Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in
Agencies' Performance Plans (Letter Report, 07/20/1999,
GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215).

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 seeks to shift
government's focus from activities to results or outcomes. The Act
requires agencies to produce annual performance plans to inform Congress
and the public of the annual performance goals for their major programs
and activities, the measures that will be use to gauge performance, the
strategies and resources required to achieve those goals, and the
procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance
information. This report provides summary information based on GAO's
review and evaluation of the fiscal year 2000 performance plans of the
24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act. GAO discusses
the extent to which the agencies' plans included three key elements of
informative performance plans: (1) clear pictures of intended
performance, (2) specific discussions of strategies and resources, and
(3) confidence that performance information will be credible. GAO also
identifies the degree of improvement the fiscal year 2000 performance
plans represent over the fiscal year 1999 plans.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  GGD/AIMD-99-215
     TITLE:  Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued
	     Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans
      DATE:  07/20/1999
   SUBJECT:  Productivity in government
	     Performance measures
	     Agency missions
	     Redundancy
	     Reporting requirements
	     Strategic planning
	     Data integrity
	     Interagency relations
	     Congressional/executive relations
	     Mission budgeting
IDENTIFIER:  GPRA
	     Government Performance and Results Act

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  This text was extracted from a PDF file.        **
** Delineations within the text indicating chapter titles,      **
** headings, and bullets have not been preserved, and in some   **
** cases heading text has been incorrectly merged into          **
** body text in the adjacent column.  Graphic images have       **
** not been reproduced, but figure captions are included.       **
** Tables are included, but column deliniations have not been   **
** preserved.                                                   **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************

    United States General Accounting Office GAO
    Report to Congressional Requesters July 1999              MANAGING
    FOR RESULTS Opportunities for Continued Improvements in Agencies'
    Performance Plans GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 United States General
    Accounting Office
    General Government Division Washington, D.C.  20548 B-283190 July
    20, 1999 The Honorable Dick Armey Majority Leader House of
    Representatives The Honorable Dan Burton Chairman Committee on
    Government Reform House of Representatives The Honorable Fred
    Thompson Chairman Committee on Governmental Affairs United States
    Senate The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (Results
    Act) seeks to shift the focus of government performance and
    accountability away from a preoccupation with activities to a
    focus on the results or outcomes of those activities. The Results
    Act requires agencies to produce annual performance plans to
    clearly inform Congress and the public of the annual performance
    goals for agencies' major programs and activities, the measures
    that will be used to gauge performance, the strategies and
    resources required to achieve the performance goals, and the
    procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance
    information. High-performing organizations consistently strive to
    ensure that their organizational missions and goals drive day-to-
    day activities.1 Thus, the performance improvements expected under
    the Results Act will not occur merely because an agency has issued
    an annual performance plan. Rather, performance improvements occur
    when agencies transform their organizational cultures so that
    achieving results becomes the driving concern of daily operations
    and when agency managers and external decisionmakers use results-
    oriented plans and the planning and management processes that
    underpin them to inform decisions. Congress clearly has shown its
    interest in agency performance planning to better inform its
    decisions. As you requested, this report provides 1See, for
    example, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
    Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996). Page 1
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 summary information based on our review and evaluation of
    the fiscal year 2000 performance plans of the 24 agencies covered
    by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act. (The CFO Act agencies
    are listed in figure 2.) As agreed with your offices, our first
    objective was to summarize our observations on the extent to which
    the agencies' plans include three key elements of informative
    performance plans: (1) clear pictures of intended performance, (2)
    specific discussions of strategies and resources, and (3)
    confidence that performance information will be credible. For each
    of these elements, we characterized each agency's plan in one of
    four ways, based on the degree to which the plan contains
    informative practices associated with that element. These
    practices, drawn from Results Act requirements, related guidance,
    and the more informative features of the fiscal year 1999
    performance plans, are identified in our published work.2 Thus, to
    address the first element concerning the degree to which the plan
    provides a clear picture of intended performance, we characterized
    each plan in one of four ways: (1) provides a clear picture of
    intended performance across the agency, (2) provides a general
    picture, (3) provides a limited picture, or (4) provides an
    unclear picture. To address the second element, on the extent to
    which a plan includes specific discussions of strategies and
    resources, we characterized each plan as (1) containing specific
    discussions of strategies and resources, (2) general discussions,
    (3) limited discussions, or (4) no discussions. To address the
    third element on the extent to which a plan provides confidence
    that performance information will be credible, we characterized
    each plan as providing (1) full confidence, (2) general
    confidence, (3) limited confidence, or (4) no confidence. Our
    second objective was to identify the degree of improvement the
    fiscal year 2000 performance plans represent over the fiscal year
    1999 plans. Based on our analysis, we determined the level of
    improvement in agencies' plans by using one of four
    characterizations: (1) much improvement; (2) moderate improvement;
    (3) little, if any, improvement; (4) no improvement. Appendix I
    provides additional information on our scope and methodology. We
    briefed congressional offices during a 3-month period beginning in
    March 1999 on our observations on individual agencies' plans.
    Appendixes II through XXV contain the abbreviated text of our
    observations and 2Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices
    That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69,
    Feb. 26, 1999) and The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to
    Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans, Versions 1 (GAO/GGD-
    10.1.20, April 1998). Page 2
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 include Internet addresses for the complete text of our
    observations and agencies' comments on those observations. On the
    whole, agencies' fiscal year 2000 performance plans show moderate
    Results in Brief                      improvements over the fiscal
    year 1999 plans and contain better information and perspective.
    However, key weaknesses remain, and important opportunities exist
    to improve future plans. Figure 1 highlights the major strengths
    and key weaknesses that were most common among agencies' fiscal
    year 2000 performance plans and that need to be addressed in
    future plans. Figure 1:  Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Source: GAO analysis based on
    agencies' fiscal year 2000 performance plans. Figure 2 shows how
    we characterized each of the agencies on the three elements of
    informative performance plans that we examined. Page 3
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Figure 2: Characterization of CFO Act Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Source: GAO analysis based on
    agencies' fiscal year 2000 performance plans. Page 4
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Figure 2:  (Continued) Overall, the plans provide general
    pictures of intended performance across the agencies suggesting
    that important opportunities for continued improvements still
    remain to be addressed. For example, while all of the plans
    include baseline and trend data for at least some of their goals
    and Page 5            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plans B-283190 measures-which is important to
    understanding an agency's progress over time in achieving results-
    inconsistent attention is given to resolving mission-critical
    management challenges and program risks. These management
    challenges and program risks continue to seriously undermine the
    federal government's performance and to leave it vulnerable to
    billions of dollars in waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement.
    Agencies also could provide clearer pictures of intended
    performance by providing greater attention to crosscutting program
    issues. Coordinating crosscutting programs is important because,
    as our work has suggested, mission fragmentation and program
    overlap are widespread across the federal government. In that
    regard, most agencies' plans show some improvement in their
    recognition of crosscutting program efforts. However, few plans
    attempt the more challenging tasks of discussing planned
    strategies for coordination and establishing complementary
    performance goals and common or complementary performance
    measures. Continued progress on this issue is important because,
    in program area after program area, we have found that unfocused
    and uncoordinated crosscutting programs waste scarce funds,
    confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit overall program
    effectiveness. Crosscutting programs by definition involve more
    than one agency, and coordination therefore requires the ability
    to look across agencies and ensure that the appropriate
    coordination is taking place. Given the Office of Management and
    Budget's (OMB) position in the executive branch, its leadership is
    particularly important in addressing this issue. Agencies'
    discussions of how resources and strategies will be used to
    achieve results show mixed progress. Some individual agencies show
    progress in making useful linkages between their budget requests
    and performance goals, while other agencies are not showing the
    necessary progress. Opportunities also remain to more directly
    explain how programs and initiatives will achieve goals, and
    little progress is being made in linking management resources and
    strategies, such as the use of information technology, to results.
    Notable by their absence are discussions of how agencies plan to
    strategically develop their human capital to achieve results. This
    suggests that one of the critical components of high-performing
    organizations-the systematic integration of human capital planning
    and program planning-is not being adequately addressed across the
    federal government. The continuing lack of confidence that
    performance information will be credible is also a source of major
    concern. Many agencies offer only Page 6             GAO/GGD/AIMD-
    99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190
    limited indications that performance data will be credible. Also,
    agencies generally do not identify actions that they are taking to
    compensate for the lack of quality data, nor do they discuss the
    implications for decisionmaking of the lack of quality data. The
    inattention to ensuring that performance data will be sufficiently
    timely, complete, accurate, useful, and consistent is an important
    weakness in the performance plans. Ultimately, performance plans
    will not be fully useful to congressional decisionmakers unless
    and until this key weakness is resolved. In crafting the Results
    Act, Congress understood that effectively implementing management
    changes of the magnitude envisioned under the Act would take
    several years, although each year should see marked improvements
    over the preceding ones. Sustained and committed leadership within
    agencies, OMB, and Congress will be critical to making additional
    progress in Results Act implementation. Accordingly, we recommend
    that the Director of OMB ensure that agencies' future annual plans
    make additional improvements by addressing continuing weaknesses
    in the plans' clarity of intended performance, discussions of
    strategies and resources, and confidence in the credibility of
    performance information. We also suggest that Congress, building
    on its recent and ongoing use of performance plans to help inform
    its own decisionmaking, use agencies' annual plans as a basis for
    augmented oversight. A critical component of high-performing
    organizations, as envisioned by Background      the Results Act,
    is the dynamic and complementary process of setting a strategic
    direction, defining annual goals and measures, and reporting on
    performance. As required by the Results Act, agencies are to
    prepare annual performance plans that establish the connections
    between the long- term goals outlined in their strategic plans and
    the day-to-day activities of managers and staff. To be useful,
    annual performance plans should answer three core questions: *  To
    what extent does the agency have a clear picture of intended
    performance? *  Does the agency have the right mix of strategies
    and resources needed to achieve its goals? *  Will the agency's
    performance information be credible? At the request of Congress
    and to assist agencies in their efforts to produce useful
    performance plans, we issued guides on assessing annual plans.3 We
    3Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An
    Assessment Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking,
    Version 1 (GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18, February 1998) and GAO/GGD-
    10.1.20, April 1998. Page 7
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 subsequently reviewed the fiscal year 1999 performance
    plans for the CFO Act agencies.4 We also issued reports on fiscal
    year 1999 plans that identified practices that can improve the
    usefulness of plans and approaches used to connect budget requests
    with anticipated results.5 A majority of agencies' fiscal year
    2000 plans give general pictures of Fiscal Year 2000 Plans
    intended performance across the agencies, with the plans of the
    Provide General                 Department of Labor, Department of
    Transportation (DOT), the General Services Administration (GSA),
    and the Social Security Administration Pictures of Agencies'
    (SSA) providing the clearest overall pictures. Intended
    Performance To assess the degree to which an agency's plan
    provides a clear picture of intended performance across the
    agency, we examined whether it includes (1) sets of performance
    goals and measures that address program results; (2) baseline and
    trend data for past performance; (3) performance goals or
    strategies to resolve mission-critical management problems; and
    (4) identification of crosscutting programs (i.e., those programs
    that contribute to the same or similar results), complementary
    performance goals and common or complementary performance measures
    to show how differing program strategies are mutually reinforcing,
    and planned coordination strategies. Figure 3 shows the results of
    our assessment of the 24 agencies. We categorized each agency's
    plan based on the degree to which it collectively addressed the
    four practices presented above. 4Managing for Results: An Agenda
    To Improve the Usefulness of Agencies' Annual Performance Plans
    (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228, Sept. 8, 1998). 5GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69,
    February 26, 1999 and Performance Budgeting: Initial Experiences
    Under the Results Act in Linking Plans With Budgets (GAO/AIMD/GGD-
    99-67, Apr. 12, 1999). See also Performance Budgeting: Initial
    Agency Experiences Provide a Foundation to Assess Future
    Directions (GAO/T-AIMD/GGD-99-216, July 1, 1999). Page 8
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Figure 3: Clarity of Agencies' Intended Performance
    Source: GAO analysis based on agencies' fiscal year 2000
    performance plans. All of the fiscal year 2000 plans we reviewed
    contain at least some goals Progress Is Being Made in
    and measures that address program results. In our assessment of
    the fiscal Defining Program Results                   year 1999
    plans, we identified the lack of comprehensive sets of goals that
    focused on results as one of the central weaknesses that limited
    the usefulness of the plans for congressional and other
    decisionmakers. While this improvement is still not evident across
    all agencies, some plans incorporate sets of performance goals and
    measures that depict the complexity of the results federal
    agencies seek to achieve. For example, to help achieve improved
    public health and safety on the highway, DOT has performance goals
    and measures to reduce the rates of alcohol-related and large
    truck-related fatalities and injuries and to increase seat belt
    use, in addition to its goals related to highway fatality and
    injury rates. The DOT plan also provides helpful information that
    explains the importance of each goal, the relationship of annual
    goals to DOT strategic goals, and the relationship of the
    performance measures to annual goals. Similarly, the Department of
    Education's plan contains a set of goals and measures related to a
    vital issue of growing national concern-that schools should be
    strong, safe, disciplined, and drug-free. Specifically, Education
    has performance goals and measures to reduce the prevalence Page 9
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 of alcohol and drugs in schools, decrease criminal and
    violent incidents committed by students, and increase the
    percentage of teachers who are trained to deal with discipline
    problems in the classrooms. The plan includes explanatory
    information for each goal and measure. For instance, Education
    explains that it changed its target level for the percentage of
    students using marijuana at school because of better than expected
    reductions in 1998. However, we still found cases where program
    results were not clearly defined. For example, the Small Business
    Administration's (SBA) performance plan's goals and measures
    continue to generally focus on outputs rather than results. To
    assess progress in its goal to "increase opportunities for small
    business success," SBA relies on measures such as an increase in
    the number of loans made by SBA, the number of clients served, the
    number of bonds issued, and the amount of dollars invested in
    small businesses. This is important information, but the plan does
    not show how these measures are related to increasing
    opportunities for small businesses to be successful-the key result
    SBA hopes to achieve. Sets of performance goals and measures also
    should provide balanced perspectives on performance that cover the
    variety of results agencies are expected to achieve. Federal
    programs are designed and implemented in dynamic environments
    where mission requirements may be in conflict, such as ensuring
    enforcement while promoting related services, or priorities may be
    different, such as those to improve service quality while limiting
    program cost. Consequently, mission requirements and priorities
    must be weighed against each other to avoid distorting program
    performance. The Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) Veterans
    Health Administration (VHA) provides an illustration of an agency
    that is using a range of goals to reflect the variety of results
    it seeks to achieve. VHA recognizes that, as it seeks to improve
    the health status of veterans, it must provide care efficiently.
    VHA's primary healthcare strategy has three performance goals to
    be achieved by fiscal year 2002, referred to as the 30-20-10
    strategy. With fiscal year 1997 as the baseline, VHA has separate
    goals that focus on (1) reducing the cost per patient by 30
    percent, (2) increasing the number of patients served by 20
    percent, and (3) increasing to 10 percent the portion of the
    medical care budget derived from alternative revenue sources.
    VHA's ability to fund the costs associated with serving 20 percent
    more patients than in the past will depend in large part on VHA's
    success in meeting its goals to decrease the cost per patient and
    increase revenues from alternative sources. Page 10
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Multiyear and Intermediate      In reviewing the fiscal
    year 1999 plans, we said that setting multiyear and Goals Can
    Provide Useful        intermediate goals is particularly useful
    when it may take years before Perspective on Results to Be
    results are achieved and in isolating an agency's discrete
    contribution to a Achieved                        specific
    result.6 In examining the fiscal year 2000 plans, we found that
    some agencies have started to incorporate these practices into
    their performance plans. For example, the Office of Personnel
    Management's (OPM) plan includes multiyear goals that provide
    valuable perspective on its plans over several years. In
    particular, the plan has an objective for fiscal year 2002 to
    simplify and automate the current General Schedule position
    classification system by reducing the number of position
    classification standards from more than 400 to fewer than 100. The
    plan shows that OPM projects that it will reduce the number of
    classification standards to 320 by the end of fiscal year 1999 and
    further reduce the number to 216 by the end of fiscal year 2000.
    Reducing the number of classification standards is seen by OPM as
    important because it will provide federal agencies with added
    flexibility to better acquire and deploy their human capital. The
    Department of Commerce's National Oceanic and Atmospheric
    Administration (NOAA) also includes projected target levels of
    performance for multiyear goals in its plan. As part of its
    strategic goal to sustain healthy coasts, NOAA set a target for
    fiscal year 2002 to increase to 75 the percentage of the U.S.
    coastline where threats to the habitat have been assessed and
    ranked. NOAA set a target level of 20 percent in fiscal year 2000
    from a baseline of 0 percent in fiscal year 1998. In contrast, the
    Department of the Treasury's Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
    provides an example of where multiyear goals could be included in
    the plan but are not. The plan states that the IRS Restructuring
    and Reform Act of 1998 requires that 80 percent of all tax and
    information returns that IRS processes be electronically filed by
    year 2007. IRS' plan would be more useful if it discussed this
    mandate along with target levels to show how it plans to achieve
    this goal over the next 7 years. Congress will likely expect to
    receive information relating to IRS' progress in the area,
    particularly since IRS has requested funding for this goal.
    Treasury officials said that they recognize the shortcomings in
    IRS' performance measures. As part of its restructuring, IRS is
    undertaking improvements by developing new performance measures.
    6GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69, February 26, 1999. Page 11
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 A few agencies have recognized that using intermediate
    goals and measures, such as outputs or intermediate outcomes, can
    show interim progress toward intended results. For example, the
    Department of Justice's Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) has
    a goal to disrupt and dismantle drug syndicates, but its plan
    acknowledges that counting the number of cases, arrests, or
    seizures does not adequately measure the true impact of
    enforcement efforts. Therefore, addition to those measures, DEA is
    developing other gauges, such as the ratio of the number of
    targeted organizations disrupted as a result of DEA involvement in
    foreign investigations to the total number of targeted
    organizations. Its plan states that DEA will collect data for this
    goal in fiscal year 1999. Similarly, SSA recognizes in its plan
    that one change needed for its disability program is that disabled
    beneficiaries must become self- sufficient to the greatest extent
    possible. As a first step toward its strategic objective to "shape
    the disability program in a manner that increases self-
    sufficiency," SSA includes an intermediate goal to increase by 10
    percent in fiscal year 2000 the number of Disability Insurance
    beneficiaries transitioning into trial work periods over time. SSA
    states that it will develop other goals and measures after an
    analysis of historical data is completed. All of the fiscal year
    2000 plans we reviewed include baseline and trend Identifying Past
    data for at least some of their goals and measures. With baseline
    and trend Performance Through        data, the performance plans
    provide a context for drawing conclusions Baseline and Trend Data
    about whether performance goals are reasonable and appropriate.
    Provides a Valuable        Decisionmakers can use such information
    to gauge how a program's anticipated performance level compares
    with improvements or declines in Perspective on Current     past
    performance. Goals For example, the DOT plan includes graphs for
    nearly all goals and measures that show baseline and trend data as
    well as the targets for fiscal year 1999 and 2000. The graphs
    clearly indicate trends and provide a basis for comparing actual
    program results with the established performance goals. The
    performance goal for hazardous material incidents is typical in
    that it has a graph that shows the number of serious hazardous
    materials incidents that occurred in transportation during the
    period 1988 through 1997. DOT also includes explanatory
    information that provides a context for past performance and
    future goals. In cases where baseline and trend data are not yet
    available, the more informative performance plans include
    information on what actions agencies are taking to collect
    appropriate data and when they expect to Page 12
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 have them. For example, the Department of Housing and
    Urban Development (HUD) provides baseline and trend data for many
    of its goals and measures, if such data are available. If data are
    not available, the plan discusses when HUD expects to develop the
    baselines. For example, the performance goal and measure to
    increase the share of recipients of welfare-to-work vouchers who
    hold jobs at the time of annual recertification indicates that the
    baseline for households receiving vouchers in fiscal year 2000
    will be determined in fiscal year 2001. The fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plans show inconsistent attention Agencies'
    Plans Lack       to the need to resolve the mission-critical
    management challenges and Consistent Attention to    program risks
    that continue to undermine the federal government's Mission-
    Critical           economy, efficiency, and effectiveness. These
    challenges and risks must be Management Challenges      addressed
    as part of any serious effort to fundamentally improve the
    performance of federal agencies. In our assessment of the fiscal
    year 1999 and Program Risks          performance plans, we
    observed that the value of the plans could be augmented if they
    more fully included goals that addressed mission-critical
    management issues.7 We noted that precise and measurable goals for
    resolving mission-critical management problems are important to
    ensuring that the agencies have the institutional capacity to
    achieve their more results-oriented programmatic goals. In
    assessing the fiscal year 2000 plans, we looked at whether the
    plans address over 300 specific management challenges and program
    risks identified by us and the agencies' Inspectors General.8 Many
    of these challenges and risks are long-standing, well known, and
    have been the subject of close congressional scrutiny. They
    include, most prominently, federal operations that we have
    identified as being at among the highest risk for waste, fraud,
    abuse, and mismanagement. We found that agencies do not
    consistently address management challenges and program risks in
    their fiscal year 2000 performance plans. In those cases where
    challenges and risks are addressed, agencies use a variety of
    approaches, including setting goals and measures directly linked
    to the management challenges and program risks, establishing goals
    and measures that are indirectly related to the challenges and
    risks, or laying out strategies to address them. Figure 4
    illustrates the distribution of these various approaches among the
    management challenges and program risks we identified.
    7GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228, September 8, 1998. 8Performance and
    Accountability Series and High-Risk Update (GAO/OCG-99-22SET,
    January 1999). Page 13                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-
    99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190
    Figure 4: Approaches Used to Address Management Challenges and
    Program Risks Note: Numbers do not add up to 100 percent due to
    rounding. Source: GAO analysis based on agencies' fiscal year 2000
    performance plans. Agencies' fiscal year 2000 plans contain goals
    and measures that directly address about 40 percent of the
    identified management challenges and program risks. For example,
    the Department of Energy's (DOE) plan contains goals and measures
    that are designed to address its major management challenges and
    program risks. DOE's contract management is one of the areas on
    our high-risk list, and this is especially important because DOE
    relies on contractors to perform about 90 percent of its work.
    Under DOE's corporate management goal, one objective is to improve
    the delivery of products and services through contract reform and
    the use of businesslike practices. The strategies DOE identifies
    include using prudent contracting and business management
    approaches that emphasize results, accountability, and
    competition. DOE's plan also contains three specific measures
    addressing contract reform. One of these measures is to convert
    one support services contract at each major site to become a
    performance-based service contract using government standards.
