a

GAO

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee 

on Government Management, Finance 

and Accountability, Committee on 

Government Reform, House of 

Representatives

September 2005 MANAGING FOR 

RESULTS

Enhancing Agency 

Use of Performance 

Information for 

Management Decision 

Making

GAO-05-927
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-927.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Bernice 

Steinhardt at 202-512-6543 or 

steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-927, a report to the 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government 

Management, Finance and Accountability, 

House Committee on Government Reform 

September 2005

MANAGING FOR RESULTS 

Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision 

Making 

Agencies can use performance information to make various types of 

management decisions to improve programs and results. Agencies can also 

implement a number of practices that can enhance or facilitate the use of 

performance information. GAO identified four broad types of management 

decisions for which federal managers can use performance information and 

five different types of practices that can contribute to greater use of 

performance information. (See figure.) 

Practices That Can Enhance or Facilitate the Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making 

The five federal agencies that GAO examined for this report provide 

examples of how agencies can use performance information for key 

management decisions and practices that can enhance or facilitate such use. 

While agencies face different management conditions and challenges and 

operate under different authorities, the general uses and practices 

highlighted in this report could be adapted by other agencies. Helpful next 

steps would be for agency experiences in using performance information to 

be more widely shared; and, for agencies to be encouraged to adapt the 

practices to their unique situations. 

The Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 has 

laid a foundation of resultsoriented agency planning, 

measurement, and reporting in the 

federal government. Performance 

planning and measurement have 

slowly, yet increasingly, become a 

part of agencies’ cultures. For 

planning and performance 

measurement to be effective, 

federal managers need to use 

performance information to 

identify performance problems and 

look for solutions, develop 

approaches that improve results, 

and make other important 

management decisions. According 

to GAO’s periodic surveys, federal 

managers reported having more 

performance measures in 2003 than 

in 1997. However, the data also 

showed that managers’ reported 

use of performance information for 

program management activities has 

remained essentially unchanged 

from 1997 levels. GAO was asked 

to identify (1) how federal agencies 

can use performance information 

to make management decisions and 

(2) practices that can enhance or 

facilitate the use of performance 

information to make management 

decisions. 

Technical comments from the case 

agencies were incorporated where 

appropriate. 
Page i GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Contents

Letter 1

Results in Brief 3

Background 5

Agencies Can Use Performance Information to Manage for 

Results 7

Management Practices Can Enhance the Use of Performance 

Information 18

Conclusions 33

Agency Comments 33

Appendixes

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 35

Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 40

Bibliography 41

Related GAO Products 42

Table Table 1: Background Information on Agencies Selected to Illustrate 

Performance Information Uses and Practices 36

Figures Figure 1: Practices That Can Enhance or Facilitate the Use of 

Performance Information for Management Decision 

Making 3

Figure 2: Example of Using Performance Information to Manage 

for Results 4

Figure 3: The Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported 

Using Information Obtained from Performance Measures 

to a Great or Very Great Extent for Various Management 

Activities Has Not Increased Significantly Since 1997 6

Figure 4: Uses of Performance Information 8

Figure 5: Practices That Can Enhance or Facilitate the Use of 

Performance Information for Management Decision 

Making 18

Figure 6: SBA Data Validation Table 25

Figure 7: NOAA Quad Chart Template 29

Figure 8: NOAA Display Board Template 30
Contents

Page ii GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Figure 9: FAA Scorecard for Runway Incursions 32

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. 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.

Abbreviations

BIC Business Information Center

COO Chief Operating Officer

DOC Department of Commerce

DOL Department of Labor

DOT Department of Transportation

EBSA Employee Benefits Security Administration

EMS Enforcement Management System

ETA Employment and Training Administration

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FARS Fatality Analysis Reporting System

FFMP Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction Program

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

GS General Schedule

NBLP National Business Learning Partnership

NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

NWS National Weather Service

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPA Office of Participant Assistance

OSI Organizational Success Increase

PEP Performance Enhancement Project

SBA Small Business Administration

SES Senior Executive Service

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VHA Veterans Health Administration

WFO Weather Forecast Office

WIA Workforce Investment Act
Page 1 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

A

September 9, 2005 Letr

The Honorable Todd Platts

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government 

Management, Finance and Accountability

Committee on Government Reform

House of Representatives

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The federal government is in a period of profound transition and faces an 

array of challenges and opportunities to enhance performance, ensure 

accountability, and position the nation for the future. These 21st century 

challenges include the nation’s large, long-term fiscal imbalance, evolving 

national and homeland security threats, increasing global interdependence, 

the global shift to market-oriented knowledge-based economies, an aging 

and more diverse population, and rapid advances in science and 

technology. In the face of these pressures, it is vital to maximize the 

performance of federal agencies in achieving their long-term goals. The 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA)1

 planning and 

reporting requirements can provide the essential information needed to 

assess federal agencies’ performance, hold agencies accountable for 

achieving results, and help the baseline review of federal programs, 

operating functions, and activities needed to respond to the nation’s longterm structural fiscal imbalance. GPRA requires executive agencies to 

develop strategic plans, prepare annual performance plans, measure 

progress toward the achievement of the goals in the annual performance 

plans, and report annually on their progress in program performance 

reports. 

For planning and performance measurement to be effective, federal 

managers need to use performance information to identify performance 

problems and look for solutions, develop approaches that improve results, 

and make other important management decisions. A 2004 GAO report that 

reviewed the effectiveness of GPRA found that while the percentage of 

federal managers who report having performance measures for their 

programs has increased over time, their use of performance information in 

1

GPRA, Pub. L. No. 103-62 (Aug. 3, 1993), was enacted to help resolve the long-standing 

management problems that undermined the federal government’s efficiency and 

effectiveness and provide greater accountability for results. 
Page 2 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

making key management decisions, such as adopting new program 

approaches or changing work processes, has not.2

 Federal agencies also 

appear to differ considerably in the extent to which they use performance 

information to manage. 

Identifying practices associated with the increased use of performance 

information could be helpful to federal agencies seeking to better use 

performance information to inform their decisions and ultimately achieve 

results. Although performance information could also be helpful for 

external purposes, such as congressional decision making, transparency, 

and public accountability, this report focuses on use of performance 

information by federal agency managers.

This report responds to your request that we identify (1) how federal 

agencies can use performance information to make management decisions 

and (2) practices that can facilitate the use of performance information. 

To address the objectives, we reviewed relevant literature, including 

previous GAO reports, spoke to experts in using performance information, 

and held group discussions with federal program managers. We also 

interviewed individuals within five federal agencies and reviewed 

documentation to illustrate in greater detail how program managers have 

used performance information to make decisions and specific agency 

practices that facilitated those uses. We selected the five agencies—the 

Departments of Commerce, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, 

and the Small Business Administration—on the basis of a number of 

factors, including a relatively high agency score on our 2000 GPRA survey 

regarding the extent to which agency managers reported using 

performance information, and relatively good agency marks in the 

September 2004 Executive Branch Management Scorecard (President’s 

Management Agenda). We also considered information obtained from 

interviews with experts, and diversity in terms of program type and size. It 

should be noted that we did not attempt to identify all agencies and 

programs that could have illustrated these uses and practices. In addition, 

we reviewed existing relevant information regarding the quality of 

performance information where available but did not systematically assess 

the quality of the performance information used in the examples we cite. 

Finally, for most of the examples, we describe how performance 

2

GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for 

Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).
Page 3 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

information was used to make decisions, but we did not attempt to verify 

that the use ultimately resulted in improved outcomes. (See appendix I for 

a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology and for further 

information on the five agencies.) We conducted our work in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards from September 

2004 through August 2005.

Results in Brief Agencies can use performance information to make various types of 

management decisions to improve programs and results. Agencies can also 

implement a number of practices that can enhance or facilitate the use of 

performance information. We identified four broad types of management 

decisions for which federal managers can use performance information 

and five different types of practices that can contribute to greater use of 

performance information. (See fig. 1.) 

Figure 1: Practices That Can Enhance or Facilitate the Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision Making

Uses

Source: GAO.

Improved results

Practices

Identify 

problems and 

take corrective 

action

Develop 

strategy 

and allocate 

resources

Recognize 

and reward 

performance

Identify and 

share effective 

approaches

Demonstrating 

management 

commitment

Improving the 

usefulness of 

performance 

information

Developing 

capacity to use 

performance 

information

Communicating 

performance 

information 

frequently 

and effectively

Aligning 

agencywide 

goals, 

objectives, 

and measures
Page 4 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

The five federal agencies that GAO examined for this report provide 

examples of how agencies can use performance information for key 

management decisions and practices that can enhance or facilitate such 

use. While agencies face different management conditions and challenges 

and operate under different authorities, the general uses and practices 

highlighted in this report could be adapted by other agencies. Helpful next 

steps would be for agency experiences in using performance information to 

be more widely shared; and, for agencies to be encouraged to adapt the 

practices to their unique situations. In figure 2 we describe how an agency 

employed several practices to use performance information to make 

management decisions. 

