Government Performance
Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government Gao ID: GAO-09-1011T September 24, 2009Since 1997, periodic GAO surveys indicate that overall, federal managers have more performance information available, but have not made greater use of this information for decision making. To understand the barriers and opportunities for more widespread use, GAO was asked to (1) examine key management practices in an agency in which managers' reported use of performance information has improved; (2) look at agencies with relatively low use of performance information and the factors that contribute to this condition; and (3) review the role the President and Congress can play in promoting a results-oriented and collaborative culture in the federal government. This testimony is primarily based on GAO's report, Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, which is being released today. In this report, GAO made recommendations to the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Interior for improvements to key management practices to promote greater use of performance information at FEMA, the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, as well as at Interior. Both DHS and Interior generally agreed with these recommendations. The testimony also draws from GAO's extensive prior work on the use of performance information and results-oriented management.
GAO's prior work identified key management practices that can promote the use of performance information for decision making to improve results, including: demonstrating leadership commitment; aligning agency, program, and individual performance goals; improving the usefulness of performance information; building analytic capacity; and communicating performance information frequently and effectively. The experience of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) illustrates how strengthening these practices can help an agency increase its use of performance information. According to GAO's most recent 2007 survey of federal managers, the percentage of CMS managers reporting use of performance information for various management decisions increased by nearly 21 percentage points since 2000--one of the largest improvements among the agencies surveyed. CMS officials attributed this positive change to a number of the key practices, such as the agency's leaders communicating their commitment to using performance information to drive decision making. Conversely, the experiences of the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the absence of such commitment can discourage managers and their staff from using performance information. According to GAO's 2007 survey, Interior and FEMA ranked 27 and 28, respectively, out of 29 agencies in their reported use of performance information for various management functions. Based on further survey data analysis, reviews of planning, policy, and performance documents, and management interviews, GAO found that inconsistent application of key practices at FEMA and Interior--such as routine communication of how performance information influences decision making--contributed to their relatively low survey scores. While both FEMA and Interior have taken some promising steps to make their performance information both useful and used, these initiatives have thus far been limited. The President and Congress also have unique and critical roles to play by driving improved federal agency performance. By focusing attention on certain high-level goals and tracking agency performance, the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can send a message that using performance information is critical for achieving results and maximizing the return on federal funds invested. Through its oversight, Congress can also signal to agencies that results matter by articulating performance expectations for areas of concern and following up to ensure that performance goals are achieved. The President and Congress can also play a role in improving government performance in areas that require the concerted efforts of multiple agencies and programs to address, such as preparing for and responding to a pandemic influenza. A governmentwide strategic plan could support collaborative efforts by identifying long-term goals and the strategies needed to address crosscutting issues.
GAO-09-1011T, Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-1011T
entitled 'Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-
Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government' which was
released on September 24, 2009.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government
Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:30 a.m. EDT:
Thursday, September 24, 2009:
Government Performance:
Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and Collaborative Culture in
the Federal Government:
Statement of Bernice Steinhardt, Director:
Strategic Issues:
GAO-09-1011T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-1011T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services,
and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Since 1997, periodic GAO surveys indicate that overall, federal
managers have more performance information available, but have not made
greater use of this information for decision making. To understand the
barriers and opportunities for more widespread use, GAO was asked to
(1) examine key management practices in an agency in which managers‘
reported use of performance information has improved; (2) look at
agencies with relatively low use of performance information and the
factors that contribute to this condition; and (3) review the role the
President and Congress can play in promoting a results-oriented and
collaborative culture in the federal government. This testimony is
primarily based on GAO‘s report, Results-Oriented Management:
Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote Greater
Use of Performance Information, which is being released today. In this
report, GAO made recommendations to the Departments of Homeland
Security (DHS) and the Interior for improvements to key management
practices to promote greater use of performance information at FEMA,
the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, as well as at
Interior. Both DHS and Interior generally agreed with these
recommendations.
The testimony also draws from GAO‘s extensive prior work on the use of
performance information and results-oriented management.
What GAO Found:
GAO‘s prior work identified key management practices that can promote
the use of performance information for decision making to improve
results, including: demonstrating leadership commitment; aligning
agency, program, and individual performance goals; improving the
usefulness of performance information; building analytic capacity; and
communicating performance information frequently and effectively. The
experience of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS)
illustrates how strengthening these practices can help an agency
increase its use of performance information. According to GAO‘s most
recent 2007 survey of federal managers, the percentage of CMS managers
reporting use of performance information for various management
decisions increased by nearly 21 percentage points since 2000”one of
the largest improvements among the agencies surveyed. CMS officials
attributed this positive change to a number of the key practices, such
as the agency‘s leaders communicating their commitment to using
performance information to drive decision making.