    Page 14                GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plans B-283190 On the other hand, agencies' plans
    do not contain goals, measures, or strategies to resolve one-
    fourth of the management challenges and program risks we
    identified. In Treasury's plan, for example, IRS has no goals,
    measures, or strategies to address several of the high-risk areas
    we have identified, even though important management reform
    initiatives are under way across the agency. Specifically,
    Treasury's plan does not address *  internal control weaknesses
    over unpaid tax assessments (We found that the lack of a
    subsidiary ledger impairs IRS' ability to effectively manage its
    unpaid assessments. This weakness has resulted in IRS'
    inappropriately directing collection efforts against taxpayers
    after amounts owed have been paid.); *  the need to assess the
    impact of various efforts IRS has under way to reduce filing
    fraud; *  the need to improve security controls over information
    systems and address weaknesses that place sensitive taxpayer data
    at risk to both internal and external threats (Our high-risk
    update reported that IRS' controls do not adequately reduce
    vulnerability to inappropriate disclosure.); and *  weaknesses in
    internal controls over taxpayer receipts. (Specifically, there is
    no discussion of IRS' plans to strengthen efforts to ensure that
    taxpayer receipts are securely transported, such as prohibiting
    the use of bicycle or other unarmed vehicle couriers. Our high-
    risk update pointed out that IRS' controls over tax receipts do
    not adequately reduce their vulnerability to theft.9) Treasury's
    plan would be more informative if it captured IRS' reform efforts
    and delineated goals and performance measures and, if necessary,
    developed interim measures to show IRS' intended near-term
    progress toward addressing its high-risk operations. For about 18
    percent of the over 300 management challenges and program risks we
    identified, agencies have established annual performance goals
    that appear to indirectly address these issues. For example, while
    SSA paid over $73 billion in 1998 in cash benefits to nearly 11
    million blind and disabled beneficiaries, we found that SSA's
    complex process for determining whether an individual qualifies
    for disability benefits has been plagued by a number of long-
    standing weaknesses. SSA's disability benefit 9For more recent
    information on this issue see Financial Audit: IRS' Fiscal Year
    1998 Financial Statements (GAO/AIMD-99-75, Mar. 1, 1999) and
    Internal Revenue Service: Results of Fiscal Year 1998 Financial
    Statement Audit (GAO/T-AIMD-99-103, Mar. 1, 1999). Page 15
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 claims process is time-consuming and expensive, and SSA's
    disability caseloads have grown significantly in the past decade.
    On the basis of our ongoing review of SSA's disability claims
    process redesign effort, we found that SSA has not been able to
    keep its redesign activities on schedule or demonstrate that its
    proposed changes will significantly improve its claims process.
    Further, we found that few people have left the disability rolls
    to return to work. Although SSA's plan does not include any direct
    goals or measures for its disability redesign efforts, it does
    include an intermediate goal for fiscal year 2000 to increase the
    number of Disability Insurance recipients and Supplemental
    Security Income recipients transitioning into the workforce by 10
    percent over fiscal year 1997 levels. Finally, agencies identify
    strategies to help them meet the challenges and risks they
    confront, rather than setting goals and measures in their
    performance plans. The plans we reviewed contain strategies to
    address about 18 percent of the identified challenges and risks.
    For some agencies, these strategies are clearly and directly
    related to the agency's efforts to address a specific challenge or
    risk. For example, DOT's lack of controls over its financial
    activities impairs the agency's ability to manage programs and
    exposes the department to potential waste, fraud, mismanagement,
    and abuse. DOT's fiscal year 2000 performance plan identifies
    financial accounting as a management challenge and addresses key
    weaknesses that need to be resolved before DOT can obtain an
    unqualified audit opinion on its fiscal year 2000 financial audit.
    DOT's corporate management strategies include efforts to (1)
    receive an unqualified audit opinion on the department's fiscal
    year 2000 consolidated financial statement and stand- alone
    financial statements, (2) enhance the efficiency of the accounting
    operation consistent with increased accountability and reliable
    reporting, and (3) implement a pilot of the improved financial
    systems environment in at least one operating administration. In
    other cases, however, it is unclear to what extent the strategies
    that agencies identify in their fiscal year 2000 annual
    performance plans will address the management challenges and
    program risks. Labor's Inspector General has found, for example,
    that the department faces serious vulnerabilities within three
    major worker benefit programs. These program risks include the
    continued proliferation of unemployment insurance fraud schemes
    and the escalating indebtedness of the Black Lung Disability Trust
    Fund. Labor did not develop any performance goals to specifically
    address these vulnerabilities, and although its plan broadly
    discusses these concerns, the plan shows that Labor will rely, for
    example, on the Inspector General's investigations to help
    identify and investigate multistate fraud schemes. Labor did not
    address efforts to reduce the Page 16            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-
    215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190
    indebtedness of the Black Lung Disability Trust Fund. Similarly,
    another challenge the Inspector General identified is Labor's need
    to ensure that weaknesses, vulnerabilities, and criminal activity
    are identified and addressed. Here again, Labor's plan indicates
    that it will rely on the Inspector General investigations to
    address this challenge. Because the Inspector General has already
    identified these management challenges and program risks, it is
    unclear whether relying on further Inspector General
    investigations will be a sufficient strategy to systematically
    address the vulnerabilities that have been identified across
    several Labor programs. The fiscal year 2000 performance plans
    indicate that the federal Coordinating Crosscutting    government
    continues to make progress in showing that crosscutting Program
    Efforts Needs        efforts are being coordinated to ensure
    effective and efficient program Additional Effort
    delivery. Among the improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plans
    over what we observed in the fiscal year 1999 plans are further
    identification of crosscutting efforts and more inclusive listings
    of other agencies with which responsibility for those efforts are
    shared. However, similar to the situation with the 1999 plans, few
    agencies have attempted the more challenging task of establishing
    complementary performance goals, mutually reinforcing strategies,
    and common performance measures, as appropriate. The effective and
    efficient coordination of crosscutting programs is important
    because our work has suggested that mission fragmentation and
    program overlap are widespread. We have identified opportunities
    for improving federal program coordination in vital national
    mission areas covering counterterrorism agriculture, community and
    regional development, health, income security, law enforcement,
    international affairs, and other areas. Our work has found that
    uncoordinated federal efforts confuse and frustrate program
    recipients, waste scarce resources, and undermine the overall
    effectiveness of the federal effort. SSA and VA improved their
    fiscal year 2000 plans over their fiscal year 1999 plans by
    linking their performance goals and objectives to crosscutting
    program efforts. SSA, under its goal "to make SSA program
    management the best-in-business, with zero tolerance for fraud and
    abuse," lists 14 crosscutting areas of coordination, including
    information sharing with the Department of Health and Human
    Services' (HHS) Health Care Financing Administration to help SSA
    determine Medicaid eligibility. Similarly, VA's fiscal year 2000
    plan briefly describes an extensive array of crosscutting
    activities and explicitly associates applicable crosscutting
    activities with each key performance goal, whereas the fiscal year
    1999 plan was limited to listings of other entities with
    crosscutting interests. Page 17            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 Although
    most agencies have shown at least some improvement in their
    identification of crosscutting program efforts, the Department of
    Defense (DOD) and DOE continue to provide little information about
    the substantive work of interagency coordination that is taking
    place. For example, we found that the federal government's effort
    to combat terrorism-an effort that cost about $6.7 billion in
    fiscal year 1997-was among the significant crosscutting programs
    for which DOD failed to discuss the details of coordination with
    other involved agencies in both its fiscal years 1999 and 2000
    plans. This failure is important because, as we recently
    testified, opportunities continue to exist to better focus and
    target the nation's investments in combating terrorism and better
    ensure that the United States is prioritizing its funding of the
    right programs in the right amounts.10 Similarly, DOE's fiscal
    year 2000 plan does not show other agencies' programs that
    contribute to results that DOE is also trying to achieve. This
    plan's "means and strategies" section, under the business line of
    Science and Technology, provides one example. In this discussion,
    DOE does not identify any federal agency, such as the National
    Science Foundation (NSF), that may contribute to similar science
    and technology results. In contrast, under its goal of
    "discoveries at and across the frontier of science and
    engineering," NSF's plan identifies research facilities supported
    by both NSF and DOE, including the Large Haldron Collider in
    Switzerland. Plans Devote Limited Attention    Few agencies have
    moved beyond identification of crosscutting efforts and to
    Developing Complementary       strategies to include in their
    plans complementary performance goals to Goals
    show how different program strategies are mutually reinforcing. We
    noted in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plans that an
    agency could increase the usefulness of its performance plan to
    congressional and other decisionmakers by identifying the results-
    oriented performance goals that involve other agencies and by
    showing how the agency contributes to the common result. Although
    incomplete, the efforts of DOT and HHS show how such an approach
    can provide valuable perspective to decisionmakers. For example,
    DOT's fiscal year 2000 performance plan indicates goals and
    performance measures to be used mutually to support crosscutting
    programs. The plan states that the Federal Aviation Administration
    and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) have
    complementary performance goals to decrease by 80 percent the rate
    of 10Combating Terrorism: Observations on Federal Spending to
    Combat Terrorism (GAO/T-NSIAD-99- 107, Mar. 11, 1999). Page 18
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 aviation fatalities by the year 2007. However, the plan
    could be improved by describing how the strategies of the two
    agencies are mutually reinforcing. HHS also provides valuable
    perspective to decisionmakers by linking complementary performance
    goals of agencies within the department. Those linkages suggest
    how differing program strategies can be mutually reinforcing. For
    example, one of HHS' strategic objectives is to reduce tobacco
    use, especially among the young. To contribute to this objective,
    the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has a performance
    goal to reduce the percentage of teenagers who smoke by conducting
    education campaigns, providing funding and technical assistance to
    state programs, and working with nongovernmental entities. The
    Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has a complementary goal to
    reduce the easy access to tobacco products and eliminate the
    strong appeal of these products for children by conducting 400,000
    compliance checks and selecting certain sites to target for
    intensified enforcement efforts to determine the effectiveness of
    different levels of effort. HHS can build upon intradepartmental
    efforts by aligning its performance goals with those of other
    federal agencies, such as the Departments of Justice and
    Education. Some Plans Include Helpful     While still uncommon,
    useful performance plans not only identify Discussions of
    Coordination    crosscutting efforts, they also describe how
    agencies expect to coordinate Approaches
    efforts with other agencies that have similar responsibilities.
    Plans that more directly explain strategies and tools for
    interagency coordination will be most helpful to Congress as it
    assesses the degree to which those strategies and tools are
    appropriate and effective and seeks best practices for use in
    other program areas. By way of illustration, FDA has a goal to
    develop and make available an improved method for the detection of
    several foodborne pathogens. FDA's discussion of this goal refers
    to an interagency research plan that seeks to more effectively
    coordinate the food safety research activities of FDA and the
    Department of Agriculture (USDA). FDA's discussion of joint
    planning, one approach to interagency coordination, demonstrates
    how annual performance plans can be used to develop a base of
    governmentwide information on the strengths and weaknesses of
    various coordination approaches and tools-as we suggested in our
    review of the fiscal year 1999 plans. Other plans, such as those
    of VA, SSA, and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), also
    discuss coordination tools, such as cooperative training,
    partnerships, memorandums of understanding, bilateral agreements,
    and interagency task forces. Page 19           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 Most fiscal
    year 2000 plans provide a general discussion-with DOT's
    Performance Plans                             being the clearest-
    of the strategies and resources that the agency will use Provide a
    General                             to achieve results. Thus,
    similar to other aspects of performance plans, substantial
    opportunities exist to make continued improvements in Discussion
    of                                 presentations of strategies and
    resources. Strategies and Resources
    To assess the degree to which an agency's plan provides a specific
    discussion of strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve performance goals, we examined whether it includes (1)
    budgetary resources related to the achievement of performance
    goals; (2) strategies and programs linked to specific performance
    goals and descriptions of how the strategies and programs will
    contribute to the achievement of those goals; (3) a brief
    description or reference to a separate document of how the agency
    plans to build, maintain, and marshal the human capital needed to
    achieve results; and (4) strategies to leverage or mitigate the
    effects of external factors on the accomplishment of performance
    goals. Figure 5 shows the results of our assessment of the 24
    agencies. We categorized each agency's plan based on the degree to
    which it collectively addressed the four practices presented
    above. Figure 5:  Clarity of Agencies' Strategies and Resources
    Source: GAO analysis based on agencies' fiscal year 2000
    performance plans. Page 20                GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 Like the
    fiscal year 1999 plans, most of the fiscal year 2000 plans do not
    Agencies Do Not                  consistently show how program
    activity funding would be allocated to Consistently Show How
    agencies' performance goals. However, individual agencies show
    progress Budgetary Resources Would in making useful linkages
    between their budget requests and performance Be Used to Achieve
    goals, as we will detail in a companion letter to this report.
    Such progress is important because a key objective of the Results
    Act is to help Congress Performance Goals                develop a
    clearer understanding of what is being achieved in relation to
    what is being spent. The Act requires that annual performance
    plans link performance goals to the program activities in
    agencies' budget requests.11 The most informative plans would
    translate these linkages into budgetary terms-that is, they would
    show how funding is being allocated from program activities to
    discrete sets of performance goals. For example, SSA's fiscal year
    1999 performance plan noted that the agency's Limitation on
    Administrative Expenses (LAE) account supported most of the
    measures in the plan. However, beyond that acknowledgement, SSA
    provided few details as to how budget resources would actually be
    allocated to support its performance goals. As a means of
    communicating its efforts to link budget resources to stated
    goals, the fiscal year 2000 plan now includes a matrix of SSA's
    fiscal year 2000 administrative budget accounts by related
    strategic goal. For example, the matrix shows that SSA has
    determined that it will require $38 million to meet its strategic
    goal of "promoting responsive programs" and that this amount will
    come out of SSA's LAE and Extramural Research accounts. As we
    noted in reviewing fiscal year 1999 performance plans, agencies
    used a variety of techniques to show relationships between
    budgetary resources and performance goals.12 Plans contain
    crosswalks to help identify how much funding would be needed to
    support discrete sets of performance goals and where that funding
    was included in the agency's budget request. For example, the U.S.
    Geological Survey portion of the Department of the Interior's
    fiscal year 2000 plan provides crosswalks showing (1) the
    relationship between funding for its budget program activities and
    funding for its "GPRA program activities"13 and (2) how "GPRA
    program activity" funding would be allocated to performance goals.
    In contrast, some agencies could have used such crosswalks to make
    their 11Subject to clearance by OMB and generally resulting from
    negotiations between agencies and appropriations subcommittees,
    program activities are intended to provide a meaningful
    representation of the operations financed by a specific budget
    account. 12GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67, April 12, 1999. 13As defined in OMB
    Circular A-11, "GPRA program activities" are developed by
    consolidating, aggregating, or disaggregating the program
    activities included in the President's Budget. Page 21
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 presentations more relevant for budget decisionmaking.
    For example, Commerce's plan identifies requirements of $133.2
    million to achieve the International Trade Administration's (ITA)
    strategic goal of increasing the number of small business
    exporters. However, it is not clear how this funding level was
    derived from the budget activities or accounts in ITA's budget
    request. In addition to providing crosswalks, some agencies also
    made performance information useful for resource allocation
    decisions by including this information in the budget
    justification of estimates traditionally sent to Congress in
    support of their requests. For example, NRC integrates its budget
    justification and performance plan for the first time in fiscal
    year 2000 as part of a broader initiative to integrate its
    planning, budgeting, and performance management process.
    Information traditionally contained in a budget justification,
    such as descriptions of accounts and their funding, was combined
    with performance information in such a way that the NRC budget
    justification and its plan could not be separated. Although no
    agency made significant changes to its account or program activity
    structure in fiscal year 2000 in order to clarify or simplify
    relationships between program activities and performance goals,
    some agencies mention the possibility of future change. For
    example, we have previously noted that VA's program activities do
    not clearly align with the agency's performance goals. In its
    fiscal year 2000 plan, VA states that it is working with OMB to
    develop a budget account restructuring proposal. Most of the
    fiscal year 2000 plans we reviewed relate strategies and Agencies
    Are Relating         programs to performance goals. However, few
    plans indicate how the Strategies and Programs to    strategies
    will contribute to accomplishing the expected level of Results
    performance. Discussions of how the strategies will contribute to
    results are important because they are helpful to congressional
    and other decisionmakers in assessing the degree to which
    strategies are appropriate and reasonable. Such discussions also
    are important in pinpointing opportunities to improve performance
    and reduce costs. As an example, DOT's performance plan provides a
    specific discussion of the strategies and resources that the
    department will use to achieve its performance goals. For each
    performance goal, the plan lists an overall strategy that often
    clearly conveys the relationship between the strategy and the goal
    for achieving it, as well as specific activities and initiatives
    to be undertaken in fiscal year 2000. For instance, DOT expects to
    increase transit ridership through investments in transit
    infrastructure, financial Page 22            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 assistance
    to metropolitan planning organizations and state departments of
    transportation for planning activities, research on improving
    train control systems, and fleet management to provide more
    customer service. NSF's performance plan also presents strategies
    that clearly show how NSF plans to achieve its fiscal year 2000
    performance goals. Specifically, the plan describes the general
    strategies that NSF intends to use to achieve its performance
    goals for the results of scientific research and education and for
    most of its performance goals for the NSF investment process and
    management. To illustrate, NSF will use a competitive merit-based
    review process with peer evaluations to identify the most
    promising ideas from the strongest researchers and educators.
    According to its plan, NSF will work toward the outcome goal of
    "promoting connections between discoveries and their use in
    service to society" by using the merit review process to make
    awards for research and education activities that will rapidly and
    readily feed into education, policy development, or work of other
    federal agencies or the private sector. On the other hand, some
    agencies do not adequately discuss how strategies and programs
    contribute to results. For example, Labor identifies in its plan
    112 means and strategies to accomplish its 42 performance goals
    and links each strategy to a specific performance goal. However,
    in some instances, the strategies do not identify how they would
    help achieve the stated goals. For example, one performance goal
    states that 60 percent of local employment and training offices
    will be part of one-stop career center systems. In a related
    strategy, Labor states that it will "continue its support of the
    adoption and implementation of continuous improvement initiatives
    throughout the workforce development system," but does not
    indicate how these efforts will help achieve the performance goal.
    In some cases, strategies are not provided. For example, HHS'
    Administration for Children and Families (ACF) has a goal to
    provide children permanency and stability in their living
    situations, and related performance measures, such as increasing
    the percentage of children who are adopted within 2 years of
    foster care placement. However, ACF does not identify the
    strategies that it will rely on to achieve this goal. Progress
    Needed in Linking Use    While agencies' fiscal year 2000 plans
    show progress in relating programs of Capital Assets and
    and strategies to goals, few relate the use of capital assets and
    Management Systems to Results     management systems to achieving
    results. Although a majority of the agencies discuss mission-
    critical management systems in their fiscal year 2000 performance
    plans-such as financial management, procurement and Page 23
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 grants management, and other systems-few describe how the
    systems will support the achievement of program results or clearly
    link initiatives to individual goals or groups of goals.
    Addressing information technology issues in annual performance
    plans is important because of technology's critical role in
    achieving results, the sizable investment the federal government
    has made in information technology (about $145 billion between
    1992 and 1997), and the long- standing weaknesses in virtually
    every agency in successfully employing technology to further
    mission accomplishment. The vital role that information technology
    can play in helping agencies achieve their goals was not clearly
    described in agency plans. The failure to recognize the central
    role of technology in achieving results is a cause of significant
    concern because, under the Paperwork Reduction and Clinger-Cohen
    Acts, Congress put in place clear statutory requirements for
    agencies to better link their technology plans and information
    technology use to their missions and programmatic goals. SSA's
    fiscal year 2000 plan provides a series of brief descriptions of
    key technology initiatives such as its Intelligent Workstation and
    Local Area Network (IWS/LAN), which is at the center of SSA's
    redesign of its core business processes. However, the plan does
    not clearly link the IWS/LAN initiative to any goals necessary to
    determine its impact on workload productivity, processing times,
    or the accuracy rates of decisions. Considering that prior plans
    have stated that SSA's strategic goals are essentially
    unachievable unless SSA invests wisely in information technology,
    such as IWS/LAN, a clearer, more-direct link between technology
    initiatives and the program results they are meant to support
    would enhance the usefulness of the plan. On the other hand,
    USDA's performance plan, which is made up of USDA component plans,
    frequently explains how proposed capital assets and management
    systems will support the achievement of program results. For
    example, the plan for the Agricultural Marketing Service, a
    component of USDA, describes how a proposed funding increase will
    provide for the modernization and the replacement of its Processed
    Commodities Inventory Management System. This system supports such
    activities as planning, procurement, and accounting for more than
    $1 billion of domestic and $562 million of foreign commodities
    annually. The plan further notes that studies have indicated that
    a modernized system will generate significant efficiency
    improvements and considerable cost savings. Page 24
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Most of the fiscal year 2000 annual performance plans do
    not sufficiently Agencies Provide                 address how the
    agencies will use their human capital to achieve results.
    Insufficient Attention to        Specifically, few of the plans
    relate-or reference a separate document How Human Capital Will Be
    that relates-how the agency will build, marshal, and maintain the
    human Used to Achieve Results          capital needed to achieve
    its performance goals. This suggests that one of the central
    attributes of high performing organizations-the systematic
    integration of mission and program planning with human capital
    planning-is not being effectively addressed across the federal
    government. The general lack of attention to human capital issues
    is a very serious omission because only when the right employees
    are on board and provided the training, tools, structure,
    incentives, and accountability to work effectively is
    organizational success possible. Although the plans often discuss
    human capital issues in general terms, such as recruitment and
    training efforts, they do not consistently discuss other key human
    capital strategies used by high-performing organizations. For
    example, SBA's plan discusses its need to "transition" and
    "reshape" its workforce to become a 21st century leading edge
    institution and the agency's intention to spend $3 million to
    train its staff in the skills needed to meet its mission. However,
    the plan does not discuss the types of human resources skills
    needed to achieve SBA's fiscal year 2000 performance goals or the
    types of training to be provided to help ensure that SBA's staff
    have the needed skills. As another example, NRC's plan uses a
    table to show the funds and staff that it requested for the 13
    programs that constitute the nuclear reactor safety strategic
    arena. Although NRC provides some information on the recruitment,
    training, and use of staff, it does not discuss the knowledge,
    skills, and abilities needed to achieve results. Such a discussion
    would be particularly helpful since NRC has been downsizing in
    response to congressional pressure and our prior work has shown
    several federal agencies' downsizing efforts were not well-planned
    and contributed to staff shortages and skills gaps in critical
    areas.14 Unlike most plans, VA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan
    provides an example of how a human capital initiative is tied to,
    and necessary for, achieving performance goals. VA's plan
    identifies performance goals to increase compensation claim
    processing accuracy and to reduce claim- processing time. VA's
    performance plan notes that the Veterans Benefits Administration
    (VBA) will need to hire and train additional employees to
    14Federal Downsizing: Effective Buyout Practices and Their Use in
    FY 1997 (GAO/GGD-97-124, June 30, 1997). Page 25
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 replace a sizable portion of the compensation and pension
    claims processing workforce who will become eligible for
    retirement within 5 years. According to its performance plan, to
    train these new employees as well as existing employees, VBA is
    developing training packages using instructional systems
    development methodology and will measure training effectiveness
    through performance-based testing, which is intended to lead to
    certification of employees. A Few Plans Discuss           High-
    performing organizations seek to align employee performance
    Accountability for Results    management with organizational
    missions and goals. Our prior work looking at early Results Act
    implementation efforts found that linking employee performance
    management to results is a substantial and continuing challenge
    for agencies.15 The plans for DOT and VA provide valuable
    discussions of the approaches those agencies are using to
    "contract" with senior managers for results. Such discussions are
    informative because they clearly show the agency's commitment to
    achieving results and provide a basis for lessons learned and best
    practices for other agencies to consider. DOT's plan notes that
    the department has incorporated all of its fiscal year 1999
    performance goals into performance agreements between
    administrators and the Secretary. At monthly meetings with the
    Deputy Secretary, the administrators are to report progress toward
    meeting these goals and program adjustments that may be undertaken
    throughout the year. VHA, a component of VA, also uses a
    performance contracting process whereby the Under Secretary for
    Health negotiates performance agreements with all of VHA's senior
    executives. These performance agreements focus on 15 quantifiable
    performance targets. In addition, executives are held accountable
    for achieving goals pertaining to workforce diversity, labor-
    management partnerships, and staff education and training. Plans
    are under way to extend the performance contract approach
    throughout VHA. Unlike the fiscal year 1999 plans, the majority of
    the fiscal year 2000 Agencies are Recognizing      performance
    plans identify external factors that could affect achievement the
    Effects of External       of strategic and performance goals.
    However, far fewer agencies discuss Factors on Achieving
    the strategies they will use to leverage or mitigate the effects
    of identified Performance Goals             external factors. Such
    discussions can help congressional and other 15Performance
    Management: Aligning Employee Performance With Agency Goals at Six
    Results Act Pilots (GAO/GGD-98-162, Sept. 4, 1998). Page 26
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 decisionmakers determine if the agency has the best mix
    of program strategies in place to achieve its goals or if
    additional agency or congressional actions are needed to achieve
    results. For example, Commerce's plan identifies many of the
    external factors that could affect the Patent and Trademark
    Office's (PTO) ability to achieve its four strategic goals, but
    the plan does not clearly describe or indicate how PTO will
    mitigate the effect of these factors. Under PTO's strategic goal
    to "grant exclusive rights, for limited times, to inventors for
    their discoveries," the plan states that the patent business'
    workload is dependent on foreign economies because about 50
    percent of patent applications are from overseas. The plan
    recognizes that changes in foreign economies could impact PTO's
    workload and affect its revenue, but it does not indicate how PTO
    would adjust to any changes in incoming patent applications from
    these countries. An agency that improved in this area over last
    year is USDA's Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
    Administration (GIPSA). In its fiscal year 1999 plan, GIPSA did
    not identify any external factors; however, in its fiscal year
    2000 plan, it identifies several important external factors and
    provides mitigation strategies to address them. For example, GIPSA
    plans to increase the efficiency of grain marketing by
    streamlining grain inspection and weighing processes and by
    providing objective measures of, among other things, grain
    quality. The majority of the fiscal year 2000 performance plans we
    reviewed Performance Plans        provide only limited confidence
    that performance information will be Provide Limited
    credible, and agencies need to make substantial progress in this
    area. Only the plans for Education, Justice, DOT, and SSA provide
    even general Confidence That          confidence that their
    performance information will be credible Performance Data Will Be
    Credible              To assess the degree to which an agency's
    plan provides confidence that the agency's performance information
    will be credible, we examined whether it describes (1) efforts to
    verify and validate performance data, and (2) data limitations,
    including actions to compensate for unavailable or low-quality
    data and the implications of data limitations for assessing
    performance. Figure 6 shows the results of our assessment of the
    24 agencies. We categorized each agency's plan based on the degree
    to which it collectively addressed the two practices presented
    above. Page 27            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 Figure 6: Confidence in
    Performance Data Source: GAO analysis based on agencies' fiscal
    year 2000 performance plans. Like the fiscal year 1999 performance
    plans, most of the fiscal year 2000 Most Plans Lack
    performance plans lack information on the actual procedures the
    agencies Information on Data                    will use to verify
    and validate performance information. Congressional and
    Verification and Validation            executive branch
    decisionmakers must have assurance that the program and financial
    data being used will be sufficiently timely, complete, accurate,
    useful, and consistent if these data are to inform decisionmaking.
    Furthermore, in some cases, data sources are not sufficiently
    identified. For example, the Department of State's performance
    plan includes data sources that are sometimes vaguely expressed as
    "X report" or "Bureau X records." Also, SBA identifies sources and
    means to validate performance data typically with one or two word
    descriptors, such as "publications" or "SBA records." Moreover,
    few agencies provide explicit discussions of how they intend to
    verify and validate performance data. For example, some of the
    verification processes described in HHS' Substance Abuse and
    Mental Health Services Administration's (SAMHSA) performance plan
    do not provide confidence in the credibility of its performance
    information. Regarding the validity of data that will be used to
    measure progress in Page 28                GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 offering
    outreach services to homeless and mentally ill persons, SAMHSA
    states "[s]ince the sources of the data are the local agencies
    that provide the services, the quality of the data is very good."
    SAMHSA appears to be assuming that these data are valid without
    indicating whether it plans to verify the quality of the data or
    that it has conducted prior studies that confirm the basis for
    SAMSHA's confidence. Similarly, the performance plan of the Rural
    Utilities Service (RUS), a component of USDA, contains a limited
    discussion of the verification and validation of data relating to
    goals and measures for its electric program. The RUS plan states
    that (1) the relevant data are available in records from RUS'
    automated systems, RUS' borrower-reported statistics, and USDA's
    Economic Research Service (ERS); (2) RUS has had long experience
    with its internal data and is highly confident of its accuracy;
    and (3) it considers ERS' data to be very reliable. RUS, however,
    does not discuss the basis for its confidence in its or ERS' data
    accuracy and reliability. On the other hand, a few agencies
    incorporated in their performance plans a discussion of procedures
    to verify and validate data. These procedures include external
    reviews, standardization of definitions, statistical sampling, and
    Inspector General quality audits.16 For example, VA is taking
    steps to validate measurement systems; developing processes for
    staff and independent consultants to examine methodologies; having
    models reviewed by expert panels; and obtaining independent
    evaluations from nationally recognized experts to review methods
    of data collection, statistical analysis, and reporting. The plan
    states that external reviews are essential in order to help
    depoliticize issues related to data validity and reliability.
    Also, Education describes working with the National Postsecondary
    Education Cooperative to improve the efficiency and usefulness of
    data reported on postsecondary education by standardizing
    definitions of key variables, avoiding duplicate data requests,
    and increasing the level of communications between the major
    providers and users of postsecondary data. Also, the plan outlines
    a 5-year strategy to streamline and benchmark the collection of
    elementary and secondary program data. The goal of this system is
    to provide accurate, comparable information about federal program
    results to all program participants. Education also plans to work
    with its Inspector General to independently monitor the
    reliability of its data quality in high priority areas, such as
    student financial aid. 16In a forthcoming report we will provide
    additional information on strategies, or approaches, that agencies
    are using to verify and validate performance information. Page 29
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Similar to our findings with the fiscal year 1999
    performance plans, we Agencies Generally Do Not    found that, in
    general, the fiscal year 2000 performance plans do not Address
    Data Limitations     include discussions of strategies to address
    known data limitations. When performance data are unavailable or
    of low quality, a performance plan would be more useful to
    decisionmakers if it briefly discussed how the agency plans to
    deal with such limitations. Moreover, discussions of the
    challenges that an agency faces in obtaining high-quality
    performance data is helpful to decisionmakers in determining the
    implications for assessing the subsequent achievement of
    performance goals. For example, HHS' ACF performance plan notes
    that, in the area of child support enforcement, not all states
    have certified statewide automated systems and some states still
    maintain their data manually. Additionally, the agency's Office of
    Child Support Enforcement has reported that, where these systems
    are not in place, problems of duplication and missing information
    could result.17 Yet, the plan does not discuss the actions ACF
    will take to compensate for possibly unreliable data. The
    Environmental Protection Agency's performance plan describes the
    databases used for tracking compliance with requirements under the
    Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act, and the quality
    assurance and quality control programs, to ensure the accuracy and
    reliability of these databases. Nevertheless, a number of states
    have challenged the compliance information in the database for
    Safe Drinking Water. Although the agency has acknowledged the
    problem and undertaken a major effort to address it, this data
    limitation was not discussed in the plan. Thus, decisionmakers are
    not provided with context that would be helpful in considering
    whether the agency will be able to confidently report on the
    degree to which it has achieved its goals. On the other hand,
    DOT's performance plan provides important context for
    decisionmakers by including a good discussion of data limitations
    and, in particular, the implications of those limitations for the
    quality of the data. For example, the plan defines the performance
    measure for maritime oil spills-gallons spilled per million
    gallons shipped-as only counting spills of less than one million
    gallons from regulated vessels and waterfront facilities and not
    counting other spills. The plan further explains that a limitation
    to the data is that it may underreport the amount spilled because
    it excludes nonregulated sources and major oil spills. However, it
    explains that large oil spills are excluded because they occur
    17Child Support Enforcement: Twentieth Annual Report To Congress,
    HHS' Administration for Children and Families, Office of Child
    Support Enforcement, September 30, 1995, pp. 166-167. Page 30
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 rarely and, when they do occur, would have an inordinate
    influence on statistical trends. The plan also explains that
    measuring only spills from regulated sources is more meaningful
    for program management. A few performance plans provide
    information on how agencies are working to improve the
    availability and quality of their data. For example, the U.S.
    Agency for International Development (USAID) indicates that it is
    seeking to find ways to improve data quality for some of its
    performance indicators. For its goal of reducing by 10 percent the
    number of deaths due to infectious diseases of major public health
    importance by 2007, USAID reports that no data are available on a
    country-specific basis and that it will be working with the World
    Health Organization to collect such data by 2002. In other
    instances, USAID indicates that it will seek to ensure collection
    of relevant data by conducting periodic surveys in USAID- assisted
    countries. Poor Financial Management    Federal decisionmakers
    must have reliable and timely performance and Limits Data Quality
    financial information to ensure adequate accountability, manage
    for results, and make timely and well-informed judgments.
    Unfortunately, historically, such information has not been
    available, and agencies' and Inspector General reports, as well as
    our own work, have identified a series of persistent limitations
    in the availability of quality financial data for decisionmaking.
    Without reliable data on costs, decisionmakers cannot effectively
    control and reduce costs, assess performance, and evaluate
    programs. Under the CFO Act, agencies are expected to fill this
    gap by developing and deploying more modern financial management
    systems and routinely producing sound cost information. Toward
    that end, the 24 agencies covered by the CFO Act have been
    required to prepare annual audited financial statements since
    fiscal year 1996. These audits have shown how far many agencies
    have to go to generate reliable year-end information. Table 1
    shows the status of audit opinions for the 24 CFO Act agencies for
    fiscal year 1998 as of June 30, 1999. Page 31
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Table 1:  The CFO Act Agencies' Fiscal    Opinions
    Agencies Year 1998 Financial Statement Audit       Unqualified
    audit opinions: Opinions
*Department of Housing and Urban Development The financial
    statements are            *Department of the Interior reliable in
    all material respects.      *Department of Labor *Federal
    Emergency Management Agency *General Services Administration
*National Aeronautics and Space Administration *National Science
    Foundation *Nuclear Regulatory Commission *Social Security
    Administration Qualified audit opinions:               *Department
    of Health and Human Services Except for some item(s), which
*Department of Energy are mentioned in the auditor's
*Department of the Treasury report, the financial statements
*Department of Veterans Affairs are reliable in all material
    respects. Disclaimers:                            *Department of
    Agriculture The auditor does not know if the *Department of
    Defense financial statements are reliable       *Department of
    Justice in all material respects.               *Department of
    Transportation *U.S. Agency for International Development Other:
*Department of Commerce received an unqualified opinion on its
    balance sheet and a disclaimer on its other financial statements.
*Office of Personnel Management's Retirement Program, Life
    Insurance Program, and Health Benefits Insurance Program received
    unqualified opinions; the Revolving Funds and the Salaries and
    Expenses Accounts received disclaimers. Audits Not Completed:
*Department of Education *Department of State *Environmental
    Protection Agency *Small Business Administration Source:
    Individual agency reports on results of audits of fiscal year 1998
    financial statements, as of June 30, 1999. For some agencies, the
    preparation of financial statements requires considerable reliance
    on ad hoc programming and analysis of data produced by inadequate
    financial management systems that are not integrated or
    reconciled, and that often require significant adjustments. While
    obtaining unqualified "clean" audit opinions on federal financial
    statements is an important objective, it is not an end in and of
    itself. The key is to take steps to continuously improve internal
    controls and underlying financial and management information
    systems as a means to Page 32                  GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 ensure
    accountability, increase the economy, improve the efficiency, and
    enhance the effectiveness of government. These systems must
    generate timely, accurate, and useful information on an ongoing
    basis, not just as of the end of the fiscal year. The overarching
    challenge in generating timely, reliable data throughout the year
    is overhauling financial and related management information
    systems. More fundamentally, the Federal Financial Management
    Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA) requires that agency financial
    management systems comply with (1) financial systems
    requirements,18 (2) federal accounting standards, and (3) the U.S.
    Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level. At
    the time of our report, financial statement audits for fiscal year
    1998 had been completed on 20 of the 24 CFO Act agencies. Of those
    20, financial management systems for 17 agencies were found by
    auditors to be in substantial noncompliance with FFMIA's
    requirements. The three agencies in compliance were DOE, NASA, and
    NSF. Examples of reported problems at several agencies are
    discussed below. Financial audits at several Commerce bureaus
    continue to disclose serious data reliability problems. The
    performance plan does not acknowledge the performance implications
    of its financial management and consolidated financial statement
    problems or delays in implementing its new Consolidated
    Administrative Management System. However, Commerce's performance
    plan discusses a request for a $2.1 million increase in funding to
    (1) target specific problems, ensure the integrity of the
    department's financial statements, and achieve an unqualified
    financial audit opinion across the department and (2) help provide
    an integrated financial management system to comply with federal
    accounting requirements. DOD's plan acknowledges that data for
    certain measures and indicators come from financial and accounting
    systems that have experienced problems. However, as we have
    reported, long-standing weaknesses in DOD's financial management
    operations undermine DOD's ability to effectively manage it vast
    operations, limit the reliability of financial information
    provided to Congress, and continue to result in wasted resources.
    18The financial management systems requirements have been
    developed by the Joint Financial Management Improvement Program,
    which is a joint and cooperative undertaking of Treasury, OMB,
    GAO, and OPM. Page 33                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-
    99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 In
    addition, we recently reported that USAID's internal accounting
    and information systems do not have the capacity to generate
    reliable data to support its performance plan and to produce
    credible performance reports.19 USAID's financial management
    system does not meet the federal financial management systems
    requirements, and material weaknesses in internal controls impair
    the integrity of its financial information. The agency has
    indicated that it is committed to developing a financial
    management system that will meet federal standards, but the USAID
    Inspector General recently reported that the agency has made only
    limited progress in correcting its system deficiencies.20 Agencies
    can continue to build on the progress that has been made over
    Conclusions    the last year in improving the performance plans by
    focusing their efforts on five key areas that offer the greatest
    opportunities for continuing improvements. These areas-which we
    identified in assessing last year's plans-include (1) better
    articulating a results orientation, (2) coordinating crosscutting
    programs, (3) showing the performance consequences of budget
    decisions, (4) clearly showing how strategies will be used to
    achieve results, and (5) building the capacity within agencies to
    gather and use performance information. Better articulating a
    results orientation. The fiscal year 2000 plans provide a general
    picture of agencies' intended performance. Each of the plans
    contains at least some results-oriented goals and related
    performance measures, and many of the plans contain informative
    baseline and trend data. Nonetheless, continuing opportunities
    exist to more consistently articulate a results orientation. Some
    agencies have used multiyear and intermediate goals to provide
    clearer pictures of intended performance. Likewise, plans with
    goals and strategies that address mission-critical management
    challenges and program risks show that agencies are striving to
    build the capacity to be high-performing organizations and reduce
    the risk of waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. 19Performance
    and Accountability Series: Major Management Challenges and Program
    Risks: Agency for International Development (GAO/OCG-99-16,
    January 1999). 20Reports on USAID's Financial Statements, Internal
    Controls and Compliance for Fiscal Year 1998, Report # 0-000-99-
    001-F, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Agency for International
    Development, March 1, 1999. Page 34
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    B-283190 Coordinating crosscutting programs. Interagency
    coordination is important for ensuring that crosscutting program
    efforts are mutually reinforcing and efficiently implemented.
    While agencies continue to make progress, the substantive work of
    coordination would be evident if performance plans more often
    contained complementary performance goals, mutually reinforcing
    strategies, and common or complementary performance measures. Also
    not yet widespread are discussions of how crosscutting program
    efforts are being coordinated. Crosscutting programs, by
    definition, involve more than one agency, and coordination
    therefore requires the ability to look across agencies and ensure
    that the appropriate coordination is taking place. Given OMB's
    position in the executive branch, its leadership is particularly
    important in addressing this issue. Showing the performance
    consequences of budget decisions. Some agencies have begun to
    develop useful linkages between their performance plans and budget
    requests. However, persistent challenges in performance
    measurement and deficiencies in cost accounting systems continue
    to hamper such efforts. The progress that has been made, the
    challenges that persist, and Congress' interest in having
    credible, results-oriented information for making resource
    allocation decisions underscore the importance of continued
    improvement in showing the performance consequences of budgetary
    decisions. In a previous report,21 we recommended that the
    Director of OMB assess the approaches agencies are using to link
    performance goals to the program activities of their budget
    requests. We further recommended that OMB work with agencies and
    Congress to develop a constructive and practical agenda to further
    clarify the relationship between budgetary resources and results.
    Clearly showing how strategies will be used to achieve results.
    While agencies' fiscal year 2000 plans contain valuable and
    informative discussions of how strategies and programs relate to
    goals, additional progress is needed in explaining how strategies
    and programs will be used to achieve results. Specifying clearly
    in performance plans how strategies are to be used to achieve
    results is important to managers and other decisionmakers in order
    to determine the right mix of strategies, that is, one which
    maximizes performance while limiting costs. We also found that
    most fiscal year 2000 performance plans do not sufficiently
    address how the agency will use its human capital to achieve
    results. This lack of attention to human capital issues suggests
    that much more effort is needed to integrate program performance
    planning and human capital planning. 21GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67, April
    12, 1999. Page 35                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-
    215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 More
    generally, linking the use of capital assets and management
    systems to results still is not consistently being done. Building
    the capacity within agencies to gather and use performance
    information. In order to successfully measure progress toward
    intended results, agencies need to build the capacity to gather
    and use performance information. However, most of the agencies'
    fiscal year 2000 performance plans provide limited confidence in
    the credibility of the information that is to be used to assess
    agencies' progress toward achieving results. Many plans lack
    specific detail on the actual procedures the agencies will use to
    verify and validate performance information, and there are few
    discussions of known data limitations, such as unavailable or low-
    quality data, and strategies to address these limitations. We
    recommend that the Director of OMB ensure that executive agencies
    Recommendation to        make continued progress in improving the
    usefulness of performance the Director of OMB      planning for
    congressional and executive branch decisionmaking. As discussed
    above, in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 performance
    plans, we suggested five key improvement opportunities that
    provide an ongoing agenda for improving the usefulness of
    agencies' performance plans. In assessing the fiscal year 2000
    plans, we identified important opportunities for continuing
    improvements in agencies' plans in each of those five areas: *
    Better articulating a results orientation, with particular
    attention to ensuring that performance plans show how mission-
    critical management challenges and program risks will be
    addressed. *  Coordinating crosscutting programs, with particular
    attention to demonstrating that crosscutting programs are taking
    advantage of opportunities to employ complementary performance
    goals, mutually reinforcing strategies, and common or
    complementary performance measures, as appropriate. *  Showing the
    performance consequences of budget and other resource decisions. *
    Clearly showing how strategies will be used to achieve results,
    with particular attention to integrating human capital and program
    performance planning. *  Building the capacity within agencies to
    gather and use performance information, with particular attention
    to ensuring that agencies provide confidence that performance
    information will be credible. Page 36              GAO/GGD/AIMD-
    99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190
    Continued improvements in agencies' plans should help Congress in
    Matter for                    building on its recent and ongoing
    use of performance plans to help inform Congressional
    its own decisionmaking. In that regard, we have long advocated
    that congressional committees of jurisdiction hold augmented
    oversight Consideration                 hearings on each of the
    major agencies at least once each Congress and preferably on an
    annual basis. Information on missions, goals, strategies,
    resources, and results could provide a consistent starting point
    for each of these hearings. Such hearings also will further
    underscore for agencies the importance that Congress places on
    creating high-performing executive organizations. Performance
    planning under the Results Act should allow for more informed
    discussions about issues such as: *  Whether the agency is
    pursuing the right goals and making progress toward achieving
    them. *  Whether the federal government is effectively
    coordinating its responses to pressing national needs. *  Whether
    the federal government is achieving an expected level of
    performance for the budgetary and other resource commitments that
    have been provided. *  The degree to which the agency has the best
    mix of programs, initiatives, and other strategies to achieve
    results. *  The progress the agency is making in addressing
    mission-critical management challenges and program risks. *  The
    efforts underway to ensure that the agency's human capital
    strategies are linked to strategic and programmatic planning and
    accountability mechanisms. *  The status of the agency's efforts
    to use information technology to achieve results. On July 1, 1999,
    we provided a draft of this letter to the Director of OMB Agency
    Comments and for comment. We did not ask the Director to comment
    on the agency Our Evaluation                appendixes because
    those appendixes were drawn from our individual reviews of the
    fiscal year 2000 performance plans, on which the agencies were
    asked to comment. As indicated in each of the appendixes, the
    complete text of our observations and agencies' comments on those
    observations are included on the Internet. On July 12, 1999, a
    responsible OMB senior staff member stated that the agency did not
    have any comments on this report. As agreed, unless you announce
    the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further
    distribution until 30 days from the date of this letter. At that
    time, we will send copies of this report to Senator Joseph I.
