Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and Executive
Branch Decisionmaking (Testimony, 02/12/97, GAO/T-GGD-97-43).
GAO discussed the major management challenges faced by federal agencies
in implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),
focusing on how GPRA can be used to address those challenges and better
ensure that agencies are the focused, results-driven organizations that
today's fiscal environment requires.
GAO noted that: (1) efforts to build an effective and efficient
organization must begin with a clearly defined mission, a concrete sense
of why the organization exists and what it is to accomplish; (2) over
the years, GAO's work has identified instances where an agency's
effectiveness was hampered by the lack of a clearly defined mission; (3)
while progress is needed in better defining the missions of individual
agencies, it is equally important to manage and coordinate federal
program efforts that cut across several agencies; (4) GAO's work has
shown that many program areas suffer from fragmented and overlapping
initiatives; (5) such unfocused efforts waste scarce funds, confuse and
frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the
federal effort; (6) as Congress provides input to agencies' strategic
plans, it can insist that agencies show how their programs are aligned
with related efforts in other agencies; (7) Congress can also use the
planning process to seek opportunities to streamline government by
comparing the effectiveness of similar program efforts carried out by
different agencies; (8) as successful organizations define their
missions, they also establish results-oriented performance goals that
can be used to assess whether they are fulfilling their missions; (9)
many agencies have a difficult time moving from measuring program
activities to establishing results-oriented goals and managing to
achieve those results; (10) the fundamental reason that establishing
results-oriented goals is so difficult is that, to set such goals,
agencies must move beyond what they control, that is, their activities,
to focus on what they merely influence, their results; (11) GAO's work
has shown that many agencies are struggling to develop coherent
strategies for restructuring their organizations, workforces, and
operations to meet results-oriented goals and that agencies need to do a
better job of designing mission-based strategies to improve efficiency
and reduce costs; (12) taken together, the key steps and practices drawn
from the organizations GAO studied provide a useful framework to assist
Congress and the executive branch as they work to implement GPRA; (13)
although each of the leading organizations GAO studied set its agenda
for management reform according to its own environment, needs, and
capabilities, they all commonly took three key steps; (14) these steps *
--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------
REPORTNUM: T-GGD-97-43
TITLE: Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional
and Executive Branch Decisionmaking
DATE: 02/12/97
SUBJECT: Agency missions
Information technology
Federal agency reorganization
Strategic planning
Management information systems
Interagency relations
Financial management systems
Congressional/executive relations
Congressional oversight
IDENTIFIER: SBA Minority Enterprise Development Program
******************************************************************
** 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 Government Reform and Oversight
House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m., EST
Wednesday
February 12, 1997
MANAGING FOR RESULTS - USING GPRA
TO ASSIST CONGRESSIONAL AND
EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECISIONMAKING
Statement of James F. Hinchman
Acting Comptroller General of the United States
GAO/T-GGD-97-43
GAO/GGD-97-43T
(410111)
Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV
CFO - Chief Financial Officers Act
DOD - Department of Defense
DOE - Department of Energy
FEMA - Federal Emergency Management Agency
GMRA - Government Performance and Reform Act
GPRA - Government Performance and Results Act
OMB - Office of Management and Budget
SBA - Small Business Administration
MANAGING FOR RESULTS: USING GPRA
TO ASSIST CONGRESSIONAL AND
EXECUTIVE BRANCH DECISIONMAKING
==================================================== Chapter Statement
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss how Congress can use the
Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as it seeks to reduce
the cost and improve the performance of the federal government.
There is a broad consensus within the federal government, and among
students of its institutions, that part of the solution to the
federal government's fiscal problems must be better management of its
programs and activities. The American people also are rightly
demanding that government operate in a more efficient and
businesslike manner. However, improving management in the federal
sector will be no easy task, but GPRA can assist in accomplishing it.
As its title indicates, GPRA's focus is on results. In crafting
GPRA, Congress recognized that congressional and executive branch
decisionmaking had been severely handicapped by the absence in many
agencies of the basic underpinnings of well-managed organizations.
Our work has found numerous examples of management-related challenges
stemming from unclear agency missions; the lack of results-oriented
performance goals; the absence of well-conceived agency strategies to
meet those goals; and the failure to gather and use accurate,
reliable, and timely program performance and cost information to
measure progress in achieving results.