Conversely, the experiences of the Department of the Interior
(Interior) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within
the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the absence of such
commitment can discourage managers and their staff from using
performance information. According to GAO‘s 2007 survey, Interior and
FEMA ranked 27 and 28, respectively, out of 29 agencies in their
reported use of performance information for various management
functions. Based on further survey data analysis, reviews of planning,
policy, and performance documents, and management interviews, GAO found
that inconsistent application of key practices at FEMA and Interior”
such as routine communication of how performance information influences
decision making”contributed to their relatively low survey scores.
While both FEMA and Interior have taken some promising steps to make
their performance information both useful and used, these initiatives
have thus far been limited.
The President and Congress also have unique and critical roles to play
by driving improved federal agency performance. By focusing attention
on certain high-level goals and tracking agency performance, the
President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can send a
message that using performance information is critical for achieving
results and maximizing the return on federal funds invested. Through
its oversight, Congress can also signal to agencies that results matter
by articulating performance expectations for areas of concern and
following up to ensure that performance goals are achieved. The
President and Congress can also play a role in improving government
performance in areas that require the concerted efforts of multiple
agencies and programs to address, such as preparing for and responding
to a pandemic influenza. A governmentwide strategic plan could support
collaborative efforts by identifying long-term goals and the strategies
needed to address crosscutting issues.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1011T] or key
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202)
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here to discuss our work on strategies that can help
foster a more results-oriented and collaborative culture across the
federal government. How the federal government performs and the results
it achieves have a significant effect on many of the American public's
most pressing concerns--whether it be preparations for and response to
pandemic influenza, reduction in pollutants that contribute to climate
change, or rigorous oversight of financial markets. Given increasing
public demands for a more effective and accountable federal government,
it is more important than ever that federal agencies establish
meaningful goals for improving performance, monitor progress in
achieving their goals, and use information about performance to make
decisions that can improve results.
It has been more than 16 years since Congress passed the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in an effort to ensure that federal
agencies have the infrastructure and tools they need to improve
results.[Footnote 1] Across the federal government, agencies have
developed strategic plans and are routinely generating performance
information to measure and report progress toward their strategic
goals. However, as we testified before this subcommittee in July 2008,
[Footnote 2] our periodic surveys of federal managers on their use of
performance information show that while significantly more federal
managers reported having performance measures for their programs than
they did 10 years ago, their reported use of performance information to
make management decisions has not changed significantly.[Footnote 3]
To better understand the barriers to and opportunities for more
widespread use, we drew from our extensive body of work assessing the
progress federal agencies have made in managing for results,[Footnote
4] including our work on key management practices that can contribute
to the use of performance information in management decision making.
[Footnote 5] These practices are: demonstrating leadership commitment,
communicating the importance of using performance information
frequently and effectively, creating a clear "line of sight" linking
individual performance with organizational results, improving the
usefulness of performance information, and developing the capacity to
collect and use performance information (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Practices That Can Promote the Use of Performance Information
for Decision Making:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustration]
Practices:
* Demonstrating management commitment;
* Aligning agencywide goals, objectives, and measures;
* Improving the usefulness of performance information;
* Developing capacity to use performance information;
* Communicating performance information frequently and effectively.
Practices lead to Uses:
Uses:
* Identify problems and take corrective action;
* Develop strategy and allocate resources;
* Recognize and reward performance;
* Identify and share effective approaches.
Uses lead to Improved results.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
We also conducted further analysis of our surveys of federal managers
on their use of performance information. Using this analysis as a
starting point, we looked in depth at the management practices at the
Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA), where a smaller percentage of managers
reported making extensive use of performance information compared to
their counterparts across the federal government.[Footnote 6] According
to our 2007 survey, Interior and FEMA ranked 27 and 28 respectively out
of 29 agencies in their reported use of performance information for
various management functions (see appendix 1 for ranking of all 29
agencies).[Footnote 7] We also examined the management practices at the
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) within the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS), where managers' reported use of
performance information increased significantly over a seven-year
period. To obtain the different perspectives of bureau, program, and
field managers on challenges they faced in using performance
information, we interviewed officials from selected component
organizations that covered significant and diverse aspects of each
agency's mission. At Interior, we selected the National Park Service
(NPS) and Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation); at FEMA, we selected the
Disaster Assistance and Mitigation Directorates; and at CMS, we
selected officials and managers in Regions IV and IX, and in two lines
of business--the Consortium for Quality Improvement and Survey &
Certification Operations (CQISCO) and the Consortium for Financial
Management and Fee for Service Operations.[Footnote 8]
In our report that is being released today, Results-Oriented
Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could
Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, we described the
factors that contributed to differences among managers' reported use of
performance information at CMS, FEMA, and Interior.[Footnote 9] In my
testimony today, I will highlight the main findings from this report
focusing on (1) the practices that helped CMS promote results-oriented
management and (2) actions FEMA and Interior can take to improve their
use of performance information for decision making. In addition,
drawing from earlier work, my testimony will highlight opportunities
for the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to
strengthen agency efforts to use performance information to manage for
results and the role that Congress can play to support governmentwide
initiatives to improve performance.