    Lieberman, Representative Richard A. Gephardt, and Representative
    Henry A.Waxman Page 37            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans B-283190 in their respective
    capacities as the Ranking Minority Member of the Senate Committee
    on Governmental Affairs, Minority Leader of the House of
    Representatives, and Ranking Miniority Member of the House
    Committee on Government Reform. We are also sending copies to the
    Honorable Jacob J. Lew, Director of OMB, and will make copies
    available to others on request. The major contributors to this
    report are acknowledged in appendix XXVI. If you have any
    questions about this report or would like to discuss it further,
    please contact J. Christopher Mihm on (202) 512-8676. Nancy
    Kingsbury Acting Assistant Comptroller General Page 38
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Page 39    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Contents 1 Letter 50 Appendix I
    Clarity of Intended Performance
    50 Scope and                Clarity of Strategies and Resources
    51 Confidence in Performance Data
    52 Methodology              Degree of Improvement Over Fiscal Year
    1999 Plans                              52 54 Appendix II
    Summary of Observations
    54 Observations on the      Agency Comments
    55 Key Contact
    56 Department of Agriculture's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 57 Appendix III             Summary of Observations
    57 Observations on the      Agency Comments
    60 Key Contact
    60 Department of Commerce's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    61 Appendix IV              Summary of Observations
    61 Observations on the      Agency Comments
    63 Key Contact
    63 Department of Defense's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    Page 40           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Contents 64 Appendix V              Summary of
    Observations
    64 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    66 Department of           Key Contact
    66 Education's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 67 Appendix
    VI             Summary of Observations
    67 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    69 Key Contact
    69 Department of Energy's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 70
    Appendix VII            Summary of Observations
    70 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    71 Key Contacts
    72 Department of Health and Human Services' Performance Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2000 73 Appendix VIII           Summary of
    Observations
    73 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    75 Key Contact
    76 Department of Housing and Urban Development's Performance Plan
    for Fiscal Year 2000 Page 41         GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Contents 77 Appendix IX
    Summary of Observations
    77 Observations on the       Agency Comments
    79 Key Contact
    80 Department of the Interior's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 81 Appendix X                Summary of Observations
    81 Observations on the       Agency Comments
    82 Key Contact
    83 Department of Justice's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    84 Appendix XI               Summary of Observations
    84 Observations on the       Agency Comments
    86 Key Contact
    86 Department of Labor's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 87
    Appendix XII              Summary of Observations
    87 Observations on the       Agency Comments
    88 Key Contact
    88 Department of State's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    Page 42         GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Contents 89 Appendix XIII           Summary of
    Observations
    89 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    90 Department of           Key Contact
    90 Transportation's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 91
    Appendix XIV            Summary of Observations
    91 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    92 Key Contact
    92 Department of the Treasury's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 93 Appendix XV             Summary of Observations
    93 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    95 Key Contact
    96 Department of Veterans Affairs' Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 97 Appendix XVI            Summary of Observations
    97 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    98 Key Contact
    98 Environmental Protection Agency's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 Page 43         GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Contents 99 Appendix XVII
    Summary of Observations
    99 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    100 Federal Emergency       Key Contact
    101 Management Agency's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 102
    Appendix XVIII          Summary of Observations
    102 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    103 Key Contact
    103 General Services Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 104 Appendix XIX            Summary of Observations
    104 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    106 Key Contact
    106 National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 107 Appendix XX             Summary of
    Observations
    107 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    108 Key Contact
    108 National Science Foundation's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 Page 44         GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plans Contents 109 Appendix XXI
    Summary of Observations
    109 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    110 Key Contact
    110 Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 111 Appendix XXII           Summary of Observations
    111 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    112 Key Contact
    113 Office of Personnel Management's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 114 Appendix XXIII          Summary of Observations
    114 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    116 Key Contact
    117 Small Business Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 118 Appendix XXIV           Summary of Observations
    118 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    119 Key Contact
    120 Social Security Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 Page 45         GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Contents 121 Appendix XXV
    Summary of Observations
    121 Observations on the     Agency Comments
    122 U.S. Agency for         Key Contact
    122 International Development's Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 123 Appendix XXVI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
    Table 1:  The CFO Act Agencies' Fiscal Year 1998
    32 Tables                    Financial Statement Audit Opinions
    Figure 1:  Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of Fiscal
    3 Figures                   Year 2000 Performance Plans Figure 2:
    Characterization of CFO Act Agencies' Fiscal
    4 Year 2000 Performance Plans Figure 2:  (Continued)
    5 Figure 3: Clarity of Agencies' Intended Performance
    9 Figure 4: Approaches Used to Address Management
    14 Challenges and Program Risks Figure 5:  Clarity of Agencies'
    Strategies and Resources                       20 Figure 6:
    Confidence in Performance Data
    28 Figure II.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    54 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure III.1: Major Strengths
    and Key Weaknesses of                            58 Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plan Figure IV.1:  Major Strengths and Key
    Weaknesses of                            62 DOD's Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plan Figure V.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    65 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure VI.1: Major Stengths
    and Key Weaknesses of Fiscal                       68 Year 2000
    Performance Plan Page 46           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Contents Figure VII.1: Major
    Strengths and Key Weaknesses of                           70 HHS'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure VIII.1: Major Strengths
    and Key Weaknesses of                          74 Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plan Figure IX.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses
    of                            78 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
    Figure X.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    82 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure XI.1: Major Strengths
    and Key Weaknesses of                            85 Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plan Figure XII.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Weaknesses of                           87 Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plan Figure XIII.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses
    of                          89 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
    Figure XIV.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    91 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure XV.1: Major Strengths
    and Key Weaknesses of                            94 Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plan Figure XVI.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Weaknesses of                           97 Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plan Figure XVII.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses
    of                          99 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
    Figure XVIII.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    102 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure XIX.1: Major
    Strengths and Key Weakneses of                          104 Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure XX.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Weaknesses of                          107 Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plan Figure XXI.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses
    of                         109 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
    Figure XXII.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    112 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure XXIII.1: Major
    Strengths and Key Weaknesses of                       115 Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plan Figure XXIV.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Weaknesses of                        118 Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plan Figure XXV.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses
    of                         121 Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan
    Page 47          GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Contents Abbreviations ACF
    Administration for Children and Families CFO         chief
    financial officer DEA         Drug Enforcement Administration DOD
    Department of Defense DOE         Department of Energy DOT
    Department of Transportation ERS         Economic Research Service
    FDA         Food and Drug Administration FFMIA       Federal
    Financial Management Improvement Act GIPSA       Grain Inspection,
    Packers, and Stockyards Administration GSA         General
    Services Administration HHS         Department of Health and Human
    Services HUD         Department of Housing and Urban Development
    IRS         Internal Revenue Service ITA         International
    Trade Administration IWS/LAN     Intelligent Workstation and Local
    Area Network LAE         Limitation on Administrative Expenses
    NASA        National Aeronautics and Space Administration NOAA
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NRC
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission NSF         National Science
    Foundation OMB         Office of Management and Budget OPM
    Office of Personnel Management PTO         Patent and Trademark
    Office RUS         Rural Utilities Service SAMHSA      Substance
    Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration SBA         Small
    Business Administration SSA         Social Security Administration
    USAID       United States Agency for International Development
    USDA        United States Department of Agriculture VA
    Department of Veterans Affairs VBA         Veterans Benefits
    Administration VHA         Veterans Health Administration Page 48
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Page 49    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Appendix I Scope and Methodology To summarize
    our observations on agencies' fiscal year 2000 performance plans
    and to identify the degree of improvement over the fiscal year
    1999 plans, we analyzed the information contained in our
    observations of the 24 individual CFO Act agencies' performance
    plans. Consistent with our approach last year in reviewing the
    fiscal year 1999 annual plans, our reviews of each of the
    agencies' performance plans and our summary analysis of the 24
    plans were based on criteria from our evaluator's guide and our
    congressional guide, which in turn are based on the Results Act;
    OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 2; and other related guidance. In the
    guides, we collapsed the Results Act's requirements for annual
    performance plans into three core questions that focus on
    performance goals and measures, strategies and resources, and
    verification and validation.1 The criteria from the guides were
    supplemented by practices and examples included in our report
    Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve
    Usefulness to Decisionmakers (GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69, Feb. 26, 1999),
    which builds on the improvement opportunities identified in our
    fiscal year 1999 performance plans' summary report.2 From that
    work, we derived practices to identify each plan's strengths and
    weaknesses and determined the extent to which the plan includes
    three key elements of informative performance plans: (1) clear
    picture of intended performance, (2) specific discussion of
    strategies and resources, and (3) confidence that performance
    information will be credible. For each of these three key
    elements, we classified the plan into one of four summary
    characterizations based on the degree to which the individual plan
    contains the associated practices. To assess the first key
    element, clarity of the picture of intended Clarity of Intended
    performance across the agency, we based our judgments on the
    degree to Performance            which an agency's performance
    plan contains the following practices: 1. Sets of performance
    goals and measures that address program results and the important
    dimensions of program performance and balance competing program
    priorities. *  If appropriate, the plan contains intermediate
    goals and measures, such as outputs or intermediate outcomes that
    are linked to end outcomes and show progress or contribution to
    intended program results. 1 GAO/GGD-10.1.20, April 1998, and
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18, February 1998. 2 GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228,
    September 8, 1998. Page 50
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix I Scope and Methodology *  If appropriate, the plan
    contains projected target levels of performance for current and
    multiyear goals to convey what a program is expected to achieve
    for that year and in the long term. 2. Baseline and trend data for
    past performance to show how a program's anticipated performance
    level compares with improvements or declines in past performance.
    3. Performance goals or strategies to resolve mission-critical
    management problems. 4. Identification of crosscutting programs
    (i.e., those programs that contribute to the same or similar
    results), complementary performance goals and common or
    complementary performance measures to show how differing program
    strategies are mutually reinforcing, and planned coordination
    strategies. To address the first element concerning the degree to
    which a plan provides a clear picture of intended performance
    across the agency, we characterized each plan in one of four ways:
    (1) provides a clear picture of intended performance across the
    agency, (2) provides a general picture, (3) provides a limited
    picture, or (4) provides an unclear picture. To assess the second
    key element, specificity of the discussion of Clarity of
    Strategies    strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve performance goals, and Resources            we based our
    judgments on the degree to which an agency's performance plan
    contains the following practices: 5. Budgetary resources related
    to the achievement of performance goals. 6. Strategies and
    programs linked to specific performance goals and descriptions of
    how the strategies and programs will contribute to the achievement
    of those goals. Specifically, does the plan do the following: *
    Identify planned changes to program approaches in order to
    accomplish results-oriented goals. For example, the plan may
    include a description of performance partnerships with state,
    local, and third party providers that focus accountability while
    providing the flexibility needed to achieve results. *  Explain,
    through a brief description or reference to a separate document,
    how proposed capital assets and mission-critical management
    systems (e.g., information technology, financial management,
    budget, procurement, grants management, and other Page 51
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix I Scope and Methodology systems) will support the
    achievement of program results. 7. A brief description or
    reference to a separate document concerning how the agency plans
    to build, maintain, and marshal the human capital needed to
    achieve results. 8. Strategies to leverage or mitigate the effects
    of external factors on the accomplishment of performance goals. To
    address the second element concerning the extent to which a plan
    includes specific discussions of strategies and resources, we
    characterized each plan in one of four ways: (1) contains specific
    discussion of strategies and resources, (2) general discussion,
    (3) limited discussion, or (4) no discussion. To assess the final
    key element, level of confidence that the agency's Confidence in
    performance information will be credible, we based our judgments
    on the Performance Data                 degree to which an
    agency's performance plan contains the following practices: 9.
    Describes efforts to verify and validate performance data. 10.
    Describes data limitations, including actions to compensate for
    unavailable or low-quality data, and the implications of data
    limitations for assessing performance. To address the third
    element concerning the extent to which a plan provides confidence
    that performance information will be credible, we characterized
    each plan in one of four ways as providing: (1) full confidence,
    (2) general confidence, (3) limited confidence, or (4) no
    confidence. To determine the degree of improvement in the
    individual plans, we also Degree of
    examined the extent to which an agency's fiscal year 2000
    performance Improvement Over                 plan addressed the
    weaknesses that we identified in reviewing its fiscal year 1999
    plan. Based on our analysis, we determined the level of Fiscal
    Year 1999 Plans improvement in agencies' plans by using one of
    four characterizations: (1) much improvement; (2) moderate
    improvement; (3) little, if any, improvement; or (4) no
    improvement. As needed, we also reviewed parts of selected
    agencies' fiscal year 2000 annual performance plans to supplement
    our analysis of our individual agency reviews and to elaborate
    further on particular issues. To further help us identify
    opportunities for Page 52                GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix I Scope and
    Methodology agencies to improve future performance plans, we also
    drew on other related work. We reviewed agency performance plans
    from February through June 1999 and did our work according to
    generally accepted government auditing standards. On July 1, 1999,
    we requested comments from the Director of OMB on a draft of this
    report. On July 12, 1999, a responsible OMB senior staff member
    stated that the agency did not have any comments on this report.
    Page 53            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Appendix II Observations on the Department of
    Agriculture's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 13,
    1999, we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the
    Department of Agriculture's (USDA) performance plan for fiscal
    year 2000. The following are our overall observations on the plan.
    The complete text (GAO/RCED-99-187) of our observations and USDA's
    comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?rced-99-187 only on the
    Internet. Overall, the USDA performance plan provides a general
    picture of intended Summary of
    performance across the Department, a general discussion of the
    strategies Observations                            and resources
    the Department will use to achieve performance goals, and limited
    confidence that performance information will be credible. For
    example, regarding intended performance, USDA's Farm Service
    Agency's (FSA) plan has four strategic goals, one of which is to
    assist agricultural producers and landowners in achieving a high
    level of stewardship of soil, water, air, and wildlife resources
    on America's farms and ranches. This strategic goal includes four
    performance goals with multiple measures (such as the number of
    acres of highly erodible land retired) to indicate progress toward
    achieving the goals. Figure II.1 highlights the plan's major
    strengths and key weaknesses as USDA seeks to make additional
    improvements to its plan. Figure II.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000          * Uses
    goals and measures that address program results and performance.
    Performance Plan                        * Uses intermediate
    outputs to show progress toward intended results. * Explains how
    proposed capital assets and management systems support achievement
    of program results. Key Weaknesses * Does not consistently include
    strategies for mitigating external factors. * Does not adequately
    describe efforts to verify and validate data. * Does not
    consistently discuss impact of data limitations. USDA's fiscal
    year 2000 performance plan represents a moderate improvement over
    the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it indicates some degree of
    progress in addressing the weaknesses that we identified in our
    assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plan. We observed that the
    fiscal year 1999 plan did not adequately (1) explain how USDA
    agencies are coordinating crosscutting issues within and outside
    the Department; (2) discuss mitigation strategies for significant
    external factors that may interfere with the achievement of
    performance goals; (3) describe the procedures that will be used
    to ensure that the data needed to measure progress in meeting
    performance goals are complete, accurate, and Page 54
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix II Observations on the Department of Agriculture's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 credible; and (4) identify
    what, if any, limitations exist with respect to the data used for
    measuring performance. Among the improvements in the fiscal year
    2000 plan are (1) better efforts to identify programs that
    contribute to similar results, (2) more consistent use of goals
    and measures that address program results and performance, and (3)
    improved linkages between program activities and performance
    goals. The Department's plan, however, could be improved by, among
    other areas, (1) identifying strategies to mitigate external
    factors, (2) describing efforts to verify and validate performance
    data, and (3) discussing data limitations. For example, the Rural
    Utilities Service's performance plan lists several performance
    goals and indicators for the Service's electric program. However,
    the plan's discussion concerning the verification and validation
    of data relating to these goals and indicators is limited
    primarily to stating that (1) the data are available in records
    from the Service's automated systems, from the Service's borrower-
    reported statistics, and from USDA's Economic Research Service
    (ERS) and (2) the Service has had long experience with its
    internal data and is highly confident of its accuracy as well as
    the reliability of ERS' data. The plan does not, however, discuss
    the basis for its confidence in the data's accuracy and
    reliability nor how data limitations could adversely affect its
    ability to assess performance. Furthermore, the plan makes no
    mention of actions that the Rural Utilities Service will take to
    compensate for any unavailable or low-quality data. The improved
    use of goals and measures was demonstrated in USDA's Grain
    Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration's (GIPSA) plan.
    For its performance goal of increasing the efficiency of grain
    inspection and weighing processes, the plan provides two measures:
    (1) the percentage of evaluations completed to maintain critical
    methodology and (2) the number of new and/or improved methods or
    tests. These measures replaced the fiscal year 1999 measure
    "number of export facilities equipped with automated grain
    inspection systems" because GIPSA considered it to be an internal
    measure of process rather than of output or outcome. We provided a
    draft of this summary to the U.S. Department of Agriculture Agency
    Comments    on April 14, 1999, for its review and comment. We met
    with USDA's Chief Financial Officer; the Director, Planning and
    Accountability Division; and other USDA officials from the Office
    of the Chief Financial Officer and the Office of Budget and
    Program Analysis to obtain their oral comments. The officials
    generally concurred with our observations, describing them as
    "fair and balanced." They provided clarifying comments and
    technical Page 55              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix II Observations on the
    Department of Agriculture's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    corrections, which we have incorporated as appropriate. See
    http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?rced-99-187 for additional
    information on USDA's comments (in GAO/RCED 99-187) on our
    observations. Lawrence J. Dyckman, Director Key Contact    Food
    and Agriculture Issues Resources, Community, and Economic
    Development Division (202) 512-5138 Page 56
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix III Observations on the Department of Commerce's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 9, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of
    Commerce's performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The following
    are our overall observations on the plan. The complete text
    (GAO/GGD-99-117R) of our observations and Commerce's comments on
    those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/gg99117r.pdf only on the Internet.
    Commerce invested a substantial amount of effort in performance
    Summary of      planning and in improving the overall format and
    presentation of its Observations    performance plan over the
    previous year's, with considerable success. Commerce's fiscal year
    2000 annual performance plan provides a general picture of
    intended performance across the department, a general discussion
    of strategies and resources the department will use to achieve its
    goals, and limited confidence that the department's performance
    information will be credible.  The plan should be useful to
    decisionmakers in that it contains departmental crosscutting or
    management improvement goals as well as individual bureau
    performance goals and targets that generally are focused on
    results, briefly summarizes the means and strategies that will be
    used to achieve those goals, and contains a
    verification/validation section for each performance goal and
    measure. For example, the plan contains useful outcome-oriented
    performance goals and targets for improving both the lead times
    and accuracy of short- term severe weather warnings and forecasts
    for tornadoes, flash floods, and severe thunderstorms.  These
    goals and targets are related to a departmental priority goal to
    reduce and mitigate the impacts of natural disasters and to the
    National Weather Service's (NWS) technology modernization project
    to improve weather warning and forecast services, a project which
    remains on our governmentwide high-risk list. Figure III.1
    highlights the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as
    Commerce seeks to make additional improvements to its plan. Page
    57           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Appendix III Observations on the Department of
    Commerce's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 Figure III.1:
    Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal
    Year 2000           * Includes performance goals and measures
    linked to strategic Performance Plan
    themes/goals and to departmental priority crosscutting and
    management improvement goals. * Contains results-oriented goals
    and measures for many key missions. * Discusses major management
    challenges and program risks. * Summarizes the means and
    strategies and identifies/discusses key crosscutting activities
    for each strategic goal and set of related performance goals. *
    Plan's organization and presentation are useful and reader-
    friendly. Key Weaknesses * Does not contain specific performance
    goals and targets for some activities or clearly show how
    budgetary resources relate to performance goals. * Does not
    discuss crosscutting coordination efforts or evidence
    coordination. * Does not clearly show how strategies and resources
    will be used to achieve stated annual goals and performance
    targets. * Does not describe strategies to mitigate the effects of
    identified external factors. * Does not clearly describe efforts
    to verify and validate performance data or discuss the
    implications of known performance data limitations. Commerce's
    fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents a moderate
    improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it addresses
    most, but not all, of the weaknesses that we identified in our
    assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plan.  In reviewing the fiscal
    year 1999 plan, we observed that it provided only a partial
    picture of intended performance across the department; discussed,
    to some extent, the strategies and resources that Commerce bureaus
    would use to achieve targeted levels of performance; and did not
    provide sufficient evidence or confidence that performance data
    would be accurate, complete, and credible.1  For example, the plan
    did not (1) include outcome-oriented goals for many key
    activities, such as the 2000 Decennial Census, or clearly show how
    many of the output- oriented goals related to results; (2) discuss
    the performance implications of known management and data capacity
    problems, high-risk programs, and external factors; (3) describe
    the crosscutting activities Commerce 1Results Act:  Observations
    on the Department of Commerce's Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 1999 (GAO/GGD-98-135R, June 24, 1998). Page 58
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix III Observations on the Department of Commerce's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 shares with other government
    entities or evidence coordination; or (4) adequately discuss the
    strategies and procedures to verify and validate performance and
    Commerce's capacity to produce accurate and reliable data to
    measure.  Because of Commerce's "holding company" nature, the
    diversity of its missions and functions, and its historically
    decentralized management approach, we also expressed concerns
    about Commerce's ability to develop and present focused, useful
    departmentwide strategic and annual performance plans that both
    (1) cover all of its programs and activities and (2) meet the
    criteria in the Results Act and other guidance. Among improvements
    in the fiscal year 2000 plan are (1) fewer and more targeted
    strategic goals, annual performance goals, and performance
    measures; (2) more outcome-oriented performance goals and measures
    and interim process goals and measures to better gauge progress
    toward achieving long-term scientific, social, and public works
    investment goals; (3) new plan sections on external factors, means
    and strategies, governmentwide crosscutting activities, and
    resource requirements for each strategic goal and related set of
    annual performance goals and measures; (4) more complete
    discussions of management challenges relating to NWS modernization
    and the 2000 Decennial Census that have been reported to be high-
    risk by the Commerce Inspector General (IG) and our office; and
    (5) a new plan section on performance verification and validation
    for each annual performance goal and measure that shows data
    sources, frequency, verification strategy/procedure, data storage
    information, and in most cases the baseline data.  For example,
    the plan contains measurable interim and process goals and related
    baseline and trend data to gauge the Economic Development
    Administration's (EDA) progress in achieving its long-term
    strategic goal to "create jobs and private enterprise in
    economically distressed communities," a goal that will take up to
    9 years to fully realize. As we reported in our recent special
    series report on major management challenges and program risks
    facing Commerce,2 the department agrees that its earlier Results
    Act plans were lacking in several respects and seems committed to
    improving the quality and usefulness of its future plans.  At
    their request, we had several meetings with Commerce officials to
    discuss how the department could improve its fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plan.  Commerce made a concerted effort to
    improve its fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan and succeeded
    in developing and presenting a more useful departmentwide plan
    that (1) better covers its 2Major Management Challenges and
    Program Risks:  Department of Commerce (GAO/OCG-99-3, January
    1999). Page 59                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix III
    Observations on the Department of Commerce's Performance Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2000 departmental integration efforts and priority
    goals as well as its numerous and disparate programs, activities,
    and individual bureaus and (2) more fully meets the criteria in
    the Results Act and related guidance.  Although Commerce's fiscal
    year 2000 plan continues to have weaknesses in three core areas
    that are key for congressional and executive branch oversight and
    decisionmaking-annual performance goals and measures, strategies
    and resources, and performance verification and validation-the
    plan's overall organization, presentation and readability, and
    usefulness has been greatly improved, and it can serve as a
    framework for improving the content of the department's future
    annual performance plans. On June 4, 1999, we received Commerce's
    written comments from the Agency Comments    Acting Chief
    Financial Officer and Assistant Secretary for Administration on a
    draft of this analysis of Commerce's fiscal year 2000 annual
    performance plan. She agreed that Commerce needs to strengthen its
    efforts to verify and validate performance data. She said that
    Commerce believes that the verification and validation of
    performance data is a critical issue and that it devoted
    considerable effort over the past year to defining its methodology
    and expects to focus in the coming year on ensuring that its
    performance measurements are reliable and useful. However, she
    said that there are two major areas in which Commerce disagrees
    with the draft. These areas are our (1) characterization that
    Commerce has made only "moderate" improvement relative to its
    fiscal year 1999 plan and (2) observation that the plan does not
    provide a complete picture of intended performance for the 2000
    Decennial Census. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/gg99117r.pdf for
    additional information on Commerce's comments (in GAO/GGD-99-117R)
    on our observations. Laurie E. Ekstrand, Associate Director Key
    Contact        Federal Management and Workforce Issues General
    Government Division (202) 512-8676 Page 60
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix IV Observations on the Department of Defense's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 16, 1999, we
    briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of
    Defense's (DOD) performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/NSIAD-99-178R) of our observations and DOD's comments on
    those observations is available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99178r.pdf only on the Internet.
    DOD's fiscal year 2000 annual performance provides a limited
    picture of Summary of      intended performance across the
    Department, a general discussion of Observations    strategies and
    resources that will be used to achieve performance goals, and
    limited confidence that performance information will be credible.1
    For example, while the plan clearly states DOD's performance
    goals, it does not clearly explain how key output measures such as
    having 10 active Army Divisions will be used along with other
    information to assess the outcomes that result from using DOD's
    resources. The plan does not explain the limitations of DOD's
    performance measure on infrastructure spending. As another
    example, the plan states that there are no known deficiencies in
    data to be used for some performance measures such as the disposal
    of unneeded property held by contractors, although DOD recently
    reported systemic problems in maintaining adequate control and
    management accountability over this property. DOD's corporate-
    level (strategic) goals are to (1) shape the international
    environment and respond to crises and (2) prepare now for an
    uncertain future. Figure IV.1 highlights the plan's major
    strengths and key weaknesses. 1DOD's performance plan is included
    as appendix J of the Secretary of Defense's Annual Report to the
    President and the Congress. DOD officials stated that the fiscal
    year 2000 performance plan was designed to be a stand-alone
    document but that it was deliberately included in the Secretary's
    annual report because the annual report supports and elaborates on
    the performance plan. Therefore, we considered information
    throughout the Secretary's annual report in assessing DOD's plan.