In recent years, Congress has put in place a statutory framework for
addressing these long-standing challenges and helping Congress and
the executive branch make the difficult trade-offs that the current
budget environment demands. This framework includes as its essential
elements the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act; information
technology reform legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act; and GPRA. The CFO Act, as
expanded and amended by the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA),
spelled out an ambitious and long overdue agenda to address the lack
of timely, reliable, useful, and consistent financial information in
the federal government. The information technology reform
legislation is directed at more effective management and use of
information technology to better support agencies' missions and
improve program performance. GPRA--with its focus on clarifying
missions, setting programmatic goals, and measuring performance
towards those goals--is the centerpiece of this statutory framework.
In enacting this framework, Congress was seeking to create a more
focused, results-oriented management decisionmaking process within
both Congress and the executive branch. These laws each responded to
a need for accurate, reliable information for executive branch and
congressional decisionmaking, information that has been sadly lacking
in the past, as much of our work has demonstrated. Implemented
together, these laws provide a powerful framework for developing
fully integrated information about agencies' missions and strategic
priorities, results-oriented performance goals that flow from those
priorities, performance data to show the achievement (or not) of
those goals, the relationship of information technology investments
to the achievement of performance goals, and accurate and audited
financial information about the costs of achieving mission outcomes.
As agreed with the Committee, today I will provide an overview of the
major management challenges that our work has shown agencies face. I
will then discuss how GPRA can be used to address those challenges
and better ensure that agencies are the focused, results-driven
organizations that today's fiscal environment requires. I will
conclude with some suggestions for Congress to consider about how it
can use GPRA to enhance congressional oversight and decisionmaking.
My statement is based on a large body of work we have done on
management and operational issues across agencies and levels of
government.\1 This work includes our Executive Guide: Effectively
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, which draws
on the experiences of leading public sector organizations and
suggests a path that agencies can take to implement GPRA.\2 My
statement is also based on the work we are completing to meet the
requirement in GPRA that we report by June 1 of this year on the
act's implementation and prospects for governmentwide compliance.
GPRA seeks to shift the focus of federal management and
decisionmaking from a preoccupation with the number of tasks
completed or services provided to a more direct consideration of the
results of programs--that is, the real differences the tasks or
services provided make in people's lives. As a starting point, GPRA
requires executive agencies to complete--no later than September 30
of this year--strategic plans in which they define their missions,
establish results-oriented goals, and identify the strategies they
will use to achieve those goals. GPRA requires agencies to consult
with Congress and solicit the input of others as they develop these
plans. Next, beginning with fiscal year 1999, executive agencies are
to use their strategic plans to prepare annual performance plans.
These performance plans are to include annual goals linked to the
activities displayed in budget presentations as well as the
indicators the agency will use to measure performance against the
results-oriented goals. Agencies are subsequently to report each
year on the extent to which goals were met, provide an explanation if
these goals were not met, and present the actions needed to meet any
unmet goals.
--------------------
\1 Some of these products, along with other relevant GAO work, are
listed in the "Related GAO Products" section at the end of this
statement.
\2 Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
FEDERAL EFFECTIVENESS HAS BEEN
UNDERMINED BY MAJOR MANAGEMENT
CHALLENGES
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:1
Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency must now ask itself some
basic questions: What is our mission? What are our goals, and how
can we measure our performance? How will we achieve those goals?
How will we use performance information to make improvements? The
questions that must be addressed to implement GPRA are directly
related to the most pressing management challenges that we have
identified through our work. These long-standing management
challenges must be successfully addressed if the federal government
is to become more effective and better managed.
CLARIFYING THE AGENCY
MISSION
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:1.1
Efforts to build an effective and efficient organization must begin
with a clearly defined mission--a concrete sense of why the
organization exists and what it is to accomplish. Over the years,
our work has identified instances where an agency's effectiveness was
hampered by the lack of a clearly defined mission.
