Page 1 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

December 9, 2011

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Chairman

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, 

and the District of Columbia

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, 

Federal Services, and International Security

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate 

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Chairman 

Task Force on Government Performance

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate 

Subject: Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to Address Government 

Performance Issues

Many federal program efforts, such as those related to ensuring food safety, 

providing homeland security, monitoring incidence of infectious diseases, or 

improving response to natural disasters, generally require the effective collaboration 

of more than one agency. As we have recently testified before each of your 

subcommittees and the task force, the Government Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA)1

 

1 Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). GPRAMA amends the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).

calls for a more coordinated and 
Page 2 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues

crosscutting approach to achieve meaningful results.2 Indeed, we have noted for

many years the central role that GPRA could play in identifying and fostering 

improved coordination across related federal program efforts.3 Effective GPRAMA 

implementation provides opportunities to identify the various agencies and federal 

activities—including spending programs, regulations, and tax expenditures—that 

contribute to crosscutting programs and to ensure that coordination mechanisms are 

in place. Our recent report on potential duplication, overlap, and fragmentation 

highlights a number of areas where a more crosscutting approach is needed—both 

across agencies and within a specific agency.4 GPRAMA provides a powerful 

opportunity for agencies to collect and report more timely and useful performance 

information on crosscutting programs.

This performance information can play an important role in existing congressional 

decision making. Recognizing this, you requested that we undertake work to support 

congressional use of performance information. As a first step, we developed briefing 

materials focused on how Congress can use such information to address challenges 

facing the federal government. This report formally transmits the information shared 

during a briefing we gave on September 8, 2011, to your staff (see enc. I). As 

discussed with your staff, we are available to provide these briefings to Members of 

Congress and their staff as requested.

The objectives of the briefing were to (1) describe provisions of GPRAMA that 

provide Congress with opportunities for involvement in agency performance planning 

and (2) illustrate instances of Congress’s use of agency performance information in 

its decision making. To identify provisions of GPRAMA that provide Congress with 

opportunities for involvement in performance planning, we reviewed GPRAMA, 

related congressional committee reports, and Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) guidance on GPRAMA implementation. To illustrate how Congress has used 

agency performance information in its decision making, we selected three case 

studies from our prior work that demonstrate how congressional use of performance 

information has led to improved performance and efficiency. The case studies we 

selected are the 2002 reauthorization of Department of Education’s Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965 programs, the Department of Defense’s (DOD) 

 

2 GAO, Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides Important 

Opportunities to Address Government Challenges, GAO-11-617T (Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2011), 

and Government Performance: GPRA Modernization Act Provides Opportunities to Help Address 

Fiscal, Performance, and Management Challenges, GAO-11-466T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 

2011).

3 GAO, The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will 

Be Uneven, GAO/GGD-97-109 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1997); Managing for Results: Using the 

Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, GAO/AIMD-97-146 

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997); Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st

Century Challenges, GAO-03-1166T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2003); and Government 

Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to 

Improve Results, GAO-08-1026T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008). 

4 GAO, Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs, Save Tax Dollars, 

and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2011).
Page 3 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues

Personnel Security Clearance Program, and the Internal Revenue Service’s 

electronic filing initiative. In compiling the case studies, we reviewed legislation, 

related congressional documents, and our prior reports. For our full objectives, 

scope, and methodology, see enclosure II.

We conducted our work from June 2011 to December 2011 in accordance with all 

sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. 

The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to meet our 

stated objectives and discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the 

information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable 

basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. 

Summary

GPRAMA provides Congress with opportunities for involvement in agency 

performance planning by significantly enhancing requirements for agencies to 

consult with Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency 

goals.5 These consultations provide an important opportunity for Congress to 

provide input on what results agencies should seek to achieve; how those results will 

be achieved, including how an agency’s efforts are aligned and coordinated with 

other related efforts; how to measure progress given the complexity of federal 

programs; and how to report on results. They also provide an opportunity for 

Congress to better understand challenges confronting particular programs and the 

broader context of how agency performance, budget, and financial information fit 

together. 

