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:

GPRAs 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 
Presidents 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 governments 
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.