Results-Oriented Government
GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results Gao ID: GAO-04-594T March 31, 2004The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in effect for 10 years. In that context, the subcommittee asked GAO to discuss our recent report, Results- Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. Our testimony addresses the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a focus on results in the federal government.
GPRA's requirements have established a solid foundation of results-oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA. GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area to increase the use of performance information to make decisions about resources. In our report, we also found agency strategic and annual performance plans and reports have improved over initial efforts. Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top leadership commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can hinder the development of results-oriented cultures in agencies. Furthermore, in certain areas, federal managers continue to have difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking institutional, program, unit, and individual performance measurement and reward systems. Finally, there is an inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across federal agencies. OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management issues during the past several years. However, OMB has showed less commitment to GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and is not using the governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to develop an integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view, governmentwide strategic planning could better facilitate the integration of federal activities to achieve national goals.
GAO-04-594T, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-594T
entitled 'Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results' which was released on March
31, 2004.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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 Government Efficiency and Financial
Management, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives:
United States General Accounting Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, March 31, 2004:
RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT:
GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results:
Statement of Patricia A. Dalton, Director:
Strategic Issues:
GAO-04-594T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-04-594T, testimony before the Subcommittee on
Government Efficiency and Financial Management, Committee on Government
Reform, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in effect
for 10 years. In that context, the subcommittee asked GAO to discuss
our recent report, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a
Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. Our testimony addresses
the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a focus on results in the federal
government.
What GAO Found:
GPRA‘s requirements have established a solid foundation of results-
oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the
federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having
significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by
GPRA (see fig. below). GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of
resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area to
increase the use of performance information to make decisions about
resources. In our report, we also found agency strategic and annual
performance plans and reports have improved over initial efforts.
Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant
challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top
leadership commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can
hinder the development of results-oriented cultures in agencies.
Furthermore, in certain areas, federal managers continue to have
difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on
results, and linking institutional, program, unit, and individual
performance measurement and reward systems. Finally, there is an
inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across federal
agencies.
OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is
responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these
challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management
issues during the past several years. However, OMB has showed less
commitment to GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and is
not using the governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to
develop an integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view,
governmentwide strategic planning could better facilitate the
integration of federal activities to achieve national goals.
What GAO Recommends:
In our recent report, we recommended that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA implementation,
as well as develop a governmentwide performance plan. We also suggested
that Congress consider amending GPRA to require that (1) agencies
update their strategic plans at least once every 4 years, consult with
congressional stakeholders at least once every new Congress, and make
interim updates to strategic and performance plans as appropriate, and
(2) the President develop a governmentwide strategic plan.
OMB generally agreed with our recommendations, but stated that the
President‘s Budget can serve as both a governmentwide strategic and
annual plan. However, we believe the budget provides neither a long-
term nor an integrated perspective on the federal government‘s
performance.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-594T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at
(202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report, Results-Oriented
Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving
Greater Results.[Footnote 1] The Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) was enacted in 1993 to bring about a greater focus on results in
the federal government. Prior to the enactment of GPRA, our work on
performance measurement in the federal government showed that federal
agencies generally lacked the infrastructure needed to manage and
report on results of federal programs in a way that was transparent to
Congress and the American people. Today, based on a decade of work in
this area, we can safely say we have seen a transformation in the
capacity of the federal government to manage for results. This capacity
includes an infrastructure of outcome-oriented strategic plans,
performance measures, and accountability reporting that have
significantly improved over time and provide a solid foundation for
improving the performance of federal programs. However, a number of
challenges to GPRA implementation remain.
In light of the serious fiscal, security, and other emerging challenges
the nation faces, having such a capacity has never been more important.
Without effective short-and long-term planning, which takes into
account the changing environment and needs of the American public,
recognizes the challenges they face, and establishes goals to be
achieved, federal agencies risk delivering programs and services that
may or may not meet society's most critical needs. At a cost to
taxpayers of over $2 trillion annually, the federal government should
be able to demonstrate to the American public that it can anticipate
emerging issues, develop sound strategies and plans to address them,
and be accountable for the results that have been achieved.
