Instituting a More Coordinated and Crosscutting Approach to Achieving Meaningful Results

The federal government faces a series of challenges that in many instances  are not possible for any single agency to address alone. Many federal  program efforts, including those related to ensuring food safety, providing  homeland security, monitoring incidence of infectious diseases, or  improving response to natural disasters, transcend more than one agency.  Agencies face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to  work collaboratively. GPRAMA establishes a new framework aimed at  taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results  and improving government performance. It requires the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with agencies, to  develop—every 4 years—long-term, outcome-oriented goals for a limited  number of crosscutting policy areas. On an annual basis, OMB is to  provide information on how these long-term crosscutting goals will be  achieved.
Also, we recently reported that a system of key national indicators  currently under development in the U.S. could contribute to the  implementation of the act’s requirements for establishing crosscutting  goals as well as agency-level goals. Such a system aims to aggregate  essential statistical measures of economic, social, and environmental  issues to provide reliable information on a country’s condition, offering a  shared frame of reference that enables collective accountability. Federal  officials could look to measures included in a system of key national  indicators to highlight areas in need of improvement and could use this  information to inform the selection of future crosscutting and agency-level  goals. Also, by providing information on economic, social, and  environmental conditions and trends across the nation, a key indicator  system may help provide context and a broader perspective for  interpreting how the federal government’s efforts contribute to national  outcomes.
The crosscutting approach required by the act will provide a much needed  basis for more fully integrating a wide array of federal activities as well as  a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals of the federal government  that is focused on priority policy areas. It could also be a valuable tool for  governmentwide reexamination of existing programs and for considering  proposals for new programs.
Our recent report on duplication, overlap, and fragmentation highlights a  number of areas where a more crosscutting approach is needed—both  across agencies and within a specific agency. We found that duplication  and overlap occur because programs have been added incrementally over  time to respond to new needs and challenges, without a strategy to  minimize duplication, overlap, and fragmentation among them. Also, there  are not always interagency mechanisms or strategies in place to  coordinate programs that address crosscutting issues, which can lead to  potentially duplicative, overlapping, and fragmented efforts.
Effective GPRAMA implementation could help inform reexamination or  restructuring efforts related to these and other areas by identifying the  various agencies and federal activities—including spending programs,  regulations, and tax expenditures—that contribute to each crosscutting  goal. These efforts could also be supported by a system of key national  indicators. For example, to influence positive movement in certain  indicators, federal officials could look at all the programs that contribute  to improving outcomes related to those indicators, examine how each  contributes, and use this information to streamline and align the programs  to create a more effective and efficient approach.
Examples from our work on duplication, overlap, and fragmentation  include:    Teacher quality programs: In fiscal year 2009, the federal government  spent over $4 billion specifically to improve the quality of our nation’s  3 million teachers through numerous programs across the  government. Federal efforts to improve teacher quality have led to the  creation and expansion of a variety of programs across the federal  government; however, there is no governmentwide strategy to  minimize fragmentation, overlap, or duplication among these many  programs. Specifically, we identified 82 distinct programs designed to  help improve teacher quality, either as a primary purpose or as an  allowable activity, administered across 10 federal agencies. The  proliferation of programs has resulted in fragmentation that can  frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a comprehensive  manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are most cost  effective, and ultimately increase program costs.
Department of Education (Education) officials believe that federal  programs have failed to make significant progress in helping states  close achievement gaps between schools serving students from  different socioeconomic backgrounds, because in part, federal  programs that focus on teaching and learning of specific subjects are  too fragmented to help state and district officials strengthen  instruction and increase student achievement in a comprehensive  manner. Education has established working groups to help develop  more effective collaboration across Education offices, and has reached  out to other agencies to develop a framework for sharing information  on some teacher quality activities, but it has noted that coordination  efforts do not always prove useful and cannot fully eliminate barriers  to program alignment.
