Department of Energy: Usefulness of Performance Plan Could Be Improved
(Testimony, 03/24/99, GAO/T-RCED-99-134).

The Department of Energy's (DOE) annual performance plan for fiscal year
2000, which is mandated by the Government Performance and Results Act,
is linked to the agency's strategic plan and to the program activities
in the agency's budget request. The plan also recognizes the importance
of verifying and validating DOE's performance. At the same time, the
plan could be more useful if it better identified planned outcomes,
presented information on individual offices' planned performance and
requested funds, and described its verification and validation
procedures in greater detail.

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

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-99-134
     TITLE:  Department of Energy: Usefulness of Performance Plan Could 
             Be Improved
      DATE:  03/24/99
   SUBJECT:  Strategic planning
             Agency missions
             Performance measures
             Mission budgeting
             Data integrity
             Congressional/executive relations
IDENTIFIER:  GPRA
             Government Performance and Results Act
             
******************************************************************
** 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 Subcommittee on Energy and Environment,
Committee on Science, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10 a.m.  EST
Wednesday
March 24, 1999

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY - USEFULNESS
OF PERFORMANCE PLAN COULD BE
IMPROVED

Statement of Susan D.  Kladiva, Associate Director,
Energy, Resources, and Science Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-99-134

GAO/RCED-99-134T


(141312)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  DOE -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are here today to discuss the Department of Energy's (DOE) annual
performance plan for fiscal year 2000 which is required by the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.  My statement
summarizes our preliminary observations on the annual plan in three
key areas and is based on our ongoing evaluation of the annual plan. 

In summary, DOE's annual performance plan for fiscal year 2000 is
linked to the Department's strategic plan and to the program
activities in the Department's budget request.  The annual plan also
recognizes the importance of verifying and validating the
Department's performance.  However, the annual plan could be more
useful if it better identified planned outcomes, presented
information on individual offices' planned performance and requested
funds to meet the needs of congressional decisionmakers during their
review of the budget request, and described its verification and
validation procedures in more detail. 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, an annual
performance plan is to systematically provide congressional
decisionmakers with information on the results to be achieved with a
proposed level of resources.  Specifically, the annual plan should be
clearly related to the agency's strategic plan, and its performance
goals and measures should be outcome oriented wherever possible.  In
addition, the plan should link the agency's performance goals and
measures with the program activities in the President's budget
request for the agency.  Finally, the plan should specify the
procedures that will be used to verify and validate information on
the agency's performance. 


   ANNUAL PLAN IS LINKED TO THE
   STRATEGIC PLAN, BUT ITS
   OUTCOMES COULD BE BETTER
   DEFINED
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

For fiscal year 2000, DOE has clearly linked the goals and measures
in its annual performance plan to the goals, objectives, and
long-term strategies in its strategic plan.  First, the annual plan
begins with the mission statement from the strategic plan.  Second,
the annual plan, like the strategic plan, is divided into five
sections corresponding to DOE's four business lines (Energy
Resources, National Security, Environmental Quality, and Science and
Technology) and Corporate Management.  Within these sections, the
annual plan lists the strategic goals, strategic objectives, and
long-term strategies for achieving the strategic objectives
identified in the strategic plan.  Finally, the annual plan links its
goals and measures to the strategic plan's long-term strategies in a
matrix that covers fiscal years 1998, 1999, and 2000.  This
presentation allows the user of the plan to observe the Department's
actual and intended performance towards the strategic goals and
objectives over time. 

Many of the annual plan's goals and measures are stated in
quantifiable terms, but the plan's description of expected
performance is often incomplete because no baseline is included to
determine whether goals are reasonable and appropriate and to measure
how the Department's annual performance compares with the strategic
plan's goals and objectives.  For example, under the National
Security business line, DOE restates a long-term strategy as
ï¿½Downsizing and Modernizing the National Security Enterprise.ï¿½ It
supports this strategy with three annual goals and measures:  (1)
ï¿½ensure that all facilities required for successful achievement of
the Stockpile Stewardship Plan remain operational,ï¿½ (2) ï¿½meet the
established schedules for downsizing and modernizing our production
facilities,ï¿½ and (3) ï¿½complete the upgrade of storage facilities at
the Pantex Plant for storing surplus plutonium pits.ï¿½ Although the
goals and measures are measurable, the strategy does not include a
baseline that would allow decisionmakers to evaluate DOE's annual
performance against its strategic objectives.  Similarly, under the
Environmental Quality business line, DOE restates a long-term
strategy as ï¿½Reducing Worker, Public, And Environmental Risks.ï¿½
Again, it supports this strategy with three annual goals and
measures:  (1) ï¿½stabilize and safely store approximately 53 metric
tons of heavy metal of spent nuclear fuel,ï¿½ (2) ï¿½stabilize
approximately 38,000 kilograms bulk of plutonium residues,
approximately 160 liters of plutonium solution, and 238 containers of
plutonium metals/oxides,ï¿½ and (3) ï¿½make disposition ready 910
containers of plutonium metals/oxides.ï¿½ These goals and measures
clearly quantify DOE's planned performance for fiscal year 2000;
however, without baseline information that defines the total work to
be accomplished, it will be impossible to determine how much progress
DOE has made during the year toward fulfilling its strategic
objective. 