Beyond providing input to the agencies and OMB during the consultations to shape 

their performance goals, Congress can foster results-oriented cultures in the federal 

government by using performance information in its decision-making processes. For 

example, Congress can use agency performance information to inform its various 

legislative responsibilities, including when authorizing or reauthorizing federal 

programs, and other activities; amending the tax code; appropriating funds; and 

developing budget resolutions. Congress can also focus agency attention on 

addressing performance issues through myriad oversight activities, such as 

oversight agendas, hearings, letters to agencies, and formal and informal meetings 

with agency officials. The three case studies we selected demonstrate how 

Congress has used performance information in its legislative and oversight activities 

to focus agency attention on improving performance. For example, in the DOD 

personnel security clearance program, which we placed on our high-risk list in 

2005,6

 

5 Under GPRAMA, OMB and agencies are required to consult with relevant congressional 

committees, obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals at least once every 2 years 

and publicly report on how they incorporated congressional input provided during consultations. 5 

U.S.C. § 306(d); 31 U.S.C. §§ 1120(a)(3), (b)(1)(A).

congressional activities included (1) passing two pieces of legislation that 

collectively established a goal related to the timeliness of issuance of personnel 

6 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005).
Page 4 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues

security clearances, specified performance measures, and required annual reports 

to Congress; (2) holding over 14 oversight hearings; and (3) requesting that 

agencies work with us to identify performance measures for investigative quality. 

Sustained congressional attention helped the agencies reduce the amount of time 

security clearances took from an average of over 300 days following the terrorist 

attacks of 2001 to almost 60 days on average in fiscal year 2010 for industry 

personnel. As a result of the progress that was made, we removed the DOD 

personnel security clearance program from our high-risk list in February 2011.7

- - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and 

Budget and interested congressional committees. In addition, the report is available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 

512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff 

who made key contributions to this report are listed in enclosure III.

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Enclosures - 3 

 

7 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-11-278 (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).
Page 5 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues

Enclosure I: Briefing Materials
Page 6 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 7 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 8 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 9 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 10 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 11 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 12 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 13 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 14 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 15 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 16 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 17 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 18 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 19 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 20 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 21 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 22 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 23 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 24 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 25 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 26 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 27 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 28 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 29 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 30 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 31 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 32 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 33 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 34 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 35 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 36 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 37 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 38 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 39 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 40 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 41 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 42 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 43 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 44 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 45 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 46 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 47 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 48 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 49 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 50 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 51 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 52 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 53 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 54 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 55 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 56 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 57 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 58 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 59 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues
Page 60 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues

Enclosure II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of the briefing were to (1) describe the provisions of the Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) that provide 

Congress with opportunities for involvement in agency performance planning and (2) 

illustrate instances of Congress’s use of agency performance information in its 

decision making. 

To identify provisions of GPRAMA that provide Congress with opportunities for 

involvement in performance planning, we reviewed GPRAMA, related congressional 

committee reports, and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance on the 

implementation of GPRAMA. Using this information, we identified the requirements 

for OMB and agencies to consult with Congress on the development of strategic 

plans, priority goals, and other performance information. We also reviewed past 

GAO work on approaches that contribute to successful consultations between 

Congress and the executive branch on performance information. Additionally, we 

reviewed other GAO reports and the National Conference of State Legislators and 

the Urban Institute’s Legislating for Results to develop a list of illustrative key 

questions that congressional staff can ask agencies during consultations.

To illustrate how Congress has used agency performance information in its decision 

making, we selected three case studies from our prior work that demonstrate how 

congressional use of performance information has led to improved performance and 

efficiency. The case studies we selected are the 2002 reauthorization of Department 

of Education’s Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 programs, the 

Department of Defense’s Personnel Security Clearance Program, and the Internal 

Revenue Service’s electronic filing initiative. In compiling the case studies, we 

reviewed legislation, related congressional documents, and our prior reports. These 

selections were based on agency efforts in which (1) we had recently reported on 

the use of performance information to review agency performance and (2) Congress 

had played an active role in contributing to and overseeing agency efforts to improve 

performance. The case studies are based on publicly available information and are 

not intended to represent a complete list of all oversight activities conducted by 

Congress, but rather illustrate the types of oversight activities that Congress has 

engaged in when using performance information.

We conducted our work from June 2011 to December 2011 in accordance with all 

sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that are relevant to our objectives. 

The framework requires that we plan and perform the engagement to meet our 

stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We believe that the 

information and data obtained, and the analysis conducted, provide a reasonable 

basis for any findings and conclusions in this product. 
Page 61 GAO-12-215R Addressing Government Performance Issues

Enclosure III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov 

Staff Acknowledgments

In addition to the above contact, Elizabeth Curda, Assistant Director; Benjamin T. 

Licht; and Megan M. Taylor made significant contributions to this report. Gerard 

Burke, Virginia A. Chanley, Sara Cradic, Brenda S. Farrell, Bryon Gordon, Elizabeth 

Hosler, Susan Offutt, Marylynn Sergent, Stephanie Shipman, Joanna Stamatiades, 

Bernice Steinhardt, Andrew J. Stephens, Robyn Trotter, Sarah E. Veale, and James 

R. White also made key contributions.

(450925)
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.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs