeth Curda at 
(202) 512-4040 or [email protected]. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this testimony. Individuals making key contributions to this 
testimony were Matt Barranca, Thomas Beall, Laura Craig, Scott 
Doubleday, Daniel Dunn, Catherine Hurley, Stuart Kauffman, Alison 
Keller, Anna Maria Ortiz, Mark Ramage, Kaitlin Riley, Jerry Sandau, and 
Katherine Hudson Walker. 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope and Methodology: 

A Web-based questionnaire on performance and management issues was 
administered to a stratified random probability sample of 4,412 persons 
from a population of approximately 107,326 mid-level and upper-level 
civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch 
agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990. The 
sample was drawn from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM) 
Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as of March 2007, using file 
designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory 
functions. In reporting the questionnaire data, when we use the term 
"governmentwide" and the phrase "across the federal government," we are 
referring to these 24 CFO Act executive branch agencies, and when we 
use the terms "federal managers" and "managers," we are referring to 
both managers and supervisors. The questionnaire was designed to obtain 
the observations and perceptions of respondents on various aspects of 
such results-oriented management topics as the presence and use of 
performance measures, hindrances to measuring performance and using 
performance information, and agency climate. In addition, the 
questionnaire included a section requesting respondents' views on the 
Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Program Assessment Rating Tool 
(PART) and the priority that should be placed on various potential 
improvements to it. 

With the exception of the section of the questionnaire asking about 
OMB's PART, most of the items on the questionnaire were asked in three 
earlier surveys. The earliest survey was conducted between November 
1996 and January 1997 as part of the work we did in response to a 
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) requirement that we 
report on implementation of the act. The second survey, conducted 
between January and August 2000, and the third survey, conducted 
between June and August 2003, were designed to update the results from 
each of the previous surveys.[Footnote 28] The 2000 survey, unlike the 
other two surveys, was designed to support analysis of the data at the 
department and agency level as well as governmentwide. 

Similar to the three previous surveys, this survey covered the CFO Act 
agencies and the sample was stratified by whether the manager or 
supervisor was Senior Executive Service (SES) or non-SES. The 
management levels covered general schedule (GS), general management 
(GM), or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS/GM-13 through 
career SES or equivalent levels of executive service. Similar to our 
2000 and 2003 surveys, we incorporated special pay plans, for example, 
Senior Foreign Service executives, into the population and the sample 
to ensure at least a 90 percent coverage of all managers and 
supervisors at or comparable to the GS/GM-13 through career SES level 
at the departments and agencies we surveyed. 

One purpose of this survey was to update the information gathered at 
the departmental and agency level for the survey done in 2000. Similar 
to the design of the 2000 survey, stratification was also done by the 
24 CFO Act agencies with an additional breakout of five selected 
agencies from their departments--Forest Service, Centers for Medicare 
and Medicaid Services (CMS), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 
Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and Federal Emergency Management Agency 
(FEMA). The first four agencies were selected for breakout in our 2000 
survey on the basis of our previous work, at that time, identifying 
them as facing significant managerial challenges. FEMA, which was an 
independent agency at the time of our 2000 survey, became part of the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) when the department was created. 
The intent of this survey was to cover the same set of entities 
examined in the 2000 survey with the addition of DHS, which was created 
in 2003, in order to examine possible change in managerial perceptions 
of performance measurement and use over time at the department and 
agency level between 2000 and 2007. The PART section was included to 
obtain feedback from managers that would help inform the transition and 
management agenda of the next administration. 

Most of the items on the questionnaire were closed-ended, meaning that, 
depending on the particular item, respondents could choose one or more 
response categories or rate the strength of their perception on a 5- 
point extent scale ranging from "to no extent" at the low end of the 
scale to "to a very great extent" at the high end. For the PART 
questions about improvement priorities, the 5-point scale went from "no 
priority" to "very great priority." On most items, respondents also had 
an option of choosing the response category "no basis to judge/not 
applicable." 

We sent an e-mail to members of the sample that notified them of the 
survey's availability on the GAO Web site and included instructions on 
how to access and complete the survey. Members of the sample who did 
not respond to the initial notice were sent up to four subsequent 
reminders asking them to participate in the survey. The survey was 
administered from October 2007 through January 2008. 

During the course of the survey, we deleted 199 persons from our sample 
who had either retired, separated, died, or otherwise left the agency 
or had some other reason that excluded them from the population of 
interest. We received useable questionnaires from 2,943 sample 
respondents, or about 70 percent of the remaining eligible sample. The 
eligible sample includes 42 persons that we were unable to locate and 
therefore unable to request that they participate in the survey. The 
response rate across the 29 agencies ranged from about 55 percent to 84 
percent. 

The overall survey results are generalizable to the population of 
managers as described above at the CFO Act agencies. The responses of 
each eligible sample member who provided a useable questionnaire were 
weighted in the analyses to account statistically for all members of 
the population. All results are subject to some uncertainty or sampling 
error as well as nonsampling error. As part of our effort to reduce 
nonsampling sources of error in survey results, we checked and edited 
(1) the survey data for responses that failed to follow instructions 
and (2) verified the programs used in our analyses. In general, 
percentage estimates in this report for the entire 2007 sample have 
confidence intervals ranging from about +1 to +6 percentage points at 
the 95 percent confidence interval. Percentage estimates in this report 
for individual agencies have confidence intervals that range from +3 to 
+18 percentage points. An online e-supplement GAO-08-1036SP shows the 
questions asked on the survey with the weighted percentage of managers 
responding to each item. 