Adoption of Key Management Practices Promoted Greater Use of
Performance Information at CMS:
In 2000, significantly fewer managers at CMS--then known as the Health
Care Financing Administration--reported using performance information
for various management decisions, as compared to their counterparts in
the rest of government. Between our 2000 and 2007 surveys, however, CMS
showed one of the largest average increases in the percentage of
managers who reported using performance information for certain
decisions. This increase placed CMS in about the middle of our agency
rankings, which were based on an index of 2007 survey results designed
to reflect the extent to which managers at each agency reported using
performance information.[Footnote 10] Our analysis of CMS survey
results, management interviews, and agency policies, performance
reports, and other relevant documents indicated that the adoption of
key management practices contributed to this improvement.
Demonstrating Leadership Commitment to Using Performance Information:
Our 2007 survey results showed that significantly more CMS managers
agreed that their leadership is committed to achieving results, than
they did in 2000 (see figure 2).
Figure 2: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported Top Leadership
Demonstrated Commitment to Achieving Results:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey question: My agency's top leadership demonstrates a strong
commitment to achieving results;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 46%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 69%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Nearly all of the CMS officials we interviewed credited the commitment
of one or more agency leaders--such as the CMS Administrator or the
Chief Operating Officer--for their increased use of performance
information to achieve results. One way in which leaders can
demonstrate their commitment is through frequent communication of
established goals and progress made toward those goals. As an example,
in an effort to reduce the incidence of pressure ulcers among nursing
home residents, a Region IV manager described to us how regional
leadership began to routinely share performance information about the
pressure-ulcer problem with the many stakeholders involved with patient
care including hospital and nursing-home personnel, patient advocates,
emergency medical technicians, and others. CMS contracts with states to
assess the quality of care provided by Medicare and Medicaid-
participating facilities, such as nursing homes, and is therefore
several steps removed from the delivery of health-care services to
patients and the resulting health outcomes. According to CMS Region IV
managers we interviewed, this indirect influence had been considered a
limiting factor in CMS' ability to affect outcomes among nursing-home
patients. However, these same managers said that leadership commitment
to getting stakeholders to the table and sharing performance
information with them were critical factors in bringing about a
reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers. In that region, between
fiscal years 2006 and 2008, this improvement translated into nearly
2,500 fewer long-stay nursing-home residents with pressure ulcers.
Strengthening Alignment among Agency, Program, and Individual
Performance Goals:
Our survey results also indicated that between 2000 and 2007, a
significantly greater percentage of CMS managers reported that they
were held accountable for program results (see figure 3).
Figure 3: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That Agency Managers
at Their Level Are Held Accountable for the Results of Their Programs:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey question: Agency managers/supervisors at my level are held
accountable for the results of the program(s) they are responsible for;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 42%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 77%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
In 2006, as part of a change throughout HHS, the agency adopted a new
performance-management system that links organizational and program
goals with individual accountability for program results. Top CMS
headquarters officials said that the new system had made individual
accountability for program results more explicit. They described how
agency goals and objectives were embedded in the Administrator's
performance agreement and cascaded down through the management
hierarchy, so that each level of management understood their
accountability for achieving the broad department and agency-level
goals.
To illustrate, broad goals for preventive healthcare cascade from HHS
through a CMS director responsible for increasing early detection of
breast cancer among Medicare beneficiaries, to a CMS Health Insurance
Specialist responsible for communications to raise awareness of the
importance of mammograms and other preventive measures.
Improving the Usefulness of Performance Information:
Our survey results show that between 2000 and 2007, there was a
significant decline in the percentage of CMS managers who reported that
difficulty developing meaningful measures was a hindrance to using
performance information (see figure 4).
Figure 4: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported Difficulty
Determining Meaningful Measures Hinders Using Performance Information:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey question: Difficulty determining meaningful measures hinders
measuring performance or using the performance information;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 65%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 48%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
According to CMS officials, to ensure that performance information was
useful to managers, they limited the number of measures for GPRA
reporting purposes to the 31 that represented the agency's priorities.