Figure 2: Example of Using Performance Information to Manage for Results

a

The National Safety Council is a nonprofit, nongovernmental, international public service organization 

dedicated to protecting life and promoting health.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Commerce, Labor, 

Transportation, and Veterans Affairs, and the Administrator of the Small 

Over the past 20 years, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used performance information to identify, 

develop, and share effective programs and strategies that increase safety belt usage, and as a result has contributed to an 

increase in seat belt usage nationally from 11 percent in 1985 to 80 percent in 2004. With a mission to save lives and prevent 

injuries, NHTSA’s evaluation office analyzes information provided by the annual National Occupant Protection Usage Survey, in 

which safety belt use is directly observed at locations across the country, and the Fatality Analysis Reporting System, a database 

of all fatal crashes in the United States. From its analysis, NHTSA estimated that safety belts are 50 percent effective at preventing 

fatalities of front seat occupants in crashes in which these motorists would otherwise die. In an effort to increase usage nationally, 

NHTSA conducted several small studies in the 1980s and 1990s on how to best increase safety belt usage. NHTSA’s research 

showed that educating the public on the safety benefits of seat belts was not very effective and that laws requiring seat belt use, 

while somewhat effective, only increased usage to about 40 percent. One of NHTSA’s studies, Buckle Up America, revealed that 

active enforcement combined with media campaigns highlighting enforcement, as opposed to safety, could increase seat belt 

usage incrementally by 4 to 8 percent a year. 

However, NHTSA officials said these studies alone did not influence states to change their expenditures with regard to safety belt 

use. Building on the findings of these studies, NHTSA then developed and piloted the Click It or Ticket safety belt campaign, which 

included both a paid media enforcement message along with periods of active police enforcement of safety belt use. The 

campaign, co-sponsored by the Airbag and Safety Belt Safety Campaign of the National Safety Councila, was piloted in three 

states. Doubledigit increases in safety belt use were seen in all three states, demonstrating the effectiveness of this strategy in 

changing motorists’ safety belt use behavior. Ultimately, performance information documenting the program’s effectiveness in 

multiple states began to persuade officials from other states to adopt the program. By 2003, 43 states, the District of Columbia, 

and Puerto Rico had participated in the twice yearly national Click It or Ticket campaign. As a result, the national average for safety 

belt use is up to 80 percent. NHTSA is now focusing on identifying and developing strategies to target specific segments of the

population found to have the lowest safety belt usage rates, such as drivers of pickup trucks. 

Source: GAO.
Page 5 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Business Administration for their review and comment. Technical 

comments provided were incorporated, where appropriate, in the report. 

Background GPRA helped create a governmentwide focus on results by establishing a 

statutory framework for performance management and accountability, 

with the necessary infrastructure to generate meaningful performance 

information. GPRA introduced planning and reporting requirements that 

seek to shift the focus of federal management and decision making from a 

preoccupation with the number of program tasks or activities completed or 

services provided to a more direct consideration of the results of programs. 

The Act was intended to improve federal program effectiveness, 

accountability, and service delivery. GPRA requires federal agencies to 

develop strategic plans with long-term, outcome-oriented goals and 

objectives, annual goals linked to the long-term goals, and annual reports 

on the results achieved. Agencies are required to measure progress toward 

the achievement of the goals in annual performance plans and report 

annually on their progress in program performance reports.

As we reported in our 10-year retrospective report on the effectiveness of 

GPRA, the Act’s requirements have laid a solid foundation of resultsoriented agency planning, measurement, and reporting that has begun to 

address the purposes of GPRA.3

 Performance planning and measurement 

have slowly yet increasingly become a part of agencies’ cultures. 

According to three government-wide, random sample surveys of federal 

managers conducted by us in 1997, 2000, and 2003, managers reported 

having significantly more of the types of performance measures called for 

by GPRA, particularly outcome-oriented performance measures, in 2003 

than in 1997, when GPRA went into effect governmentwide. 

The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized 

when this information is actually used by managers to make decisions 

oriented toward improving results. While our surveys found that managers 

reported having more performance measures in 2003 than in 1997, the data 

showed that the use of performance information for program management 

activities did not increase significantly from 1997 levels. In our survey, we 

asked managers about their use of performance information for specific 

purposes, such as “setting program priorities”, “allocating resources”, or 

3

GAO-04-38.
Page 6 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

“adopting new program approaches.” As shown in figure 3, the majority of 

managers who expressed an opinion reported using performance 

information for these uses to a great or very great extent in 2003. While the 

reported use of performance information for these uses to a great or very 

great extent fluctuated somewhat between 1997 and 2003, the extent of use 

in 2003 was not significantly different from 1997 levels for any category of 

use except “adopting new program approaches or changing work 

processes”, where use actually decreased. 

Figure 3: The Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information Obtained from Performance Measures to a 

Great or Very Great Extent for Various Management Activities Has Not Increased Significantly Since 1997 

a

There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997 and 2003 surveys. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

62

66

56

59

53 53 53

60 60 60

66

51

56 51

61

60

70

80

90

100

Percent

Source: GAO.

Key management activities

1997

2000

2003

Setting program

priorities

Allocating

resources

Adopting new

program approaches

or changing

work processesa

Setting individual 

job expectations 

for my staff

Rewarding staff I 

manage or supervise
Page 7 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

From our 2000 survey,4 we also know that use of performance information 

has varied widely among agencies. For example, while 56 percent of 

managers overall reported using performance information when setting 

program priorities in 2000, the percentage of managers within specific 

agencies reporting this use to a great or very great extent ranged from 26 

percent to 64 percent. Similarly, wide variation among agencies was seen 

in managers’ reported use of performance information for other types of 

management decisions. For example, the reported use of performance 

information to a great or very great extent in agencies ranged from 24 to 66 

percent when allocating resources, from 25 to 64 percent when adopting 

new program approaches or changing work processes, and from 16 to 66 

percent when setting individual job expectations. 

Agencies Can Use 

Performance 

Information to Manage 

for Results

Federal agencies can use performance information to make various types 

of management decisions to improve programs and results. We have 

previously reported that leading organizations that have progressed toward 

results-oriented management use performance information as a basis for 

decision making.5

 The full benefit of collecting performance information is 

realized only when managers actually use it to manage. From our review of 

the literature, agency documents and interviews with experts and agency 

officials, we identified four categories of management decisions for which 

federal agency managers can use performance information. (See fig. 4).6

 

Managers can use performance information to identify problems in existing 

programs, to try to identify the causes of problems, and/or to develop 

corrective actions. They can also use program performance information to 

develop strategies, plan and budget, identify priorities, and make resource 

4

GAO, Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management Issues Vary 

Widely Across Agencies, GAO-01-592 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001). The 2000 survey 

provided the most current data on specific agencies, while the 2003 survey provided 

governmentwide data.

5

GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996); and GAO, Results-Oriented 

Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational 

Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

6

The four use categories we identified through our independent analysis are similar to the 

four types of uses identified in How Federal Programs Use Outcome Information: 

Opportunities for Federal Managers, by Harry Hatry, Elaine Morley, Shelli Rossman and 

Joseph Wholey, published by the IBM Endowment for the Business of Government in May 

2003. Furthermore, these categories are consistent with, but not identical to, the types of 

uses captured in questions for our surveys of federal agency managers described earlier. 
Page 8 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

allocation decisions to affect programs in the future. Agency managers can 

also use performance information to reward individuals or organizations 

who meet or exceed expectations. Finally, managers can use performance 

information to identify more effective approaches to program 

implementation and share those approaches more widely across the 

agency. 

Figure 4: Uses of Performance Information 

Performance Information 

Can Be Used to Identify 

Problems in Programs and 

Take Corrective Action

Agencies can use performance information to identify problems or 

weaknesses in programs, to try to identify factors causing the problems, 

and to modify a service or process to try to address problems. We have 

reported that leading organizations that have progressed toward resultsoriented management have used performance information to identify gaps 

in performance, improve organizational processes, and improve their 

performance.7

 We found several examples where federal program 

managers used performance data to identify problems and corrective 

actions at the agencies we examined. 

Officials in the Office of Participant Assistance (OPA) at the Employee 

Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) in the Department of Labor 

(DOL) told us that when data for a performance measure of customer 

satisfaction indicated a problem, they changed a process to try to improve 

Source: GAO.