For example, our work has shown that the Department of Energy (DOE)
needs to reevaluate its basic mission.\3 DOE's responsibilities and
priorities have changed dramatically over time. The DOE of today is
a very different organization from what it was in 1977 when as a
newly created agency, its mission was to respond to a perceived
national energy crisis. Thus, while energy research, conservation,
and policymaking dominated early DOE priorities, national defense and
environmental cleanup now overshadow those areas. Meanwhile, new
mission areas in science and industrial competitiveness have emerged
and are pressing for priority attention. With each new phase, DOE
leadership brought a vastly different agenda concerning DOE's basic
responsibilities and how the agency should be managed. These shifts
have contributed to uneven performance in many mission areas. For
example, during the time that DOE emphasized nuclear weapons
production, it gave little attention to the environmental
consequences. In part as a result, environmental cleanup will now
cost between $189 and $265 billion by DOE's estimate.
DOE is undertaking strategic planning efforts intended, among other
things, to ensure that it is identifying and addressing its critical
mission areas and setting priorities for its efforts. Sustained
congressional involvement in DOE's planning efforts, and in the
similar efforts under way at other agencies, is vital both to ensure
that missions are based in statute and to identify cases where
statutory requirements need to be modified or clarified.
While progress is needed in better defining the missions of
individual agencies, it is equally important to manage and coordinate
federal program efforts that cut across several agencies. Our work
has shown that program area after program area--such as federal land
management, food safety, and early childhood development--suffers
from fragmented and overlapping initiatives.\4 Such unfocused efforts
waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and
limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. As Congress
provides input to agencies' strategic plans, it can insist that
agencies show how their programs are aligned with related efforts in
other agencies. Congress can also use the planning process to seek
opportunities to streamline government by comparing the effectiveness
of similar program efforts carried out by different agencies.
--------------------
\3 Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges In Implementing
GPRA In Science Agencies (GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).
\4 See, for example, Federal Land Management: Streamlining and
Reorganization Issues (GAO/T-RCED-96-209, June 27, 1996); 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).
ESTABLISHING
RESULTS-ORIENTED PERFORMANCE
GOALS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:1.2
As successful organizations define their missions, they also
establish results-oriented performance goals that can be used to
assess whether they are fulfilling their missions. We are finding
that many agencies have a difficult time moving from measuring
program activities to establishing results-oriented goals and
managing to achieve those results.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers an example of
goal-setting and performance measurement efforts that could be better
focused on mission. SBA was created to help small businesses and
strengthen the overall economy by increasing business and job
opportunities. However, it had no results-oriented performance goals
for its section 8(a) Minority Enterprise Development Program, even
though Congress defined the success of this program in its enabling
legislation. This legislation defined success as "the number of
competitive firms that exit the program without being unreasonably
reliant on section 8(a) contracts and that are able to compete on an
equal basis in the mainstream of the American economy."\5 We and
SBA's Inspector General have pointed to the need for SBA to measure
the success of the program as defined by Congress.\6
SBA officials are now committed to gathering the information to track
how many firms leaving the program are not reliant on section 8(a)
contracts--a major first step in determining whether the program is
helping small businesses as intended.
The fundamental reason that establishing results-oriented goals is so
difficult is that, to set such goals, agencies must move beyond what
they control--that is, their activities--to focus on what they merely
influence--their results. Many federal services are delivered
through third parties, such as states and nonprofit organizations,
that may have goals that differ from those of the federal government.
Moreover, in some program areas, such as basic scientific research,
it can take years before the results, if any, of the federal effort
become apparent. And even then, it can be very difficult to identify
the extent to which the federal effort led to a given result. The
consultation process is a vehicle for Congress and agencies to use to
reach an understanding of the challenges confronting particular
programs and agreement on what goals are appropriate given those
challenges.
--------------------
\5 102 Stat. 3856, Nov. 15, 1988.
\6 Small Business: SBA Cannot Assess the Success of Its Minority
Business Development Program (GAO/T-RCED-94-278, July 27, 1994) and
8(a) Competitive Business Mix Requirements (SBA OIG Audit Report No.
5-3-E-101-021, Sept. 29, 1995).