This official noted that it would be unmanageable to measure and report
on every aspect of their programs and processes. They ultimately
settled on a set of performance goals that helped managers and staff
identify performance gaps and opportunities to improve performance to
close the gaps.
Developing Analytic Capacity to Use Performance Information:
Our survey results and interviews with several CMS officials indicate
that the agency also took steps to develop their staff's capacity to
use performance information, such as investing in improved data systems
and offering increased training opportunities on a range of topics
related to performance planning and management. Between 2000 and 2007,
there was a significant positive increase on all six survey questions
related to managers' access to training over the past three years on
the use of performance information for various activities (see figure
5).
Figure 5: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That Training Was
Provided to Help Accomplish Key Management Tasks:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey item: My agency provided training to help me link the
performance of program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) to the achievement of
agency strategic goals;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 22%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 54%.
Survey item: My agency provided training to help me see program
performance information to make decisions;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 17%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 34%.
Survey item: My agency provided training to help me assess the quality
of
performance data;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 9%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 24%.
Survey item: My agency provided training to help me develop program
performance measures;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 15%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 49%.
Survey item: My agency provided training to help me set program
performance goals;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 29%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 58%.
Survey item: My agency provided training to help me conduct strategic
planning;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2000: 38%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, 2007: 57%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
According to one official we spoke with, increasing her staff's skills
in conducting analyses of performance information and presenting
findings was a gradual process that required training, coaching, and
guidance.
FEMA and Interior Were Hindered in Using Performance Information for
Decision Making by Weak or Inconsistent Application of Key Management
Practices:
Just as the adoption of key management practices can facilitate greater
use of information and a greater focus on results, the absence of these
practices can hinder widespread use. Fewer managers at FEMA and
Interior reported making extensive use of performance information for
decision making compared to managers at other agencies. Survey results,
interviews with senior level-officials and regional and program
managers, and a review of policies and other documents related to
performance planning and management at both agencies showed that
inconsistent use of these practices contributed to this condition.
Our 2007 survey results indicated that, compared to the rest of
government, a smaller percentage of FEMA managers agreed their top
leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to using performance
information to guide decision making (see fig. 6).
Figure 6: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency's Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Using Performance
Information to Guide Decision Making:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey question: My agency‘s top leadership demonstrates a strong
commitment to using performance information to guide decision making;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, rest of
government: 50%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, FEMA: 32%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
Our interviews with officials at FEMA were consistent with these survey
results, indicating that management commitment was demonstrated
inconsistently across the program directorates and regions we reviewed.
Leaders and managers we spoke to throughout the management hierarchy
were clearly committed to carrying out FEMA's mission. The level of
commitment to using performance information for decision making,
however, appeared to vary among those we interviewed. For example, in
the Disaster Assistance Directorate, one headquarters official told us
that he does not need performance targets to help him determine whether
his directorate is accomplishing its mission, relying instead on verbal
communications with the leadership and with FEMA's regions, joint field
offices, and members of Congress to identify issues to be addressed and
areas that are running well.
Another headquarters official within the Disaster Assistance
Directorate's Public Assistance program said he does not receive formal
performance reports from regional program managers, nor are any
performance reports required of him by his supervisors; rather, he said
that he spoke to the regions on an ad hoc basis as performance problems
arose. These officials expressed reluctance toward holding their staff
accountable for meeting performance goals due to external factors, such
as the unpredictability of disasters beyond their control. Further,
they expressed uncertainty as to how they could use performance
information in the face of uncontrollable external factors. As noted
below, however, other managers in FEMA have found ways to take
unpredictable occurrences into account as they monitor their progress
in achieving performance goals.
FEMA faces other hurdles, including the lack of a performance-
management system requiring managers to align agency goals with
individual performance objectives, which makes it challenging for
managers to hold individuals accountable for achieving results. The
agency also lacks adequate information systems for ensuring that
performance information can be easily collected, communicated, and
analyzed. For example, in order to gather performance information
across directorates, one official reported that it was necessary to
write programs to generate specific reports for each of the systems and
then manually integrate the information, making it difficult to produce
repeatable and verifiable reports. Further, according to several
officials we interviewed, there was a limited number of staff with the
analytic skills necessary to work with performance metrics.
As with FEMA, at Interior we observed that leaders and managers at all
levels conveyed a strong commitment to accomplishing the agency's
mission. Interior's survey results were similar to FEMA's results on
items related to managers' perceptions of their leadership's commitment
to using performance information. Interior's 2007 results were also
lower than those in the rest of government (see figure 7).