    Page 61                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix IV
    Observations on the Department of Defense's Performance Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2000 Figure IV.1:  Major Strengths and Key    Major
    Strengths Weaknesses of DOD's Fiscal Year 2000     * Includes a
    clear discussion of corporate-level and annual performance
    Performance Plan                         goals. * Includes a
    general discussion of strategies and resources. * Includes output-
    oriented measures and indicators related to most major management
    challenges. Key Weaknesses * Does not include information on how
    DOD will qualitatively assess results. * Does not explain
    coordination for crosscutting efforts. * Does not relate budget
    program activities to performance goals. * Does not provide
    confidence that performance information will be credible. This
    year's plan represents a moderate improvement over the fiscal year
    1999 plan. Specifically, some degree of progress was made in
    addressing the weaknesses we and others identified in last year's
    plan, which partially depicted intended performance across the
    Department, partially discussed how strategies and resources would
    help achieve goals, and did not provide sufficient confidence that
    performance information would be credible. Last year's plan also
    lacked a discussion of coordination efforts for most crosscutting
    activities with other agencies, such as combating terrorism.
    Additionally, the plan was not presented in a single document. As
    a consequence, last year, the reader was required to refer to a
    number of other documents, such as the Quadrennial Review of
    Military Compensation, to obtain relevant information. Among
    improvements in this year's plan are (1) inclusion of baseline
    data for 39 of 43 unclassified performance measures and
    indicators;2 (2) identification of some known deficiencies such as
    financial and accounting system problems; and (3) inclusion of
    performance goals, measures, and indicators related to six of nine
    major management challenges identified by us and/or the DOD
    Inspector General (see attached table).3 Also, this 2In addition,
    DOD plans to include eight classified readiness performance
    measures and indicators, along with classified goals for each and
    information on how the credibility of performance data will be
    ensured, in a classified document-the January-March 1999 Quarterly
    Readiness Report to the Congress. 3The Senate Committee on
    Appropriation's report on DOD's fiscal year 1999 appropriation
    bill (S. Report 105-200) contains suggestions for improving the
    fiscal year 1999 performance plan. DOD's fiscal year 2000 plan
    responded to these suggestions. Page 62
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix IV Observations on the Department of Defense's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 year's plan is set forth in
    a single document with references to key support information. In
    oral comments on a draft of our observations, DOD did not agree
    with Agency Comments    our overall assessment of the performance
    plan and asked that we include their view on two issues. First,
    DOD officials stated the principal output and outcome of DOD's
    annual budget is a specified military force ready to go to war,
    and the fiscal year 2000 performance plan defines performance
    goals relevant to that objective. The performance goals establish
    a measurable path to achievement of the corporate goals
    articulated in the Department's strategic plan. Second, officials
    stated that our characterization of the plan as being of limited
    use to decisionmakers does not fully reflect their views. They
    noted that this year's plan contains more information and is more
    useful to internal departmental decisionmakers than last year's
    plan. However, they recognized that the plan could be made more
    useful to external decisionmakers by including additional
    information such as more outcome-oriented measures for business
    operations such as logistics, which accounts for over half of the
    Department's budget. We agree that ready forces are a key output
    of DOD's efforts. However, we continue to believe that better
    results information will require a qualitative assessment of the
    conduct of military missions, as well as an assessment of
    investments in technology to improve weapons capabilities. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99178r.pdf for additional information
    on DOD's comments (in GAO/NSIAD-99-178R) on our observations.
    David R. Warren Key Contact        Director, Defense Management
    Issues National Security and International Affairs Division (202)
    512-8412 Page 63              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix V Observations on the
    Department of Education's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On
    April 9, 1999, we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of
    the Department of Education's performance plan for fiscal year
    2000. The following are our overall observations on the plan. The
    complete text (GAO/HEHS-99-136R) of our observations and the
    Department of Education's comments on those observations are
    available at http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99136r.pdf only on the
    Internet. Education's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan
    provides (1) a Summary of      general picture of intended
    performance across the agency, (2) a general Observations
    discussion of strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve its goals, and (3) general confidence that agency
    performance information will be credible. For example, most
    performance indicators in the plan include baseline or trend data
    and projections against which to assess performance. Similarly,
    the description of each objective includes a discussion of how
    external factors, such as the level of state and local funding for
    schools, will affect Education's ability to achieve the objective.
    Figure V.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and key
    weaknesses as Education seeks to make additional improvements to
    its plan. Page 64            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix V Observations on the
    Department of Education's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    Figure V.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses
    of Fiscal Year 2000         * Performance objectives and
    indicators are generally objective, Performance Plan
    measurable, and quantifiable. * Baseline or trend data for most
    performance indicators are included. * Need to coordinate with
    other federal agencies is discussed. * Role of external factors on
    ability to achieve objectives is discussed. * Data limitations and
    measures to verify the reliability of performance measures are
    described. * Specific validation and verification efforts are
    described. * How evaluations will be used to supplement for
    performance measurement shortcomings is shown. Key Weaknesses *
    Some performance measures do not sufficiently cover key aspects of
    performance. * Coordination of specific programs with similar
    programs in other agencies or complimentary performance goals and
    measures are not discussed. * Separate discussions of how capital
    assets, mission critical management systems, or human capital will
    support achievement of program results are not included. * How
    some data limitations will be resolved is not indicated.
    Education's fiscal year 2000 performance plan shows moderate
    improvement in addressing the weaknesses we identified in our
    assessment of its fiscal year 1999 plan. In reviewing the 1999
    plan, we observed that it (l) did not provide a complete picture
    of the intended performance of its programs, (2) did not fully
    discuss how strategies and resources would help achieve its
    performance goals, and (3) did not provide sufficient confidence
    that its elementary and secondary education performance
    information would be credible. Among the most important
    improvements, the fiscal year 2000 plan * includes baselines or
    trend data for most performance indicators (for example, half of
    the 98 indicators in Education's fiscal year 2000 plan have both
    baseline and trend data and about 90 percent now have baseline
    data); Page 65              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix V Observations on the
    Department of Education's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
*identifies within individual program performance plans1 the
    strategic objectives the program supports; * adds discussions of
    how external factors impact each objective (for example, many of
    the key strategies for each objective in the plan discuss how
    Education will work with nonfederal partners to focus on results
    and minimize administrative burdens); * rewrites some key
    strategies to more closely show their relationship to the
    objective they support; * adds more detailed discussion of
    Education's strategies and timelines for improving its performance
    information (for example, Education's plan provides specific
    strategies and timelines for improving the efficiency and quality
    of the student aid delivery system); and * discusses the data
    limitations for 97 of the 98 total performance indicators. On May
    4, 1999, we obtained oral comments from Department of Agency
    Comments    Education officials, including the Director of
    Planning and Evaluation Service and staff from its Office of
    Legislation and Congressional Affairs, on a draft of our summary
    of Education's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan. These
    officials generally agreed with our assessment. They said it
    provided an accurate and constructive opinion of their fiscal year
    2000 performance plan. They also acknowledged that additional work
    is needed in certain areas of the plan and they plan to continue
    working with the OMB and others to further improve the plan. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99136r.pdf for additional information
    on Education's comments (in GAO/HEHS-99-136R) on our observations.
    Cynthia M. Fagnoni Key Contact        Director, Education,
    Workforce, and Income Security Issues Health, Education, and Human
    Services Division (202) 512-7215 1Education's performance plan
    includes a separate volume that shows the performance plans for
    each program in its budget. Page 66
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix VI Observations on the Department of Energy's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 8, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of Energy's
    (DOE) performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The following are our
    overall observations on the plan. The complete text (GAO/RCED-99-
    218R) of our observations and DOE's comments on those observations
    are available at http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99218r.pdf only on
    the Internet. DOE's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan
    provides a limited picture Summary of      of intended performance
    across the agency, a general discussion of Observations
    strategies and resources the agency will use to achieve its goals,
    and limited confidence that agency performance information will be
    credible. While the plan is clearly linked to the strategic plan,
    the strategic plan does not always provide quantitative goals and
    objectives that show what DOE's plans to accomplish.  As a result,
    it is difficult for the user to determine whether the annual goals
    are reasonable and to measure how the Department's annual
    performance compares with the strategic plan's goals and
    objectives.  For example, under the Environmental Quality business
    line, DOE describes one of its long-term strategies as "Reducing
    Worker, Public, And Environmental Risks" and one of its goals is
    to "stabilize and safely store approximately 53 metric tons of
    heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel."  However, the strategic goal
    or objective does not describe the total amount to be stabilized
    and stored to meet this long-term strategy. Furthermore, for two
    critical programs-intelligence and counterintelligence-DOE does
    not have any goals and measures for addressing the protection of
    classified or sensitive information and technology. In April 1999,
    we testified that, in the final analysis, security problems at
    DOE's laboratories reflect a lack of accountability.1 While the
    plan links annual performance to the program activities in the
    President's budget request, the plan would be more informative if
    it also presented all annual goals by the individual office.  For
    example, annual performance can be linked through DOE's business
    lines and to the organizations contributing to the business lines.
    However, this structure makes it difficult to identify the planned
    performance by organization. Although DOE recognizes the
    importance of validating and verifying performance measures and
    information systems required to assess its accomplishments, the
    annual plan does not translate that general recognition into
    specific plans for assessing and improving performance. For
    example, the plan states that DOE provides periodic guidance to
    its organizations and that the Inspector General audits its
    financial statements 1Department of Energy: Key Factors Underlying
    Security Problems at DOE Facilities (GAO/T-RCED-99- 159, April 20,
    1999). Page 67                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix VI
    Observations on the Department of Energy's Performance Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2000 but it does not describe the specific procedures
    it will use in the verification and validation process.  Figure
    VI.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as
    DOE seeks to make additional improvements in its plan. Figure
    VI.1: Major Stengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of
    Fiscal Year 2000         * Clearly links annual performance to the
    strategic plan. Performance Plan                       * Shows how
    budgetary resources are related to performance goals. Key
    Weaknesses * Strategic goals and objectives do not provide a
    context for evaluating planned performance. * Details are not
    provided to show how performance will be verified and validated.
    DOE's fiscal year 2000 performance plan indicates moderate
    improvement in addressing the weaknesses we identified in our
    assessment of the fiscal year 1999 performance plan.  In reviewing
    the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that the performance plan
    did not * provide an overall context for the measurement of
    performance addressed in the annual goals, * link all goals and
    measures to program activities in the budget request, * identify
    annual performance goals with crosscutting issues, * explain how
    strategies would contribute to achieving performance goals, and *
    provide details of the procedures to be used to verify and
    validate its performance. Among improvements in the fiscal year
    2000 plan are better linkage between annual performance and
    program activities in the budget request and strategies that are
    linked through strategic objectives to annual performance goals.
    However, the annual performance plan could be improved by
    providing quantifiable strategic goals and objectives.  These
    strategic goals and objectives would serve as a context for
    evaluating the Department's planned annual performance,
    identifying crosscutting issues with annual performance goals, and
    providing details showing how performance will be verified and
    validated. Page 68              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix VI Observations on the
    Department of Energy's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On
    April 13, 1999, we obtained oral comments from the Director,
    Strategic Agency Comments    Planning, Budget & Program Evaluation
    and members of his office, on a draft of our analysis of DOE's
    fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan. These officials
    generally agreed with our observations but pointed out several
    areas they felt needed correction and clarification.  DOE believes
    its use of goals for three fiscal years in the annual plan
    provides a context for evaluating the reasonableness of the goals.
    However, DOE also believes  the goals of the strategic plan need
    to be quantifiable to provide a more clear context.  We revised
    the language in the report to show that the goals of the strategic
    plan need to be quantifiable.  Additionally,  DOE believes that we
    improperly used a weakness in its estimating of environmental
    liabilities in its performance verification and validation process
    because it is not a performance issue.  We agree and deleted this
    information from the report.  Finally, since DOE intends to
    complete all of its "Year 2000" activities by September 30, 1999,
    it did not include goals for this effort in its annual plan.  We
    believe that DOE should include Year 2000 goals in the annual plan
    because (1) their tight schedule leaves little time to address
    unanticipated concerns and (2) several agencies will be developing
    and testing some Year 2000 strategies through the end of 1999. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99218r.pdf for additional information
    on DOE's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-218R) on our observations.
    Victor S. Rezendes, Key Contact        Director, Energy,
    Resources, and Science Resources, Community, and Economic
    Development Division 202-512-3841 Page 69
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix VII Observations on the Department of Health and Human
    Services' Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 13, 1999,
    we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the Department
    of Health and Human Services' (HHS) performance plan for fiscal
    year 2000. The following are our overall observations on the plan.
    The complete text (GAO/HEHS-99-149R) of our observations and HHS'
    comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99149r.pdf only on the Internet. HHS'
    fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan consists of a 250-page
    Summary of                               department wide summary
    and 13 individual agency plans. Although the Observations
    plan more clearly ties performance goals to the Department's
    strategic plan than the 1999 plan did, HHS' 2000 performance plan
    provides a limited picture of intended performance across the
    Department, a limited discussion of strategies and resources the
    Department will use to achieve its goals, and limited confidence
    that HHS' performance information will be credible. For example,
    the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
    (SAMHSA) characterizes the data that will be used to measure
    progress in offering outreach services to homeless and mentally
    ill persons as "very good" because "the sources of the data are
    the local agencies that provide the services." SAMHSA appears to
    be assuming that these data are valid without making any effort to
    verify the quality of these data, which are critical to measuring
    the agency's performance. Figure VII.1 highlights the plan's major
    strength and key weaknesses as HHS seeks to make additional
    improvements to its plan. Figure VII.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Major Strengths Weaknesses of HHS' Fiscal Year 2000      * Agency
    performance goals that are tied to Department strategic plan and
    Performance Plan                         program activities. Key
    Weaknesses * Agency performance goals not consistently measurable.
* Some key management challenges, such as Year 2000 compliance for
    certain key systems and financial system weaknesses, are not
    adequately addressed. * Agency procedures to verify and validate
    performance data or identify actions to compensate for low quality
    data are not adequately described. * The strategies and resources
    the agency will use to achieve its performance goals are not
    always adequately discussed. * Sufficient information about
    strategies to mitigate external factors and to marshal the human
    capital needed to achieve results are not provided. HHS' fiscal
    year 2000 performance plan indicates some degree of progress in
    addressing the weaknesses that we identified in our assessment of
    its Page 70            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plans Appendix VII Observations on the Department
    of Health and Human Services' Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 fiscal year 1999 performance plan. In reviewing HHS' fiscal
    year 1999 plan, we observed that the plan could (1) more
    consistently set measurable performance goals; (2) provide
    information about how HHS agencies will coordinate with one
    another and other performance partners, such as states, to achieve
    related goals; (3) identify the resources HHS needs to accomplish
    its goals; (4) discuss how HHS intends to address problems with
    performance data; and (5) more consistently link performance goals
    with HHS' mission, strategic goals, and program activities.
    Improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plan include (1) a
    description of how Department strategic goals relate to key
    programs and initiatives, and identification of some agency
    performance goals that implement Department strategic goals; (2)
    better descriptions of strategies and resources needed to
    accomplish performance goals; and (3) better identification of
    data to be used to measure performance and better discussions of
    data weaknesses. For example, HHS' fiscal year 2000 performance
    plan includes an expanded departmentwide summary that links
    Departmental strategic goals to programs and initiatives and
    selected performance goals and measures from the agencies'
    performance plans. Further, the plan identifies the agencies
    responsible for implementing departmentwide goals. On April 27,
    1999, the HHS Assistant Secretary of Management and Budget Agency
    Comments    provided written comments on our draft observations on
    the HHS plan. The Department generally did not agree with our
    assessment; it also stated that it will continue to work with the
    Office of Management and Budget and HHS' performance partners to
    ensure that future plans continue to provide data that support
    budget and program decisions. HHS disagreed with our observations
    in five specific areas: (1) agency performance goals are not
    consistently measurable; (2) the plan does not adequately address
    key management challenges; (3) HHS will not have credible data;
    (4) HHS does not adequately discuss the strategies and resources
    the agency will use to achieve its performance goals; and (5) HHS
    does not provide sufficient information about strategies to
    mitigate external factors and to marshal the human capital needed
    to achieve results. We made technical corrections where
    appropriate, but continue to believe that our assessment was
    accurate. For example, we noted that some significant programs do
    not have performance goals. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99149r.pdf for additional information
    on HHS' comments (in GAO/HEHS-99-149R) on our observations. Page
    71              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Appendix VII Observations on the Department of
    Health and Human Services' Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    William J. Scanlon Key Contacts    Director, Health Financing and
    Public Health Issues Health, Education and Human Services Division
    (202) 512-7114 Cynthia M. Fagnoni Director, Education, Workforce,
    and Income Security Issues Health, Education and Human Services
    Division (202) 512-7215 Page 72              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix VIII
    Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 22, 1999, we
    briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) performance plan for fiscal
    year 2000. The following are our overall observations on the plan.
    The complete text (GAO/RCED-99-208R) of our observations and HUD's
    comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99208r.pdf only on the Internet.
    HUD's fiscal year 2000 provides a general picture of intended
    Summary of       performance across the Department and a general
    discussion of the Observations     strategies and resources to
    achieve its strategic goals.1 Specifically, the plan appears to
    cover all of HUD's program activities, links the program
    activities to strategic goals and objectives, identifies outcome
    and output indicators that generally are results oriented and
    measurable, discusses strategies for achieving the objectives, and
    cites specific data sources related to each indicator. However,
    the plan provides only limited confidence that the performance
    data will be credible. For example, many of the indicators rely on
    data from external sources that HUD does not plan to verify, and
    other indicators rely on systems that are new and that HUD says
    may need further testing or may require that the indicators be
    recalibrated once the data are known. Figure VIII.1 highlights the
    plan's major strengths and key weaknesses. 1HUD's fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plan revised the terminology used in the
    Department's previous plan in order to conform to guidance from
    the Office of Management and Budget. Specifically, strategic goals
    and objectives in the fiscal year 2000 plan were called strategic
    objectives and performance goals, respectively, in the fiscal year
    1999 plan. We use the current terminology throughout this
    document. Page 73                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-
    215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix VIII
    Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 Figure VIII.1: Major
    Strengths and Key Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000
    Major Strengths Performance Plan                            *
    Contains results-oriented goals and quantifiable measures. *
    Discusses strategies for achieving intended performance. *
    Identifies crosscutting activities. * Identifies specific data
    sources, as well as limitations or advantages of the data. *
    Discusses planned validation/verification of performance measures.
    Key Weaknesses * Does not show how budgetary resources are
    allocated to achieving performance goals. * Provides limited
    confidence that the performance data will be credible. * Does not
    link its human resources to its strategic goals and objectives. *
    Does not describe planned coordination strategies. HUD's fiscal
    year 2000 annual performance plan is an improvement over the
    previous plan and is well on its way to addressing the weaknesses
    we identified in our assessment of HUD's fiscal year 1999 annual
    performance plan.2 In reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we
    observed that the plan did not *  cover all the program activities
    in HUD's budget and that the consolidations and aggregations of
    program activities were not clearly explained; *  fully discuss
    how HUD would coordinate with other agencies having related goals
    or define its contributions to the crosscutting activities, *
    fully discuss the strategies that HUD intended to pursue to
    achieve its performance goals; *  provide a complete discussion of
    the resources needed to achieve the performance goals; and *
    relate HUD's information systems to specific indicators, discuss
    all of the systems from which performance data would be extracted,
    or discuss the data's limitations and their possible effects on
    the performance indicators. 2Results Act: Observations on the
    Department of Housing and Urban Development's Fiscal Year 1999
    Annual Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-98-159R, June 5, 1998). Page 74
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix VIII Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban
    Development's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 In contrast,
    the fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan *  includes tables
    listing the budget accounts and/or program activities that support
    each objective and an appendix that summarizes the links for all
    of the strategic goals and objectives; *  discusses HUD's
    coordination with other agencies on the objectives, where
    applicable; *  discusses specific strategies for each objective; *
    includes a resource allocation table that shows which strategic
    goals are supported by the discretionary funding and staff
    resources in HUD's budget accounts; and *  includes a data source,
    a statement of the data's limitations or advantages, and a
    discussion of the validation and verification efforts for each
    performance indicator. In addition, the current plan explains the
    link between HUD's objectives and HUD's 2020 Management Reform
    Plan, which was implemented to address HUD's major management
    challenges, and includes a separate section that discusses HUD's
    management, financial, and quality assurance improvements.
    However, the fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan could be
    further improved if it showed the allocation of the budgetary
    resources needed to achieve specific performance goals, more
    specifically discussed HUD's strategies for coordinating with
    other agencies, and eliminated inconsistencies within the plan and
    among the related budget documents. In addition, HUD should
    increase its efforts to verify and validate data and continue to
    develop a model for linking resource allocation to strategic goals
    and objectives. We provided HUD with a draft of this report for
    review and comment. On Agency Comments      May 11, 1999, Deputy
    Secretary Saul N. Ramirez responded with written comments. In
    these comments, HUD generally agreed with our report, stated that
    it captured the annual performance plan's major improvements, and
    stated that the Department is committed to taking specific actions
    to improve in the areas we identified. However, HUD raised
    specific concerns about our observations on the credibility of its
    performance measurement data and its interagency coordination
    strategies. We did not revise our observations as a result of the
    comments; however, we modified the report, where appropriate, to
    clarify our observations on how the plan could be improved. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99208r.pdf for additional information
    on HUD's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-208R) on our observations. Page
    75              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Appendix VIII Observations on the Department of
    Housing and Urban Development's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 Judy A. England-Joseph Key Contact    Director, Housing and
    Community Development Issues Resources, Community, and Economic
    Development Division 202-512-7631 Page 76
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix IX Observations on the Department of the Interior's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On May 17, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of the
    Interior's performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The following
    are our overall observations on the plan. The complete text
    (GAO/RCED-99-207R) of our observations and Interior's comments on
    those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99207r.pdf only on the Internet.
    Interior's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan consists of 10
    Summary of      components-a departmental overview and 9 component
    plans.1 Most of Observations    the plans should provide a general
    picture of intended performance across the agency and a general
    discussion of the strategies and resources that the agencies will
    use to achieve their performance goals. However, additional work
    is needed to provide confidence that the performance information
    will be credible.  For example, most of the component plans have
    performance measures that represent progress towards the
    performance goals. To illustrate, NPS' plan has an annual goal to
    reduce by 7 percent the rates of safety-related incidents in which
    visitors are involved. To measure accomplishments, NPS will use
    statistics that depict law enforcement incidents, natural resource
    violations, search-and-rescue missions, and traffic accidents.