Improved results

Identify 

problems and 

take corrective 

action

Develop 

strategy 

and allocate 

resources

Recognize 

and reward 

performance

Identify and 

share effective 

approaches

Uses

7

GAO-04-38, GAO-01-592, and GAO/GGD-96-118.
Page 9 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

performance. One of EBSA’s functions is to provide information and 

assistance for individuals covered by private retirement and health and 

welfare plans, plan sponsors, and members of the employee benefits 

community. EBSA has contracted with an outside organization since 2003 

to collect data through a specialized survey on customer satisfaction with 

EBSA services. Data indicated that customers whose cases were referred 

to the enforcement side of EBSA were reporting lower satisfaction rates. 

An analysis of data for specific survey questions identified the need for 

improved communication. Investigating an inquiry or complaint could 

sometimes take up to 2 years, and a customer might not receive any 

information during that time. As a result of the performance data, EBSA 

changed a standard operating procedure in January 2005 so that customers 

would be kept informed about the status of their open inquiries or 

complaints. Under the new procedure, when an inquiry is referred to the 

enforcement staff for investigation, the OPA benefits advisor informs the 

inquirer about the referral and sets realistic expectations for future contact 

by an investigator. Investigative staff are to make initial contact with the 

customer no later than 30 days following receipt of the referral and 

maintain contact with the inquirer on a quarterly basis until the matter is 

resolved. Managers plan to continue to monitor customer satisfaction to 

see whether the changes lead to improved performance.

Through the Performance Enhancement Project (PEP), the Office of 

Workforce Investment in DOL has used performance information to 

identify the technical assistance needs of state and local employment and 

training programs and has then provided targeted assistance to try to 

improve performance. The PEP project, which began in October 2002, has 

provided technical assistance and training for targeted state and local 

workforce organizations that receive funds under the Workforce 

Investment Act (WIA).8

 Poorly performing states, as shown by the 

performance measures (supplemented by analysis from regional DOL 

staff), have received technical assistance designed to improve their 

performance through PEP. DOL’s Office of Workforce Investment sent a 

questionnaire to all the regional offices and held a conference with them at 

8

Pub. L. No. 105-220 (Aug. 7, 1998). The Workforce Investment Act of 1998 required 17 

employment and training programs, funded by four different agencies, to centralize service 

delivery through a one-stop-center system. WIA also established performance measures 

that look at a broad array of participant outcomes, such as job placement and retention, 

earnings, skill gains, and customer satisfaction. 
Page 10 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

the close of the first PEP project9 to assess the effectiveness of the 

technical assistance that had been given. This information was used to 

improve the second year’s project. Online tutorials have also been 

developed under PEP in response to requests from states.10

Officials in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) network that 

includes facilities located in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and 

Pennsylvania,11 stated that in response to one of the network facilities not 

meeting the heart failure performance measure target, all of the facilities 

adopted a new process to improve the network’s performance. According 

to an official, in the first quarter of 2004, the network was at risk of not 

meeting the entire set of 10 cardiovascular performance measures if one of 

its facilities did not improve its low score on the heart failure performance 

measure by the end of the year.12 The heart failure performance measure is 

a cumulative performance measure that assesses whether discharged heart 

failure patients receive six types of instructions, including instructions for 

monitoring weight after discharge and taking medications. The 

instructions are critical because patients’ noncompliance with physicians’ 

instructions is often a cause for rehospitalization. An agency official stated 

that the entire network implemented a new set of mandatory data fields in 

patients’ electronic medical records. The data fields include the six types 

of instructions and have to be filled out when a facility discharges a heart 

failure patient. According to this official, the result of the implementation 

of the new mandatory fields in the patients’ electronic records was that the 

facility that was not meeting the heart failure performance measure target 

in the first quarter improved its score to the “fully satisfactory” category in 

the fourth quarter. 

9

The first PEP project ended in June 2004. The second PEP project began in July 2004 and is 

currently scheduled to end in August 2005. 

10A tutorial became available online at www.workforcetools.org in December 2004. 

11VHA networks are regional VHA units composed of health care facilities. 

12As will be discussed in more detail later in this report, if one of the facilities is failing a 

performance measure, then the entire network fails the performance measure. 
Page 11 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Performance Information 

Can Be Used to Develop 

Agency Strategy, Plan and 

Budget, Identify Priorities 

and Allocate Resources

Agencies can use performance information to make decisions that affect 

future strategies, planning and budgeting, identifying priorities, and 

allocating resources. We have previously reported that outcome-based 

performance information should be used for the allocation of resources 

and in deciding among competing priorities in a results-oriented 

management system.13 In addition, linking cost with performance 

information infuses performance concerns into planning and budgetary 

deliberations, prompting agencies to reassess their performance goals and 

strategies and to more clearly understand the cost of performance. 

Performance information also allows program managers to compare their 

programs’ results with goals and thus determine where to target program 

resources to improve performance. When managers are faced with 

reduced resources, the same analysis can help them target reductions to 

minimize negative impacts on program results. We found a number of 

examples among our case agencies of managers using performance 

information to identify priorities and allocate resources, and to shape 

future program strategy. 

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used 

performance information to set priorities in budgeting and to target 

resources. The Senior Associate Administrator for Traffic Injury Control 

annually sends out a memo that identifies agency priorities that support the 

Department of Transportation’s (DOT) strategic goals and are based on 

performance information for traffic-injury-related measures, such as safety 

belt use and impaired driver rates.14 The memo directs managers to focus 

their programs and proposals to support these priorities. In addition, 

NHTSA used performance information on alcohol-related injuries and 

fatalities to target grant funding and specific program strategies to states 

with the highest impaired driver rates. Using information reported 

through the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS),15 NHTSA identified 

13GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century Challenges, 

GAO-03-1166T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2003); GAO, Results-Oriented Budget Practices 

in Federal Agencies, GAO-01-1084SP (Washington, D.C.: August 2001); and GAO, Human 

Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39

(Washington, D.C.: December 2003). 

14Impaired driving is driving under the influence of alcohol or other drugs. 

15FARS is a database containing information on fatal crashes in the United States, including 

specific details about crash circumstances and vehicle and victim demographic information. 

It is maintained by NHTSA’s National Center for Statistics and Analysis. 
Page 12 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

13 states that represented 46 percent of the total number of alcohol-related 

fatalities in the United States. Officials said NHTSA worked closely with 

these 13 states to implement the impaired-driving program strategies it had 

designed. The strategies involved state-sponsored, high-visibility law 

enforcement activities in conjunction with a NHTSA-designed media 

campaign. A NHTSA official said that the agency brought senior policy and 

law enforcement officials from these states together and presented the 

performance information and evaluations showing impaired driving rates 

and the effectiveness of the high visibility law enforcement and media 

campaign. In order to receive funding, the targeted states had to agree to 

implement the program that NHTSA had designed, including the media 

campaign. After the publicized crackdown periods, NHTSA provided the 

targeted states with additional evaluation resources. 

The Small Business Administration (SBA) used performance and cost 

information to reallocate resources to better meet priorities. In the 1990s, 

SBA created Business Information Centers (BIC), a community partnership 

service to provide entrepreneurs with access to computers and the Internet 

to help them access business information and develop business plans. 

Officials said that, as a partnership using hardware and software and 

library resources donated from private technology companies, the program 

was designed to require minimal SBA employee support or capital costs. 

However, after analyzing financial and human capital resources, including 

the data collected through their annual survey of how much support SBA 

employees provide for various programs, they found that substantial 

employee resources were being devoted to the BICs, on the order of $11 

million. This cost information led SBA officials to reconsider the service. 

Since computers had become more accessible to entrepreneurs than when 

the BIC program was designed, and because assistance to entrepreneurs 

could be provided more efficiently though other programs, SBA decided to 

end its participation in the program and has phased out its role in the 

community partnerships. 
Page 13 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Performance Information 

Can Be Used to Recognize 

and Reward Performance

Agencies can use performance information to affect pay decisions and to 

reward individuals, and in some cases, grantees.16 Using performance 

information this way reinforces accountability and creates incentives for 

achieving results. We have previously reported that high-performing 

public-sector organizations create a clear “line of sight” between individual 

performance and organizational success17 showing how team, unit, and 

individual performance can contribute to overall organizational results. 

There is growing recognition that the government needs to transform how 

it compensates its employees to achieve greater results. To this end, some 

agencies have implemented performance agreements as a vehicle for 

bringing results-oriented performance information into evaluations of 

performance. A revised performance-based pay system for members of the 

Senior Executive Service (SES) across the federal government has been in 

effect since January 2004, as authorized by Congress and overseen by the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM), where pay adjustments for SES 

members are to be based on the alignment of individual performance and 

contributions to the agency’s mission and strategic goals, among other 

things. The human capital reforms under way at the Departments of 

Defense and Homeland Security are intended to help them manage their 

human capital to achieve results. We found several examples where case 

agencies used performance information to recognize and reward 

performance, as described next.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses performance information 

to affect pay decisions. FAA has linked employee annual pay increases to 

the achievement of agencywide goals through the performance-based pay 

system.18 At the end of fiscal year 2004, 78 percent of employees were 

included in the agency’s performance-based pay system, which allocates 

16Agencies can also use performance information to recognize and reward contractors for 

achieving results. However, we did not analyze any examples of performance-based 

contracting for this report. 