Congress could help eliminate some of these barriers through  legislation, particularly through the pending reauthorization of the  Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other key  education bills. Specifically, to minimize any wasteful fragmentation  and overlap among teacher quality programs, Congress may choose  either to eliminate programs that are too small to evaluate cost  effectively or to combine programs serving similar target groups into a  larger program. Education has already proposed combining 38  programs into 11 programs in its reauthorization proposal, which  could allow the agency to dedicate a higher portion of its  administrative resources to monitoring programs for results and  providing technical assistance.
Military health system: The Department of Defense’s (DOD) Military  Health System (MHS) costs have more than doubled from $19 billion in  fiscal year 2001 to $49 billion in 2010 and are expected to increase to  over $62 billion by 2015. The responsibilities and authorities for the  MHS are distributed among several organizations within DOD with no  central command authority or single entity accountable for minimizing  costs and achieving efficiencies. Under the MHS’s current command  structure, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health  Affairs, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each has its own  headquarters and associated support functions.
DOD has taken limited actions to date to consolidate certain common  administrative, management, and clinical functions within its MHS. To  reduce duplication in its command structure and eliminate redundant  processes that add to growing defense health care costs, DOD could  take action to further assess alternatives for restructuring the  governance structure of the military health system. In 2006, if DOD and  the services had chosen to implement one of the reorganization  alternatives studied by a DOD working group, a May 2006 report by the  Center for Naval Analyses showed that DOD could have achieved  significant savings. Our adjustment of those savings from 2005 into  2010 dollars indicates those savings could range from $281 million to  $460 million annually, depending on the alternative chosen and the  numbers of military, civilian, and contractor positions eliminated. The  Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness has recently  established a new position to oversee DOD’s military healthcare  reform efforts.
Employment and training programs: In fiscal year 2009, 47 federal  employment and training programs in nine agencies spent about $18  billion to provide services, such as job search and job counseling, to  program participants. Most of these programs are administered by the  Departments of Labor, Education, and Health and Human Services  (HHS). Forty-four of the 47 programs we identified, including those  with broader missions such as multipurpose block grants, overlap with  at least one other program in that they provide at least one similar  service to a similar population. As we reported in January 2011, nearly  all 47 programs track multiple outcome measures, but only five  programs have had an impact study completed since 2004 to assess  whether outcomes resulted from the program and not some other  cause. We examined potential duplication among three selected large  programs—HHS’s Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF)  and the Department of Labor’s Employment Service, and Workforce  Investment Act of 1998 (WIA) Adult programs—and found they  provide some of the same services to the same population through  separate administrative structures.
Colocating services and consolidating administrative structures may  increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but implementation can be  challenging. Some states have colocated TANF employment and  training services in one-stop centers where Employment Service and  WIA Adult services are provided. An obstacle to further progress in  achieving greater administrative efficiencies is that little information is  available about the strategies and results of such initiatives. In  addition, little is known about the incentives that states and localities  have to undertake such initiatives and whether additional incentives  are needed.
To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing  administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we  recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work  together to develop and disseminate information that could inform  such efforts. As part of this effort, Labor and HHS should examine the  incentives for states and localities to undertake such initiatives and, as  warranted, identify options for increasing such incentives. Labor and  HHS agreed they should develop and disseminate this information.  HHS noted that it does not have the legal authority to mandate  increased TANF-WIA coordination or create incentives for such  efforts. As part of its proposed changes to the Workforce Investment  Act of 1998, the administration proposes consolidating nine programs  into three. In addition, the budget proposal would transfer the Senior  Community Service Employment Program from Labor to HHS.  Sustained oversight by Congress could also help ensure progress is  realized.