Figure 7: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency‘s Top
Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Using Performance
Information to Guide Decision Making:
[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph]
Survey question: My agency‘s top leadership demonstrates a strong
commitment to using performance information to guide decision making;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, rest of
government: 50%;
Percentage responding to a ’great“ or ’very great“ extent, Interior:
37%.
Source: GAO.
[End of figure]
According to officials we interviewed, leaders at Interior and NPS did
not effectively communicate to their staff how, if at all, they used
performance information to identify performance gaps and develop
strategies to better achieve results. Several NPS managers referred to
the performance reporting process as "feeding the beast," because they
receive little or no communication from either Interior or NPS
headquarters in response to the information they are required to
report, leading them to assume that no one with authority reviews or
acts on this information.
Furthermore, some bureau-level managers at NPS and Reclamation said the
performance measures they are required to report on were not always
useful for their decision making, either because there were too many or
because they were not credible. We have previously reported that to be
useful and meaningful to managers and staff across an agency,
performance measures should be limited at each organizational level to
the vital few that provide critical insight into the agency's core
mission and operations. However, in the seven years since the inception
of the former administration's Performance Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) initiative,[Footnote 11] Interior has expanded its performance
reporting to include 440 PART program measures, in addition to the
approximately 200 strategic performance measures used to track progress
against its strategic and annual plans, as required by GRPA. A senior
headquarters official at Interior said that the number of measures
makes it difficult for senior leaders and managers to focus on
priorities and easily identify performance gaps among the different
program areas. At NPS alone, managers were required to report on 122
performance measures related to GPRA and PART.
Managers at both NPS and Reclamation also described performance
information that lacked credibility because the measures either did not
accurately define comparable elements or did not take into account
different standards across bureaus or units. For example, several NPS
managers noted that one of the measures on which they report, "percent
of historic structures in good condition," does not differentiate
between a large, culturally significant structure such as the
Washington Monument and a smaller, less significant structure such as a
group of headstones. Consequently, a manager could achieve a higher
percentage by concentrating on improving the conditions of numerous
less significant properties.
Poorly integrated performance and management information systems
further hindered NPS and Reclamation managers' efforts to use
performance information to inform their decision making. For example,
according to some Reclamation managers we interviewed, there is no one
centralized database to which a Reclamation executive can go to find
out how the bureau is doing on all of Reclamation's required
performance goals. The lack of linkage among the different Reclamation
systems required managers to enter the same data multiple times, which
some managers said is a burden.
Despite the challenges facing FEMA and Interior, we also observed
various initiatives and program areas within the agencies where leaders
were committed to increasing the use of performance information; and
were demonstrating that commitment by communicating the importance of
using data to identify and solve problems, involving their managers in
efforts to develop useful measures, and connecting individual
performance with organizational results. Within FEMA, Mitigation
Directorate officials we interviewed reported that they had begun to
use performance information to plan for and respond to factors outside
of their control, a change that they attributed in large part to the
former Mitigation Administrator's commitment to performance and
accountability. For example, storms and other natural events can
disrupt the Mitigation Directorate's production work related to
floodplain maps modernization, which is a key step in ensuring that
flood-prone communities have the most reliable and current flood data
available. To plan for possible disruptions, Mitigation Directorate
officials said they reviewed performance information on progress toward
map modernization goals on a monthly basis with their external
stakeholders, including state and local governments and insurance
companies and FEMA's regional management, which sent a clear signal
that Mitigation's leadership was paying attention to outcomes.
According to these officials, this review helped them to determine in
advance if they were at risk of missing performance targets and to
identify corrective actions or contingency plans in order to get back
on track toward achieving their goals. Moreover, they said, they were
able to meet or exceed their performance target of 93 percent of
communities adopting new floodplain maps, in part, as a result of their
frequent communication and review of performance information.
Mitigation Directorate officials said that developing measures and
holding staff and contractors accountable for their performance was not
an easy transformation. They said that one key to this culture change
was for the leadership to strike an appropriate balance between holding
managers accountable for agency goals and building trust among managers
and staff that performance information would be used as an improvement
tool, rather than as a punitive mechanism. Finally, Mitigation
Directorate officials said that managers and staff became more
supportive of their leadership's efforts to use performance information
in their decision making once they began to see that measuring
performance could help them to improve results.
At Interior and NPS, officials were aware that managers continue to
struggle with the high volume of performance information they are
required to collect, and have initiated various strategies designed to
improve the usefulness of performance information without adding to the
existing data-collection and reporting process. For example, NPS' Core
Operations Analysis is a park-level funding and staffing planning
process, recently adopted by several regions, that is intended to
improve the efficiency of park operations and ensure that a park's
resource-allocation decisions are linked to its core mission goals.
Regional-level managers who engaged in the Core Operations Analysis
said it was useful in establishing goals based on the park's
priorities, monitoring progress toward achieving those goals, and
holding park superintendents accountable for meeting established goals.
Our report contains recommendations to the Secretary of the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS) for FEMA and the Secretary of the Interior,
designed to build upon the positive practices we identified within
these agencies. We recommended that FEMA augment its analytic capacity
to collect and analyze performance information and strengthen linkages
among agency, program, and individual performance. We also recommended
that Interior, NPS, and Reclamation review the usefulness of their
performance measures in conjunction with OMB and refine or discontinue
performance measures that are not useful for decision making. Finally,
to FEMA, Interior, and NPS, we made recommendations intended to improve
the visibility of agency leadership's commitment to using performance
information in decision making. Both DHS and Interior generally agreed
with these recommendations.
Building an Enduring Results-Oriented and Collaborative Culture
Requires Demonstrated Leadership Commitment from the President and
Congress:
As we have noted in the past, the President and Congress both have
unique and critical roles to play in demonstrating their commitment to
improving federal agency performance results. Both OMB and Congress can
send strong messages to agencies that results matter by articulating
expectations for individual agency performance and following up to
ensure that performance goals are achieved. At the same time, they also
need to address performance problems in the areas of government that
require the concerted efforts of multiple agencies and programs.
Increasingly, many of the outcomes we look for--such as prevention of
terrorist attacks, reduction in incidence of infectious diseases, or
improved response to natural disasters--go beyond the scope of any one
single agency. In these cases, agencies must work closely together to
achieve desired results.
The President and OMB Can Promote Greater Use of Performance
Information Governmentwide:
The President can send a signal to federal managers that using
performance information is critical for achieving results and
maximizing the return on federal funds invested by selecting and
focusing his attention on achieving certain critical goals, such as
creating or retaining jobs through investments under the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.[Footnote 12] As a first step,
OMB has begun to issue guidance to agencies on identifying a limited
number of high-priority performance goals, with the explicit message
that performance planning is a key element of the President's agenda to
build a high-performing government.[Footnote 13] With this recent
guidance, OMB has also put agencies on notice that the executive-branch
leadership is paying attention to their performance, by establishing
regular reviews of the progress agencies are making to improve results
in these high-priority areas.
As the primary focal point for overall management in the federal
government, OMB can support agency efforts to use performance
information by encouraging agencies to invest in training, identifying
and disseminating leading practices among agency managers, and
assisting agencies in adopting these practices where appropriate. As we
previously reported, our survey results showed a positive relationship
between managers who reported receiving training and development on
setting program performance goals and those who report using
performance information when setting or revising performance goals.
[Footnote 14] However, as we testified in July 2008, while our survey
found a significant increase in training since 1997, only about half of
our survey respondents in 2007 reported receiving any training that
would assist in analyzing and making use of performance information.
[Footnote 15] We previously recommended that OMB ensure that agencies
are making adequate investments in training on performance planning and
measurement, with a particular emphasis on how to use performance
information to improve program performance.[Footnote 16] Although the
agency has not yet implemented this recommendation, an official who
oversees OMB's management initiatives said that OMB has recently
launched a collaborative Wiki page for federal agencies. According to
this official, the Wiki is intended to provide an on-line forum for
federal managers to share lessons learned and leading practices for
using performance information to drive decision making.
In addition to providing support to help improve agency-level
performance, OMB is uniquely positioned to facilitate collaborative,
governmentwide performance toward crosscutting goals. As noted above,
there are numerous performance challenges, ranging from combating
terrorism to preventing the spread of infectious diseases, which
transcend organization lines and require the concerted efforts of
multiple agencies and programs. We have previously reported that GPRA
could provide OMB, agencies, and Congress with a structured framework
for addressing crosscutting program efforts.[Footnote 17] OMB, for
example, could use the provision of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop
an annual governmentwide performance plan to integrate expected agency-
level performance. Such a plan could help the executive branch and
Congress address critical federal performance and management issues
such as conflicting agency missions, jurisdiction issues, and
incompatible procedures, data, and processes. As we pointed out in our
July 2008 testimony, this provision has not been implemented fully.