17GAO-03-488.

18We previously reviewed FAA’s human capital reforms and found that FAA had little data 

with which to assess the effects of its reform effort. See GAO, Human Capital 

Management: FAA’s Reform Effort Requires a More Strategic Approach, GAO-03-156, 

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 3, 2003). 
Page 14 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

increases on the basis of individual and organizational performance.19 At 

the individual level, employees can receive two types of increases. 

Employees earn the first increase for meeting individual goals and the 

second increase for achieving outstanding individual performance. At the 

organizational level, employees are eligible for the organizational success 

increase (OSI). This is an agencywide pay increase based on the 

performance of the agency as a whole on the 31 key performance measures 

in the agency’s strategic plan, called the Flight Plan.20 The OSI funding pool 

consists of the amount of the general increase for General Schedule (GS) 

employees in other federal agencies plus an additional 1 percent (which 

reflects a portion of the funds previously spent on within-grade increases). 

Receiving the full OSI depends on whether actual performance meets the 

goals. In calendar year 2004, FAA employees received an OSI increase of 

2.13 percent. FAA also offers Short Term Incentives to FAA senior staff for 

achieving key performance targets and specified accomplishments in 

implementing Flight Plan initiatives. 

VHA uses performance information to create incentives for network 

directors. We previously reported that the use of performance information 

in performance agreements helped VHA define directors’ accountability for 

specific goals and monitor progress during the year, and contributed to 

their evaluations. VHA accomplishes this through the performance-based 

review process, which links a director’s performance rating and 

compensation to the performance of the network that he or she oversees. 

Specifically, a director’s annual ratings and bonuses are based on how well 

he or she meets the goals in the performance contract. As detailed in the 

contract, the network director’s compensation is affected by that network’s 

scores on performance measures, which include clinical waiting times, the 

percentage of patients receiving cancer screenings, and patient 

satisfaction. Half of the network director’s performance evaluation is 

based upon the cumulative score on the network’s performance measures. 

The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) uses performance 

information to provide incentives for and apply sanctions to state programs 

that receive grants under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act. The 

authority to hold grantees accountable for performance in this manner is 

19Section 347 of the Fiscal Year 1996 Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 

Pub. L. No. 104-50 (Nov. 15, 1995), provided FAA with special flexibilities with regard to its 

human capital policies. 49 U.S.C. § 40122. 

20FAA’s 2005-2009 Flight Plan can be found online at http://www.faa.gov. 
Page 15 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

provided for in the WIA legislation.21 Each state negotiates performance 

goals with DOL prior to the beginning of the program year for the 17 WIA 

indicators measuring employment, retention, earnings, attainment of 

credentials, attainment of skills, and customer satisfaction.22 States are 

eligible for incentive awards if they have exceeded performance goals set 

for programs funded under 3 separate programs, one of which is WIA.23 In 

general, financial sanctions may be levied if performance is less than 80 

percent of the negotiated performance levels for 2 consecutive years or if 

the state fails to submit an accurate and complete annual performance 

report.24 Specific mitigating factors may be considered, such as 

performance relative to other states, improvement efforts, and economic 

conditions, among others. 

Performance Information 

Can Be Used to Identify and 

Share More Effective 

Processes and Approaches 

to Program Implementation

We have reported that high-performing organizations continuously assess 

and benchmark performance and efforts to improve performance.25 They 

evaluate their efforts using fact-based understandings of how their 

activities contribute to accomplishing the mission and broader results, and 

optimize their efforts through continuous improvement. Managers can use 

performance information to identify and increase the use of program 

approaches that are working well, and consider alternative processes in 

areas where goals are not being met. Pilots and demonstration projects 

2129 U.S.C. § 2871(g). The authority to provide financial incentives and levy sanctions based 

on performance is specific to WIA legislation and associated WIA programs. Similar 

authority may or may not be provided for in legislation for other grant programs.

22We have reported on quality issues regarding the performance data generated by state WIA 

programs. In our report, Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have 

Developed Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help, GAO-04-657

(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004) we discuss OMB’s proposed common measures, and data 

quality issues such as the lack of consistent definitions which leads to variations in 

reporting. 

23The two other programs are adult education and vocational education, authorized by the 

Adult Education and Family Literacy Act and the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical 

Education Act, respectively. 

24More specific criteria for sanctions and incentives implementation can be found in DOL’s 

Training and Employment Guidance Letter No. 19-02, located online at 

http://wdr.doleta.gov/directives/attach/TEGL19-02.cfm.

25GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: High Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and 

Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public Management 

Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).
Page 16 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

can be used to identify innovative ways to improve performance—by 

allowing for experiences to be rigorously evaluated, and shared 

systematically with others, and by allowing for new procedures to be 

adjusted as appropriate—before receiving wider application. 

Organizations can also use the process improvement technique of 

benchmarking—comparing their processes with those of private and public 

organizations that are thought to be the best in their fields. By 

benchmarking its own processes against those of leading business and 

government entities, an organization can learn how much change it needs 

to make and what changes might be the right ones. We found examples of 

these types of uses of performance information in the case agencies, as 

described next.

On the basis of performance information from a pilot test, the National 

Weather Service (NWS) adopted a more effective flash flood monitoring 

and prediction tool on a national basis. NWS provides flash flood warning 

services and verifies the timeliness and accuracy of its warnings. It aims to 

improve its performance in this area through the flash flood performance 

goals entitled, flash flood warning lead time and flash flood warning 

accuracy, as outlined in its strategic plan.26 A prototype flash flood 

monitoring application was developed and first tested at the Pittsburgh 

Weather Forecast Office (WFO) beginning in 1995. On the basis of 

improved performance data achieved with the prototype and case studies 

of several flash flood events in the Pittsburgh area, NWS decided to 

develop and test an enhanced version of the pilot system. The enhanced 

version, called the Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction (FFMP) 

Program, continuously monitors rainfall rates and hydrologic conditions to 

provide automated alerts when a dangerous flood situation may be 

developing on a given stream or catchment. In 2002 NWS began 

implementing FFMP nationwide, with the aim of improving flash flood 

services and helping NWS to meet its flash flood performance goals. Initial 

training on how to use the FFMP system was provided for all WFOs and 

additional training is provided at routinely offered courses. According to a 

recent survey, nearly all of the WFOs were using the system. It is expected 

that implementing the system will facilitate improvements in the accuracy 

and timeliness of official NWS flash flood warnings, and enable forecasters 

to provide more specific location information within a flash flood warning. 

26The NWS Strategic Plan for 2005-2010 can be found online at http://www.nws.noaa.gov/sp/. 
Page 17 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

ETA has used performance information on state and local workforce 

investment areas to identify and nominate participants for the National 

Business Learning Partnership’s (NBLP) peer-to-peer, mentoring initiative. 

The NBLP, which started in October of 2003, links local workforce areas27

that want to improve their services (protégés) with workforce areas that 

have exceeded performance standards (mentors). The program focuses on 

the delivery of workforce services tailored to the needs of business and 

industry in that specific workforce area. Overall, 19 mentor sites and 25 

protégé sites have participated. Examples of the types of performance and 

related information considered by ETA in selecting workforce areas to 

nominate as mentors include the following: successful engagement with 

businesses to meet the workforce needs of local industry; high 

performance on the 17 legislated WIA performance indicators measuring 

employment, retention, earnings, attainment of credentials, attainment of 

skills, and customer satisfaction; and the transferability of mentor 

practices to other areas. Protégés were selected on the basis of their desire 

to improve their performance and services to businesses, and also on the 

basis of whether they had problems meeting the WIA performance 

measures. Each protégé site was matched with a mentor site to help it 

develop a work plan. The protégés and mentors conducted at least two site 

visits to each other’s respective areas to study the local workforce 

investment operations and share information. In addition to peer-to-peer 

consultation, NBLP case studies have been developed to provide a wider 

audience with access to participants’ experiences and learning. Each case 

study includes practices and principles to improve performance outcomes 

by addressing the workforce needs of businesses and industries, as well as 

a guide to facilitate shared learning and promote action.28 To assess the 

success of these partnerships, each protégé’s performance on selected WIA 

measures will be compared from performance year 2003 through 

performance year 2005. Additional measures of success will include such 

considerations as contacts with businesses, resources leveraged, and 

workers trained and placed in high-growth careers. 

