Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires Strong
Congressional Role (Testimony, 03/06/96, GAO/T-GGD-96-79).

GAO discussed: (1) the Government Performance and Results Act's (GPRA)
potential contributions to congressional and executive branch
decisionmaking; and (2) Congress' role in implementing GPRA. GAO noted
that: (1) more federal agencies are recognizing the benefits of focusing
on outcomes rather than activities to improve their programs' efficiency
and effectiveness; (2) agencies cannot quickly and easily shift their
focus because outcomes can be difficult to define and measure and major
changes in services and processes may be required; (3) strong and
sustained congressional attention is needed to ensure GPRA success; (4)
GPRA provides a mechanism for reassessing agencies' missions and
focusing programs while downsizing and increasing efficiency; (5)
unclear goals and missions have hampered the targeting of program
resources and caused overlaps and duplications; (6) Congress needs to
hold periodic comprehensive oversight hearings and to gather information
on measuring outcomes and determine how GPRA performance goals and
information drive agencies' daily operations, how agencies use
performance information to improve their effectiveness, agencies'
progress in improving their financial and information systems and staff
training and recruitment, and how agencies are aligning their core
business processes to support mission-related outcomes.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-GGD-96-79
     TITLE:  Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires 
             Strong Congressional Role
      DATE:  03/06/96
   SUBJECT:  Federal agency reorganization
             Reengineering (management)
             Management information systems
             Federal downsizing
             Oversight by Congress
            Agency missions
             Reporting requirements
             Cost control
             Congressional/executive relations
IDENTIFIER:  Coast Guard Marine Safety and Security Program
             EPA National Environmental Goals Project
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** 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.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Committee on Governmental Affairs
U.S.  Senate and
the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
9:30 a.m.  EST
Wednesday
March 6, 1996

MANAGING FOR RESULTS - ACHIEVING
GPRA'S OBJECTIVES REQUIRES STRONG
CONGRESSIONAL ROLE

Statement of Charles A.  Bowsher
Comptroller General Of the United States

GAO/T-GGD-96-79

GAO/GGD-96-79T

Managing for Results

(410021)



MANAGING FOR RESULTS:  ACHIEVING
GPRA'S OBJECTIVES REQUIRES STRONG
CONGRESSIONAL ROLE
============================================================ Chapter 0


   STATEMENT
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Messrs.  Chairmen and Members of the Committees: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the contribution that the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) can make to
congressional and executive branch decisionmaking and the key role
that Congress can play in fostering GPRA implementation. 

The effort to reduce the deficit has created the need to reexamine
and update the federal government's spending priorities.  As a
result, deficit reduction is placing added pressure on agencies to
clearly demonstrate that they are making sound and effective use of
taxpayers' dollars.  However, the hard decisions that must be made to
reduce the deficit and manage downsized federal agencies are made
more difficult when agencies--as is often the case--lack clear,
results-oriented goals and when reliable, accurate, and timely
program and financial information is not available.  Better
performance and financial information can advance the debate on the
need for and the effectiveness and efficiency of specific federal
programs. 

Congress already has established a legislative framework for
generating improvements in the kinds of information needed by
decisionmakers.  The Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act and
GPRA--passed under the joint leadership of the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight--represent the cornerstones of that legislative framework. 
I have discussed the first of these two cornerstones in previous
appearances before these committees .\1 I observed that, through the
implementation of the CFO Act, agencies have made steady progress in
overcoming decades of neglect in fundamental financial management
operations and reporting.  However, I also noted that much more
progress was essential if agencies were to produce audited financial
statements under the required timetable and to provide decisionmakers
with needed reliable financial and program cost information. 

The second of the legislative cornerstones, GPRA, requires agencies
to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report to the
President and Congress on the degree to which goals were met. 
Congress intended for GPRA to fundamentally shift the focus of
federal management and accountability from a preoccupation with
staffing and activity levels to a focus on "outcomes" of federal
programs.  Outcomes are results expressed in terms of the real
difference federal programs make in people's lives, such as the
increase in real wages earned by graduates of an employment training
program or a reduction in the fatality and injury rates in workplaces
or on highways.  GPRA is being implemented initially through 71 pilot
projects during fiscal years 1994 through 1996 to provide agencies
with experience in meeting its requirements before governmentwide
implementation in the fall of 1997. 