	Focusing on Addressing Weaknesses in Major Management Functions

Although agencies have made progress improving their operations in  recent years, they need more effective management capabilities to better  implement new programs and policies. As part of the new  governmentwide framework created by GPRAMA, OMB is required to  develop long-term goals to improve management functions across the  government. The act specifies that these goals should include five areas:  financial management, human capital management, information  technology management, procurement and acquisition management, and  real property management. All five of these areas have been identified by  GAO as key management challenges across the government.
Moreover, some aspects of these areas have warranted our designation as  high risk, either governmentwide or at certain agencies. For example,  although significant improvements have been made since we initially  designated it as high risk in 2001, strategic human capital management in  the federal government remains high risk because of a need to address  current and emerging critical skills gaps that are undermining agencies’  abilities to meet their vital missions. Another example is financial  management at DOD, which we designated as high risk in 1995 due to  pervasive financial and related business management systems and control  deficiencies.
In addition, a number of the cost-savings or revenue-enhancement  opportunities we recently identified touch on needed improvements to  management functions. Examples include:    Noncompetitive contracts: Federal agencies generally are required to  award contracts competitively, but a substantial amount of federal  money is being obligated on noncompetitive contracts annually.  Federal agencies obligated approximately $170 billion on  noncompetitive contracts in fiscal year 2009 alone. While there has  been some fluctuation over the years, the percentage of obligations  under noncompetitive contracts recently has been in the range of 31  percent to over 35 percent.
Although some agency decisions to forego competition may be  justified, we found that when federal agencies decide to open their  contracts to competition, they frequently realize savings. For example,  the Department of State (State) awarded a noncompetitive contract for  installation and maintenance of technical security equipment at U.S.  embassies in 2003. In response to our recommendation, State  subsequently competed this requirement, and in 2007 it awarded  contracts to four small businesses for a total savings of over $218  million. In another case, we found in 2006 that the Army had awarded  noncompetitive contracts for security guards, but later spent 25  percent less for the same services when the contracts were competed.
In July 2009, OMB called for agencies to reduce obligations under new  contract actions that are awarded using high-risk contracting  authorities by 10 percent in fiscal year 2010. These high-risk contracts  include those that are awarded noncompetitively and those that are  structured as competitive but for which only one offer is received.  While sufficient data are not yet available to determine whether OMB’s  goal was met, we are currently reviewing the agencies’ savings plans to  identify steps taken toward that goal, and will continue to monitor the  progress agencies make toward achieving this and any subsequent  goals set by OMB.
Undisbursed grant balances: Past audits of federal agencies by GAO  and Inspectors General, as well as agencies’ annual performance  reports, have suggested grant management challenges, including  failure to conduct grant closeouts and undisbursed balances, are a  long-standing problem. In August 2008, we reported that during  calendar year 2006, about $1 billion in undisbursed funding remained  in expired grant accounts in HHS’s Payment Management System—the  largest civilian grant payment system, which multiple agencies use. In  August 2008, we recommended that OMB instruct all executive  departments and independent agencies to track undisbursed balances  in expired grant accounts and report on the resolution of this funding  in their annual performance plan and Performance and Accountability  Reports. As of April 2011, OMB had not issued guidance to all agencies  to track and report on such balances.
Unneeded real property: Many federal agencies hold real property they  do not need, including property that is excess or underutilized. Excess  and underutilized properties present significant potential risks to  federal agencies because they are costly to maintain. For example, in  fiscal year 2009, agencies reported underutilized buildings accounted  for over $1.6 billion in annual operating costs. In a June 2010  Presidential Memorandum to federal agencies, the administration  established a new target of saving $3 billion through disposals and  other methods by the end of fiscal year 2012; the President reiterated  this goal in his 2012 budget. However, federal agencies continue to  face obstacles to disposing of unneeded property, such as  requirements to offer the property to other federal agencies, then to  state and local governments and certain nonprofits at no cost. If these  entities cannot use the property, agencies may also need to comply  with costly historic preservation or environmental cleanup  requirements before disposing of the property. Finally, community  stakeholders may oppose agencies’ plans for property disposal.
OMB could assist agencies in meeting their property disposal target by  implementing our April 2007 recommendation of developing an action  plan to address key problems associated with disposing of unneeded  real property, including reducing the effect of competing stakeholder  interests on real property decisions. The President’s fiscal year 2012  budget proposed the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA), which  was recently introduced in the House of Representatives. The act  would establish a Civilian Property Realignment Board modeled on the  Base Closure and Realignment Commission. We are engaged in  discussions with Congress to determine how we can best support  Congress, should the act become law.