In addition to the annual performance plan, a governmentwide strategic
plan could identify long-term goals and strategies to address issues
that cut across federal agencies. To that end, we have also recommended
that Congress consider amending GPRA to require the President to
develop a governmentwide strategic plan.[Footnote 18] Such a plan--
supported by a set of key national outcome-based indicators of where
the nation stands on a range of economic, environmental, safety and
security, social, and cultural issues--could offer a cohesive
perspective on the long-term goals of the federal government and
provide a much-needed basis for fully integrating, rather than merely
coordinating, a wide array of federal activities.
Ensuring Performance Information Is Useful to and Used by Congress Is
Key to Success of Governmentwide Performance Initiatives:
By routinely incorporating agency performance issues into its
deliberations and oversight, Congress can send an unmistakable message
to agencies that they are expected to manage for results. As we have
noted in our earlier work, however, Congress needs to be actively
involved in early conversations about what to measure and how to
present this information.[Footnote 19] We previously reported that the
PART process used by the prior administration did not systematically
incorporate a congressional perspective and promote a dialogue between
Congress and the President.[Footnote 20] As a result, most
congressional committee staff we spoke to did not use the PART results
to inform their deliberations. Although the Obama Administration
intends to adopt a new performance improvement and analysis framework,
any new framework should include a mechanism to consult with members of
Congress and their staffs about what they consider to be the most
important performance issues and program areas warranting review.
Engaging Congress early in the process could help target performance
improvement efforts toward those areas most likely to be on the agenda
of Congress, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will use
performance information in their oversight and deliberations.
Additionally, as we noted in our July 2008 testimony, Congress could
consider whether a more structured oversight mechanism would be helpful
in bringing about a more coordinated congressional perspective on
governmentwide performance issues. Just as the executive branch needs
to better address programs and challenges that span multiple
departments and agencies, Congress might find it useful to develop
structures and processes that provide a coordinated approach to
overseeing agencies where jurisdiction crosses congressional
committees. We have previously suggested that one possible approach
could involve developing a congressional performance resolution
identifying the key oversight and performance goals that Congress
wishes to set for its own committees and for the government as a whole.
Such a resolution could be developed by modifying the annual
congressional budget resolution, which is already organized by budget
function.[Footnote 21] This may involve collecting the input of
authorizing and appropriations committees on priority performance
issues for programs under their jurisdiction and working with
crosscutting committees such as the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform, and the House Committee on Rules.
In conclusion, while federal agencies have become better positioned to
manage for results, there is still much to be done to shift the focus
of federal managers from merely measuring agency performance to
actively managing performance to improve results. Our work indicates
that widespread adoption of the key management practices we have
identified is a critical first step. At the same time, the President
and Congress each have unique and critical roles to play in building a
high-performing, results-oriented, and collaborative culture across the
government. Beyond this, the creation of a long-term governmentwide
strategic plan, informed by a set of key national indicators, and an
annual governmentwide performance plan could provide important tools
for integrating efforts across agencies to achieve results on the
challenging issues that increasingly face our nation in the 21st
century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to
respond to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may
have at this time.
GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact me at
(202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this testimony. Individuals who made key contributions to this
testimony were Elizabeth Curda (Assistant Director), Jessica
Nierenberg, Laura Miller Craig, Kate Hudson Walker, Karin Fangman,
Melanie Papasian, A.J. Stephens, and William Trancucci.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Agency Ranking Based on 2007 Survey Results on Use of
Performance Information:
Rank: 1;
Agency/Component: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
Rank: 2;
Agency/Component: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Rank: 3;
Agency/Component: Department of Veterans Affairs.
Rank: 4;
Agency/Component: Social Security Administration.
Rank: 5;
Agency/Component: National Science Foundation.
Rank: 6;
Agency/Component: General Services Administration.
Rank: 7;
Agency/Component: Department of Energy.
Rank: 8;
Agency/Component: Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Rank: 9;
Agency/Component: Department of Education.
Rank: 10;
Agency/Component: Department of the Treasury (excluding Internal
Revenue Service).
Rank: 11;
Agency/Component: Internal Revenue Service.
Rank: 12;
Agency/Component: Environmental Protection Agency.
Rank: 13;
Agency/Component: Small Business Administration.
Rank: 14;
Agency/Component: Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Rank: 15;
Agency/Component: Department of Commerce.
Rank: 16;
Agency/Component: Office of Personnel Management.
Rank: 17;
Agency/Component: Federal Aviation Administration.
Rank: 18;
Agency/Component: United States Agency for International Development.
Rank: 19;
Agency/Component: Department of Labor.
Rank: 20;
Agency/Component: Department of Agriculture (excluding Forest Service).
Rank: 21;
Agency/Component: Department of Homeland Security (excluding Federal
Emergency Management Agency).
Rank: 22;
Agency/Component: Department of Defense.