My statement today will focus on the effectiveness of GPRA in creating
a focus on results in the federal government. Specifically, I will
discuss (1) the effect of GPRA over the last 10 years in creating a
governmentwide focus on results and the government's ability to deliver
results to the American public, including an assessment of the changes
in the overall quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and annual performance reports, (2) the challenges agencies face
in measuring performance and using performance information in
management decisions, and (3) how the federal government can continue
its shift toward a more results-oriented focus.
To meet our reporting objectives, we reviewed our extensive prior work
on GPRA best practices and implementation and collected governmentwide
data to assess the government's overall focus on results. We conducted
a random, stratified, governmentwide survey of federal managers
comparable to surveys we conducted in 1997 and 2000. We also held eight
in-depth focus groups--seven composed of federal managers from 23
federal agencies and one with GPRA experts. We also interviewed top
appointed officials from the current and previous administrations.
Finally, we judgmentally selected a sample of six agencies that we
reviewed for changes in the quality of their strategic plans,
performance plans, and performance reports since their initial efforts.
The agencies we selected included the Departments of Education
(Education), Energy (DOE), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and
Transportation (DOT) and the Small Business (SBA) and Social Security
Administrations (SSA). We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from
January through November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
GPRA Established a Management Framework:
GPRA is the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in
place during the 1990s to help resolve the long-standing management
problems that have undermined the federal government's efficiency and
effectiveness and to provide greater accountability for results. GPRA
was intended to address several broad purposes, including strengthening
the confidence of the American people in their government; improving
federal program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery;
and enhancing congressional decision making by providing more objective
information on program performance.
As a key part of the framework, 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 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.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays an important role in
the management of federal government performance and, specifically,
GPRA implementation. Part of OMB's overall mission is to ensure that
agency plans and reports are consistent with the President's budget and
administration policies. OMB is responsible for receiving and reviewing
agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. To improve the quality and consistency of these
documents, OMB issues annual guidance to agencies for their
preparation, including guidelines on format, required elements, and
submission deadlines. Further, GPRA requires OMB to prepare a
governmentwide performance plan, based on agencies' annual performance
plan submissions.
GPRA Laid the Foundation for a More Results-Oriented Federal
Government:
Ten years after enactment, GPRA's requirements have laid a solid
foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and
reporting. Focus group participants and high-level political
appointees, as well as OMB officials we interviewed, cited positive
effects of GPRA that they generally attributed to GPRA's statutory
requirements for planning and reporting. Performance planning and
measurement have slowly yet increasingly become a part of agencies'
cultures. The results of our survey of federal managers indicate that
since GPRA went into effect governmentwide in 1997, federal managers
reported having significantly more of the types of performance measures
called for by GPRA--particularly outcome-oriented performance
measures. Survey data also suggested that more federal managers,
especially at the Senior Executive Service (SES) level, believed that
OMB was paying attention to their agencies' efforts under GPRA.
One of the premises of GPRA is that both congressional and executive
branch oversight of federal agency performance were seriously hampered
by a lack of adequate results-oriented goals and performance
information. Our 1992 review of the collection and use of performance
data by federal agencies revealed that, although many agencies
collected performance information at the program level, few agencies
had results-oriented performance information to manage or make
strategic policy decisions for the agency as a whole.[Footnote 2] GPRA
addressed agencies' shortcomings by creating a comprehensive and
consistent statutory foundation of required agencywide strategic plans,
annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. Participants
in all eight of our focus groups cited the creation of this statutory
foundation as one of the key accomplishments of GPRA. Furthermore,
prior to GPRA few agencies reported their performance information
externally. In contrast, OMB officials we interviewed as part of our
current review suggested that OMB has been a key consumer of agency
performance information produced under GPRA and that it has provided a
foundation for their efforts to oversee agency performance. Focus group
participants also suggested that a major accomplishment of GPRA is the
improved the transparency of government results to the American public.