	Ensuring Performance Information Is Both Useful and Used in Decision Making

Agencies need to consider the differing information needs of various  users—such as agency top leadership and line managers, OMB, and  Congress—to ensure that performance information will be both useful and  used in decision making. We have previously reported that to be useful,  performance information must meet diverse users’ needs for  completeness, accuracy, validity, timeliness, and ease of use. GPRAMA  puts into place several requirements that could address these needs.
Completeness: Agencies often lack information on the effectiveness of  programs; such information could help decision makers prioritize  resources among programs. Our work on overlap and duplication has  found crosscutting areas where performance information is limited or  does not exist. For example, not enough is known about the  effectiveness of many domestic food assistance programs—an area  where three federal agencies administer 18 programs, covering more  than $62.5 billion in spending in fiscal year 2008. Research suggests  that participation in 7 of the 18 programs—including the Special  Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children  (WIC), the National School Lunch Program, the School Breakfast  Program, and SNAP—is associated with positive health and nutrition  outcomes consistent with programs’ goals, such as raising the level of  nutrition among low-income households, safeguarding the health and  well-being of the nation’s children, and strengthening the agricultural  economy. Yet little is known about the effectiveness of the remaining  11 programs because they have not been well studied. In another area,  economic development, where four agencies administer 80 programs,  a lack of information on program outcomes is a current and long- standing problem. In shedding light on these and other areas, the new  crosscutting planning and reporting requirements could lead to the  development of performance information in areas that are currently  incomplete.
Accuracy and validity: Agencies are required to disclose more  information about the accuracy and validity of their performance  information in their performance plans and reports, including the  sources for their data and actions to address limitations to the data.
Timeliness and ease of use: While agencies will continue to report  annually on progress towards the rest of their goals, GPRAMA requires  reporting for governmentwide and agency priority goals on a quarterly  basis. By also requiring information to be posted on a governmentwide  Web site, the act will make performance information more accessible  and easy to use by stakeholders and the public, thus fostering  transparency and civic engagement.
In addition, to help ensure that performance information is used—not  simply collected and reported as a compliance exercise—GPRAMA  requires top leadership and program officials to be involved in quarterly  reviews of priority goals. During these sessions, they are expected to  review the progress achieved toward goals; assess the contributions of  underlying federal organizations, programs, and activities; categorize goals  by their risk of not being achieved; and develop strategies to improve  performance.
To be successful, these officials must have the knowledge and experience  necessary to use and trust the information they are gathering. Building  analytical capacity to use performance information and to ensure its  quality—both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and availability of  research and evaluation resources—is critical to using performance  information in a meaningful fashion and will play a large role in the  success of government performance improvements. Federal officials must  understand how the performance information they gather can be used to  provide insight into the factors that impede or contribute to program  successes; assess the effect of the program; or help explain the linkages  between program inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes.
Our periodic surveys of federal managers on government performance and  management issues have found a positive relationship between agencies  providing training and development on setting program performance goals  and the use of performance information when setting or revising  performance goals. These surveys have also found a significant increase  in training between our initial survey in 1997 and our most recent one in  2007. However, only about half of our survey respondents in 2007  reported receiving any training that would assist in strategic planning and  performance assessment. 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. Consistent  with this, according to the President’s Fiscal Year 2012 Budget, in the  coming year OMB and the Performance Improvement Council intend to  help agencies strengthen their employees’ skills in analyzing and using  performance information to achieve greater results.
To further develop this capacity, within 1 year of enactment, GPRAMA  requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in consultation with  the Performance Improvement Council, to identify the key skills and  competencies needed by federal employees to carry out a variety of  performance management activities including developing goals, evaluating  programs, and analyzing and using performance information. Once those  key skills and competencies are identified, OPM is then required to  incorporate those skills and competencies into relevant position  classifications and agency training no later than 2 years after enactment.

	Sustaining Leadership Commitment and Accountability for Achieving Results

Perhaps the single most important element of successful management  improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of top leaders.  This commitment is most prominently shown through the personal  involvement of top leaders in developing and directing reform efforts.  Organizations that successfully address their long-standing management  weaknesses do not “staff out” responsibility for leading change. Top  leadership involvement and clear lines of accountability for making  management improvements are critical to overcoming organizations’  natural resistance to change, marshalling the resources needed in many  cases to improve management, and building and maintaining the  organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business.
GPRAMA creates several new leadership structures and responsibilities  aimed at sustaining attention on improvement efforts at both the agency  and governmentwide levels. The act designates the deputy head of each  agency as Chief Operating Officer (COO), with overall responsibilities for  improving the management and performance of the agency. In addition,  the act requires each agency to designate a senior executive as  Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) to support the COO. The act also  establishes a Performance Improvement Council—chaired by the OMB  Deputy Director for Management and composed of PIOs from various  agencies—to assist the Director of OMB in carrying out the  governmentwide planning and reporting requirements.
GPRAMA also creates individual and organizational accountability  provisions that have the potential to keep attention focused on achieving  results. For each governmentwide performance goal, a lead government  official is to be designated and held responsible for coordinating efforts to  achieve the goal. Similarly, at the agency level, for each performance goal,  an agency official, known as a goal leader, will be responsible for  achieving the goal. To promote overall organizational accountability, the  act requires OMB to report each year on unmet agency goals. Where a goal  has been unmet for 3 years, OMB can identify the program for termination  or restructuring, among other actions.