As you know, I have supported the intent of GPRA and believe that it
offers significant potential for enhancing decisionmaking and
improving the management of federal programs.  My comments today are
based on our completed and ongoing reviews of efforts to implement
GPRA in the pilot and nonpilot agencies.  GPRA requires that we
report to Congress by June 1, 1997, on the implementation of GPRA,
including the prospects for compliance by nonpilot agencies.  As
agreed with the committees, our strategy has been to report regularly
on GPRA and related initiatives throughout the pilot phase.\2 These
products will form the basis for our more comprehensive assessment in
1997. 

A growing number of federal agencies are beginning to see that a
focus on outcomes can lead to dramatic improvements in effectiveness. 
For example, the goal of the Coast Guard's marine safety program is
to protect the public, the environment, and U.S.  economic interests
through the prevention and mitigation of marine incidents.  When the
Coast Guard began to focus on the outcomes it was trying to achieve,
such as fewer injuries and fatalities, rather than on activities,
such as the physical inspections of ships, it fundamentally shifted
its program efforts.  The Coast Guard found that, although it
traditionally concentrated on inspections, two-thirds or more of all
reported casualties were caused by human error.  As a result, the
Coast Guard began to work in partnership with the towing industry to
build the knowledge and skills of towing industry employees.  The
Coast Guard's redirected efforts contributed to a significant decline
in the towing industry fatality rate, which went from 91 per 100,000
industry employees in 1990 to 36 per 100,000 in 1994. 

However, our work also has shown that a fundamental shift in focus to
include outcomes does not come quickly or easily.  The experiences of
states and foreign governments that are leaders in implementing
management reforms similar to GPRA--and the early experiences of many
GPRA pilots--show that outcomes can be very difficult to define and
measure.  These organizations also found that a focus on outcomes can
require major changes in the services that agencies provide and the
processes they use to provide those services, as the experience of
the Coast Guard demonstrates. 

Given that the changes envisioned by GPRA do not come quickly or
easily, my central theme today is that strong and sustained
congressional attention to GPRA implementation is critical.  Without
it, congressional and executive branch decisionmakers may not obtain
the information they need as they seek to create a government that is
more effective, efficient, and streamlined.  Authorization,
appropriation, budget, and oversight committees all have key
interests in ensuring that GPRA is successful, because once fully
implemented, it should provide valuable data to help inform the
decisions that each committee must make. 

Strong and sustained congressional attention to GPRA is needed now
because some agency officials have questioned Congress' commitment to
GPRA.  Officials in some pilot agencies have told us that Congress
seldom asked about the implementation of GPRA in their agencies, how
their agencies' services and products were directed at achieving
outcome-oriented goals, and their agencies' progress toward achieving
those goals.  Agency officials said that evidence of real involvement
and interest on the part of congressional committees in using
performance goals and information to help in congressional
decisionmaking would help to build and sustain support for GPRA
within their agencies. 


--------------------
\1 Financial Management:  Continued Momentum Essential to Achieve CFO
Act Goals (GAO/T-AIMD-96-10, Dec.  14, 1995) and Financial
Management:  Momentum Must Be Sustained to Achieve the Reform Goals
of the Chief Financial Officers Act (GAO/T-AIMD-95-204, July 25,
1995). 

\2 These products, along with other relevant GAO work, are listed in
the "Related GAO Products" section of this statement. 


   BETTER DEFINING AGENCIES'
   MISSIONS AND GOALS THROUGH THE
   GPRA STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

A comprehensive reassessment of agencies' roles and responsibilities
is central to any congressional and executive branch strategy that
seeks to bring about a government that is not only smaller but also
more efficient and effective.\3 GPRA provides a legislatively based
mechanism for Congress and the executive branch to jointly engage in
that reassessment.  In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized the vital
role that consultations with stakeholders should have in defining
agencies' missions and establishing their goals.  Therefore, GPRA
requires agencies to consult with Congress and other stakeholders in
the preparation of their strategic plans.  These consultations are an
important opportunity for Congress and the executive branch to work
together in reassessing and clarifying the missions of federal
agencies and the outcomes of agencies' programs. 