27Workforce investment areas are designated within states by governors. 

28Three case studies have been published so far, and another five are being developed. 
Page 18 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Management Practices 

Can Enhance the Use 

of Performance 

Information

Agencies can adopt or apply a number of practices that can enhance the 

use of performance information for policy and program decisions aimed at 

improving results. The concept of practices as used in this report includes 

administrative or management tools, systems, or processes that agencies 

can implement. From our interviews with experts and agency officials and 

our review of related literature and agency documents, we identified five 

types of practices that can facilitate greater use of performance 

information. As illustrated in figure 5, the five types of practices are 

demonstrating management commitment; aligning agency goals, objectives 

and measures; improving the usefulness of performance information to 

better meet management’s needs; developing agency capacity to effectively 

use performance information; and frequently and effectively 

communicating performance information within the agency. We discuss 

the 5 practices in detail following the figure. 

Figure 5: Practices That Can Enhance or Facilitate the Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision Making

Uses

Source: GAO.

Improved results

Practices

Identify 

problems and 

take corrective 

action

Develop 

strategy 

and allocate 

resources

Recognize 

and reward 

performance

Identify and 

share effective 

approaches

Demonstrating 

management 

commitment

Improving the 

usefulness of 

performance 

information

Developing 

capacity to use 

performance 

information

Communicating 

performance 

information 

frequently 

and effectively

Aligning 

agencywide 

goals, 

objectives, 

and measures
Page 19 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Demonstrating Management 

Commitment

The commitment of agency managers to results-oriented management is 

critical to increased use of performance information for policy and 

program decisions. As we previously reported,29 demonstrating the 

willingness and ability to make decisions and manage programs on the 

basis of results, and inspiring others to embrace such a model, are 

important indicators of management’s commitment. Agency officials from 

our case illustration programs also identified management commitment as 

central to encouraging the use of performance information in decisions. 

Officials from these agencies described how management showed this type 

of commitment by leading frequent, regular performance review meetings 

to discuss progress made toward the achievement of results, and by 

involving staff from different organizational levels in performance review 

meetings. These methods assisted agencies in identifying performance 

problems and in developing performance improvement plans based on 

collected performance information. 

SBA conducts monthly meetings with the associate administrator of each 

mission and functional office to review that office’s performance. The 

administrator, deputy administrator, and chief operating officer (COO) 

participate. Each SBA office has performance measures organized along 

three components of performance—office strategic goals, production 

goals, and project goals—on a scorecard. Prior to meeting, the COO’s staff 

review the monthly and cumulative performance information for each 

office and ask each office to respond in writing to questions or concerns 

based on the data. This analysis is the basis for the regular performance 

review meetings. Officials said management’s commitment to regularly 

reviewing performance increases performance ownership among staff and 

competition among the offices to meet performance targets. 

Similarly, FAA management demonstrates commitment through monthly, 

day-long, agencywide performance review meetings that are led by the 

Administrator and key associate administrators who serve as goal leads for 

each FAA Flight Plan goal area: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity, 

International Leadership, and Organizational Excellence. At these 

meetings, officials said that they discuss performance for the agency’s 31 

key performance metrics and the strategic initiatives supporting each. 

When a business line is not meeting the performance targets for specific 

29GAO, Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top 

Leadership Skills, GAO-01-127 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2000).
Page 20 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

metrics, officials report on efforts planned or under way to improve 

performance. For metrics where performance targets have been met, 

officials discuss the actions that were taken to achieve the targets. Officials 

said that during this performance review, the Administrator identifies IOUs, 

outlining agreed-upon actions to be implemented. Officials said that they 

provide updates on the status of these IOUs at the following performance 

review meeting. 

At the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), managers are involved in 

reviewing performance at different levels of the organization. Senior 

management hold monthly departmentwide meetings to review 

performance. According to officials, the meetings are chaired by the 

Deputy Secretary and are attended by the heads of the three 

administrations: VHA, the Veterans Benefit Administration, and the 

National Cemetery Administration, as well as all of the staff offices within 

VA. Each administration reports financial status, workload, and key 

performance measures. The Deputy Secretary has recently implemented 

reporting by exception at the monthly performance review. Reporting by 

exception requires that administration and staff offices offer an 

explanation for less-than-desired performance, describe plans or ongoing 

efforts to improve performance and discuss when results were expected. 

At the following month’s performance review, status information is 

presented to demonstrate progress. In addition, success stories and the 

activities used to achieve them are also reported. According to officials, 

within VHA, mid- and lower-level managers are also involved in regular 

performance review meetings, including meetings involving the Deputy 

Under Secretary and the directors of the regional networks, meetings of 

network directors and their facility directors, and meetings between 

facility directors and their staff. In addition, according to officials, each of 

the facilities in one of the networks we visited, which includes VA facilities 

in California, Nevada, Hawaii and the Philippines, assigns a “champion” 

who is responsible for monitoring and presenting results for a specific 

performance measure at weekly facility management meetings. 

Aligning Agencywide Goals, 

Objectives and Measures 

Agencies can encourage greater use of performance information by 

aligning agencywide goals and objectives, and by aligning program 

performance measures at each operating level with those goals and 

objectives. GPRA requires that agencies use performance measurement to 

reinforce the connection between their long-term strategic goals and the 

day-to-day activities of their managers and staff. As we reported 
Page 21 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

previously,30 in order to meet the GPRA requirements, an agency should 

cascade its goals and objectives throughout the organization and should 

align performance measures to the objectives from the executive level 

down to the operational levels. This forms hierarchies of goals and 

objectives and performance information that are appropriate to the 

managerial responsibilities and controls at each level of the organization. 

This alignment increases the usefulness of the performance information 

collected to decision makers at each level, and reinforces the connection 

between strategic goals and the day-to-day activities of managers and staff. 

We have also reported that a greater focus on results can be created by 

cascading organizational goals and objectives down to the individual 

performance level. Earlier in this report, we described how agencies can 

use performance information to recognize and reward performance and 

encourage the achievement of results. Alignment facilitates the linking of 

individual performance to organizational performance.

FAA promotes alignment by requiring that all organizations use the same 

alignment framework and approach in preparing their annual business 

plans. Goals cascade throughout each of FAA’s 16 organizations to each 

individual employee. The agency goals detailed in FAA’s strategic plan (or 

Flight Plan) drive new strategic initiatives and the ongoing, day-to-day 

operations of FAA, referred to as their core business functions. Key 

elements required in the business plans for each of FAA’s four lines of 

business and 12 offices are developed using a systematic alignment 

approach that guides the organizations through the step-by-step process of 

defining and developing performance elements that support the Flight Plan 

goals. Organizations align themselves with the Flight Plan through this 

process, and targets cascade down through the organization into employee 

performance plans. These plans identify specific work expectations and 

outcomes, and are required for every FAA employee. This alignment 

facilitates FAA recognizing and rewarding performance by using 

performance information to affect pay decisions, as described earlier in 

this report. 

VHA’s performance measures are aligned through different levels of the 

organization. The same performance measures are used to assess VHA’s 

performance from the VHA-wide level down through the network levels to 

the individual facilities. For example, the performance measure of the 

percentage of patients receiving breast cancer screening is used at all three 

30GAO/GGD-96-118.
Page 22 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

levels. As mentioned earlier in this report, the performance score of a 

facility can have an effect upon the entire network to which it belongs. As 

an illustration of how performance is “rolled up,” officials stated that in 

order to get a fully satisfactory rating at the network level, 80 percent of the 

hospitals in that network must have met their goals. Officials stated that if 

any facility is at the failing level for a performance measure, the entire 

network will also be rated as failing the measure. In addition, alignment 

contributes to VHA’s ability to use performance information to provide 

incentives for network directors, through the performance-based review 

process described earlier. 

Improving the Usefulness of 

Performance Information to 

Better Meet Management’s 

Decision-Making Needs

To ensure that performance information will be both useful and used in 

decision making throughout the organization, agencies need to consider 

users’ differing policy and management information needs. Practices that 

improve the usefulness of performance information can help to meet those 

needs. We reported previously31 that to be useful, performance information 

must meet users’ needs for completeness, accuracy, consistency, 

timeliness, validity, and ease of use. Other attributes that affect the 

usefulness of information include, but are not limited to, relevance, 

credibility, and accessibility. We have reported previously on a number of 

practices that improve the usefulness of performance information to 

different users.32 Measures should be selected specifically on the basis of 

their ability to inform the decisions made at each organizational level, and 

should be appropriate to the responsibilities and control at each level. In 

that regard, involving managers in the development of performance goals 

and measures is critical to increasing the relevance and therefore the 

usefulness of performance information to their day-to-day activities. 