    However, most of the component plans do not discuss the actions
    needed to compensate for unavailable or low- quality data or the
    implications of data limitations for assessing performance. Figure
    IX.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses that
    need to be addressed in future plans. 1The nine subagencies are
    the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), Bureau of Land Management
    (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), U. S. Fish and Wildlife
    Service (FWS), Minerals Management Service (MMS), National Park
    Service (NPS), Office of the Special Trustee For American Indians
    (OST), Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),
    and U. S. Geological Survey (USGS). We did not review the plans
    for the Office of Insular Affairs, Inspector General, or Office of
    the Solicitor. Page 77                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-
    99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix IX
    Observations on the Department of the Interior's Performance Plan
    for Fiscal Year 2000 Figure IX.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major
    Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000          * Contains
    results-oriented goals and quantifiable measures. Performance Plan
* Discusses strategies for achieving intended performance. * Plans
    follow a consistent format making them more user friendly than
    those from fiscal year 1999. Key Weaknesses * Most of the plans do
    not provide specific procedures to credibly validate and verify
    performance information. * Most of the plans do not identify or
    recognize issues that would significantly affect data limitations
    and their implication for assessing whether goals are being
    achieved. Interior's fiscal year 2000 performance plans show
    moderate improvement in addressing weaknesses that we identified
    in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plans. In reviewing the
    fiscal year 1999 plans, we observed overall that the plan was not
    user-friendly. The component plans had to be reviewed in
    conjunction with the budget justifications. Therefore,
    understanding the totality was an overwhelming and time-consuming
    task involving a review of about 3,500 pages of material. More
    specifically, we said that the plans were limited in describing
    the strategies to accomplish performance goals; discussing the
    actions to address external factors that were likely to affect
    performance; describing the capital, human, and other resources to
    be used to achieve performance goals; describing credible
    procedures to verify and validate performance information, and
    recognizing known significant limitations to data from agency
    sources. For example, BIA's fiscal year 1999 performance plan
    contained strategies for achieving its strategic goals that in
    some cases were very different from those identified in its
    strategic plan. While Interior's fiscal year 2000 total plan is
    still quite lengthy, it is significantly more user-friendly.
    Specifically the overall plan (1) follows a consistent format
    among all of the component plans making it easier to locate
    material, (2) shows improved linkages between the component plans
    and among the goals and strategies within each individual plan,
    and (3) has fewer and, as a result, more focused, goals and
    measures. In addition, the departmental overview plan identifies
    department wide goals that are more clearly presented.
    Furthermore, the fiscal year 2000 plans are becoming more stand-
    alone documents in that they do not have to be read in conjunction
    with the budget justifications in order to provide a Page 78
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix IX Observations on the Department of the Interior's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 reasonable understanding of
    each plan. Also, the plans do a better job of developing goals
    that are measurable, describing the strategies that the agencies
    will use to measure the accomplishment of goals, and discussing
    the external factors that have an effect on accomplishing the
    stated goals. Despite the overall improvements, the component
    plans need to continue to be strengthened to ensure that their
    performance information is sufficiently complete, accurate, and
    consistent. For example, six of the component plans still need to
    better identify significant data limitations and their
    implications for assessing the achievement of performance goals.
    Another area in which additional improvements are needed is in
    linking performance goals to program activities in the President's
    budget request. Five of the plans need to provide better linkages.
    For example, FWS' plan identifies funding levels for "GPRA program
    activities" but does not explain how these GPRA program activities
    were derived from the program activities in the agency's budget
    justification. On April 7, 1999, we met with Interior officials,
    including the Deputy Agency Comments    Assistant Secretary of
    Budget and Finance, the Director of the Office of Planning and
    Performance Management, and the Director of the Office of
    Financial Management to obtain agency comments. We were
    subsequently provided written comments on April 9, 1999. Interior
    officials believe that its fiscal year 2000 performance plan meets
    the requirements of the Results Act and the guidelines provided by
    the Office of Management and Budget in Circular A-11. However, the
    Department acknowledges that improvements can be made to its plan.
    Interior also noted that the development of its performance plan
    is an iterative process and that progress will continue as the
    agency gains additional knowledge and experience with performance-
    based, results-oriented management. The Department did not agree
    with our observation that it had not made significant progress in
    the area of validating and verifying performance information.
    While they believe that some improvements can be made, they said
    that the fiscal year 2000 plan includes validation processes for
    each measure and that we did not give them enough credit for the
    progress they made in describing the information on the validation
    and verification measures in their plans. We agreed that the
    department improved its discussion of validation and verification
    measures over its fiscal year 1999 plans and that additional
    improvements can be made. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99207r.pdf for additional information
    on Interior's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-207R) on our observations.
    Page 79              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plans Appendix IX Observations on the Department
    of the Interior's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 Victor S.
    Rezendes, Director Key Contact    Energy, Resources, and Science
    Issue Area Resources, Community, and Economic Development Division
    (202) 512-3841 Page 80              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix X Observations on the
    Department of Justice's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On
    March 30, 1999, we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of
    the Department of Justice's performance plan for fiscal year 2000.
    The following are our overall observations of the plan. The
    complete text (GAO/GGD-99-111R) of our observations and Justice's
    comments on those observations is available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/gg99111r.pdf only on the Internet.
    Justice's fiscal year 2000 performance plan1 provides a general
    picture of Summary of      intended performance across the
    Department, a general discussion of Observations    strategies and
    resources the Department will use to achieve its goals, and
    general confidence that the Department's performance information
    will be credible. However, the plan did not identify mutually
    reinforcing goals and measures. An illustration of intended
    performance is the Tax Division's use of the Internal Revenue
    Service's current compliance rate measure of its success in
    reaching its goal to maximize deterrence and foster voluntary
    taxpayer compliance. Also, to ensure credible performance
    information, Justice will be assessing data quality, consistency,
    and reliability; and collecting, verifying, and analyzing
    performance data. However, a summary performance plan goal related
    to reducing white-collar crime is to confront the increase in
    health care fraud by successfully prosecuting and obtaining
    judgments against individuals and organizations that defraud
    federal health care programs. The summary performance plan
    identifies three components-Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
    Criminal Division, and the U.S. Attorney-that are responsible for
    achieving this goal. The plan does not explain how the strategies
    of the components` and agencies' with roles in health care are
    mutually reinforcing, nor does it establish common or
    complimentary performance indicators. Figure X.1 highlights the
    plan's major strengths and key weaknesses that need to be
    addressed in future plans. 1 Justice prepared a summary
    performance plan that includes the major program goals the
    Department expects to achieve in fiscal year 2000 and summarizes
    the more detailed performance plans of its components. The
    component plans are part of Justice's fiscal year 2000
    congressional authorization and budget submission. Together,
    Justice's summary performance plan and the component performance
    plans constitute Justice's performance plan for fiscal year 2000.
    Page 81                               GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix X
    Observations on the Department of Justice's Performance Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2000 Figure X.1: Major Strengths and Key Weaknesses of
    Fiscal Year 2000         Major Strengths Performance Plan
* Provides clear relationships between goals and measures. *
    Contains goals and measures that are quantifiable, with related
    baselines and targets. * Discusses strategies for ensuring that
    its performance data are credible. Key Weaknesses * Does not
    sufficiently identify mutually reinforcing goals and measures
    among Justice components. * Does not fully show how funding from
    program activities will be allocated to performance goals.
    Justice's fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents a moderate
    improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it indicates
    some degree of progress in addressing the weaknesses that we
    identified in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plan. In
    reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that the plan
    could be more useful if it (1) clarified how major Justice
    programs would contribute to achieving the performance goals, (2)
    better described how requested resources would produce the
    expected results, and (3) provided more specific information on
    plans to improve the accuracy and completeness of performance
    data. Among improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plan is the
    emphasis Justice places on data integrity, including its
    requirement that components identify the data source for each
    performance indicator and discuss steps they will take to insure
    data accuracy. For example, the Civil Division has identified
    steps it is taking to achieve integrity of its database through
    contractor verification of a representative sample of data.
    However, the plan did not identify mutually reinforcing goals and
    measures. For example, a summary performance plan goal related to
    reducing white-collar crime is to confront the increase in health
    care fraud by successfully prosecuting and obtaining judgments
    against individuals and organizations that defraud federal health
    care programs. The summary performance plan identifies three
    components-Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Criminal
    Division, and the U.S. Attorney-that are responsible for achieving
    this goal. The plan does not explain how the strategies of the
    components' and agencies' with roles in health care are mutually
    reinforcing, nor does it establish common or complimentary
    performance indicators. On April 14, 1999, we obtained comments
    from Justice Department Agency Comments
    officials, including the Deputy Director, Budget Staff, on a draft
    of our analysis of Justice's fiscal year 2000 performance plan.
    These officials Page 82              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix X Observations on the
    Department of Justice's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    generally agreed with the draft of our analysis. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/gg99111r.pdf for additional information
    on Justice's comments (in GAO/GGD-99-111R) on our observations.
    Norman J. Rabkin Key Contact    Administration of Justice Issues
    General Government Division (202) 512-8777 Page 83
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XI Observations on the Department of Labor's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 9, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of Labor's
    performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The following are our
    overall observations on the plan. The complete text (GAO/HEHS-99-
    152R) of our observations and Labor's comments on those
    observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99152r.pdf only on the Internet.
    Labor's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a
    generally Summary of      clear picture of intended performance
    across the agency and provides a Observations    general
    discussion of strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve its goals. However, the plan provides limited confidence
    that information on agency performance will be credible.  For
    example, Labor's plan identifies budgeted funding amounts for each
    of the three strategic goals and details the activities from the
    component offices that will help accomplish each of the strategic
    goals. However, the lack of reliable and timely data across all of
    Labor's data systems raise concerns about its ability to
    accurately assess performance. Figure XI.1 highlights the plan's
    major strengths and key weaknesses that need to be addressed in
    future plans. Page 84           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XI Observations on the
    Department of Labor's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 Figure
    XI.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of
    Fiscal Year 2000          * Performance goals and measures are
    objective, clear, measurable, and Performance Plan
    provide a clear picture of intended performance across the agency.
*The need for information technology goals was recognized and
    goals were developed. *Human capital management goals have been
    revised to better address workplace issues. *Means and strategies
    are linked to performance goals. Key Weaknesses * Serious data
    limitations affect the accuracy of reported performance. Labor
    recognizes these limitations but does not discuss how the data
    limitations it identifies will affect its measurement of
    performance goals. *The plan does not adequately describe how
    Labor will actively work with other agencies that share
    responsibility for some of Labor's functions to ensure that
    Labor's goals are achieved. *The plan does not always explain how
    strategies will help achieve individual performance goals. Labor's
    fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan represents a moderate
    improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan, because Labor has made
    some progress in addressing the weaknesses we identified last
    year. In reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that it
    (1) provided only a partial picture of intended performance across
    the agency, (2) partially portrayed how Labor's strategies and
    resources would help achieve its goals, and (3) did not provide
    sufficient confidence that the agency's performance information
    would be credible. Among improvements in the fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plan are modified performance goals that better
    focus on outcomes and elimination of other goals that could not be
    adequately measured. For example, Labor made one goal measurable
    by specifying a percentage increase for job retention and wages
    for Job Corps program participants. Labor also eliminated a goal
    that was not measurable relating to distribution of educational
    materials on pensions. A second improvement is a better linking of
    agency strategies to specific performance goals. For example, for
    each strategy listed, Labor identified the specific performance
    goal to which it applied. Thirdly, Labor added goals related to
    information technology. For example, one goal states that Labor
    will complete reviews of 70 percent of risk assessment and
    disaster recovery plans developed to Page 85
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XI Observations on the Department of Labor's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 ensure that its information systems are
    adequately protected, secure from tampering, reliable; and that
    security is well managed and documented. On April 21, 1999, we
    obtained written comments from the Department of Agency Comments
    Labor's Assistant Secretary for Administration and Management on a
    draft of our analysis of the Department of Labor's fiscal year
    2000 annual performance plan. Labor generally concurred with our
    observations of the plan's strengths and weaknesses and
    acknowledged the needed plan improvements in the areas of improved
    data quality, better descriptions of collaboration efforts, and
    clearer linkages between strategies and goals. Labor also stated
    that it will use our analysis of its fiscal year 2000 plan as a
    basis for improvements to the next version of its performance
    plan. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99152r.pdf for additional
    information on Labor's comments (in GAO/HEHS-99-152R) on our
    observations. Cynthia M. Fagnoni, Director Key Contact
    Education, Workforce and Income Security Issues Health, Education
    and Human Services Division (202) 512-7215 Page 86
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XII Observations on the Department of State's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 8, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of State's
    performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The following are our
    overall observations on the plan. The complete text (GAO/NSIAD-
    99-183R) of our observations and the Department of State's
    comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99183r.pdf only on the Internet.
    State's fiscal year 20001 annual performance plan provides a
    partial picture Summary of                               of (1)
    intended performance across the agency, (2) the strategies and
    Observations                             resources that will be
    used to achieve the performance goals, and (3) the methods it will
    employ to ensure the credibility of the information used to assess
    agency performance. For example, State's strategic goal of opening
    foreign markets has two areas of emphasis. However, the plan
    provides performance information for only one of them. Figure
    XII.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses
    that need to be addressed in future plans. Figure XII.1: Major
    Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year
    2000           * Contains more results-oriented goals, strategies,
    and quantifiable Performance Plan
    measures. * Includes baseline and targets for each performance
    indicator. Key Weaknesses * Does not provide a complete
    performance picture for all strategic goals. * Does not
    sufficiently describe how resources will help achieve goals. *
    Does not describe efforts to verify and validate performance data.
    State's fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents a moderate
    improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it shows some
    progress in addressing the weaknesses we identified in our
    assessment of that plan. In reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan,
    we observed that (1) many of the goals were not clearly stated
    and/or extended beyond State's span of control, (2) the plan did
    not have baselines and targets for each performance indicator, and
    (3) crosscutting issues and data limitations were not addressed.
    Among improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plan are the addition
    of baselines, targets, and quantifiable measures to gauge
    performance, and results-oriented goals that better capture what
    State can accomplish. 1 This plan sets out the Department of
    State's performance targets for fiscal years 1999 and 2000. It
    replaces the fiscal year 1999 plan submitted in February 1998. The
    performance report due in March 2000 will report results against
    the fiscal year 1999 targets from this plan. Page 87
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XII Observations on the Department of State's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 13, 1999, we obtained comments
    from officials of State's Office of Agency Comments    Management
    Policy and Planning and the Bureau of Finance and Management
    Policy on a draft of our analysis of the agency's fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plan.  These officials generally agreed with
    our analysis.   However, they questioned the need for identifying
    the roles, responsibilities, and complementary performance goals
    and measures of other agencies with crosscutting programs.  They
    believe that adding more detailed references to other agencies
    goes beyond what time and resources will allow.  They also
    requested a more explicit discussion of the requirement that the
    plan show how State's personnel, capital assets, and mission-
    critical management systems contribute to achieving performance
    goals.  We have included additional guidance on this issue in our
    analysis. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99183r.pdf for
    additional information on State's comments (in GAO/NSIAD-99-183R)
    on our observations. Benjamin F. Nelson, Director Key Contact
    International Relations and Trade Issues National Security and
    International Affairs Division (202) 512-4128 Page 88
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XIII Observations on the Department of Transportation's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 7, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of
    Transportation's (DOT) performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/RCED-99-153) of our observations and DOT's comments on
    those observations are available at http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
    bin/getrpt?rced-99-153 only on the Internet. DOT's performance
    plan for fiscal year 2000 provides a clear picture of Summary of
    intended performance across the Department, a specific discussion
    of the Observations                              strategies and
    resources the Department will use to achieve its goals, and
    general confidence that DOT's performance information will be
    credible. For example, the performance goal for reducing
    recreational boating fatalities from 819 in fiscal year 1997 to
    720 or fewer in fiscal year 2000 will be accomplished by
    activities of several U.S. Coast Guard programs- boating safety
    grants provided to the states, regulations developed by the
    Recreational Boating Safety program, and boat inspections
    conducted by the Coast Guard auxiliary.  Figure XIII.1 highlights
    the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as DOT seeks to make
    additional improvements to its plan. Figure XIII.1: Major
    Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year
    2000            * Contains results-oriented goals and
    quantifiable. Performance Plan                          *
    Discusses strategies and resources for achieving intended
    performances. * Describes efforts to verify and validate
    performance data and the data's limitations. Key Weaknesses * Does
    not consistently link the strategic outcomes to the performance
    goals. * Does not consistently explain coordination strategies
    with outside organizations. * Does not consistently include goals
    and measures for addressing the management challenges facing the
    Department. DOT's fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents a
    moderate improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it
    indicates some degree of progress in addressing the weaknesses
    that we identified in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plan.
    We observed that the fiscal year 1999 plan did not (1)
    sufficiently address management challenges facing the Department;
    (2) consistently link strategic goals, program activities, and
    performance goals; (3) indicate interagency coordination for
    crosscutting areas; or (4) provide sufficient information on
    external Page 89            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XIII Observations on the
    Department of Transportation's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 factors, the processes and resources for achieving the goals,
    and the performance data.  Among the improvements in the fiscal
    year 2000 plan are more consistent linkages among the program
    activities and performance goals, additional information on
    external factors and strategies for achieving the goals, and a
    more comprehensive discussion of the data's quality.  However, the
    plan still needs improvement, especially in explaining how certain
    management challenges, such as financial management weaknesses,
    will be addressed.  For example, DOT's Office of Inspector General
    (OIG) reported that the Department's accounting system could not
    be used as the only source of financial information to prepare its
    financial statements.  While the fiscal year 2000 plan does not
    address this issue, DOT has recognized the financial reporting
    deficiencies identified by the OIG and is taking actions to
    correct them.  The lack of accountability for financial activities
    is a key challenge that DOT faces in implementing performance-
    based management. We provided copies of a draft of these
    observations to DOT for review and Agency Comments    comment.
    The Department stated that it appreciated GAO's favorable review
    of its fiscal year 2000 performance plan and indicated that it had
    put much work into making improvements over the fiscal year 1999
    plan by addressing our comments on that plan.  DOT made several
    suggestions to clarify the discussion of its financial accounting
    system, which we incorporated.  The Department acknowledged that
    work remains to be done to improve its financial accounting system
    and stated that it has established plans to do this.  DOT also
    acknowledged the more general need for good data systems to
    implement the Results Act and indicated that it is working to
    enhance those systems. See http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?rced-
    99-153 for additional information on DOT's comments (in GAO/RCED-
    99-153) on our observations. Phyllis Scheinberg Key Contact
    Associate Director, Transportation Issues Resources, Community,
    and Economic Development Division (202) 512-3650 Page 90
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XIV Observations on the Department of the Treasury's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 16, 1999, we
    briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the Department of
    the Treasury's performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/GGD-99-114R) of our observations and Treasury's comments
    on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao/corresp/gg99114r.pdf only on the Internet.
    Treasury's fiscal year 2000 performance plan, which is integrated
    with its Summary of                               budget
    justification, provides a limited picture of intended performance
    Observations                             across the Department, a
    limited discussion of the strategies and resources it will use to
    achieve its goals, and limited confidence that its performance
    information will be credible. Figure XIV.1 highlights the plan's
    major strengths and key weaknesses. Figure XIV.1: Major Strengths
    and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000
* Provides linkages between the annual performance goals and
    measures Performance Plan                         and the
    strategic goals in the bureaus' and offices' strategic plans. *
    Shows trend data for past performance. * Includes information on
    resources to achieve goals. * Includes a section on departmentwide
    systems and capital investments. Key Weaknesses * Does not
    consistently identify programs that contributed to the same or
    similar results. * Does not consistently discuss specific
    strategies for achieving goals. * Does not adequately discuss
    procedures for verifying and validating performance data. * Does
    not include performance goals to address all significant
    management challenges and high-risk areas. Treasury's fiscal year
    2000 performance plan recognizes the weaknesses that we identified
    in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 performance plan and
    makes specific commitments or shows actual attempts to address
    those weaknesses. However, real progress is not yet evident. In
    reviewing Treasury's fiscal year 2000 performance plan, we
    observed that the weaknesses in the fiscal year 1999 plan
    generally applied to the fiscal year 2000 plan as well. For
    example, some measures in both plans were insufficient to
    adequately gauge progress toward meeting performance goals. On the
    positive side, unlike the fiscal year 1999 plan, the fiscal year
    2000 plan has a section that briefly describes departmentwide
    systems and capital investment programs. The fiscal year 2000 plan
    also uses standard descriptions for assessing data accuracy across
    the Department. Page 91             GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XIV Observations on
    the Department of the Treasury's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 On June 14, 1999, we met with the Director of Treasury's
    Office of Agency Comments    Strategic Planning and Evaluation and
    members of his staff to obtain oral comments on a draft of this
    report. The officials generally agreed with our analysis and
    provided some technical comments, which we incorporated as
    appropriate. They also said that Treasury is continually trying to
    improve its strategic and performance plans. Among other things,
    Treasury plans to ensure that updates to its bureaus' and offices'
    strategic plans include goals for high-risk programs and major
    management challenges. In addition, Treasury's Office of Inspector
    General plans to work with the bureaus and offices to help improve
    their capacity to provide confidence that the performance data
    used to measure progress are verified and validated. See
    http://www.gao/corresp/gg99114r.pdf for additional information on
    Treasury's comments (in GAO/GGD-99-114R) on our observations.
    Cornelia M. Ashby Key Contact        Associate Director, Tax
    Policy and Administration Issues General Government Division (202)
    512-9110 Page 92              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XV Observations on the
    Department of Veterans Affairs' Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 On April 6, 1999, we briefed congressional staff on our
    analysis of the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) performance
    plan for fiscal year 2000. The following are our overall
    observations on the plan. The complete text (GAO/HEHS-99-138R) of
    our observations and VA's comments on those observations are
    available at http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99138r.pdf only on the
    Internet. VA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a
    general picture Summary of      of intended performance across VA,
    a generally complete discussion of Observations    strategies and
    resources that VA will use to achieve its goals, and limited
    confidence that VA's performance information will be credible. The
    plan (1) presents performance goals and measures, along with
    baseline and trend data, that cover all of VA's major programs,
    except that there are no results-oriented goals for fiscal year
    2000 for three programs; (2) explicitly links specific strategies
    and initiatives to each of VA's key performance goals and also
    summarizes these strategies and initiatives for each major
    program; and (3) discusses performance information weaknesses that
    will not be corrected until future years. Figure XV.1 highlights
    the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as VA seeks to make
    additional improvements to its plan for programs operated by the
    Veterans Health Administration (VHA), Veterans Benefits
    Administration (VBA), and National Cemetery Administration (NCA).
    Page 93            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000
    Performance Plans Appendix XV Observations on the Department of
    Veterans Affairs' Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 Figure
    XV.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of
    Fiscal Year 2000          * Contains quantified fiscal year 2000
    performance goals and measures for Performance Plan
    all of VA's major programs and the program activities in VA's
    budget request. * Explicitly links strategies, crosscutting
    activities, mission-critical management problems, and data sources
    to each of VA's key performance goals. * Provides an in-depth
    discussion of performance data reliability problems and VA's
    initiatives for addressing these problems. Key Weaknesses *
    Contains process-oriented, but no results-oriented, performance
    goals for fiscal year 2000 for VBA's compensation, pension, and
    insurance programs. For these programs, the plan defines some
    interim outcome goals and measures, without target performance
    levels, that will be used as the basis for developing results-
    oriented goals and measures. * Discusses data verification and
    validation procedures for some, but not all, key performance goals
    and measures. VA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents
    moderate improvement in addressing weaknesses that we identified
    in its fiscal year 1999 performance plan. For example, the fiscal
    year 1999 plan included no results-oriented performance goals or
    measures for VBA's compensation, pension, or insurance programs.