--------------------
\3 See Addressing the Deficit:  Budgetary Implications of Selected
GAO Work for Fiscal Year 1996 (GAO/OCG-95-2, Mar.  15, 1995) and
Deficit Reduction:  Opportunities to Address Long-Standing Government
Performance Issues (GAO/T-OCG-95-6, Sept.  13, 1995). 


      UNCLEAR MISSIONS AND GOALS
      AND POORLY TARGETED PROGRAMS
      HAMPER AGENCIES'
      EFFECTIVENESS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

Many federal agencies today are the product of years of accumulated
responsibilities and roles as new social and economic problems have
arisen.  While adding the particular roles and responsibilities may
have made sense at the time, the cumulative effect has been to create
a government in which all too frequently individual agencies lack
clear missions and goals and related agencies' efforts are not
complementary.  Moreover, legislative mandates may be unclear and
Congress, the executive branch, and other stakeholders may not agree
on the goals an agency and its programs should be trying to achieve,
the strategies for achieving those goals, and the ways to measure
their success. 

For example, we reported that the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), had not been able to target its resources as efficiently as
possible to address the nation's highest environmental priorities
because it did not have an overarching legislative mission and its
environmental responsibilities had not been integrated.\4 As a result
of these problems, EPA could not ensure that its efforts were
directed at addressing the environmental problems that posed the
greatest risk to the health of the U.S.  population or the
environment.  To respond to these shortcomings, EPA is beginning to
sharpen its mission and goals through its National Environmental
Goals Project, a long-range planning and goal-setting initiative
that, as part of EPA's efforts under GPRA, is seeking to develop a
set of measurable, stakeholder-validated goals for improving the
nation's environmental quality. 

The situation at EPA is by no means unique.  Our work has shown that
the effectiveness of other agencies, such as the Department of Energy
and the Economic Development Administration, also has been hampered
by the absence of clear missions and strategic goals.\5

The federal government's adaptive response over time to new needs and
problems also has contributed to fragmentation and overlap in a host
of program areas, such as food safety, employment training, early
childhood development, and rural development.\6 Overlapping and
fragmented programs waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program
customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. 
For example, the $20 billion appropriated for employment assistance
and training activities in fiscal year 1995 covered 163 programs that
were spread over 15 agencies.  Our work showed that these programs
were badly fragmented and in need of a major overhaul.\7

Moreover, in reviewing 62 programs that provided employment
assistance and training to the economically disadvantaged, we found
that most programs lacked very basic information needed to manage. 
Fewer than 50 percent of the programs collected data on whether
program participants obtained jobs after they received services, and
only 26 percent collected data on wages that participants earned.\8
Both houses of Congress in recent months have undertaken actions to
address the serious shortcomings in the federal government's
employment assistance and training programs, although agreement has
not been reached on the best approach to consolidation. 

In another example, we identified 8 agencies that are administering
17 different programs assisting rural areas in constructing,
expanding, or repairing water and wastewater facilities.\9 These
overlapping programs often delayed rural construction projects
because of differences in the federal agencies' timetables for grants
and loans.  Also, the programs experienced increased project costs
because rural governments had to participate in several essentially
similar federal grant and loan programs with differing requirements
and processes.  We found that, because of the number and complexity
of programs available, many rural areas needed to use a consultant to
apply for and administer federal grants or loans. 

The examples I have cited today of agencies with unclear missions and
other agencies that are duplicating each other's efforts are not
isolated cases.  Our work that has looked at agencies' spending
patterns has identified other federal agencies whose missions deserve
careful review to ensure against inappropriate duplication of
effort.\10


--------------------
\4 Environmental Protection:  Current Environmental Challenges
Require New Approaches (GAO/T-RCED-95-190, May 17, 1995). 