While many of DOE's annual goals and measures are output oriented and
quantifiable, others are vague.  As a result, they may not provide
clear standards for evaluating DOE's performance.  For example, to
accomplish one of its long-term strategies--"Improve Existing Nuclear
Power Plantsï¿½--DOE plans to "Implement a cooperative R&D program to
address technical questions that could prevent continued operation of
current nuclear power plants by working with industry, universities,
and national laboratories." The word "Implement" could mean ï¿½plan,ï¿½
ï¿½organize,ï¿½ ï¿½conduct,ï¿½ or ï¿½initiate.ï¿½ It does not clearly indicate
what DOE is to accomplish in fiscal year 2000.  The term "could
prevent" is also undefined and unclear as a measure of performance. 

DOE's annual plan provides performance goals and measures for three
fiscal years--1998, 1999, and 2000--allowing users of the plan to see
what the Department has done or is planning to do over several years
to achieve its strategic goals, objectives, and long-term strategies. 
Although not required by the Government Performance and Results Act
of 1993, for fiscal year 1998, DOE measured its accomplishments in
the annual plan using four levels of performance--fully successful,
successful, partially successful, and unsuccessful.  Fully successful
equates to meeting or exceeding the goal; successful equates to
meeting 80 to 100 percent of the goal, partially successful equates
to meeting 50 to 80 percent of the goal, and unsuccessful equates to
meeting less than 50 percent of the goal.  This measuring system is
flawed, we believe, because it allows DOE to rate incomplete
performance as ï¿½successful.ï¿½ For example, if DOE completes 80 percent
of the work defined under one measure, it can claim that it has been
ï¿½successfulï¿½ even though 20 percent of the work was not done.  Table
1 summarizes the results of DOE's scoring for fiscal year 1998. 



                                Table 1
                
                  DOE's Measurement of the Fiscal Year
                        1998 Annual Performance

                                                      Percent of Total
Category                                    Number         (percent)\a
------------------------------  ------------------  ------------------
Fully successful                               113                  59
Successful                                      57                  30
Partially successful                            19                  10
Unsuccessful                                     3                   2
----------------------------------------------------------------------
\a Column does not equal 100 percent due to rounding. 

In our view, DOE could report its performance more accurately if it
presented baseline information with its long-term strategies so that
users could compare the Department's accomplishments for a given
fiscal year with the tasks needed to complete the long-term
strategies. 


   ANNUAL PLAN IS LINKED TO
   PROGRAM ACTIVITIES IN DOE'S
   BUDGET REQUEST BUT THIS LINKAGE
   MAY NOT MEET CONGRESSIONAL
   DECISIONMAKERS' NEEDS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

DOE uses two matrixes to link its annual performance to the program
activities in the President's budget request.  First, for each of its
four business lines and corporate management, it uses a matrix to
link its offices and programs to the program activities and the
amounts requested in the budget.  Second, DOE uses a matrix to show
which office is to carry out each annual goal and measure.  Although
this linkage meets the requirements of the Results Act, the total
number of individual goals and measures for a specific DOE office may
be located in various parts of the annual plan.  As a result, it is
difficult to associate this office's total planned performance with
the funds requestedï¿½an association that congressional decisionmakers
may wish to make during their deliberations on the budget request. 
For example, we identified 18 annual goals and measures for the
Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.  However, they were
included under three different business lines in different sections
of the annual plan.  To weigh the planned performance with the budget
request of the Office of Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology, it
is necessary to review each goal and measure in the annual plan to
see if the goal and measure is associated with that office.  If DOE
were to supplement its annual plan with information showing
performance measures by office, all of an office's annual goals and
measures could be provided in one matrix and associated with a
specific resource level. 


   DOE RECOGNIZES THE IMPORTANCE
   OF VERIFICATION AND VALIDATION
   BUT THE PLAN PROVIDES FEW
   DETAILED PROCEDURES
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:4

In its annual plan, DOE recognizes the importance of valid and
reliable data and reporting systems for assessing its annual
performance.  The ï¿½validation and verificationï¿½ and ï¿½demonstrating
credible performanceï¿½ sections of the plan provide an overview of the
information sources (program offices, national laboratories, and
contractors), the primary information system, and the general
procedures followed to ensure that performance data and reports are
reliable and accurate.  DOE states that it provides periodic guidance
and training to information providers, requires the heads of
organizational elements to certify the accuracy of data and reports,
and conducts its own reviews of the reporting system and management
controls.  DOE's Inspector General also independently evaluates the
Department's financial statement and the performance data reported in
the statement.  Finally, the annual plan recognizes the need to
assess and improve procedures for collecting and validating the data
that will be used to evaluate DOE's performance. 

Although DOE recognizes the importance of validation and
verification, the annual plan does not translate that general
recognition into specific plans for assessing DOE's performance. 
More specifically, the plan does not (1) describe credible procedures
to verify and validate the performance measures and information
systems required to assess DOE's accomplishments for fiscal year
2000, nor does it (2) identify any significant data and/or
information system limitations, discuss their implications for
assessing progress toward performance goals, or identify any actions
needed to correct recognized problems. 

This concludes my statement based upon the work that we have
completed.  We will complete our review of DOE's annual plan in the
near future.  I would be happy to answer any questions you or other
Members of the Subcommittee may have. 


*** End of document. ***