Agency officials in our case illustrations identified a number of practices 

that increased the usefulness of performance information, including its 

relevance, ease of use, timeliness, and accessibility.

As discussed earlier, EBSA contracted with an outside organization to 

collect more useful customer satisfaction information. By increasing the 

scope and depth of customer satisfaction data, the information has been 

made more relevant, and therefore, more useful to management’s day-to31GAO-04-38.

32GAO, Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency 

Performance Information, GAO/GGD-99-139 (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999). 
Page 23 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

day activities. Prior to this contract, EBSA used another contractor that 

provided a general high-level index of customer satisfaction that provided 

comparability to other organizations. However, in order to provide this 

comparability, the survey questions had to be standardized in a manner that 

was not as relevant for EBSA as for other organizations. In addition, the 

first customer satisfaction survey did not provide a means for EBSA to 

disaggregate data to identify specific aspects of its performance. 

Recognizing that the information did not fully meet their needs, EBSA staff 

identified a new contractor to create and conduct a specialized customer 

satisfaction survey of clients that will provide comparability from year to 

year even if it does not provide comparability among other organizations. 

Survey questions are now tailored to EBSA’s needs. Specific questions can 

be added and data disaggregated and analyzed as needed to focus in on 

potential problem areas. For example, data can be broken down by 

categories such as regional office, benefit advisor, and type of inquiry.

The Enforcement Office of the Department of Labor’s EBSA Office 

implemented a new Enforcement Management System (EMS) that officials 

say improved the usefulness of performance information, making it more 

timely, accessible, and easy to use. The system, implemented in 1999, 

manages information related to investigations into the potential violation of 

benefits laws. These investigations are conducted by 385 investigators 

located at EBSA field offices across the country. Prior to the development 

of the EMS, officials said that the Enforcement Office had a simple 

database system located at headquarters and that field offices used a 

separate case management system.33 The EMS was custommade for the 

Enforcement Office. It tracks information about every investigation 

nationwide throughout its lifecycle, providing both field and headquarters 

staff access to real-time information. According to officials, not only does 

the system make information more timely and accessible, it has increased 

the ease of use and relevance of performance information by incorporating 

user-friendly windows technology and allowing users to define their own 

information needs with customized queries and reports. In addition, over 

30 standardized statistical and case reports are available. Standardized 

statistical reports allow managers to view, by selected geographic area, 

summaries of such information as the different investigation types (e.g., 

fiduciary and criminal), the cases referred for litigation, and closed cases 

33We reviewed EBSA’s previous database system in GAO, Pension and Welfare Benefits 

Administration: Opportunities Exist for Improving Management of the Enforcement 

Program, GAO-02-232 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 15, 2002). 
Page 24 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

along with the associated results. Headquarters provides additional 

analysis of the information regarding overall progress toward policy goals, 

allowing adjustments to be made in the field offices. 

SBA has involved its program managers in the development of the agency’s 

performance measurement system, allowing offices to determine their own 

goals and measures. This practice increases the usefulness of 

performance information to the activities of offices and programs, and SBA 

officials credit it with creating buy-in and ownership of the performance 

measurement system. Measures and targets must meet certain 

requirements as overseen by the chief operating officer. For example, 

measures should support the strategic goals; measures should be valid, 

measurable, and verifiable; and the set of measures as a whole should 

contain both qualitative and quantitative measures. At the beginning of 

each year when the measures and targets are being selected, assistance is 

provided for any program upon request to help with selecting appropriate 

measures. 

SBA has also initiated a practice aimed at documenting and improving the 

overall usefulness of performance information and increasing its use. 

Programs are required to identify the intended use of each measure in 

decisions related to policy and to provide an assessment of how fit the 

information is for this use. The importance of this practice is that it 

promotes the selection of performance measures that better meet 

managements’ needs, providing information that is relevant, and 

sufficiently complete, accurate, consistent, and timely for management’s 

decision-making needs. To facilitate and document the practice, SBA’s 

Office of Analysis, Planning and Accountability developed an assessment 

tool for its indicators in the form of the Data Validation Table,”34 shown in 

figure 6. These tables are updated annually for every indicator published in 

the SBA Performance and Accountability Report. In addition to 

documenting the intended use, the office must provide an assessment of 

the information’s completeness, accuracy, consistency, and timeliness. 

Validation Tables also document the associated office and program; what 

outcomes are being assessed; how each outcome is aligned with agency 

goals; the system in which the data are kept; and any limitations to the use 

of the information in the intended manner and associated remedies, among 

other items. 

34Tables for specific SBA metrics can be found online at 

http://www.sba.gov/PAR.pdf/strategicgoal1.html. 
Page 25 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Figure 6: SBA Data Validation Table

Source: SBA.
Page 26 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Developing Agency 

Capacity

The practice of building analytical capacity to use performance 

information—both in terms of staff trained to do analysis and availability of 

research and evaluation resources—is critical to using performance 

information in a meaningful fashion. Our 2003 GPRA survey found that 

there was 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. We 

have previously reported35 on the need for agencies to expend resources on 

effective training and professional development to equip federal employees 

to work effectively. Specifically, managers and staff need competencies 

and skills to plan strategically, develop robust measures of performance, 

and analyze what the performance data mean. Performance management 

literature also states that training is a key factor in improving employees’ 

capabilities and enabling employee involvement in achieving performance 

improvements. We found examples where our case illustration agencies 

built capacity through providing staff with training in the performance 

management system and by providing access to technical assistance, such 

as having designated evaluation support staff or performance measurement 

experts available.

The VHA network that includes health care facilities located in California, 

Nevada, Hawaii, and the Philippines builds agency capacity by providing 

annual training on performance measures for facility managers. The 

training is coordinated by a performance measurement committee 

composed of clinical leadership and quality management staff from each of 

the facilities. The committee’s mission includes providing education on the 

performance measures beyond the annual training, as well as sharing and 

implementing strategies to facilitate meeting the performance 

measurement targets. At the annual training conference, all of the 

performance measures are discussed, including existing measures as well 

as any new measures. The training lasts for a day or two, and facility 

managers can participate in person, on the telephone, or by 

videoconference. In addition, the performance measurement committee is 

also a resource throughout the year for questions on the performance 

measures.

NHTSA has established capacity to use performance information through 

its research and evaluation office. According to one official, NHTSA has 

35GAO-04-38.
Page 27 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

had internal analytic capacity through a research office for more than 25 

years. The evaluation office provides the capacity to conduct research and 

evaluations on the effectiveness of NHTSA’s Traffic Injury Control Office 

programs and initiatives, which address issues such as safety related to 

alcohol- and drug-impaired driving, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles, 

school buses, emergency medical services, older drivers, and driver fatigue 

and inattention. We previously reported that NHTSA’s evaluation office 

provides the capacity for a three-phase evaluation process.36 First, studies 

identify the nature of the problem and possible solutions. Second, costbenefit analyses identify the expected consequences or alternative 

approaches. Third, follow-up studies assess the consequences of policy or 

regulatory changes, since effects of some changes may not be apparent 

until 5 or more years after the introduction of changes. According to a 

NHTSA official, it is important to have this capacity because the Traffic 

Injury Control Office does not have any regulatory authority, and needs the 

analysis and evaluations to demonstrate that the proposed programs are 

effective in order to persuade states to implement them. In addition, we 

have previously reported that evaluations can improve agency use of 

performance information by providing performance information that may 

otherwise be unavailable; by validating the accuracy of performance data; 

by explaining the reasons for observed performance; or, finally, by 

identifying ways to improve performance. 

Communicating 

Performance Information 

Frequently and Effectively 

Improving the communication of performance information among staff and 

stakeholders can facilitate the use of performance information by agency 

managers. Improvements can be achieved through frequent and routine 

communication, and the use of effective communication tools, such as 

visual aids. We previously reported that frequent, regular communication 

is key for managers to inform staff and other stakeholders of their 

commitment to achieve the agency’s goals and to keep these goals in mind 

as they pursue their day-to-day activities. 37 Frequently reporting 

performance information also allows managers to review the information 

in time to take action to make improvements. Program managers can also 

communicate performance information upward through the management 

hierarchy, and across operating units. We found a number of vehicles 

36GAO, Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative Partnerships Help 

Build Agency Capacity, GAO-03-454 (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2003).

37GAO/GGD-96-118.
Page 28 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

through which agencies communicated performance information 

effectively. For example, agencies maintained frequent, routine 

communication among managers and staff through visual tools such as 

poster displays, performance scorecards, and intranet sites. Some agencies 

provided performance updates through regular e-mail or the distribution of 

monthly performance review meeting minutes. In addition, officials said 

publicizing performance information can inspire ownership of a unit’s 

performance, as well as competition between units. For example, 

scorecards or other visual presentations of performance information 

enable staff to compare and analyze performance, resulting in a 

competitive interest in improving performance. We found examples in 

selected agencies of the practice of frequent and routine communication 

and using visual tools to communicate performance information. 