\5 See, for example, Department of Energy:  Need To Reevaluate Its
Role and Missions (GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan.  18, 1995) and EDA's
Management Challenges (GAO/GGD-95-62R, Feb.  17, 1995). 

\6 See, for example, Food Safety:  A Unified, Risk-Based Food Safety
System Needed (GAO/T-RCED-94-223, May 25, 1994) and Early Childhood
Programs:  Multiple Programs and Overlapping Target Groups
(GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct.  31, 1994). 

\7 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Major Overhaul Needed to
Create a More Efficient, Customer-Driven System (GAO/T-HEHS-95-70,
Feb.  6, 1995). 

\8 Multiple Employment Training Programs:  Most Federal Agencies Do
Not Know If Their Programs Are Working Effectively (GAO/HEHS-94-88,
Mar.  2, 1994). 

\9 Rural Development:  Patchwork of Federal Water and Sewer Programs
Is Difficult to Use (GAO/RCED-95-160BR, Apr.  13, 1995). 

\10 Government Restructuring:  Identifying Potential Duplication in
Federal Missions and Approaches (GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995). 


      GPRA PROVIDES OPPORTUNITY TO
      CLARIFY AGENCIES' MISSIONS
      AND BETTER FOCUS PROGRAMS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

As I noted in an appearance before the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs last May, in large measure, problems arising
from unclear agency missions and goals and overlap and fragmentation
among programs can best be solved through an integrated approach to
federal efforts.\11 Such an approach looks across the activities of
individual programs to the overall goals that the federal government
is trying to achieve.  The GPRA requirement that agencies consult
with Congress in developing their strategic plans presents an
important opportunity for congressional committees and the executive
branch to work together to address the problem of agencies whose
missions are not well-defined, whose goals are unclear or
nonexistent, and whose programs are not properly targeted.  Such
consultations will be helpful to Congress in modifying agencies'
missions, setting better priorities, and restructuring or terminating
programs. 

The agencies' consultations with Congress on strategic plans will
begin in earnest in the coming weeks and months.  The Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) guidance to agencies on GPRA
requirements for strategic planning said that agencies would be asked
to provide OMB with selected parts of their strategic plans this
year.  Some departments, such as the Department of the Treasury, are
scheduling meetings on their strategic plans with the appropriate
authorization, appropriation, and oversight committees. 

As congressional committees work with agencies on developing their
strategic plans, they should ask each agency to clearly articulate
its mission and strategic goals and to show how program efforts are
linked to the agency's mission and goals.  Making this linkage would
help agencies and Congress identify program efforts that may be
neither mission-related nor contribute to an agencies' desired
outcomes.  It would also help Congress to identify agencies whose
efforts are not coordinated.  As strategic planning efforts proceed,
Congress eventually could ask OMB to identify programs with similar
or conflicting goals. 


--------------------
\11 Government Reorganization:  Issues and Principles
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166, May 17, 1995). 


   STRONG CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT
   NEEDED TO ENSURE GPRA
   INTEGRATION INTO DAILY
   OPERATIONS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

As was to be expected during the initial efforts of such a
challenging management reform effort, the integration of GPRA into
program operations in pilot agencies has been uneven.  This
integration is important because Congress intended that
outcome-oriented strategic plans would serve as the starting points
for agencies' goal-setting and performance measurement efforts. 
Ultimately, performance information is to be used to inform an array
of congressional and executive branch decisions, such as those
concerning allocating scarce resources among competing priorities. 
To help accomplish this integration, GPRA requires that beginning
with fiscal year 1999, all agencies are to develop annual performance
plans that provide a direct linkage between long-term strategic goals
and what program managers are doing on a day-to-day basis to achieve
those goals.  These plans are to be submitted to OMB with the
agencies' budget submissions and are expected to be useful in
formulating the president's budget. 