Rank: 23;
Agency/Component: Department of State.
Rank: 24;
Agency/Component: Department of Transportation (excluding Federal
Aviation Administration).
Rank: 25;
Agency/Component: Department of Justice.
Rank: 26;
Agency/Component: Department of Health and Human Services (excluding
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services).
Rank: 27;
Agency/Component: Department of the Interior.
Rank: 28;
Agency/Component: Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Rank: 29;
Agency/Component: Forest Service.
Source: GAO.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA) to address several broad purposes including improving federal
program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery, and
enhancing congressional decision making by providing more objective
information on program performance. GPRA requires executive agencies to
complete strategic plans in which they define their missions, establish
results-oriented goals, and identify the strategies that will be needed
to achieve those goals. GPRA also requires executive agencies to
prepare annual performance plans that articulate goals for the upcoming
fiscal year that are aligned with their long-term strategic goals.
Finally, GPRA requires executive agencies to measure performance toward
the achievement of the goals in the annual performance plan and report
annually on their progress in program performance reports. Pub. L. No.
103-62,107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993).
[2] GAO, Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next
Administration on Using Performance Information to Achieve Results,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T] (Washington,
D.C.: July 24, 2008). In addition to our testimony, our survey results
are also available: GAO, Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers
Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-
1026T, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1036SP]
(Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008).
[3] Our surveys were completed in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007 and were
designed to obtain the observations and perceptions of respondents on
various aspects of results-oriented management topics such as the
presence and use of performance measures, hindrances to measuring
performance and using performance information, and agency climate. Most
of the items on our surveys asked respondents to rate the strength of
their perception on a 5-point extent scale ranging from "to no extent"
at the low end of the scale to "to a very great extent" at the high
end.
[4] See Related GAO Products listed in GAO, Results-Oriented
Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could
Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-676] (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17,
2009).
[5] GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-927] (Washington, D.C.: Sept.9,
2005).
[6] As part of our analyses of the 2007 survey data, we identified a
set of nine items from the questionnaire that inquired about key uses
of performance information. Using those items, we developed an index
that reflected the extent to which managers' perceived their own use of
performance information for various managerial functions and decisions
as well as that of other managers in the agency. To obtain an index
score of reported use of performance information, we computed an
average score for each respondent across the nine items we identified.
We then averaged the respondent scores from each agency to produce an
overall index score for each agency. By using this average index score,
which yields values in the same range as the 5-point extent scale used
on each item, we were able to qualitatively characterize index score
values using the same response categories used for the items
constituting the index.
[7] Although the Forest Service had the lowest ranking among all
federal agencies, our recent work at this agency had already resulted
in recommendations to address key management issues that we will
continue to monitor.
[8] We performed our audit work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and
perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide
a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
[9] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-676].
[10] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-676] for a more
detailed explanation of how we ranked agencies.
[11] The PART was a diagnostic tool created by OMB that was intended to
provide a consistent approach for evaluating federal programs as part
of the executive budget formulation process during the 2004-2008 budget
cycles. The tool applied 25 questions to all federal programs under
four broad topics: (1) program purpose and design, (2) strategic
planning, (3) program management, and (4) program results (i.e.,
whether a program is meeting its long-term and annual goals). Within
the second topic, the first question was "Does the program have a
limited number of specific, ambitious long term performance goals that
focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?"
If OMB determined that a program did not have such long term goals or
existing goals were not sufficient, the program would receive a lower
rating and OMB could require the development of new or revised goals.
In our review of OMB's 2004 PART process, we found that, according to
OMB, 115 out of 234 programs (49 percent) lacked "specific, ambitious,
long-term performance goals that focus on outcomes." See GAO,
Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-174
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).
[12] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb. 17, 2009). The Recovery Act
requires recipients of Recovery Act funds to report, among other
information, an estimate of the number of jobs created and number of
jobs retained by projects and activities. Recovery Act, §
1512(c)(3)(D), 123 Stat. 288.
[13] M-09-20, OMB Memorandum for the Heads of Departments and Agencies
on Planning for the President's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget and Performance
Plans, June 11, 2009.
[14] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.10,
2004).
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T].
[16] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38].
[17] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38].
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-38].
[19] GAO, Performance Budgeting: OMB's Performance Rating Tool Presents
Opportunities and Challenges for Evaluating Program Performance,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-550T] (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 11, 2004) and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T].
[20] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-550T].
[21] GAO, 21st Century Challenges: How Performance Budgeting Can Help,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-1194T] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 20, 2007).
[End of section]
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance
and accountability of the federal government for the American people.
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
Order by Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]:
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov:
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4800:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7149:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