    By contrast, while the fiscal year 2000 plan still does not
    include results-oriented goals for these three programs, it does
    provide interim outcome performance goals and measures, although
    the target level of performance to be achieved for the coming year
    is not defined. For instance, to ensure that veterans are
    compensated for their loss in earning capacity due to service-
    connected disabilities, the plan includes an interim goal that
    would measure the percentage of veterans receiving compensation
    whose total income exceeds that of like- circumstanced non-
    veterans. However, the plan does not provide a performance target
    level for fiscal year 2000. Another area of improvement is the
    discussion of crosscutting activities of other federal agencies,
    state and local governments, and the private sector. While the
    fiscal year 1999 plan basically was limited to a listing of other
    entities with crosscutting interests, the fiscal year 2000 plan
    briefly describes an extensive array of crosscutting activities
    and explicitly associates applicable crosscutting activities with
    each key performance Page 94              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XV
    Observations on the Department of Veterans Affairs' Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 goal. It also provides details on how VA
    and other agencies with similar or related responsibilities are
    cooperating. For example, VA's vocational rehabilitation program
    has a goal of placing more disabled veterans in jobs. Toward this
    end, VA and the Department of Labor have established a cooperative
    training program designed to increase the efficiency and
    effectiveness of staff from both agencies in preparing disabled
    veterans for the job market. In another area of improvement, the
    fiscal year 1999 plan did not provide plans and time frames for
    completing the conversion of VA's computer systems to avoid Year
    2000 computer problems. By contrast, the fiscal year 2000 plan
    states that VA is on target to have all computer system
    conversions completed and tested by March 1999 and that VA had
    already renovated 99.7 percent of its mission-critical computer
    software applications, including all payment-related applications
    and those supporting health care. Also, compared with last year's
    plan, the fiscal year 2000 plan provides an in-depth discussion of
    VA's actions to begin addressing weaknesses in data systems and
    performance information. For example, at the request of the Under
    Secretary for Health, VHA held a Data Validation Summit in
    December 1998 to develop strategies for eliminating problems that
    contribute to data validity deficiencies, such as a lack of
    standard definitions, decentralized approaches to data collection
    and implementation of automated systems, local modification of
    systems, lack of knowledge or understanding about systems, and
    difficulty in coordinating more than 140 VHA databases. In a
    letter dated April 27, 1999, VA's Assistant Secretary for Planning
    and Agency Comments    Analysis provided written comments on our
    draft assessment of VA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan. VA
    generally agreed with our observations and stated that it found
    our assessment, on the whole, to be fair and accurate. However, VA
    concluded that GAO apparently expected the plan to provide a
    greater level of detail than VA believed was required regarding
    the establishment of performance goals for resolving management
    problems that VA's plan identified as mission-critical. In
    response to our statement that VA's plan does not include
    performance goals for all mission-critical management problems, VA
    stated its belief that the performance plan's purpose is to report
    on key performance measures representing VA's highest priorities
    for its major programs. Although we agree that the plan's primary
    focus should be on the key performance Page 95
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XV Observations on the Department of Veterans Affairs'
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 measures for its major
    programs, OMB Circular A-111 recommends that plans include
    performance goals for management problems, particularly those that
    are mission critical, that could potentially impede achievement of
    program goals. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99138r.pdf for
    additional information on VA's comments (in GAO/HEHS-99-138R) on
    our observations. Stephen P. Backhus, Director Key Contact
    Veterans' Affairs and Military Health Care Issues Health,
    Education, and Human Services Division (202) 512-7101 1 The Office
    of Management and Budget (OMB) encourages agencies to describe the
    actions being taken to address management problems. OMB,
    Preparation and Submission of Budget Estimates, OMB Circular A-11,
    (Washington, D.C.: OMB/Executive Office of the President, 1998),
    Section 220.11(e), p. 314. Page 96
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XVI Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 16, 1999, we
    briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the Environmental
    Protection Agency's (EPA) performance plan for fiscal year 2000.
    The following are our overall observations on the plan. The
    complete text (GAO/RCED-99-237R) of our observations and EPA's
    comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99237r.pdf only on the Internet.
    EPA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a general
    picture Summary of                               of intended
    performance across the agency and provides a general Observations
    discussion of strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve its goals.  However, the plan provides only limited
    confidence that the agency's performance information will be
    credible. For example, the plan has some performance measures,
    such as reducing toxic air pollution by 5 percent in fiscal year
    2000, that address program results. The plan also lays out the
    regulatory, standards setting, research, and assistance
    strategies, along with requested resources, to meet EPA's goals
    for attaining air quality standards for ozone and particulate
    matter. However, it does not address data limitations in tracking
    compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Figure XVI.1
    highlights the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses that need
    to be addressed in future plans. Figure XVI.1: Major Strengths and
    Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000           *
    Presents goals that are generally objective, measurable, and
    quantifiable. Performance Plan                         * Discusses
    strategies and resources for achieving intended performance. Key
    Weaknesses * Does not provide sufficient details on crosscutting
    goals and activities. * Provides limited confidence that the
    agency's performance information will be credible. EPA's fiscal
    year 2000 performance plan represents a moderate improvement over
    the fiscal year 1999 plan in that the agency has made progress in
    addressing the weaknesses that we identified in our assessment of
    the fiscal year 1999 plan.  In reviewing the fiscal year 1999
    plan, we observed that the quality of the goals and measures
    varied across the plan in that they were not always well-defined
    or comprehensive enough to cover all important program aspects;
    the plan did not completely describe how EPA coordinated with
    other federal agencies that had related strategic or performance
    goals; and the plan did not consistently identify data limitations
    and their implications for assessing the achievement of
    performance goals. Page 97              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XVI
    Observations on the Environmental Protection Agency's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 Among the improvements in the fiscal
    year 2000 plan are goals and measures of generally better quality.
    EPA has also made some progress in providing more general
    information on coordination with other agencies. However, the plan
    shows little improvement in providing details on goals and
    strategies that cut across agency lines.  Similarly, it shows no
    substantial progress in better identifying data limitations. On
    April 13, 1999, we obtained comments from EPA on a draft of our
    Agency Comments    analysis of the agency's fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plan. EPA generally agreed with our analysis
    and appreciated our constructive review, saying that it would
    continue to strive for improvements in its plan. The agency also
    commented on several of our observations and discussed its actions
    to improve the quality of its databases and information systems.
    See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99237r.pdf for additional
    information on EPA's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-237R) on our
    observations. Peter F. Guerrero, Director Key Contact
    Environmental Protection Issues Resources, Community, and Economic
    Development Division (202) 512-6111 Page 98
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XVII Observations on the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 7, 1999,
    we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) performance plan for fiscal
    year 2000. The following are our overall observations on the plan.
    The complete text (GAO/RCED-99-226R) of our observations and
    FEMA's comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99226r.pdf only on the Internet.
    FEMA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a general
    Summary of                                picture of intended
    performance across the agency and a general Observations
    discussion of strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve its performance goals. However, the plan provides limited
    confidence that the agency's performance information will be
    credible and it does not identify the external factors that could
    affect FEMA's ability to achieve its performance goals and the
    actions FEMA can take to mitigate these factors. For example, the
    plan reduces the number of operational objectives and performance
    goals used in the plan, thus helping to focus attention on FEMA's
    more critical priorities.  Figure XVII.1 highlights the plan's
    major strengths and key weaknesses that need to be addressed in
    future plans. Figure XVII.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major
    Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000            * Provides
    clear structure linking strategic goals, 5-year operational
    Performance Plan                          objectives, and annual
    performance goals. * Contains results-oriented annual performance
    goals and generally quantifiable performance indicators. *
    Discusses strategies for accomplishing annual performance goals.
    Key Weaknesses * Presents only a limited discussion of FEMA's
    efforts and plans to coordinate with other agencies whose programs
    and activities complement FEMA's. * Does not identify the external
    factors that could affect FEMA's ability to achieve its
    performance goals and the actions FEMA can take to mitigate these
    factors. * Does not identify significant limitations potentially
    affecting the credibility of data used to measure performance. *
    Provides only a limited description of FEMA's procedures for
    verifying and validating performance data. FEMA's fiscal year 2000
    performance plan recognizes some of the weaknesses that we
    identified in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 performance
    plan and makes specific commitments to address some of Page 99
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XVII Observations on the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 those weaknesses.
    However, real progress is not yet evident in addressing all of the
    prior weaknesses we noted. Therefore, the fiscal year 2000 plan
    represents little improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan. For
    example, in reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that
    the plan did not identify the external factors that could affect
    FEMA's ability to achieve its performance goals and the actions
    FEMA can take to mitigate these factors; identify significant
    limitations potentially affecting the credibility of the data used
    to measure performance; or provide a full description of the
    procedures for verifying and validating performance data. Only
    limited progress has been made in addressing these concerns in the
    fiscal year 2000 performance plan. However, among the improvements
    in the fiscal year 2000 plan are the use of established baselines
    to measure the agency's progress in meeting its performance goals.
    For example, the plan includes the goal of operating a logistics
    program that provides timely and cost-effective resources to
    support the agency's all-hazards emergency management mission. The
    performance indicators for this goal include references to 5-
    percent changes from fiscal year 1999 baselines, including a 5-
    percent reduction in the percentage of assets lost or damaged and
    a 5- percent reduction in the time between receiving and shipping
    orders for supplies. Other improvements include a general listing
    of federal agencies with missions and activities that complement
    FEMA's, linkage between budget accounts and annual performance
    goals, and a reduction in the number of operational objectives and
    annual performance goals. Additionally, the plan now includes
    several new appendixes that (1) chart FEMA's fiscal year 1998's
    actual performance, fiscal year 1999's estimated performance, and
    fiscal year 2000's projected performance; (2) list 5-year
    operational objectives and performance goals for FEMA's staff
    offices; and (3) present a 5-year projection of FEMA's spending on
    capital assets. However, the plan still contains a number of
    weaknesses. For example, it still contains over 150 performance
    indicators-presenting levels of performance for so many indicators
    could make it difficult to assess FEMA's performance.
    Additionally, the plan does not recognize the limitations with the
    internal sources of data it intends to use to assess performance,
    nor does it clearly describe credible and specific procedures that
    will be used to verify and validate performance data. We provided
    FEMA with a copy of our draft observations for review and Agency
    Comments    comment. In written comments provided on April 14,
    1999, FEMA's Director generally agreed with our observations,
    noting that the agency would revise several aspects of its
    performance plan with more explicit information and additional
    detail. However, FEMA's Director also Page 100
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XVII Observations on the Federal Emergency Management
    Agency's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 questioned several
    of our observations, including noting that FEMA included
    information on external factors that could affect its ability to
    achieve its performance goals in both its September 30, 1997,
    strategic plan and within certain performance goals in the
    performance plan. We believe FEMA should include additional
    references to how specific external factors could have an impact
    on individual performance goals and the actions FEMA can take to
    mitigate these factors. In addition, FEMA's Director clarified and
    updated certain information, which we incorporated in our
    observations where appropriate. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99226r.pdf for additional information
    on FEMA's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-226R) on our observations. Judy
    England-Joseph, Director Key Contact    Housing and Community
    Development Issue Area Resources, Community, and Economic
    Development Division (202) 512-7631 Page 101
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XVIII Observations on the General Services
    Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 7,
    1999, we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the
    General Services Administration's (GSA) performance plan for
    fiscal year 2000. The following are our overall observations on
    the plan. The complete text (GAO/GGD-99-113R) of our observations
    and GSA's comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/gg99113r.pdf only on the Internet.
    GSA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan,1 issued March 2,
    1999, Summary of                                 provides a clear
    picture of intended performance across the agency and a
    Observations                               general discussion of
    the strategies for achieving its goals. However, the plan's
    discussion of the budget resources needed to achieve the goals is
    incomplete, and it provides only limited confidence that agency
    performance information will be credible. For example, 48 of the
    58 goals in the 2000 plan had measures, baselines, and targets
    that are quantifiable and that should allow decisionmakers to more
    easily gauge performance. However, the 2000 plan continues to be
    very general and does not sufficiently discuss GSA's planned
    actions to verify and validate data that will be used to measure
    results. Figure XVIII.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and
    key weaknesses that need to be addressed in future plans. Figure
    XVIII.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plan                           *
    Provides sufficient context for understanding GSA's operations and
    what it intends to achieve. * Contains clear connections between
    GSA's mission, strategic goals, and performance goals. * Includes
    goals and measures that are quantifiable, with related baselines
    and targets. * Contains clear relationships between goals and
    measures. Key Weaknesses * Does not sufficiently discuss how the
    performance goals and measures link to the program activities and
    funding in GSA's budget. * Does not explain how GSA will ensure
    that its performance data are reliable. 1 GSA's fiscal year 2000
    performance plan contained revised goals, measures, and targets
    for fiscal year 1999; GSA refers to it as the "Fiscal Years
    1999/2000 Performance Plan." Our analysis compared this plan with
    the fiscal year 1999 performance plan, which GSA issued on March
    5, 1998, hereafter referred to as the "fiscal year 1999
    performance plan" or "the 1999 plan." Page 102
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XVIII Observations on the General Services
    Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 GSA's
    fiscal year 2000 performance plan represented a moderate
    improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it corrects a
    number of the weaknesses that we identified in our assessment of
    the fiscal year 1999 plan.2 The 1999 plan contained many goals
    that were not quantifiable or outcome oriented. Also, the goals
    were not always linked to specific program activities and funding
    in GSA's budget. The plan also did not discuss GSA's coordination
    efforts for its many crosscutting activities, did not have an
    explicit discussion of the strategies and resources that were
    needed to achieve goals, and did not discuss the actions GSA had
    taken to address known data limitations. Overall, the fiscal year
    2000 plan more fully meets the criteria in the Results Act and
    related guidance and provides sufficient context for understanding
    GSA's operations and what it intends to achieve. Among its
    improvements, the plan has (1) much better linkages between GSA's
    mission, strategic goals, and performance goals; (2) goals and
    measures that are more quantifiable and outcome oriented; and (3)
    clearer relationships between the goals and measures. For example,
    measures of the percentage of construction and repair and
    alteration projects delivered on time are directly linked to the
    performance goals related to the on-time delivery of these
    services. The plan is also improved in how it addresses
    crosscutting issues, management problems, and the strategies
    needed to achieve the goals. However, the plan does not
    sufficiently discuss budget resources needed to achieve the goals
    or adequately describe GSA's efforts to verify and validate
    performance data. For example, the narrative for 30 of the 58
    goals does not directly link the goals to the budget or explain
    why the linkage is missing. On March 30, 1999, GSA's Chief
    Financial Officer, Director of Budget, and Agency Comments
    Managing Director for Planning provided oral agency comments on a
    draft of our analysis of GSA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan.
    They generally agreed with our analysis and said it would help
    them correct the weaknesses we identified as they develop next
    year's plan. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/gg99113r.pdf for
    additional information on GSA's comments (in GAO/GGD-99-113R) on
    our observations. Bernard Ungar, Director, Key Contact
    Government Business Operations General Government Division (202)
    512-8387 2 Results Act: Observations on the General Services
    Administration's Annual Performance Plan (GAO/GGD-98-110, May 11,
    1998). Page 103                              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XIX
    Observations on the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April
    22, 1999, we briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the
    National Aeronautics and Space Administration's (NASA) performance
    plan for fiscal year 2000.  The following are our overall
    observations on the plan. The complete text (GAO/NSIAD-99-186R) of
    our observations and NASA's comments on those observations are
    available at http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99186r.pdf only on the
    Internet. NASA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan should
    be useful to Summary of
    decisionmakers. It provides a limited picture of intended
    performance Observations                             across the
    agency, a general discussion of strategies and resources the
    agency will use to achieve its goals, and limited confidence that
    performance information will be credible. An example of a positive
    change regarding the plan's presentation of strategies and goals
    is the discussion on NASA's objective of extending the use of
    Earth Science research for national, state, and local application.
    The plan links that objective with the achievement of three
    performance goals, namely having at least one Regional Earth
    Science Application become self-sustaining; developing at least
    two new data products for routine decisionmaking by user
    organizations; and implementing at least five joint applications
    research projects/partnerships with state and local governments in
    remote sensing applications. Figure XIX.1 highlights the plan's
    major strengths and key weaknesses as NASA seeks to make
    additional improvements to its plan. Figure XIX.1: Major Strengths
    and Key    Major Strengths Weakneses of Fiscal Year 2000
*Shows how budgetary resources are related to performance.
    Performance Plan                         *Provides expanded detail
    on performance evaluations and identifies specific data sources.
    Key Weaknesses *Does not provide clear rationale for how
    information technology related strategies and programs contribute
    to achievement of performance goals. *Does not include procedures
    for verifying and validating performance data. NASA's fiscal year
    2000 plan represents a moderate improvement over the fiscal year
    1999 plan in that it indicates some degree of progress in
    addressing the weaknesses NASA's fiscal year 2000 plan represents
    a moderate improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it
    indicates some degree of progress in addressing the weaknesses
    identified in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plan. In
    reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that the plan
    could have provided a clearer picture of intended performance
    across the agency, did not fully portray how strategies and
    resources would help achieve performance goals, and Page 104
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XIX Observations on the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 partially
    provided confidence that performance information would be
    credible. Among improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plan is the
    inclusion of performance objectives or targets that fully or
    partially address 5 of 10 management challenges identified by
    NASA's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) or us. For example,
    we reported that contract management is a continuing area of high
    risk and that until NASA's financial management system is
    operational, performance assessments relying on cost data may be
    incomplete. NASA's plan addresses this issue by establishing a
    performance target to implement new financial systems and business
    procedures, including the installation of its Integrated Financial
    Management System. Although NASA officials said that they did not
    specifically attempt to address the major management challenges
    identified by the NASA OIG, the plan does include performance
    objectives or targets that relate to some of these management
    challenges. For example, the OIG reported that ensuring the
    availability of launch vehicles presented challenges. These
    challenges included (1) ensuring the availability of small
    expendable launch vehicles so that milestones can be met and NASA
    missions are cost-effective and (2) evaluating whether NASA's
    providing the majority of development funds and assigning
    technology rights to its industry partners in the development of
    the new reusable launch vehicles is in the best interest of the
    government. The plan includes an objective related to this
    challenge that NASA's plan characterizes as revolutionizing space
    launch capabilities. Specifically, it provides a performance
    target to begin and complete flight testing of the X-33 in fiscal
    year 2000 to demonstrate technologies required for future reusable
    launch vehicles. An example of another improvement in NASA's plan
    is the addition of a crosswalk that links strategic objectives and
    performance targets to the budget categories used in NASA's
    congressional budget justification. This crosswalk indicates that
    NASA's performance targets cover the program activities in its
    budget justification. Use of the crosswalk is illustrated in the
    example related to NASA's objective of extending the use of Earth
    Science research for national, state, and local application. The
    plan provides limited confidence that the agency's performance
    plan will be credible. It does not include an explicit discussion
    of procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance
    data. Furthermore, the plan does not address possible limitations
    in internal and external sources of data, such as quality,
    validity, and timeliness. For example, NASA will rely on Federal
    Aviation Administration data to ascertain whether its goal of
    increasing operations throughout was achieved. Page 105
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XIX Observations on the National Aeronautics and Space
    Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April
    27, 1999, we obtained written comments from NASA's Associate
    Agency Comments    Administrator on a draft of our analysis of
    NASA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan. In commenting on
    a draft of our analysis, the Associate Deputy Administrator stated
    that the agency generally believes that our report is balanced and
    will endeavor to use our observations in improving the management
    of the agency. NASA raised concern about three issues that we
    identified in our analysis. One involved the inclusion of major
    management challenges identified by the NASA OIG in the plan. NASA
    stated that the report containing the OIG's management challenges
    was issued subsequent to the agency's formulation, selection, and
    submittal of its performance targets to the Office of Management
    and Budget. NASA contends that the OIG's management challenges
    were identified too late to enable inclusion in the performance
    plan. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99186r.pdf for additional
    information on NASA's comments (in GAO/NSIAD-99-186R) on our
    observations. Allen Li Key Contact        Associate Director,
    Defense Acquisitions Issues National Security and International
    Affairs Division 202-512-3600 Page 106             GAO/GGD/AIMD-
    99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XX
    Observations on the National Science Foundation's Performance Plan
    for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 7, 1999, we briefed congressional
    staff on our analysis of the National Science Foundation (NSF)
    performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The following are our
    overall observations on the plan. The complete text (GAO/RCED-99-
    206R) of our observations and NSF's comments on those observations
    are available at http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99206r.pdf only on
    the Internet. NSF's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan will
    be of general Summary of                              usefulness
    to decisionmakers. The plan provides a general picture of
    Observations                            intended performance
    across the agency, a general discussion of the strategies and
    resources the agency will use to achieve its goals, and limited
    confidence that agency's performance information will be credible.
    While the plan identifies crosscutting efforts with other
    agencies, it does not provide clear information on the linkages
    between the NSF budget and its performance goals, which will be
    key for congressional reviewers. NSF provides a matrix documenting
    the relative extent to which NSF functions, such as "research
    project support" and "education and training," support its goals
    such as the "connections between discoveries and their use in
    service to society." But there is no direct linkage between
    specific budget activities such as "U.S. Polar Research Program"
    or "graduate education" and NSF's performance goals.  Figure XX.1
    highlights the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as NSF
    seeks to make additional improvements to its plan. Figure XX.1:
    Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal
    Year 2000          * Uses an alternative format to describe type
    and level of performance. Performance Plan
* Provides additional outcome oriented goals. * Links strategies
    to specific program goals and describes how strategies contribute
    to the achievement of those goals. * Identifies crosscutting
    efforts with other related federal programs. Key Weaknesses *
    Provides limited discussion of capital, human, and financial
    resources. * Lacks clear linkages between the budget and
    performance goals. * Provides limited confidence in the validation
    and verification of data. The fiscal year 2000 performance plan
    indicates moderate progress in addressing the weaknesses that we
    identified in our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 performance
    plan. In reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that
    there was insufficient detail on crosscutting programs, external
    factors, strategies and resources needed to achieve goals, and
    data verification and validation. Among the improvements in the
    fiscal year Page 107            GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XX Observations on the
    National Science Foundation's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 2000 plan are additional information on crosscutting efforts
    and external factors. Regarding crosscutting efforts, NSF
    describes both formal and informal agreements with other agencies.
    For example, under its goal of "discoveries at and across the
    frontier of science and engineering," NSF supports research
    activities with the Department of Energy at the large hadron
    collider in Switzerland and with the National Aeronautics and
    Space Administration at its space-based and ground-based astronomy
    facilities. NSF also improved its plan by describing external
    factors that could affect performance. For example, NSF describes
    the necessary commitment on the part of school districts, schools,
    and their faculty to modifying their approaches to education in
    order to enhance achievement for the NSF performance goal of
    "improved achievement in mathematics and science skills needed by
    all Americans." Furthermore, NSF officials told us that if they
    believe work funded through a grant cannot be reliably completed,
    they may stop funding for the award. While this may not improve
    performance, it may mitigate the continued use of funds for
    unproductive activities. Improvements that still need to be made
    to the performance plan are more detailed discussions of the
    resources needed to achieve goals and further elaboration on the
    procedures to assess the reliability and validity of data used to
    assess goal achievement. On April 21, 1999, we obtained comments
    from NSF officials, including the Agency Comments    Deputy
    Director, on a draft of our analysis of the agency's fiscal year
    2000 annual performance plan. These officials generally agreed
    with the observations made in the draft. They provided
    clarification on several points about the linkages between
    performance and resources and about issues concerning measurement
    and data verification and validation. We incorporated this
    information in the report as appropriate. NSF officials pointed
    out that the Foundation is one of the only agencies using the
    qualitative method to assess performance in research and education
    by using the alternative format. To test this approach, officials
    are using its Committees of Visitors process to assess performance
    for NSF's first performance report for March 2000. This point was
    incorporated in the body of the report. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99206r.pdf for additional information
    on NSF's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-206R) on our observations.
    Victor S. Rezendes, Director Key Contact        Energy, Resources,
    and Science Resources, Community, and Economic Development
    Division 202-512-3841 Page 108             GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXI
    Observations on the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 19, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Nuclear Regulatory
    Commission's (NRC) performance plan for fiscal year 2000.   The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/RCED-99-213R) of our observations and NRC's comments on
    those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99213r.pdf only on the Internet.
    NRC's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan should be useful to
    Summary of                               decisionmakers in that it
    provides a general discussion of intended Observations
    performance across the agency and of strategies and resources the
    agency will use to achieve its goals.  However, the plan focuses
    on strategies, not outcomes and provides limited confidence to
    judge the credibility of performance information because it is
    incomplete and lacks specificity. Figure XXI.1 highlights the
    plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as NRC seeks to make
    additional improvements to its plan. Figure XXI.1: Major Strengths
    and Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000
* Contains measurable goals and quantifiable measures. Performance
    Plan                         * Discusses strategies and resources
    for achieving intended performance. * Better discusses
    crosscutting functions and external factors. Key Weaknesses *
    Focuses on strategies, not outcomes. * Does not show how achieving
    strategies and outputs will contribute to meeting performance
    goals. * Lacks details to determine that performance information
    is credible. NRC's fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents a
    moderate improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it
    indicates some degree of progress in addressing the weaknesses
    that we identified in our assessment of the earlier plan.  In
    reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed that NRC could
    have provided a clearer picture of the agency's intended
    performance overall as well as the strategies and resources it
    would use to achieve its performance goals.  We also noted that
    the fiscal year 1999 performance plan did not provide confidence
    that the agency's performance information would be credible.  In
    its fiscal year 2000 plan, NRC (1) better discusses how its
    strategies and resources will help achieve its goals, (2) links
    its strategies to programs, and (3) better discusses crosscutting
    functions with other government agencies and external factors that
    could affect achieving the goals established.  However, NRC
    focuses on strategies, not outcomes; has not related the outputs
    to its Page 109           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXI Observations on the
    Nuclear Regulatory Commission's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year
    2000 performance goals; and provides limited details to determine
    whether its performance information is credible. On April 12,
    1999, we obtained oral comments from NRC staff, including Agency
    Comments    the Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Office of the
    Chief Financial Officer, on a draft of our analysis of the fiscal
    year 2000 annual performance plan. With the exception of the
    information on NRC's performance information, the agency generally
    agreed with our observations.  In addition, NRC staff said that
    the agency is committed to moving to an outcome-oriented,
    performance-based organization and recognizes that a multiyear
    effort will be required to do so.  They also said that it would be
    very difficult to show the impact that the agency's programs have
    on nuclear industry performance or the safe operation of plants.
    See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99213r.pdf for additional
    information on NRC's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-213R) on our
    observations. Victor Rezendes Key Contact        Energy,
    Resources, and Science Issue Area Resources, Community, and
    Economic Development Division 202-512-3841 Page 110
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXII Observations on the Office of Personnel Management's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 6, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Office of Personnel
    Management's (OPM) performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/GGD-99-125) of our observations and OPM's comments on
    those observations are available at http://www.gao.gov/cgi-
    bin/getrpt?ggd-99-125 only on the Internet. OPM's fiscal year 2000
    annual performance plan provides a general picture Summary of
    of intended performance across the agency. We found that the
    plan's Observations     performance goals address OPM's major
    programs and priorities. For example, to enhance federal workforce
    quality, the plan has a goal for OPM to develop a federal
    workforce planning, analysis, and forecasting model to be used by
    agencies. However, OPM's plan could have been more useful if it
    contained cost-based performance measures to show how efficiently
    OPM performs certain operations and activities, such as the cost
    to process civil service retirement payments made either by
    electronic funds transfer or check. OPM's annual performance plan
    includes a general discussion of strategies and resources the
    agency will use to achieve its goals. For each of its goals, the
    plan discusses a strategy for achieving the goal. For example, the
    plan discusses its strategy to enhance its information security
    program by conducting internal and external evaluations of its
    systems. OPM's year 2000 performance plan provides limited
    confidence that agency performance information will be credible.
    Although the plan discusses OPM's verification and validation of
    its performance measures, the discussion does not always provide
    assurance that the methods used will be reliable. For example, the
    plan proposes using results of several surveys for verification
    and validation with response rates ranging up to 57 percent.
    However, the plan proposes using survey results of a sample of
    human resources specialists as a key element in its measurement
    program, but the survey received only a 29 percent response rate.
    Figure XXII.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and key
    weaknesses as OPM seeks to make additional improvements to its
    plan. Page 111          GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year
    2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXII Observations on the Office of
    Personnel Management's Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000
    Figure XXII.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major Strengths
    Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000            * Contains more results-
    oriented goals and quantifiable measures than in Performance Plan
    the fiscal year 1999 plan. * Shows how budgetary resources related
    to achievement of goals. * Describes how agency plans to build,
    maintain, and marshal the human capital needed to achieve results
    for many of its program activities. Key Weaknesses * Lacks
    strategies to leverage or mitigate the effects of external factors
    on the accomplishment of performance goals. * Does not fully
    explain how OPM will ensure that its performance data are valid
    and reliable. OPM's fiscal year 2000 performance plan represents a
    moderate improvement over the fiscal year 1999 plan in that it
    addresses a number of the weaknesses that we identified in our
    assessment of the fiscal year 1999 plan.1 In reviewing the fiscal
    year 1999 plan, we observed that the plan's goals typically were
    activity or output-oriented rather than results- oriented, and
    that the plan could also be improved by including more information
    on how resources would be used to achieve goals. We also noted
    that the 1999 plan did not discuss known data limitations that
    could affect the validity of various performance measures that OPM
    planned to use. Among improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plan
    are the increased number of results-oriented performance goals and
    quantifiable measures and the use of baseline and trend data for
    past performance. For example, the plan has a goal to further
    simplify the General Schedule classification system to fewer than
    225 classification standards and another goal to maintain or
    increase the fiscal year 1999 level of customer satisfaction,
    processing times, and accuracy rates for processing new claims for
    annuity and survivor benefits. On April 8, 1999, we obtained oral
    comments from OPM officials, including Agency Comments
    the Deputy Chief of Staff, on a draft of our analysis of OPM's
    fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan. These officials
    generally agreed with out observations. In some cases, they
    suggested additional context concerning our observations. We made
    changes where appropriate to reflect OPM's comments. See
    http://www.gao/gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?ggd-99-125 for additional 1
    Results Act: Observations on the Office of Personnel Management's
    Annual Performance Plan (GAO/GGD-98-130, July 28, 1998). Page 112
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXII Observations on the Office of Personnel Management's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 information on OPM's
    comments (in GAO/GGD-99-125) on our observations. Michael Brostek,
    Associate Director Key Contact    Federal Management and Workforce
    Issues General Government Division (202) 512-8676 Page 113
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXIII Observations on the Small Business Administration's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 8, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Small Business
    Administration's (SBA) performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/RCED-99-211R) of our observations and SBA's comments on
    those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99211r.pdf only on the Internet.
    SBA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a general
    picture Summary of        of intended performance across the
    agency. For example, the plan's 13 Observations      performance
    goals are objective and measurable through the plan's 55
    performance measures, all of which have targeted levels of
    performance for fiscal year 2000. At the same time, the plan is
    limited in its discussion of the strategies and the resources that
    SBA will use to achieve its goals. For example, the plan states
    that during fiscal year 2000, SBA will spend $3 million to train
    its staff in the skills needed to meet its current programs and
    responsibilities. However, the plan does not discuss the types of
    human resource skills that are needed to achieve the fiscal year
    2000 performance goals or the types of training to be provided to
    help ensure that staff have those skills. Also, the plan is
    limited in the degree of confidence that it provides that SBA's
    performance data will be credible. For example, means identified
    in the plan to validate performance data are typically one or two
    word descriptors, such as "publications" or "SBA records," which
    are sources of data rather than ways to validate or verify the
    data. Figure XXIII.1 highlights the plan's major strengths and key
    weaknesses. Page 114           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXIII Observations on
    the Small Business Administration's Performance Plan for Fiscal
    Year 2000 Figure XXIII.1: Major Strengths and Key    Major
    Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000             * Created a
    set of performance goals and measures that addresses SBA's
    Performance Plan                           program performance. *
    Included baseline and trend data for performance measures. *
    Identified other agencies whose programs and activities complement
    those of SBA. Key Weaknesses * Did not identify performance goals
    and measures that specifically address the major management
    problems identified by SBA's Inspector General. * Did not link the
    strategies to the performance goals and describe how they will
    help achieve those goals. * Did not describe strategies or actions
    SBA could take to mitigate the effects of external factors on the
    accomplishment of performance goals. * Did not identify how SBA
    will use its human capital to help achieve its performance goals.
* Did not describe efforts to verify and validate the data used to
    assess performance. * Did not discuss the limitations of internal
    and external data sources for assessing performance. SBA's fiscal
    year 2000 plan has made little, if any, improvement over the
    agency's fiscal year 1999 plan. While the fiscal year 2000
    performance plan recognizes the weaknesses that we identified in
    our assessment of the fiscal year 1999 performance plan and makes
    specific commitments to address those weaknesses, real progress is
    not yet evident. In reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we noted
    that it did not discuss SBA's efforts to coordinate with other
    agencies whose programs and activities complement those of SBA.1
    For example, SBA's strategic goal to help businesses and families
    recover from disasters is a mission shared by the Federal
    Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and by other federal, state,
    and local disaster agencies. Other than noting that SBA and FEMA
    would continue efforts to develop a joint home-loss inspection
    report, SBA's fiscal year 1999 plan did not discuss how SBA had
    coordinated or would coordinate its disaster-relief activities
    with FEMA and the other agencies. Also, the fiscal year 1999 plan
    did not identify the technological and human resources SBA needed
    to achieve its intended performance, did not clearly 1Results Act:
    Observations on the Small Business Administration's Fiscal Year
    1999 Annual Performance Plan (GAO/RCED-98-200R, May 28, 1998).
    Page 115                              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXIII
    Observations on the Small Business Administration's Performance
    Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 link the plan's performance goals and
    measures with the program activities in SBA's budget, and did not
    discuss the limitations that affect the credibility of data used
    to assess performance. We noted that the fiscal year 1999 plan
    contained over 100 performance measures and that such an array of
    measures might be excessive and obscure, rather than clarify,
    performance issues. We also pointed out that 14 of the measures
    did not have targeted levels of performance for fiscal year 1999.
    We observed that, to be more useful, SBA's fiscal year 1999 plan
    should more completely describe SBA's strategies for achieving its
    performance goals; explicitly discuss how information technology
    would help SBA achieve its performance goals; more thoroughly
    discuss the actions that SBA could take to mitigate the effects of
    external factors on its performance; and describe how SBA would
    attribute achievement of, or changes in, the plan's performance
    goals specifically to the agency's programs and activities. SBA
    improved its fiscal year 2000 performance plan by reducing the
    number of performance measures from over 100 in the fiscal year
    1999 plan to 55 and by establishing targeted levels of performance
    for fiscal year 2000 for each performance measure. In addition,
    the fiscal year 2000 plan discusses SBA's difficulty in isolating
    the effects of its 7(a) guaranteed business loans and other
    assistance in achieving the plan's performance goals as well as
    SBA's efforts to deal with the agency's Year 2000 computer
    problems. On May 11, 1999, SBA's Chief Operating Officer provided
    us with written Agency Comments    comments on our analysis of
    SBA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan. SBA disagreed with our
    overall observation that its fiscal year 2000 performance plan is
    of limited usefulness to decision makers. SBA noted that its
    program managers found the plan useful in showing how SBA's
    performance has changed over the past 3 years and that the Office
    of Management and Budget found the plan useful in its budgetary
    deliberations. Our observation does not intend to infer that SBA's
    plan is of limited usefulness to everyone. Rather, our point is
    that the weaknesses we observed in the plan make it of limited
    usefulness in providing a clear picture of SBA's intended
    performance during fiscal year 2000, discussing the strategies and
    resources that SBA will use to achieve the performance goals in
    the plan, and providing confidence that data SBA will use to
    assess its performance will be credible. SBA also disagreed with
    our overall judgement that its fiscal year 2000 plan had improved
    little, if any, over the agency's fiscal year 1999 plan. SBA noted
    several improvements to the plan, including a more comprehensive
    discussion of other public and private sector programs that
    crosscut those of SBA. Our analysis Page 116
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXIII Observations on the Small Business Administration's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 recognizes that SBA improved
    its fiscal year 2000 performance plan and gives SBA credit for
    such improvements. At the same time, it is our position that SBA's
    fiscal year 2000 plan has improved little, if any, over the
    agency's fiscal year 1999 plan because a number of key weaknesses
    that we observed in the fiscal year 1999 plan remain in the fiscal
    year 2000 plan. See http://www.gao.gov/corresp/rc99211r.pdf for
    additional information on SBA's comments (in GAO/RCED-99-211R) on
    our observations. Judy A. England-Joseph, Director Key Contact
    Housing and Community Development Issues Resources, Community, and
    Economic Development Division 202-512-7631 Page 117
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXIV Observations on the Social Security Administration's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 8, 1999, we briefed
    congressional staff on our analysis of the Social Security
    Administration's (SSA) performance plan for fiscal year 2000. The
    following are our overall observations on the plan. The complete
    text (GAO/HEHS-99-162R) of our observations and SSA's comments on
    those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99162r.pdf only on the Internet.
    SSA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a clear
    picture of Summary of                                intended
    performance across the agency, a general discussion of strategies
    Observations                              and resources the agency
    will use to achieve its goals, and general confidence that agency
    performance information will be credible. Figure XXIV.1 highlights
    the plan's major strengths and key weaknesses as SSA seeks to make
    additional improvements. Figure XXIV.1: Major Strengths and Key
    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000            *
    Contains results-oriented goals and quantifiable measures.
    Performance Plan                          * Contains intermediate
    outputs or outcomes linked to end outcomes. * Includes baseline
    and trend data. * Recognizes crosscutting agencies and
    organizations. * Shows how budgetary resources are related to
    performance goals. * Discusses strategies and resources for
    achieving intended performance. Key Weaknesses * Information
    technology strategies, performance goals and resources not clearly
    defined or linked to SSA's five strategic goals. * Discussion of
    external environment lacks a clear strategy for mitigating or
    using identified conditions to accomplish SSA's strategic goals.
    SSA's fiscal year 2000 plan represents much improvement over the
    fiscal year 1999 plan in that it is well on its way to addressing
    all of the weaknesses that we identified in our assessment of the
    prior plan. The 1999 plan fell short of meeting the criteria set
    forth in the Results Act because, in several key areas, its
    performance goals were not measurable or the level of performance
    to be achieved was not adequately defined. For example, we noted
    that SSA's performance goals under its larger strategic goal to-
    "promote responsive social security programs and conduct effective
    policy development, research, and program evaluation"-were not
    clearly related to intended performance. Thus, for this goal and
    many others in the plan, it was difficult to see how SSA would
    measure intended progress or achievement. Page 118
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXIV Observations on the Social Security Administration's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 SSA's fiscal year 1999
    performance plan also lacked baseline information necessary to
    compare intended performance to prior years and did not clearly
    link performance goals with its budget program activities. Nor did
    it include sufficient goals and strategies for addressing
    longstanding problems in the mission-critical "high-risk"
    Supplemental Security Income program. The plan also did not
    acknowledge or include a discussion of SSA's efforts to coordinate
    its activities with other agencies having related strategic or
    performance goals. We also found that SSA had not adequately
    discussed how its strategies and resources would help achieve its
    goals. Thus, it was difficult to tell whether SSA adequately
    planned how it would achieve the desired results or whether its
    performance goals were reasonable, given the level of resources
    available to the agency. Finally, we concluded that SSA's fiscal
    year 1999 plan provided insufficient information to assess whether
    agency performance data was credible or that SSA was taking
    necessary steps to ensure data integrity. Among improvements in
    the fiscal year 2000 plan is the addition of several key
    performance goals and an overall improvement in the quality and
    clarity of many other goals and measures necessary to determine
    intended performance and assess success. For example, the plan now
    includes clearer linkages between SSA's broader strategic goal of
    "promoting responsive social security programs" and the annual
    performance goals and measures essential to achieving the goal's
    intended results. Throughout the document, the fiscal year 2000
    plan also now includes clearer discussions of the linkages between
    SSA's mission, goals, and budget activities. It also provides
    baseline performance information dating back to fiscal year 1997,
    essential to making comparisons between prior and proposed levels
    of performance. In response to our prior findings, SSA has also
    included additional goals and measures to assess its strategy for
    addressing problems in the mission-critical SSI program. For
    example, the plan now includes a fiscal year 2000 goal to increase
    SSI debt collections by about 7 percent over fiscal year 1999
    levels. Finally, the plan provides additional information for
    Congressional and other reviewers to assess whether SSA's
    performance data is credible. On April 23, 1999, we obtained
    comments from agency officials, including Agency Comments    the
    Commissioner of Social Security, on a draft of our analysis of
    SSA's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan. These officials
    generally agreed with our conclusions and recommendations for
    improvement. They also noted that SSA intends to continue to
    utilize GAO's feedback to improve the agency's ability to manage
    for results and enhance the usefulness of its planning documents.
    SSA disagreed with our conclusion that its performance information
    remained vulnerable to potential unauthorized Page 119
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXIV Observations on the Social Security Administration's
    Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 access and manipulation. The
    agency also noted that its systems have undergone tests to ensure
    that intrusions should not occur. We agree that progress has been
    made in the area of internal controls. However, vulnerabilities
    remain and further actions are needed to ensure the integrity of
    SSA's performance data. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/he99162r.pdf for additional information
    on SSA's comments (in GAO/HEHS-99-162R) on our observations.
    Cynthia M. Fagnoni Key Contact    Director, Education, Workforce
    and Income Security Issues Health, Education and Human Services
    Division (202) 512-7202 Page 120              GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXV
    Observations on the U.S. Agency for International Development's
    Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 2000 On April 16, 1999, we
    briefed congressional staff on our analysis of the U.S. Agency for
    International Development's (USAID) performance plan for fiscal
    year 2000. The following are our overall observations on the plan.
    The complete text (GAO/NSIAD-99-188R) of our observations and
    USAID's comments on those observations are available at
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99188r.pdf only on the Internet.
    USAID's fiscal year 2000 annual performance plan provides a
    general Summary of                               overview of
    intended performance across the agency and a general Observations
    discussion of the strategies and resources the agency will use to
    achieve its goals. However, USAID needs to develop a clearer
    linkage between broad development goals and specific USAID country
    program goals and results. For example, although the plan cites
    increased reliance on private markets as one of USAID's long-term
    performance goals, the plan provides no information as to how
    USAID strategies or programs support this goal. USAID also needs
    to continue its efforts to improve the quality of data used to
    measure performance. Figure XXV.1 highlights the plan's major
    strengths and key weaknesses. Figure XXV.1: Major Strengths and
    Key    Major Strengths Weaknesses of Fiscal Year 2000           *
    Contains results-oriented goals and quantifiable performance
    measures. Performance Plan                         * Generally
    discusses strategies and resources for achieving intended
    performance. * Discusses data limitations and external factors
    affecting results. Key Weaknesses * Does not develop clear linkage
    between agency and individual country goals. * Does not identify
    the full range of other agency and other donor programs that may
    contribute to achieving overall goals. * Continues to rely on weak
    financial and program results data. USAID'S fiscal year 2000
    performance plan represents a moderate improvement over the fiscal
    year 1999 plan in that it shows some progress in addressing the
    weaknesses that we identified in our assessment of the fiscal year
    1999 plan. In reviewing the fiscal year 1999 plan, we observed
    that (1) most of the goals and measures were broadly defined to
    reflect the overall goals of the international donor community,
    making it difficult to assess the results of USAID's specific
    activities; (2) the plan did not provide detail on USAID's
    specific strategies and programs, the external factors involved,
    or the specific resources to be provided; and (3) the plan did not
    discuss the reliability of performance information that it will
    use to Page 121           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal
    Year 2000 Performance Plans Appendix XXV Observations on the U.S.
    Agency for International Development's Annual Performance Plan for
    Fiscal Year 2000 demonstrate the linkage of its programs to
    results. Among improvements in the fiscal year 2000 plan, we note
    that (1) USAID has provided greater detail in discussing agency
    goals and performance indicators by geographic regions, although
    not comprehensively by country; (2) USAID has in some areas tried
    to provide data linking performance indicators to countries having
    USAID programs, rather than just providing overall regional data;
    and (3) USAID has provided a more thorough discussion of data
    limitations and external factors affecting the results of its
    programs. On May 4, 1999, we obtained comments from USAID
    officials, including Agency Comments    the Deputy Assistant
    Administrator, Bureau for Policy and Program Coordination, on a
    draft of our analysis of USAID's fiscal year 2000 annual
    performance plan. These officials generally agreed with our
    analysis. In addition, with respect to our comments regarding the
    need to link agency goals with individual country goals, they
    noted that USAID is currently developing methods of improving the
    linkage among the Annual Performance Plan, the Annual Performance
    Report, and the country coverage provided in USAID's Congressional
    Presentation. They also noted that they are exploring ways to
    improve the quality of data used to assess performance. See
    http://www.gao.gov/corresp/ns99188r.pdf for additional information
    on USAID's comments (in GAO/NSIAD-99-188R) on our observations.
    Benjamin F. Nelson, Director Key Contact        International
    Relations and Trade Issues National Security and International
    Affairs Division 202-512-4128 Page 122
    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans
    Appendix XXVI GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments J.
    Christopher Mihm, (202)512-8676 GAO Contacts In addition to the
    individual named above, Dottie Self, Joe Wholey, Lauren
    Acknowledgments    Alpert, Jan Bogus, Donna Byers, Laura Castro,
    Anita Pilch, Susan Ragland, Kim Raheb, Lisa Shames, and Marlene
    Zacharias made key contributions to this report. The examples used
    in this report are drawn from the assessments of the individual
    agency annual performance plans that were done by staff across
    GAO.  Thus, in addition to the individuals named above, the staff
    who worked on the individual agency plan assessments also made
    important contributions to this report.  The individuals are
    identified in the separate products on agency plans available on
    the Internet. Page 123           GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 Agencies'
    Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Page 124    GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215
    Agencies' Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Plans Ordering Information
    The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
    Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
    following address, accompanied by a check or money order made out
    to the Superintendent of Documents, when necessary. VISA and
    MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also. Orders for 100 or more
    copies to be mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
    Order by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050
    Washington, DC 20013 or visit: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of
    4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC
    Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 or by using
    fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537. Each day, GAO
    issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To receive
    facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
    days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touch-tone phone. A
    recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain these
    lists. For information on how to access GAO reports on the
    INTERNET, send e-mail message with "info" in the body to:
    [email protected] or visit GAO's World Wide Web Home Page at:
    http://www.gao.gov United States General Accounting Office
    Bulk Rate Washington, D.C. 20548-0001     Postage & Fees Paid GAO
    Permit No. G100 Official Business Penalty for Private Use $300
    Address Correction Requested (410430)

*** End of document. ***