As part of our analyses of the 2007 survey data, we identified a set of 
nine items from the questionnaire that inquired about uses of 
performance information that we identified in a previous GAO report. 
[Footnote 29] Using those items we developed an index that reflected 
the extent to which managers' perceived their own use of performance 
information for various managerial functions and decisions as well as 
that of other managers in the agency. To obtain this overall index 
score of reported use of performance information, we computed an 
average score for each respondent across the nine items we identified. 
By using this average index score, which yields values in the same 
range as the 5-point extent scale used on each item, we were able to 
qualitatively characterize index score values using the same response 
categories used for the items comprising the index.[Footnote 30] We 
refer to this index as the "core uses index" in that it indicates 
managers' perceptions about the extent to which performance information 
is used across a core set of management decision-making areas. 

Because a complex sample design was used in the current survey as well 
as the three previous surveys, and different types of statistical 
analyses are being done, the magnitude of sampling error will vary 
across the particular surveys, groups, or items being compared due to 
differences in the underlying sample sizes and associated variances. 
The number of participants in the current survey is slightly larger 
than the 2000 survey (2,510) and much larger than the 1996-1997 survey 
(905) and the 2003 survey (503), both of which were designed to obtain 
governmentwide estimates only. Consequently, in some instances, a 
difference of a certain magnitude may be statistically significant. In 
other instances, depending on the nature of the comparison being made, 
a difference of equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve 
statistical significance. We note throughout the report when 
differences are significant at the .05 probability level. Also, as part 
of any interpretation of observed shifts in individual agency response 
between the 2007 and the earlier 2000 survey, it should be kept in mind 
that components of some agencies and all of the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) became part of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS). 

We conducted our work from March 2007 to July 2008, in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence 
obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 
based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 103-62 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

[2] In addition to budget and performance integration, the other four 
priorities under the PMA are strategic management of human capital, 
expanded electronic government, improved financial performance, and 
competitive sourcing. 

[3] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
10, 2004). 

[4] GAO, Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on 
Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1026T], [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1036SP] (Washington, D.C.: 
July 24, 2008). 

[5] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. When 
discussing federal managers' responses to survey questions, we are 
reporting the percent of federal managers that responded from a great 
to very great extent. 

[6] We asked managers about their use of performance information when 
developing and managing contracts for the first time in 2000. 

[7] GAO, Federal Acquisitions and Contracting: Systemic Challenges Need 
Attention, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1098T] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2007). 

[8] In our discussion of questions relating to PART, the data include 
the responses of federal managers who indicated they had a low, 
moderate, or extensive level of knowledge of the details of OMB's PART 
initiative and excluded those with no knowledge. Twenty-three percent 
of respondents indicated having a low to extensive level of knowledge. 

[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. 

[10] GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 
Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 
9, 2005). 

[11] We measured managers' use of performance information in key 
management activities by developing a core uses index derived from nine 
questions on the 2007 federal managers' survey. These questions 
inquired about uses of performance information in management activities 
and decision making that can lead to improved results as identified in 
our 2005 report Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 
Management Decision Making [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927]. For a complete list of the practices used in 
this index see app. I. This index was then used in various analyses, 
including a ranking of the 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act 
agencies and five components that participated in our survey on their 
use of performance information. Throughout this testimony, when we 
refer to "managers' use of performance information in key management 
activities" we are referring to their reported use of performance 
information according to this index. 

[12] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between 
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 
14, 2003). 

[13] See Section 1322 of the Chief Human Capital Officers Act of 2002, 
Title XIII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296 
(Nov. 25, 2002), and section 1125(a) (2) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-136 (Nov. 24, 
2003). 

[14] GAO, Human Capital: Symposium on Designing and Managing Market- 
Based and Performance-Oriented Pay Systems, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-832SP] (Washington, D.C.: July 
27, 2005). 

[15] GAO, Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be 
Strengthened to Achieve Results, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-04-614] (Washington, D.C.: May 26, 2004). 

[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. 

[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. 

[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. 

[19] For the fiscal year 2006 President's budget request, OMB conducted 
two crosscutting assessments on Community and Economic Development and 
Rural Water. In addition, OMB recently announced two new PMA 
initiatives aimed at improving the performance of federal credit 
programs and health information quality and transparency across the 
major relevant federal agencies. 

[20] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: How Performance Budgeting Can Help, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1194T] 
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2007). 

[21] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. 

[22] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38]. 

[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1194T]. 

[24] GAO, Performance Budgeting: OMB's Performance Rating Tool Presents 
Opportunities and Challenges for Evaluating Program Performance, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-550T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Mar. 11, 2004). 

[25] GAO, Managing for Results: Views on Ensuring the Usefulness of 
Agency Performance Information to Congress, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-35] (Washington, D.C.: 
Jan. 26, 2000). 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-1194T]. 

[27] Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2009, H.R. 
Rep. 110-659, at 45-46 (2008). 

[28] For information on the design and administration of the three 
earlier surveys, see GAO, The Government Performance and Results Act: 
1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-109] (June 2, 1997); 
Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views on Key Management Issues 
Vary Widely Across Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
bin/getrpt?GAO-01-592] (May 25, 2001); and Results-Oriented Government: 
GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38] (Mar. 10, 
2004). 

[29] See GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 
Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927] (Sept. 9, 2005). See the 
online e-supplement GAO, Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers 
Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1026T], 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-1036SP] 
(Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008) for the wording of the items. The 
nine items constituting the index are questions 8a, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8k, 8m, 
10d, 10m, and 11b. 

[30] For example, index score values between 1 and 2.99 were viewed as 
covering the two categories of "small" or "to no extent' while values 
of 3 to 3.99 fit the category "moderate extent" and values between 4 
and 5 encompassed the categories of "great" or "very great" extent. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability 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 GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

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. Government Accountability 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, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: [email protected]: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, [email protected]: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

*** End of document. ***