Congress can play a decisive role in the implementation of GPRA by
insisting that performance goals and information be used to drive
day-to-day activities in the agencies.  Consistent congressional
interest at authorization, appropriation, budget, and oversight
hearings on the status of an agency's GPRA efforts, performance
measures, and uses of performance information to make decisions, will
send an unmistakable message to agencies that Congress expects GPRA
to be thoroughly implemented.  Chairman Clinger and the Committee on
Government Reform and Oversight took an important first step last
year when they recommended that House committees conduct oversight to
help ensure that GPRA and the CFO Act are being aggressively
implemented.  They also recommended that House committees use the
financial and program information required by these acts in
overseeing agencies within their jurisdiction.\12

A further important step toward sharpening agencies' focus on
outcomes would be for congressional committees of jurisdiction to
hold comprehensive oversight hearings--annually or at least once
during each Congress--using a wide range of program and financial
information.  Agencies' program performance information that can be
generated under GPRA and the audited financial statements that are
being developed to comply with the Government Management Reform Act
(GMRA) should serve as the basis for these hearings. 

GMRA expanded to all 24 CFO Act agencies the requirement for the
preparation and audit of financial statements for their entire
operations, beginning with those for fiscal year 1996.  Also,
consistent with GMRA, OMB is working with six agencies to pilot the
development of consolidated accountability reports.  By integrating
the separate reporting requirements of GPRA, the CFO Act, and other
specified acts, the accountability reports are intended to show the
degree to which an agency met its goals, at what cost, and whether
the agency was well run.  I have endorsed the concept of an
integrated accountability report and was pleased to learn that OMB
plans to develop guidance, which is to be based on the experiences of
the initial six pilots, for other agencies that may wish to produce
such reports for fiscal year 1996. 


--------------------
\12 House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight, 104th Cong.,
1st Sess., Oversight Plans for All Committees, (Comm.  Print 1995). 


   QUESTIONS FOR CONGRESS TO ASK
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

I believe that by asking agencies the following or similar questions,
Congress will both lay the groundwork for communicating to agencies
the importance it places on successful implementation of GPRA and
obtain important information on the status of agencies' GPRA efforts. 


      HOW WELL IS THE AGENCY
      MEASURING OUTCOMES? 
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.1

The experiences of many of the leading states and foreign countries
that have implemented management reform efforts similar to GPRA
suggest that striving to measure outcomes will be one of the most
challenging and time-consuming aspects of GPRA.  Nevertheless,
measuring outcomes is a critical aspect of GPRA, particularly for
informing the decisions of congressional and high-level executive
branch decisionmakers as they allocate resources and determine the
need for and the efficiency and effectiveness of specific programs. 

As expected at this stage of GPRA's implementation, we are finding
that many agencies are having difficulty in making the transition to
a focus on outcomes.  For example, to meet the goals in its current
GPRA performance plan, the Small Business Administration (SBA)
monitors its activities and records accomplishments largely on the
basis of outputs, such as an increased number of Business Information
Centers.  Such information is important to SBA in managing and
tracking its activities.  However, to realize the full potential of
outcome-oriented management, SBA needs to take the next step of
assessing, for example, the difference the additional Centers make,
if any, to the success of small businesses.  SBA also needs to assess
whether the Centers and the services they provide are the most
cost-effective way to achieve SBA's goals. 

Similarly, the goals in the Occupational Health and Safety
Administration's (OSHA) GPRA performance plan are not being used to
set the direction for OSHA and the measurable outcomes it needs to
pursue.  For example, one of OSHA's goals is to "focus resources on
achieving workplace hazard abatement through strong enforcement and
innovative incentive programs." Focusing resources may help OSHA meet
its mission, but this represents a strategy rather than a measurable
goal.  Officials leading OSHA's performance measurement efforts
recognize that OSHA's goals are not sufficiently outcome-oriented and
that OSHA needs to make significant progress in this area to provide
a better link between its efforts and the establishment of safer and
healthier workplaces. 