NWS uses a number of display tools to convey performance information to 

staff and management at different levels of the organization. Quad charts 

and display boards are two examples. Quad charts arose out of the 

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) efforts to 

improve budgeting and planning systems, and have also been used at the 

NWS. They are one-page summaries that provide pertinent information for 

decision-making purposes. One particular type of quad chart is prepared to 

inform agency executives about program performance. These quad charts 

are prepared by each major program and presented during NOAA’s 

quarterly executive panels. These panels are composed of the Deputy 

Under Secretary of NOAA and the deputies of the line offices. A one-page 

chart is divided into four quadrants containing the following four areas: 

Performance Parameters (metrics and threshold values for selected 

performance indicators); Schedule of Activities (including schedule 

status); Key Issues and Risks; and Funding (budgetary issues). For each of 

these topics, status is also color-coded in green, yellow, or red. An 

example of this type of quad chart is shown in figure 7. Similar types of 

quad charts are prepared by managers requesting program adjustments 

(such as changes in funding) and for selected NWS and NOAA programs. 

Some quad charts also include GPRA performance measures when 

applicable to a NOAA or NWS program. 
Page 29 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Figure 7: NOAA Quad Chart Template

NWS also uses display boards at all of its field and regional offices to 

communicate information to all staff. As shown in figure 8, display boards 

convey national, regional, and site performance information on GPRA 

measures relevant to specific site activities. These charts allow site 

personnel to compare the site’s performance with performance measured 

at the regional and national levels. Sites can update their own performance 

Source: NOAA.
Page 30 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

measures as often as monthly, while national data are updated annually. 

Comparable site-level information is available for all sites on the NOAA 

Intranet. 

Figure 8: NOAA Display Board Template 

FAA communicates performance information to all staff through a monthly 

performance scorecard. The scorecard is organized into a table, and 

Source: NOAA.
Page 31 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

includes the actual and targeted performance levels for the agency’s 31 key 

metrics, as identified in FAA’s strategic plan, or Flight Plan. Each metric is 

color coded, using the stoplight system of red, yellow, or green, according 

to how closely actual performance met the targeted performance for each 

month. The scorecard is posted on FAA’s Intranet and is updated monthly. 

The same information is reported in more detail on a quarterly basis on 

FAA’s external Web site.38 An example of one of the metrics in the quarterly 

report, Runway Incursions,39 is shown in figure 9.

38The FAA Quarterly Performance Report can be found online at 

http://www.faa.gov/about/plans_reports/performance/performancetargets/book0/section0/

section.html.

39A runway incursion is any occurrence in the airport runway environment involving an 

aircraft, vehicle, person, or object on the ground that creates a collision hazard or results in 

a loss of required separation with an aircraft taking off, intending to take off, landing, or 

intending to land.
Page 32 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Figure 9: FAA Scorecard for Runway Incursions

Source: FAA.
Page 33 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Conclusions Our 2003 survey of federal managers found that, despite the fact that 

managers reported having more performance measures, the use of 

performance information for program management activities did not 

increase significantly from 1997 levels when GPRA was first implemented 

governmentwide. Creating results-oriented cultures in which performance 

information is routinely used to make key management decisions will 

require the sustained attention and commitment of top agency leadership 

and more widespread adoption of the practices identified in this report. 

The five federal agencies that we examined for this report provide 

examples of how agencies can use performance information for key 

management decisions and practices that can facilitate such use. The 

specific ways in which the case agencies used performance information or 

implemented the practices may not be appropriate for wholesale adoption 

throughout the federal government because agencies face different 

management conditions and challenges, and operate under different 

authorities. Nevertheless, the general uses and practices highlighted in this 

report are universal and could be adapted by each agency. Helpful next 

steps would be for the relevant experiences of agencies in using 

performance information and adopting practices that facilitate use of 

performance information to be more widely shared, and for agencies to be 

encouraged to adapt practices to their unique situations. 

Agency Comments The Departments of Commerce, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans 

Affairs, and the Small Business Administration provided technical 

comments that were incorporated where appropriate throughout the 

report. 

As agreed with your office, we will send copies of this report to the 

Director of the Office of Management and Budget and other interested 

parties. We will also make copies available to others upon request. In 

addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me on (202) 512-6543 if you or your staff have any questions 

about this report. Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations 
Page 34 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Other 

contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix II.

Sincerely yours,

Bernice Steinhardt

Director, Strategic Issues
Page 35 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Appendix I

Scope and Methodology ApApenednxidexiIs

To identify uses of performance information and practices that encourage 

the use of performance information, we reviewed our prior reports and 

other relevant literature and interviewed agency officials. In addition, we 

interviewed experts in using performance information from the following 

organizations: the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland; the 

School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern 

California; the Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation at 

American University; the School of Public Policy and Public Administration 

at George Washington University; the Urban Institute; the IBM Center for 

the Business of Government; and the Mercatus Center.

To identify examples of ways in which managers use performance 

information and practices that enhance their use of that information, we 

selected five federal agencies that were identified as having a greater 

likelihood of using performance information: the Departments of 

Commerce (DOC), Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT), and Veterans 

Affairs (VA); and the Small Business Administration (SBA). Among the 

factors that we considered in guiding our selection processs were that the 

agencies received relatively high scores on the 2000 GAO Government 

Performance and Results Act survey results regarding the extent to which 

managers reported using performance information,1

 relatively good marks 

on the September 2004 Executive Branch Management Scorecard 

(President’s Management Agenda), and/or recommendations from 

interviews with experts. We also considered diversity in terms of program 

type and size.

Table 1 contains brief background information on the agencies within the 

selected departments that are highlighted in our case examples.

1

GAO-01-592.
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 36 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Table 1: Background Information on Agencies Selected to Illustrate Performance Information Uses and Practices

Department

or agency Selected agencies or offices

Selected program 

type

DOL Employment and Training Administration (ETA)

ETA provides job training, employment and labor market information, and income 

maintenance services. Within ETA, the Office of Workforce Investment (OWI) is 

responsible for providing national leadership, oversight, policy guidance, and technical 

assistance for the one-stop public employment service system and the youth and adult 

employment and training programs funded under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA). 

Block/

formula grants

Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) 

EBSA is tasked with protecting the integrity of pensions, health plans, and other 

employee benefits. EBSA’s Office of Participant Assistance (OPA) provides information 

and assistance for individuals covered by private retirement and health and welfare 

plans, plan sponsors, and members of the employee benefits community. EBSA’s goal 

is to enable participants to better understand and exercise their rights under the law, 

and when possible, recover any benefits to which they may be entitled. They also seek 

to give practitioners the opportunity to better understand and comply with the law. The 

Office of Enforcement is tasked with protecting pension and welfare benefits under 

ERISA. The Office of Enforcement’s investigative field staff conduct investigations to 

detect and correct violations of Title I of ERISA and related criminal laws. 

Regulatory-based

VA Veterans Health Administration (VHA)

The mission of VHA is to assist veterans by providing comprehensive healthcare 

services including primary care, specialized care, and related medical and social 

support. Comprehensive health care services are provided for veterans through VHA’s 

field facilities and Veterans Integrated Service Networks. VHA’s medical system 

consists of 21 of these integrated networks of care whose focus is pooling and aligning 

resources.

Direct federal

SBA Small Business Administration (SBA)

The principal mission of the Small Business Administration is to maintain and 

strengthen the nation's economy by aiding, counseling, assisting and protecting the 

interests of small businesses and by helping families and businesses recover from 

national disasters. Within SBA, the Office of Capital Access assists small businesses in 

obtaining loans necessary for growth by being a gap lender, assisting small businesses 

that otherwise would not qualify for un-guaranteed financing in obtaining equity, or 

taking advantage of procurement opportunities. The Office of Government Contracting 

and Business Development promotes increased small business participation in the 

federal procurement market for goods and services and fulfills SBA’s statutory mission 

to ensure that a fair share of federal procurement goes to small businesses. The Office 

of Entrepreneurial Development, through a network of partners and its own on-line 

Small Business Training Network, provides counseling, training and business 

information to small entrepreneurs. These resources help to start and grow small 

businesses throughout the country. The Office of Disaster Assistance provides 

affordable, timely, and accessible financial assistance for homeowners, renters, and 

businesses of all sizes affected by disaster. Financial assistance is available in the form 

of low-interest, long-term loans.

Direct federal; credit; 

block/formula grants; 

competitive grant
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 37 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Source: GAO.