DESIGNING STRATEGIES TO MEET
RESULTS-ORIENTED GOALS
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:1.3
Congress rightfully expects that each agency's plans and programs
will make efficient use of budgetary resources and that, if
reductions need to be made, those resources will be used in a way
that maintains, to the fullest extent possible, the agency's ability
to carry out its mission. Our work has shown that many agencies are
currently struggling to develop coherent strategies for restructuring
their organizations, workforces, and operations to meet
results-oriented goals.
This need for a coherent strategy is particularly true in the area of
information technology. The sound application and management of
information technology to support strategic goals must be an
important part of any serious attempt to improve agency mission
performance, cut costs, and enhance responsiveness to the public.
The successful implementation of information technology reform
legislation--which among other things, requires that agencies have a
strategy that links technology investments to achieving programmatic
results--is critical to ensuring the wise use of the billions of
dollars the government is investing in information systems.
More generally, we have found that agencies need to do a better job
of designing mission-based strategies to improve efficiency and
reduce costs. For example, we recently reported that the Department
of State does not have a comprehensive strategy to restructure its
operations to adjust to today's needs.\7 State's vast network of
embassies and consulates, together with the way they are configured
and operated, has remained largely unchanged despite communications
and transportation advances, geopolitical changes, and new budget
realities. State has not been able to make hard choices about
resource priorities for its wide range of locations and functions, or
to fundamentally rethink the way that it does business, in order to
reduce its operating costs.
--------------------
\7 State Department: Options for Addressing Possible Budget
Reductions (GAO/NSIAD-96-124, Aug. 29, 1996).
GENERATING PROGRAM
PERFORMANCE AND COST
INFORMATION
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:1.4
Conclusions about what the government is accomplishing with the
taxpayers' money cannot be drawn without adequate program performance
and cost information. Viewing program performance in light of
program costs as envisioned by GPRA--for instance, by establishing
the unit cost per output or outcome achieved--can help Congress make
informed decisions. Unfortunately, program and cost information has
not always been present or reliable enough either to use in
decisionmaking or to provide the requisite public accountability for
the use of taxpayers' money. With successful implementation, the
audited financial statements required by the CFO Act, as expanded by
GMRA, will provide congressional and executive branch decisionmakers
with the financial and program cost information that they have not
previously had. This information is to be provided to decisionmakers
in results-oriented reports on the government's program results and
financial condition that, for the first time, integrate budget,
financial, and program information. These reports are also to
include cost information that enables users to relate costs to
outputs and outcomes.
The Department of Defense (DOD) provides an example of persistent
management problems--among the most severe in government--that leave
an agency without the most basic financial information.\8 Without
this information, DOD is unable to properly manage its vast
resources, including a budget of over $250 billion in fiscal year
1996 and over $1 trillion in assets worldwide. For example, critical
cost data is absent for almost all of DOD's noncash assets, such as
inventories, equipment, aircraft, and missiles. The DOD's financial
management problems are the products of years of neglect, and
building a workable financial management structure in DOD is a
correspondingly long-term project. These problems have been candidly
acknowledged by the Chief Financial Officer and other DOD leaders.
As part of their implementation of the requirements of the CFO Act,
they are taking some encouraging steps toward addressing DOD's
financial management deficiencies.
--------------------
\8 See, for example, DOD Accounting Systems: Efforts to Improve
System for Navy Need Overall Structure (GAO/AIMD-96-99, Sept. 30,
1996).
LEADING ORGANIZATIONS PROVIDE A
ROADMAP FOR EFFECTIVE
IMPLEMENTATION OF GPRA
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:2
When it passed GPRA, Congress clearly understood that most agencies
would need to make fundamental management changes to properly
implement this law and that these changes would not come quickly or
easily. As a result, Congress included a pilot phase in GPRA for
fiscal years 1994 through 1996. During this phase, selected agencies
were to gain experience in the annual goal-setting and performance
measurement requirements of the act and provide lessons for other
agencies. About 70 federal organizations, including components of
most cabinet departments and major independent agencies, participated
in this pilot phase.
In addition, at the request of this Committee and the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, we undertook a number of studies
intended to help agencies implement GPRA. For example, we were asked
to study leading foreign and state governments that were successfully
pursuing management reform initiatives consistent with GPRA and
thereby becoming more results-oriented.\9 We further were asked
whether the experiences of these and other public sector
organizations could yield worthwhile lessons for agencies as they
attempt to implement GPRA. Our June 1996 Executive Guide is our
response to that request. The Executive Guide identifies a set of
key steps and associated practices that leading federal and other
public sector organizations have used to successfully implement
reform efforts consistent with GPRA. Accompanying the discussion of
each practice is a case illustration of a federal agency that has
made progress in incorporating that practice into its operations.
Taken together, the key steps and practices drawn from the
organizations we studied provide a useful framework to assist
Congress and the executive branch as they work to implement GPRA.
Although each of the leading organizations we studied set its agenda
for management reform according to its own environment, needs, and
capabilities, they all commonly took three key steps. These steps
were to (1) define mission and desired outcomes or results, (2)
measure performance to gauge progress, and (3) use performance
information as a basis for decisionmaking. In taking these steps,
leading organizations also found that certain leadership practices,
such as devolving operational authority and creating incentives for
managers and staff to focus on results, were central to making the
changes needed for the organizations to become more results-oriented.
The key steps and associated practices are illustrated in the
following figure.
Figure 1: Key Steps and
Critical Practices for
Implementing GPRA
(See figure in printed
edition.)
Source: Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
The experiences of public sector organizations that have implemented
public management reforms consistent with GPRA show that, while
performance improvements are possible, it takes time for agencies to
discard old approaches to management and accountability that focus on
activities and to make the transition to a broader focus on results.
In fact, at this early stage in the implementation process, we are
finding that the agencies making the most progress in implementing
GPRA are those that recognize they still have many implementation
challenges to solve, while those making the least progress tend to
see little difference between the requirements of GPRA and the way
they have traditionally done business.
Successful organizations generally find that the significant
improvements in performance envisioned by GPRA require major changes
in how they do business, including adjustments in policies,
organizational structures, program content, and core business
processes. Our Executive Guide provides some illustrations. The
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) traditionally carried out
its mission by concentrating its efforts on post-natural-disaster
assistance. However, spurred by intense external criticism, FEMA
stepped back and asked itself the fundamental mission question: What
is our purpose? FEMA concluded that its mission was to help to
mitigate the effects of disasters before they take place rather than
just respond to a disaster after it occurs. As a result, FEMA
expanded its efforts. For example, it now works with local
governments to strengthen building codes so that buildings are better
able to withstand disasters, and it has launched an effort to
increase the number of flood insurance policyholders to help
individuals recover from disasters.
The experiences of the GPRA pilot agencies and other federal efforts
consistent with GPRA show that improvements in performance--sometimes
substantial ones--are possible when an organization adopts a
disciplined approach to defining its mission and desired results,
measuring its performance, and using information to make decisions.
For example, as highlighted in our Executive Guide, the Veterans
Health Administration improved services to veterans by more
rigorously assessing the results of the medical care it provides to
the nation's veterans. In particular, the Veterans Health
Administration reported that it used performance information to
target the most important improvement opportunities and thereby
lowered the mortality rate for cardiac procedures by an average 13
percent over the last 8 years. As another example of reexamining a
mission, the Coast Guard shifted the focus of its marine safety
program from regulation to one that includes education. This change
contributed to a significant decline in the towing industry fatality
rate--from 91 per 100,000 industry employees in 1990 to 27 per
100,000 in 1995.
--------------------
\9 Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for
Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995) and Managing
for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for Federal
Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec. 21, 1994).
GPRA CAN ASSIST CONGRESSIONAL
DECISIONMAKING
-------------------------------------------------- Chapter Statement:3
Congress can use GPRA as the centerpiece of a statutory framework to
provide the vital information it needs to better make decisions. The
congressional consultations on agencies' strategic plans--which in
many cases are beginning now--provide an important opportunity for
Congress and the executive branch to work together to ensure that
missions are focused, goals are results-oriented and clearly
established, and strategies and funding expectations are appropriate
and reasonable. The experiences of leading organizations suggest
that planning efforts that have such characteristics can become
driving forces in improving the effectiveness and efficiency of
program operations. The GPRA strategic planning process thus
provides Congress with a potentially powerful vehicle for clarifying
its expectations for agencies and expanding the focus on results
expected from funding decisions.
In testimony before this Committee and the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee last March, the former Comptroller General
suggested several key GPRA-related questions that Congress could ask
agencies to help support congressional decisionmaking. These
questions centered on determining how well agencies are measuring
outcomes and how GPRA performance goals and information are being
used to drive daily operations.\10
These and similar questions directly related to the management
challenges that I have discussed today can elicit important
information needed for the making of more informed congressional
decisions. The key steps and practices for effective implementation
of GPRA identified in our Executive Guide suggest additional topics
for Congress to pursue to ensure that agencies become
results-oriented organizations that generate the information Congress
and citizens need to assess whether the results are satisfactory.
Over the longer term, we have advocated that congressional committees
of jurisdiction hold annual or at least biennial comprehensive
oversight on each department and major independent agency. The plans
and reports that agencies are to develop under GPRA and the audited
financial statements that are to be prepared under the CFO Act, as
expanded by GMRA, should serve as the basis for those hearings. In
addition, broad accountability reports, which for the first time
would present in one place a full range of financial, program
performance, and management information, could be used to shape those
hearings.
Consistent with GMRA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
worked with six agencies to pilot the development of consolidated
accountability reports for fiscal year 1995. 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. We have endorsed the concept of an
integrated accountability report and are pleased that OMB has
expanded the pilot efforts to allow additional agencies to produce
reports for fiscal year 1996. These reports have the potential to
provide Congress with comprehensive "report cards" on the degree to
which agencies are making wise and effective use of tax dollars.
--------------------
\10 Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires
Strong Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).
------------------------------------------------ Chapter Statement:3.1
In summary, Mr. Chairman, GPRA, the CFO Act, and the information
technology reform legislation can be extremely valuable tools to help
Congress and agencies address long-standing managerial problems that
have been a source of frustration to everyone. Sustained
congressional attention to this statutory framework, in a variety of
formal and informal settings, is needed to underscore for agencies
the importance that Congress places on the successful implementation
of these laws. In particular, Congress needs to continue to send the
unmistakable message that it is serious about GPRA, intends to use it
as a basis for decisionmaking, and looks forward to being actively
involved in the consultation process. Strong bipartisan support will
enhance that message. Both Congress and the executive branch have a
vested interest in successfully implementing GPRA. Successful
implementation will provide Congress and the agencies with the
management framework and the information needed to focus on program
results, make the hard financial decisions dictated by the current
fiscal environment, and improve the capability of the federal
government to deliver services with the effectiveness and the
efficiency the American people deserve and rightly demand.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond
to any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.
RELATED GAO PRODUCTS
============================================================ Chapter 0
Community Development: Status of Urban Empowerment Zones
(GAO/RCED-97-21, Dec. 20, 1996).
Information Technology Investment: Agencies Can Improve Performance,
Reduce Costs, and Minimize Risks (GAO/AIMD-96-64, Sept. 30, 1996).
State Department: Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions
(GAO/NSIAD-96-124, Aug. 29, 1996).
Federal Downsizing: Better Workforce and Strategic Planning Could
Have Made Buyouts More Effective (GAO/GGD-96-62, Aug. 26, 1996).
Information Management Reform: Effective Implementation Is Essential
for Improving Federal Performance (GAO/T-AIMD-96-132, July 17, 1996).
Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges In Implementing GPRA
In Science Agencies (GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
Addressing the Deficit: Updating the Budgetary Implications of
Selected GAO Work (GAO/OCG-96-5, June 28, 1996).
Budget and Financial Management: Progress and Agenda for the Future
(GAO/T-AIMD-96-80, Apr. 23, 1996).
Budget Issues: Deficit Reduction and the Long Term
(GAO/T-AIMD-96-66, Mar. 13, 1996).
Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires Strong
Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).
GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).
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).
Deficit Reduction: Opportunities to Address Long-Standing Government
Performance Issues (GAO/T-OCG-95-6, Sept. 13, 1995).
Economic Development Programs (GAO/RCED-95-251R, July 28, 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).
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).
Department of Energy: Need to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions
(GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan. 18, 1995).
Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic
Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).
Food Safety: A Unified, Risk-Based Food Safety System Needed
(GAO/T-RCED-94-223, May 25, 1994).
*** End of document. ***