      HOW ARE GPRA PERFORMANCE
      GOALS AND INFORMATION BEING
      USED TO DRIVE THE AGENCY'S
      DAILY OPERATIONS? 
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.2

We also are finding instances where pilot agencies could better
ensure that their GPRA performance goals include all of their major
mission areas and responsibilities.  It is important that agencies
supply information on all of their mission areas in order to provide
congressional and executive branch decisionmakers with a complete
picture of the agency's overall efforts and effectiveness. 

For example, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing's GPRA performance
plans contain a goal for the efficient production of stamps and
currency.  However, these performance plans do not address an area
that the Bureau cites as an important part of its mission--security. 
The Bureau has primary responsibility for designing and printing U.S. 
currency, which includes incorporating security features into the
currency to combat counterfeiting.  The importance of security issues
has been growing recently because of heightened concern over currency
counterfeiting.  Foreign counterfeiters especially are becoming very
sophisticated and are producing very high-quality counterfeit notes,
some of which are more difficult to detect than previous
counterfeits. 


      HOW IS THE AGENCY USING
      PERFORMANCE INFORMATION TO
      IMPROVE ITS EFFECTIVENESS? 
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.3

The value of an agency's performance information arises from the use
of that information to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of
program efforts.  By using performance information, an agency can set
more ambitious goals in areas where goals are being met and identify
actions needed to meet those goals that have not been achieved. 

Our recent review of selected fiscal year 1994 performance reports
submitted to OMB by GPRA pilots suggests that agencies are missing an
important opportunity to show how they are using performance
information in cases where goals are not met.\13 In the pilot reports
we reviewed, 109 of the 286 annual performance goals, or about 38
percent, were reported as not met. 

GPRA requires that agencies explain why goals were not met and
provide plans and schedules for achieving those goals.  However, for
the 109 unmet goals we examined, the pilot reports explained the
reason the goal was not met in only 41 of these cases.  Overall, the
pilot reports described actions that pilots were taking to achieve
the goal for 27, or fewer than 25 percent, of the unmet goals. 
Moreover, none of the reports included plans and schedules for
achieving unmet goals. 

Discussions of how performance information is being used are
important because GPRA performance reports are to be one of Congress'
major accountability documents.  As such, these reports are to help
Congress assess agencies' progress in meeting goals and determine
whether planned actions will be sufficient to achieve unmet goals,
or, alternatively, whether the goals should be modified. 


--------------------
\13 GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb.  14, 1996). 


      WHAT PROGRESS IS THE AGENCY
      MAKING IN BUILDING THE
      CAPACITY NECESSARY TO
      IMPLEMENT GPRA? 
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.4

As you are aware, I have long been concerned about the state of the
federal government's basic financial and information management
systems and the knowledge, skills, and abilities of the staff
responsible for those systems.  Simply put, GPRA cannot be fully
successful unless and until these systems are able to provide
decisionmakers with the program cost and performance information
needed to make decisions.  Because these financial systems are old
and do not meet users' needs, they have become the single greatest
barrier to timely and meaningful financial reporting. 
Self-assessments by the 24 CFO Act agencies showed that most agency
systems are not capable of readily producing annual financial
statements and do not comply with current system standards.  The CFO
Council has designated financial management systems as its number one
priority. 

In addition to problems with the federal government's financial and
information management systems, we also have expressed concern about
the absence of strategies in agencies for GPRA training and staff
capacity-building.\14 Leading states and foreign countries that had
implemented management reforms similar to those under GPRA made
substantial investments in training managers and staff throughout
their organizations and said that such training was critical to the
success of their reform efforts.  We are concerned that most federal
agencies have not made progress in developing plans to provide this
essential training in the creative and low- cost ways that the
current budget environment demands. 

I fully appreciate that, in this environment, maintaining existing
budgets devoted to management systems and training is a formidable
challenge.  However, continued--and in some cases,
augmented--investment in these areas is important to ensure that
managers have the information and skills needed to run downsized
federal organizations efficiently. 


--------------------
\14 Managing for Results:  Status of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995). 


      WHAT STEPS IS THE AGENCY
      TAKING TO ALIGN ITS CORE
      BUSINESS PROCESSES TO
      SUPPORT MISSION-RELATED
      OUTCOMES? 
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.5

In passing GPRA, Congress recognized that, in exchange for shifting
the focus of accountability to outcomes, managers must be given the
authority and flexibility to achieve those outcomes.  GPRA therefore
includes provisions to allow agencies to seek relief from certain
administrative procedural requirements and controls.  Agencies'
efforts to focus on achieving results are leading a number of them to
recognize the need to change their core business processes to better
support the goals they are trying to achieve.  For example, the U.S. 
Army Corps of Engineers' Civil Works Directorate, Operation and
Maintenance program, changed its core processes by means of several
initiatives, including decentralizing its organizational structure
and delegating decisionmaking authority to project managers in the
field.  In exchange for this delegated decisionmaking, managers at
the Corps of Engineers increasingly are being held accountable for
achieving results.  The Corps has estimated that, by changing its
core processes, it has saved about $6 million annually including 175
staff years. 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4.6

In summary, GPRA, along with the CFO Act, can be an important tool
for congressional and executive branch decisionmakers as they grapple
with the formidable policy, program, and resource challenges of
reducing the deficit and managing the federal government.  Now is the
time for Congress to fuel the momentum established by the GPRA pilots
by reinforcing to agencies the importance that it places in the
successful and thorough implementation of GPRA.  Congress can, for
instance, support GPRA by using the performance information that
agencies provide to help guide decisionmaking and by asking about the
status of agencies' implementation of GPRA during congressional
hearings.  Your continued leadership and the leadership of your
colleagues on authorization, appropriation, budget, and oversight
committees across Congress is critical to continuing the momentum
needed to ensure the aggressive implementation of GPRA. 

This concludes my prepared statement.  I would be pleased to respond
to any questions. 


RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 1

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb.  14, 1996). 

Office of Management and Budget:  Changes Resulting From the OMB 2000
Reorganization (GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50, Dec.  29, 1995). 

Transforming the Civil Service:  Building The Workforce of The
Future, Results Of A GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 
20, 1995). 

Financial Management:  Continued Momentum Essential to Achieve CFO
Act Goals (GAO/T-AIMD-96-10, Dec.  14, 1995). 

Block Grants:  Issues in Designing Accountability Provisions
(GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept.  1, 1995). 

Financial Management:  Momentum Must Be Sustained to Achieve the
Reform Goals of the Chief Financial Officers Act (GAO/T-AIMD-95-204,
July 25, 1995). 

Managing for Results:  Status of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995). 

Managing for Results:  Critical Actions for Measuring Performance
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-187, June 20, 1995). 

Managing for Results:  The Department of Justice's Initial Efforts to
Implement GPRA (GAO/GGD-95-167FS, June 20, 1995). 

Government Restructuring:  Identifying Potential Duplication in
Federal Missions and Approaches (GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995). 

Government Reorganization:  Issues and Principles
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166, May 17, 1995). 

Managing for Results:  Steps for Strengthening Federal Management
(GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-158, May 9, 1995). 

Managing for Results:  Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for
Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995). 

Government Reform:  Goal-Setting and Performance
(GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-130R, Mar.  27, 1995). 

Block Grants:  Characteristics, Experience, and Lessons Learned
(GAO/HEHS-95-74, Feb.  9, 1995). 

Program Evaluation:  Improving the Flow of Information to the
Congress (GAO/PEMD-95-1, Jan.  30, 1995). 

Managing for Results:  State Experiences Provide Insights for Federal
Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec.  21, 1994). 

Reengineering Organizations:  Results of a GAO Symposium
(GAO/NSIAD-95-34, Dec.  13, 1994). 

Management Reform:  Implementation of the National Performance
Review's Recommendations (GAO/OCG-95-1, Dec.  5, 1994). 

Management Reforms:  Examples of Public and Private Innovations to
Improve Service Delivery (GAO/AIMD/GGD-94-90BR, Feb.  11, 1994). 

Performance Budgeting:  State Experiences and Implications for the
Federal Government (GAO/AFMD-93-41, Feb.  17, 1993). 


*** End of document. ***