A key purpose of GPRA was "to improve the confidence of the American
people in the capability of the Federal Government, by systematically
holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results."
When asked about the direct effects of GPRA on the public, an estimated
23 percent of the federal managers surveyed agreed to a moderate or
greater extent that GPRA improved their agency's ability to deliver
results to the American public. High-level political appointees we
interviewed cited a number of examples of how the structure of GPRA
created a greater focus on results in their agencies. Participants in
our focus groups had mixed perceptions of GPRA's effect on their
agencies' ability to deliver results to the American public.
Participants indicated GPRA has had a positive effect by shifting the
focus of federal management from program activities and processes to
achieving the intended results of those programs. Other focus group
participants had difficulty attributing the results their agencies
achieved directly to GPRA's requirements.
Focus group and survey results suggest that performance planning and
measurement have slowly, but increasingly, become a part of agencies'
cultures. Compared to the results of our 1997 governmentwide survey of
federal managers, in our 2003 governmentwide survey more managers
reported having performance measures for their programs. When we asked
managers who said they had performance measures which of the five types
of measures they used to a "great" or "very great" extent, they
reported statistically significant increases in all five types of
measures between 1997 and 2003[Footnote 3] (see fig. 1).
Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures To a Great or Very Great Extent:
[See PDF for image]
[A] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.
[End of figure]
Similarly, focus group participants commented on certain cultural
changes that had taken place within their agencies since the passage of
GPRA in which the "vocabulary" of performance planning and measurement-
-that is, a greater focus on performance measurement, orientation
toward outcomes over inputs and outputs, and an increased focus on
program evaluation--had become more pervasive. This perception is
partly borne out by our survey results. Consistent with our survey
results indicating increases in results-oriented performance measures
and increasing GPRA knowledge, we also observed a significant decline
in the percentage of federal managers who agreed that certain factors
hindered measuring performance or using the performance information.
For example, of those who expressed an opinion, the percentage of
managers who noted that determining meaningful measures was a hindrance
to a "great" or "very great" extent was down significantly from 47
percent in 1997 to 36 percent in 2003. Likewise, the percentage that
agreed to a "great" or "very great" extent that different parties' use
of different definitions to measure performance was a hindrance also
declined significantly from 49 percent in 1997 to 36 percent in 2003.
Our survey data suggested that more federal managers, especially at the
SES level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their agencies'
efforts under GPRA (see fig. 2), but with no corresponding increase in
their concern that OMB would micromanage the programs in their
agencies. In our survey, we asked respondents to assess the extent to
which OMB pays attention to their agencies' efforts under GPRA. In
2003, the percentage of respondents who responded "great" or "very
great" to this question (31 percent) was significantly higher than in
2000 (22 percent). Of those, SES respondents showed an even more
dramatic increase, from 33 to 51 percent. We also asked respondents to
describe the extent to which their concern that OMB would micromanage
programs in their agencies was a hindrance to measuring performance or
using performance information. The percentage among those expressing an
opinion that it was a hindrance to a "great" or "very great" extent was
low--around 24 percent in 2003--with no significant difference between
2000 and 2003.
Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers and SES Managers Who Reported
That OMB Paid Attention to Their Agency's Efforts Under GPRA to a Great
or Very Great Extent:
[See PDF for image]
[A] There was a statistically significant difference between 2000 and
2003 surveys.
[End of figure]
The foundation of results-oriented planning and reporting that has been
established is also reflected in the quality of the plans and reports
of six federal agencies we reviewed for our report. Beginning with
federal agencies' initial efforts to develop effective strategic plans
in 1997 and annual performance plans and reports for fiscal year 1999,
Congress, GAO, and others have commented on the quality of those
efforts and provided constructive feedback on how agency plans and
reports could be improved. On the basis of our current review of the
strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance and
accountability reports of six selected agencies--Education, DOE, HUD,
DOT, SBA, and SSA--we found that these documents reflect much of the
feedback that was provided.
The quality of the six agencies' strategic plans we reviewed reflected
improvements over these agencies' initial strategic plans. In our
current review, the six strategic plans we looked at reflected many new
and continuing strengths as well as improvements over the 1997 initial
draft plans, but we continued to find certain persistent weaknesses. Of
the six elements required by GPRA, the plans generally discussed all
but one--program evaluation--an area in which we have found agencies
often lack capacity. Although the strategic plans listed the program
evaluations agencies intended to complete over the planning period,
they generally did not address how the agencies planned to use their
evaluations to establish new or revise existing strategic goals, as
envisioned by GPRA. Finally, although not required by GPRA, the
strategic plans would have benefited from more complete discussions of
how agencies planned to coordinate and collaborate with other entities
to address common challenges and achieve common or complementary goals
and objectives.
The six selected agencies' fiscal year 2004 annual performance plans
addressed some weaknesses of earlier plans, but there is still
significant room for improvement. Most of the 2004 plans that we
reviewed showed meaningful improvements over the fiscal year 1999 plans
by showing a clearer picture of intended performance, providing
strategies and resources that were more specifically related to
achieving agency goals, and providing a greater level of confidence
that performance data would be credible. But these plans also contained
a number of serious weaknesses, such as inadequate discussion of
coordination and collaboration and inconsistent or limited discussions
of procedures used to verify and validate performance data, which
limited their quality and undermined their usefulness.
Our review of the six agencies' fiscal year 2002 performance and
accountability reports showed a number of strengths and improvements
over their fiscal year 1999 performance reports, as well as areas that
needed improvement. These fiscal year 2002 reports generally allowed
for an assessment of progress made in achieving agency goals. In
addition, the majority of agencies discussed the progress achieved in
addressing performance and accountability challenges identified by
agency inspectors general and GAO. However, many of the weaknesses we
identified in the agencies' fiscal year 2002 reports were related to
the significant number of performance goals not achieved or for which
performance data were unavailable. In addition, the majority of the
reports we reviewed did not include other GPRA requirements, such as a
summary of the findings from program evaluations. Finally, only one of
the six agencies clearly linked its costs to the achievement of
performance goals or objectives.
Challenges to GPRA Implementation Exist:
While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies
more results oriented, we found numerous challenges remain. These
challenges included (1) top leadership does not consistently show
commitment to achieving results, (2) managers reported mixed results in
the use of performance information, (3) managers continue to confront a
range of human capital management challenges, (4) managers face
persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals, measuring
performance, and collecting useful data, (5) crosscutting issues are
not adequately addressed, and (6) managers' views that Congress' use of
performance information is limited.
Top Leadership Commitment:
As we noted in previous GAO reports, top leadership commitment and
sustained attention to achieving results, both within the agencies and
at OMB, are essential to GPRA implementation. While one might expect an
increase in agency leadership commitment since GPRA was implemented,
our governmentwide surveys of federal managers have not shown
significant increases. Furthermore, although OMB has recently
demonstrated leadership in its review of performance information from a
budgetary perspective using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)
tool,[Footnote 4] it is unclear whether the results of those reviews,
such as changes in program performance measures, will complement and be
integrated with the long-term, strategic focus of GPRA. OMB provided
significantly less guidance on GPRA implementation for the fiscal year
2005 budget, compared to the very detailed guidance provided in prior
years. Without consistent guidance from OMB on meeting GPRA
requirements and following best practices, it may be difficult to
maintain the improvements in agency performance plans and reports or
bring about improvements in areas where weaknesses remain.
Additionally, we found that timing issues may affect the development of
agency strategic plans that are meaningful and useful to top
leadership. The commitment and sustained attention of top leadership
within agencies, OMB, and Congress is critical to the success of
strategic planning efforts. A strategic plan should reflect the policy
priorities of an organization's leaders and the input of key
stakeholders if it is to be an effective management tool. However, GPRA
specifies time frames for updating strategic plans that do not
correspond to presidential or congressional terms. As a result, an
agency may be required to update its strategic plan a year before a
presidential election and without input from a new Congress. If a new
president is elected, the updated plan is essentially moot and agencies
must spend additional time and effort revising it to reflect new
priorities. Our focus group participants, including GPRA experts,
strongly agreed that this timing issue should be addressed by adjusting
time frames to correspond better with presidential and congressional
terms.
Use of Performance Information to Manage:
The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully
realized when this information is actually used by managers to bring
about desired results. Federal managers reported mixed results in the
use of performance information (see fig. 3). Focus group participants
and survey respondents noted that although many federal managers
understand and use results-oriented management concepts in their day-
to-day activities, such as strategic planning and performance
measurement, they do not always connect these concepts to the
requirements of GPRA. According to our 2003 survey results, the
reported use of performance information to a "great" or "very great"
extent for nine management activities, such as setting program
priorities or setting individual job expectations for staff, ranging
from 41 to 66 percent, has not changed significantly since our first
survey in 1997. One exception was the reported use to a "great" or
"very great" extent of performance information to adopt new program
approaches or change work processes, which was significantly lower than
the 1997 results. GPRA's usefulness to agency leaders and managers as a
tool for management and accountability was cited as a key
accomplishment numerous times by focus group participants. However, a
number of alternative views indicated that the usefulness of GPRA as a
management tool has been limited. Our survey data also indicate that
managers perceive their participation in activities related to the
development of performance information has been limited.
Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information
Obtained From Performance Measurement to a Great or Very Great Extent
for Various Management Activities:
[See PDF for image]
Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the
extent scale.
[A] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.
[B] This question was not asked in 1997.
[End of figure]
Human Capital Management:
Human capital management considerations also pose challenges to GPRA
implementation. In our survey, federal managers reported that they are
held accountable for program results, but may not have the decision-
making authority they need to accomplish agency goals. When asked the
extent to which managers or supervisors at their levels were held
accountable for the accomplishment of agency strategic goals, 57
percent responded to a "great" or "very great" extent in 2003. Also,
there was little difference between the views of SES and non-SES
managers in the area of accountability. (See fig. 4.):
Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers, SES, and Non-SES in 2003
Reporting to a Great or Very Great Extent That They Were Held
Accountable for the Accomplishment of Agency Strategic Goals:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
In contrast, there was a significant difference between SES and non-SES
managers' perceptions of having the decision-making authority they
needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals. Compared to
the 57 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a
great or very great extent in 2003, only 38 percent of non-SES managers
reported having such authority to a great or very great extent. (See
fig. 5.):
Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting To a Great or Very
Great Extent That Managers/Supervisors at Their Levels Had the
Decision-making Authority They Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its
Strategic Goals:
[See PDF for image]
[A] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.
[B] There was a statistically significant difference between SES
compared to non-SES for each survey.
[End of figure]
Moreover, fewer than half of managers reported receiving relevant
training. Managers also perceived a lack of positive recognition for
helping agencies achieve results. Unfortunately, most existing federal
performance appraisal systems are not designed to support a meaningful
performance-based pay system in that they fail to link institutional,
program, unit, and individual performance measurement and reward
systems. In our view, one key need is to modernize performance
management systems in executive agencies so that they link to the
agency's strategic plan, related goals, and desired outcomes and are
therefore capable of adequately supporting more performance-based pay
and other personnel decisions.
Performance Measurement:
Managers reported persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented
goals, measuring performance, and collecting useful data. Focus group
participants and survey respondents noted that outcome-oriented
performance measures were especially difficult to establish when the
program or line of effort was not easily quantifiable. For example,
implementing GPRA in a regulatory environment and meeting GPRA
reporting requirements for intergovernmental grant programs are
particularly challenging. Managers also identified difficulties in
distinguishing between the results produced by the federal program and
results caused by external factors or nonfederal actors, such as with
grant programs. Finally, managers reported that timely and useful
performance information is not always available.
Crosscutting Issues:
Crosscutting issues continue to be a challenge to GPRA implementation.
Our review of six agencies' strategic and annual performance plans
showed some improvement in addressing their crosscutting program
efforts, but a great deal of improvement is still necessary. We have
previously reported and testified that GPRA could provide OMB,
agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing
crosscutting policy initiatives and program efforts. It can also be a
valuable tool to address mission fragmentation and program overlap. OMB
could use the provision of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a
governmentwide performance plan to integrate expected agency-level
performance. It could also be used to more clearly relate and address
the contributions of alternative federal strategies. Unfortunately,
this provision has not been fully implemented. Instead, OMB has used
the President's Budget to present high-level information about agencies
and certain program performance issues.
The current agency-by-agency focus of the budget does not provide the
integrated perspective of government performance envisioned by GPRA.
For example, the fiscal year 2004 budget identified budget requests and
performance objectives by agency, such as the U.S. Department of
Defense, as opposed to crosscutting governmentwide themes. From this
presentation, one could assume that the only activities the U.S.
government planned to carry out in support of national defense were
those listed under the chapter "Department of Defense." However, the
chapter on the fiscal year 2004 budget discussing "the Department of
State and International Assistance Programs," contains a heading
titled, "Countering the Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction." And
while OMB may have a technical reason for not classifying this task as
being related to national defense or homeland security, it is unclear
that a lay reader could make that distinction. The fiscal year 2005
budget also identified budget requests and performance objectives by
agency, not by crosscutting theme.
A strategic plan for the federal government could provide an additional
tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as well as
proposals for new programs. If fully developed, a governmentwide
strategic plan could potentially provide 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. Successful strategic planning requires the
involvement of key stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism
for building consensus. Further, it could provide a vehicle for the
President to articulate long-term goals and a road map for achieving
them. In addition, a strategic plan could provide a more comprehensive
framework for considering organizational changes and making resource
decisions. The development of a set of key national indicators could be
used as a basis to inform the development of governmentwide strategic
and annual performance plans. The indicators could also link to and
provide information to support outcome-oriented goals and objectives in
agency-level strategic and annual performance plans.
Congressional Use of Performance Information:
Finally, focus group members believed that one of the main challenges
to GPRA implementation was the reluctance of Congress to use
performance information when making decisions, especially
appropriations decisions. However, less than one quarter of federal
managers in the 2003 survey shared that concern. Further, a recent
Congressional Research Service review suggests that Congress uses
performance information to some extent, as evidenced by citations in
legislation and committee reports. While there is concern regarding
Congress' use of performance information, it is important to make sure
that this information is useful. In other words, the information
presented and its presentation must meet the needs of the user. Regular
consultation with Congress about both the content and format of
performance plans and reports is critical.
As a key user of performance information, Congress also needs to be
considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRA
provides a vehicle for Congress to explicitly state its performance
expectations in outcome-oriented terms when consulting with agencies on
their strategic plans or when establishing new programs or exercising
oversight of existing programs that are not achieving desired results.
This would provide important guidance to agencies that could then be
incorporated in agency strategic and annual performance plans.
Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration:
The challenges we identified in our report are not new--most have not
changed significantly since we first reported on governmentwide
implementation of GPRA. However, we have frequently reported on
approaches that agencies, OMB, and Congress could use to address the
challenges. These approaches include strengthening the commitment of
top leadership to creating and sustaining a focus on results; taking a
governmentwide approach to achieving outcomes that are crosscutting in
nature; improving the usefulness of performance information to
managers, Congress, and the public; and improving the quality of
performance measures and data. Collectively, these approaches form the
agenda that federal agencies, OMB, and Congress will need to follow to
bring about a more sustainable, governmentwide focus on results.
In our report we recommended that the Director of OMB implement five
suggestions to improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA
implementation:
* To provide a broader perspective and more cohesive picture of the
federal government's goals and strategies to address issues that cut
across executive branch agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB
fully implement GPRA's requirement to develop a governmentwide
performance plan.
* To achieve the greatest benefit from both GPRA and PART, we recommend
that the Director of OMB articulate and implement an integrated and
complementary relationship between the two. GPRA is a broad legislative
framework that was designed to be consultative with Congress and other
stakeholders, and allows for varying uses of performance information.
PART looks through a particular lens for a particular use--the
executive budget formulation process.
* To improve the quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual
performance plans, and performance and accountability reports and help
agencies meet the requirements of GPRA, we recommend that the Director
of OMB provide clearer and consistent guidance to executive branch
agencies on how to implement GPRA. Such guidance should include
standards for communicating key performance information in concise as
well as longer formats to better meet the needs of external users who
lack the time or expertise to analyze lengthy, detailed documents.
* To help address agencies' performance measurement challenges, we
recommend that the Director of OMB engage in a continuing dialogue with
agencies about their performance measurement practices with a
particular focus on grant-making, research and development, and
regulatory functions to identify and replicate successful approaches
agencies are using to measure and report on their outcomes, including
the use of program evaluation tools. Additionally, we recommend that
the Director of OMB work with executive branch agencies to identify the
barriers to obtaining timely data to show progress against performance
goals and the best ways to report information where there are
unavoidable lags in data availability. Governmentwide councils, such as
the President's Management Council and the Chief Financial Officers
Council, may be effective vehicles for working on these issues.
* To facilitate the transformation of agencies' management cultures to
be more results oriented, we recommend that the Director of OMB work
with agencies to ensure they 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.
We also identified two matters for congressional consideration to
improve the governmentwide focus on results:
* To ensure that agency strategic plans more closely align with changes
in the federal government leadership, Congress should consider amending
GPRA to require that updates to agency strategic plans be submitted at
least once every 4 years, 12-18 months after a new administration
begins its term. Additionally, consultations with congressional
stakeholders should be held at least once every new Congress and
interim updates made to strategic and performance plans as warranted.
Congress should consider using these consultations along with its
traditional oversight role and legislation as opportunities to clarify
its performance expectations for agencies. This process may provide an
opportunity for Congress to develop a more structured oversight agenda.
* To provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to
address issues that cut across federal agencies, Congress should
consider amending GPRA to require the President to develop a
governmentwide strategic plan.
Agency Comments:
In commenting on a draft of our report, OMB generally agreed with our
findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our
recommendations, but stated that the President's Budget represents the
executive branch's governmentwide performance plan and could also
double as a governmentwide strategic plan. However, because of the
budget's focus on agency-level expenditures for the upcoming fiscal
year, we believe that the President's Budget provides neither a long-
term nor an integrated perspective on the federal government's
performance. We also provided relevant sections of the draft to the six
agencies whose plans and reports we reviewed. DOE, HUD, and SSA
disagreed with some of our observations, and we changed or clarified
relevant sections of the report, as appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased
to answer any questions you or the other members of the Committee may
have at this time.
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Patricia A.
Dalton, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806. Other
individuals who made key contributions to this testimony were Elizabeth
Curda and Kimberly Gianopoulos.
FOOTNOTES
[1] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA
Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results,
GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 2004).
[2] United States General Accounting Office, Program Performance
Measures: Federal Agency Collection and Use of Performance Data, GAO/
GGD-92-65 (Washington, D.C.: May 4, 1992).
[3] Types of measures were defined in the questionnaire as follows:
Performance measures that tell us how many things we produce or
services we provide (output measures); performance measures that tell
us if we are operating efficiently (efficiency measures); performance
measures that tell us whether or not we are satisfying our customers
(customer service measures); performance measures that tell us about
the quality of the products or services we provide (quality measures);
and performance measures that would demonstrate to someone outside of
our agency whether or not we are achieving our intended results
(outcome measures).
[4] PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that it has been using
to rate the effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus
on program results. OMB's goal is to review all federal programs over a
5-year period using the PART tool.