Within each of the five selected agencies, we conducted interviews with 

program/policy management and staff to obtain their suggestions regarding 

specific programs in which performance information has been used for 

management. We then interviewed staff involved with those programs in 

more detail and reviewed related documents to obtain further information 

about how those programs have used performance information and any 

associated practices that have contributed to those uses. We selected 

specific examples to highlight each use and practice and to illustrate 

particular aspects of how that use or practice was implemented within 

specific agency program contexts and across various program types. We 

did not attempt to identify all agencies and programs that could have 

illustrated these uses and practices. In addition, while we did review 

existing relevant information regarding performance data quality where 

available, we did not systematically assess the quality of the performance 

DOT National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA)

NHTSA’s mission is to save lives, prevent injuries, and reduce economic costs due to 

road traffic crashes. NHTSA establishes and enforces automobile safety regulations, 

including crash avoidance and crashworthiness standards, and consumer protection 

standards, including fuel efficiency standards, bumper standards, and regulations 

relating to odometer tampering and domestic content labeling. NHTSA also 

investigates safety defects and carries out the duties and the powers of DOT to provide 

for aspects of highway safety other than highway safety design features, such as driver 

performance.

Block/formula grant; 

regulatory-based

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA)

The mission of the FAA is to improve the safety and efficiency of aviation. FAA 

promotes safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing standards for the 

design; material; construction; quality of work; and performance of aircraft, aircraft 

engines, and propellers. In addition, FAA issues certificates such as those for 

airworthiness and airport operations. FAA also helps develop and maintain a safe and 

efficient nationwide system of public-use airports that meets the present and future 

needs of civil aeronautics. Finally, FAA licenses commercial space launches and the 

operation of nonfederal launch sites within the United States and by U.S. citizens 

abroad.

Direct federal; 

competitive grant; 

regulatory-based

DOC National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) 

The mission of NOAA is to understand and predict changes in the earth’s environment 

and to conserve and manage coastal and marine resources to meet our nation’s 

economic, social, and environmental needs. A part of NOAA, the National Weather 

Service (NWS) provides weather, hydrologic, and climate forecasts and warnings for 

the United States, its territories, adjacent waters, and ocean areas; for the protection of 

life and property; and for the enhancement of the national economy. NWS produces 

and maintains data in a national information database, the products and infrastructure 

of which are used by other governmental agencies, the private sector, the public, and 

the international community. 

Direct federal

(Continued From Previous Page)

Department

or agency Selected agencies or offices

Selected program 

type
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 38 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

information used in the examples we cite. Finally, for most of the 

examples, we describe how performance information was used to make 

decisions, but we did not attempt to verify that the use ultimately resulted 

in improved outcomes. 

From our review of the literature and interviews with experts and staff 

from the five agencies, we developed a conceptual framework identifying 

four categories of uses of performance information and five categories of 

practices that contribute to using performance information. The 

framework and categories of uses and practices are consistent with the 

themes identified in our March 2003 report on results-oriented cultures and 

effective performance management, and are consistent with additional 

GAO reports on GPRA and results-oriented government.2

 The four use 

categories in our framework that we identified through our independent 

analysis are similar to the four types of uses identified in How Federal 

Programs Use Outcome Information: Opportunities for Federal 

Managers, by Harry Hatry, Elaine Morley, Shelli Rossman, and Joseph 

Wholey, published by the IBM Endowment for The Business of Government 

in May 2003. We recognize that alternative categories of uses and practices 

could have been developed and that there may be additional uses and 

practices that we did not identify. 

To provide additional support and further illustrate the uses and practices, 

we conducted two discussion groups. The first discussion group included 

about 15 agency officials from the 5 selected case agencies and was 

intended to gain further perspective on those agencies’ uses and practices. 

To broaden the range of experiences we could draw upon, we also 

conducted a second discussion group consisting of about 15 

representatives from 5 different agencies that were not in the pool of 

selected case agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human 

Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Justice. For 

each discussion group, we asked agencies to nominate potential 

participants who had hands-on experience with using performance 

information, at least 3 years of management experience, and were at a GS13 level or higher. We selected participants on the basis of their selfdescribed experience using performance information and selected them to 

reflect a range of programs within agencies.

2

GAO-01-592, GAO-03-488, and GAO-04-38. 
Appendix I

Scope and Methodology

Page 39 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

We conducted our review from September 2004 through August 2005 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 
Page 40 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Appendix II

GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments ApendxiI

GAO Contact Bernice Steinhardt (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov.

Acknowledgments In addition to the contact name above, Elizabeth Curda, Assistant Director; 

Maya Chakko; Chelsa Gurkin; Anne Inserra; Anne Marie Morillon; and 

Susan Wilschke made significant contributions to this report. In addition, 

Tom Beall provided key assistance.
Page 41 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Bibliography

Ammons, David N. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local

Performance and Establishing Community Standards. Thousand 

Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996.

Fountain, James, Wilson Campbell, Terry Patton, Paul Epstein, Mandi

Cohn, Mark Abrahams and Jonathan Walters. Reporting Performance 

Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication.

Governmental Accounting Standards Board: Norwalk, Connecticut, 

2003.

Hatry, Harry P., Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington,

D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1999.

------“Public and Private Agencies Need to Manage for Results, Not Just

Measure Them.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, August 31, 

2004. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900731

Hatry, Harry P., Elaine Morley, Shelli B. Rossman and Joseph S. Wholey.

How Federal Programs Use Outcome Information: Opportunities for 

Federal Managers. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of 

Government, 2003.

Morley, Elaine, Harry P. Hatry and Jake Cowan. Making Use of Outcome

Information for Improving Services: Recommendations for Nonprofit 

Organizations. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002.

Newcomer, Kathryn, Edward T. Jennings, Jr., Cheryle Broom and Allen

Lomax. Meeting the Challenges of Performance-Oriented Government. 

Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 2002.

Osborne, David and Peter Hutchinson. The Price of Government: Getting

the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis. New York: 

Basic Books, 2004.

Wholey, Joseph S. Overcoming the Challenges in Managing for Results.

Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2004.
Page 42 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Related GAO Products

Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed 

Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO04-651. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.

Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation 

for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-38. Washington, D.C.: March 10, 

2004.

Highlights of a GAO Forum: High Performing Organizations: Metrics, 

Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st

Century Public Management Environment. GAO-04-343SP. Washington, 

D.C.: February 13, 2004.

Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce 

Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.

Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century 

Challenges. GAO-03-1166T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2003.

Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative 

Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington, D.C.: 

May 2, 2003.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success. GAO-03-488. Washington, D.C.: 

March 14, 2003.

Human Capital Management: FAA’s Reform Effort Requires a More 

Strategic Approach. GAO-03-156. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2003.

Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration: Opportunities Exist for 

Improving Management of the Enforcement Program. GAO-02-232. 

Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002.

Results-Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. GAO-01-1084SP. 

Washington, D.C.: August 2001.

Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management 

Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies. GAO-01-592. Washington, D.C.: May 

25, 2001.
Related GAO Products

Page 43 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring 

Top Leadership Skills. GAO-01-127. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000.

Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation 

of Agency Performance Information. GAO/GGD-99-139. Washington, D.C.: 

July 30, 1999.

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 

and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other 

Countries’ Performance Management Initiatives. GAO-02-862. 

Washington, D.C.: August 2, 2002.

Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources 

and Results at the Veterans Health Administration. GAO-03-10. 

Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2002.

Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 

2003.

Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be 

Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results. GAO-04-614. Washington, 

D.C.: May 26, 2004.

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches 

to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05-

539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide 

Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: 

June 2, 1997.

Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season 

Performance Measures. GAO-03-143. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002.

Architect of The Capitol: Midyear Status Report on Implementation of 

Management Review Recommendations. GAO-04-966. Washington, D.C.: 

August 31, 2004.
Related GAO Products

Page 44 GAO-05-927 Managing for Results

Managing For Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected Agencies’ Use of 

Performance Agreements. GAO-01-115. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 

2000.

Human Capital: Observations on Final DHS Human Capital 

Regulations. GAO-05-391T. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.

Managing For Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies’ Performance 

Management Practices. GAO/GGD-00-10. Washington, D.C.: October 28, 

1999.

Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders. 

GAO/OCG-00-14G. Washington, D.C.: September 2000.

Managing For Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible 

Performance Information. GAO/GGD-00-52. Washington, D.C.: February 4, 

2000.

Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DOD National 

Security Personnel System Regulations. GAO-05-432T. Washington, D.C.: 

March 15, 2005.

(450365)
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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

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

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to 

www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”

Order by Mail or Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Congressional 

Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400

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

Washington, D.C. 20548

Public Affairs Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800

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

Washington, D.C. 20548