	Engaging Congress in Identifying Management and Performance Issues to Address

In order for performance improvement initiatives to be useful to Congress  for its decision making, garnering congressional buy-in on what to  measure and how to present this information is critical. In past reviews,  we have noted the importance of considering Congress a partner in  shaping agency goals at the outset. Congressional committee staff, in  discussing the Program Assessment Review Tool (PART) developed by  the previous administration, told us that communicating the PART  assessment results was not a replacement for the benefit of early  consultation between Congress and OMB about what they consider to be  the most important performance issues and program areas warranting  review.
While GPRA called for agencies to consult with Congress on their strategic  plans, the act did not provide detailed or specific requirements on the  consultation process or how agencies were to treat information obtained.  GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to consult with  Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency  goals. OMB and agencies are to consult with relevant committees,  obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals at least once  every 2 years. In addition, OMB and agencies are to describe on the  governmentwide Web site or in their strategic plans, respectively, how  they incorporated congressional input into their goals.
Beyond this opportunity to provide input to OMB and agencies as they  shape their plans, Congress can also play a decisive role in fostering  results-oriented cultures in the federal government by using information  on agency goals and results as it carries out its legislative responsibilities.  For example, authorizing, appropriations, and oversight committees could  schedule hearings to determine if agency programs have clear  performance goals, measures, and data with which to track progress and  whether the programs are achieving their goals. Where goals and  objectives are unclear or not results oriented, Congress could articulate  the program outcomes it expects agencies to achieve. This would provide  important guidance to agencies that could then be incorporated in agency  strategic and annual performance plans. Most important, congressional  use of agency goals and measured results in its decision making will send  an unmistakable message to agencies that Congress considers agency  performance a priority.
Over the years, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental  Affairs and its predecessors have done commendable work focusing  attention on improving government management and performance—by  reporting out legislation, such as the original GPRA and GPRAMA, and  through hearings, such as this one. Moving forward, congressional  oversight and sustained attention by top administration officials will be  essential to ensure further improvement in the performance of federal  programs and operations. In fact, as we noted in our recent high-risk  issues report, these two factors were absolutely critical to making the  progress necessary for the DOD Personnel Security Clearance Program  and the 2010 Census to be removed from our high-risk list.

	GAO’s Role in Evaluating GPRAMA, High Risks, and Other Major Government Challenges

Realizing the promise of GPRAMA for improving government performance  and accountability and reducing waste will require sustained oversight of  implementation. GAO played a major role in evaluating the  implementation of the original GPRA’s strategic and annual performance  planning requirements including various pilot provisions. For example, by  evaluating agency plans during a pilot phase, we were able to offer  numerous recommendations for improvement that led to more effective  final plans. We further supported implementation by reporting on leading  management practices that agencies should employ as they implemented  GPRA. It is worth noting that much of our work on government  performance has been conducted at the request of the Committee on  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and your two  subcommittees, showing a sustained commitment to ensure GPRA was  effectively implemented.
Similarly, GPRAMA includes provisions requiring GAO to review  implementation of the act at several critical junctures, and provide  recommendations for improvements to implementation of the act. First,  following a period of initial implementation, by June 2013, GAO is to  report on implementation of the act’s planning and reporting  requirements—at both the governmentwide and agency levels.  Subsequently, following full implementation, by September 2015 and 2017,  GAO is to evaluate whether performance management is being used by  federal agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency  programs. Also in September 2015 and 2017—and every 4 years  thereafter—GAO is to evaluate the implementation of the federal  government priority goals and performance plans, and related reporting  required by the act.
Looking ahead, a number of other required recurrent reports will help to  inform Congress about government management and performance. For  example, GAO has an ongoing statutory requirement to report each year  on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within  departments or governmentwide, which have duplicative goals or  activities. In addition, each year GAO reports on its audit of the  consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government and the  condition of federal financial management systems. GAO continues to  report periodically to Congress on the adequacy and effectiveness of  agencies’ information security policies and practices and other  requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act of  2002.
Additionally, the Presidential Transition Act of 2000 identifies GAO as a  source of briefings and other materials to help inform presidential  appointees of the major management issues, risks, and challenges they will  face. During the last presidential transition, we identified for Congress and  the new administration urgent issues and key program and management  challenges in the major departments and across government. Finally, GAO  reports to each new Congress on government operations that it identifies  as high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement or the need for broad-based transformation to address  economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.
In conclusion, everything must be on the table as we address the federal  long-term fiscal challenge. While the long-term outlook is driven on the  spending side of the budget by rising health care costs and demographics,  other areas of the budget should not be exempt from scrutiny. All areas  should be reexamined in light of the contributions they make to achieving  outcomes for the American public. If programs are overlapping,  fragmented, or duplicative, they must be streamlined. Programs and  management functions at significant risk of waste, fraud, and abuse must  be corrected. GPRAMA provides the administration and Congress with  new tools to identify strategies that are achieving results as well as those  that are ineffective, duplicative, or wasteful that could be eliminated. GAO  stands ready to help Congress ensure that the act’s promises are met.
Thank you, Chairmen Akaka and Carper, Ranking Members Johnson and  Brown, and Members of the Subcommittees. This concludes my prepared  statement. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

	Contacts

For further information on this testimony, please contact Bernice  Steinhardt, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6543 or  steinhardtb@gao.gov. Key contributions to this testimony were made by  Elizabeth Curda (Assistant Director), and Benjamin T. Licht. Contact  points for our Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be  found on the last page of this statement.

Appendix I: GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 Implementation

Agency quarterly priority progress reviews, consistent with the requirements of the act, begin  for the goals contained in the Fiscal Year 2011 Budget of the United States Government.
OMB publishes interim federal government priority goals and prepares and submits a federal  government performance plan consistent with the requirements of the act.
Agencies adjust their current strategic plans, prepare and submit performance plans, and  identify new or update existing agency priority goals to make them consistent with the  requirements of the act.
Agencies make performance reporting updates on their fiscal year 2011 performance  consistent with the requirements of the act.
OMB begins federal government quarterly priority progress reviews.
OMB launches a single governmentwide performance website.
Full implementation of the act with a new strategic planning cycle.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, 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.

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government is the world's largest and most complex entity, with about $3.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2010 that fund a broad array of programs and operations. GAO's long-term simulations of the federal budget show--absent policy change--growing deficits accumulating to an unsustainable increase in debt. While the spending side is driven by rising health care costs and demographics, other areas should also be scrutinized. In addition, there are significant performance and management challenges that the federal government needs to confront. GAO was asked to testify on the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), as the administration begins implementing the act. This statement is based on GAO's past and ongoing work on GPRA implementation, as well as recently issued reports (1) identifying opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs, save tax dollars, and enhance revenue; and (2) updating GAO's list of government operations at high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or the need for transformation. As required by GPRAMA, GAO will periodically evaluate implementation of the act and report to Congress on its findings and recommendations.

What GAO Found

GAO's past and ongoing work illustrates how GPRAMA could, if effectively implemented, help address government challenges in five areas: Instituting a more coordinated and crosscutting approach to achieving meaningful results. GPRAMA could help inform reexamination or restructuring efforts and lead to more effective, efficient, and economical service delivery in overlapping program areas by identifying the various agencies and federal activities--including spending programs, regulations, and tax expenditures--that contribute to crosscutting outcomes. These program areas could include numerous teacher quality initiatives or multiple employment and training programs, among others. Focusing on addressing weaknesses in major management functions. Agencies need more effective management capabilities to better implement their programs and policies. GPRAMA requires long-term goals to improve management functions in five key areas: financial, human capital, information technology, procurement and acquisition, and real property management. GAO's work has highlighted opportunities for improvements in each of these areas and aspects of all of them are on the GAO high risk list. Ensuring performance information is both useful and used in decision making. Agencies need to consider the differing needs of various stakeholders, including Congress, to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used. For performance information to be useful, it must be complete, accurate, valid, timely, and easy to use. Yet decision makers often do not have the quality performance information they need to improve results. To help address this need, GPRAMA requires (1) disclosure of information about accuracy and validity, (2) data on crosscutting areas, and (3) quarterly reporting on priority goals on a publicly available Web site. Sustaining leadership commitment and accountability for achieving results. Perhaps the single most important element of successful management improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of top leaders, as shown by their personal involvement in reform efforts. GPRAMA assigns responsibilities to a Chief Operating Officer and Performance Improvement Officer in each agency to improve agency management and performance. Engaging Congress in identifying management and performance issues to address. In order for performance improvement initiatives to be useful to Congress for its decision making, garnering congressional buy-in on what to measure and how to present this information is critical. GAO has previously noted the importance of considering Congress a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress.