United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Appropriations and

Committee on Governmental Affairs

U.S. Senate

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m., EDT

Tuesday

June 24, 1997

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

The Statutory Framework

for Improving Federal

Management and

Effectiveness

Statement of

James F. Hinchman

Acting Comptroller General

GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144

Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

Messrs. Chairmen and Members of the Committees:

It is a pleasure to appear before you today to discuss how Congress can

use the statutory framework that it enacted to help provide the more

responsive and cost-effective government that the American people are

demanding.

There has been a groundswell movement in recent years toward

performance-based management in public sector organizations. The

federal government, as well as state, local, and foreign governments, have

grappled with how best to improve effectiveness and service quality while

limiting costs.1

 In response, these governments have implemented reform

agendas that have tended to include a common recognition that improved

management was a critical part of the answer to meeting demands for a

government that accomplishes more while economizing on resources.

A part of this common recognition was the widespread acceptance of the

need to shift the focus of government decisionmaking and accountability

away from a preoccupation with the activities that are undertaken—such

as grants or inspections made—to a focus on the results of those

activities—such as real gains in employability, safety, responsiveness, or

program quality. The key concepts of this performance-based management

are the need to define clear agency missions, set results-oriented goals,

measure progress toward the achievement of those goals, and use

performance information to help make decisions and strengthen

accountability.2

Congress, too, has recognized the need for improved federal management

and a greater focus on results and has put in place a statutory framework

for achieving those ends. This framework includes the Chief Financial

Officers (CFO) Act and information technology reform legislation, in

particular the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995. The Government Performance and Results Act—commonly know

as “GPRA” or “the Results Act”—is the centerpiece of the framework. As

agencies implement this framework, Congress also intended for the acts to

be useful to Members by providing information pertinent to a broad range

1

See, for example, Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal

Management Reform (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995); Managing for Results: State Experiences

Provide Insights for Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec. 21, 1994); and Government

Reform: Goal-setting and Performance (GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-130R, Mar. 27, 1995).

2

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act

(GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

of management-related decisions in their capacities as Members of budget,

authorization, oversight, and appropriations committees.

The purpose of my testimony today is to provide an overview of this

statutory framework and discuss how Congress can use the framework, in

particular the Results Act, to help identify and address some of the key

management challenges that are undermining the effectiveness and

responsiveness of federal agencies. I will also highlight the key

implementation issues associated with linking the benefits of this statutory

reform framework with the budget process. Finally, I will suggest how this

framework, if fully implemented, can be used by Congress to strengthen

its decisionmaking and oversight and better assure that the public gets the

efficient and responsive government that is being demanded.

My comments today are based on a wide range of reports and testimonies

we have done in recent years on the federal management issues associated

with federal program performance, financial management, and

information technology. These reports include, most recently, our overall

assessment on the prospects for governmentwide implementation of the

Results Act.3

 That report, mandated by the Results Act, included among its

addressees the Chairmen and Ranking Minority Members of the

Committees holding today’s hearing.

Congress Has Enacted

a Statutory

Framework for

Improving Federal

Management and

Decisionmaking

Congress’ desire to enhance agencies’ accountability for their performance

is at the heart of the statutory framework that Congress has put in place to

reform federal management. Congress enacted the CFO Act—as expanded

by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (GMRA)—to remedy

decades of serious neglect in federal financial management by establishing

chief financial officers across the government and requiring the

preparation and audit of annual financial statements. The information

technology reform legislation is based on the best practices used by

leading public and private organizations to more effectively manage

information technology.4

 Under these laws, agencies are to better link

their technology plans and information technology use to their programs’

missions and goals.

3

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be

Uneven (GAO/GGD-97-109, June 2, 1997).

4

Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic Information Management and

Technology—Learning from Leading Organizations (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

Finally, in crafting the Results Act, Congress recognized that congressional

policymaking, spending decisions, and oversight all had been severely

handicapped by lack of sufficiently precise program goals and adequate

program performance information. The Act sought to remedy that

situation by requiring agencies to set multiyear strategic goals and

corresponding annual goals, measure performance toward the

achievement of those goals, and report on their progress.

This statutory framework seeks to create a more focused, results-oriented

management and decisionmaking process within both Congress and the

executive branch. It seeks to improve federal management by responding

to a need for accurate, reliable information for congressional and

executive branch decisionmaking, information that has been badly lacking

in the past, as much of our work had demonstrated. The framework

provides a powerful opportunity to develop fully integrated information

about agencies’ missions and strategic priorities, the results-oriented

performance goals that flow from those priorities, performance data to

show the achievement (or not) of those goals, the relationship of

information technology investments to the achievement of performance

goals, and accurate and audited financial information about the costs of

achieving mission results.

Our work has shown that when an agency adopts a disciplined approach

to setting results-oriented goals, measuring its performance, and using

performance information to improve effectiveness, significant

performance improvements occur. For example, we have reported on how

the Coast Guard reexamined its mission and shifted the focus of its marine

safety program from regulation to one that includes education.5

 This

change contributed to a significant decline in the towing industry fatality

rate—from 91 per 100,000 industry employees in 1990 to 27 per 100,000 in

1995.

Similarly, the Veterans Health Administration improved services to

veterans by more rigorously assessing the results of the medical care it

provides to the nation’s veterans. In particular, the Veterans Health

Administration reported that it used performance information to target the

most important improvement opportunities and thereby lowered the

mortality rate for cardiac procedures by an average of 13 percent over the

last 8 years.

5

GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

In another example, involving the Social Security Administration’s (SSA)

national toll-free 800 telephone number to handle citizen inquiries, SSA

used customer satisfaction and other performance information to identify

and make program changes, including providing additional staff to handle

phone calls from the public. As a result, the busy rate decreased from 49 to

34 percent, and the percentage of calls answered within 5 minutes

increased from 74 to 83 percent from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1996.6

Improving Federal

Management Is Key to

Increasing

Effectiveness and

Reducing Costs

Although the Coast Guard, Veterans Health Administration, SSA, and other

performance improvements are noteworthy, the reported examples of

substantial performance improvements are still relatively few. In fact, our

work has long identified serious weaknesses in federal management and

has pinpointed the actions that need to be taken to address those

weaknesses.7

 In many cases, the effective implementation of the Results

Act will be an essential part of any successful effort to improve federal

management, and active congressional input into the executive branch

strategic planning process is an important first step in that effort. Our

recent guide, intended to help facilitate congressional review of agencies’

strategic plans, provided suggested questions for each of the key elements

of a strategic plan and for a plan as a whole.8

As I noted earlier, the information generated under the Results Act can be

useful to Congress in making a wide range of congressional decisions to

address the public demand for a more efficient and better managed

government. Today, I would like to highlight four key areas where our

work suggests that congressional attention could pay particularly

significant dividends in creating a more effective and less costly

government. These areas are (1) ensuring a coordinated response to

national needs across agency and program lines, (2) giving agencies a

clear sense of direction, (3) sustaining a systematic focus on results, and

(4) ensuring sound and realistic agency strategies.

A Coordinated Response to

National Needs

First, although federal programs have been designed for different

purposes or targeted for different population groups, coordination among

federal programs with related responsibilities is essential to efficiently and

6

Social Security Administration: Significant Challenges Await New Commissioner (GAO/HEHS-97-53,

Feb. 20, 1997) and Social Security Administration (GAO/HEHS-97-79, June 11, 1997).

7

See, most recently, High Risk Series (GAO/HR-97-20SET, Feb. 1997).

8

Agencies’ Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review

(GAO/GGD-10.1.16, Version 1, May 1997).

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

effectively meet national concerns. Uncoordinated program efforts can

waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit

the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. A focus on results, as

envisioned by the Results Act, implies that federal programs contributing

to the same or similar results should be closely coordinated to ensure that

goals are consistent and that, where appropriate, program efforts are

mutually reinforcing. This suggests that federal agencies should look

beyond their organizational boundaries and coordinate with other

agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned.

Our work has shown that, as the federal government has responded over

time to new needs and problems, many federal agencies have been given

responsibilities for addressing the same or similar national issues.9

 Of the

18 national mission areas displayed in the federal budget, 14, including

health, international affairs, and justice, involved more than 1 executive

branch department or major agency in fiscal year 1996.10 Six of the

national mission areas, including education, income security, and

commerce and housing credit, were addressed by six or more executive

branch departments and major agencies. Of course, some of this shared

responsibility was intended, recognizing that addressing some issues from

a national perspective necessarily involves more than one federal agency

or more than one approach.

However, in many program areas—such as food safety, employment

training, early childhood development, at-risk and delinquent youth

programs, federal land management, and national laboratories—our work

suggests that significant overlap and fragmentation existed in the federal

response to national needs and problems.11 For example, in 1995 we

testified on the Department of Education’s programs that provided loans

and grants to students to help finance their higher education.12 We found

that, although the student loan and Pell grant programs provided the

majority of federal financial aid to students for postsecondary education,

9

Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal Missions and Approaches

(GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995).

10Budget Issues: Fiscal Year 1996 Agency Spending by Budget Function (GAO/AIMD-97-95, May 13,

1997).

11Government Reorganization: Issues and Principles (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166, May 17, 1995); At-Risk

and Delinquent Youth: Multiple Federal Programs Raise Efficiency Questions (GAO/ HEHS-96-34, Mar. 6,

1996); Federal Land Management: Streamlining and Reorganization Issues (GAO/T-RCED-96-209,

June 27, 1996); and Federal R&D Laboratories (GAO/RCED/NSIAD-96-78R, Feb. 29, 1996).

12Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities and Student Aid (GAO/

T-HEHS-95-130, Apr. 6, 1995) and Department of Education: Opportunities to Realize Savings

(GAO/T-HEHS-95-56, Jan. 18, 1995).

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

another 22 smaller programs were targeted to specific segments of the

postsecondary school population, such as prospective students from

disadvantaged families or women and minorities, who are

underrepresented in graduate education.

These 22 programs were collectively funded at $1.1 billion for fiscal year

1995. We concluded that these smaller grant programs could be

considered candidates for consolidation—with other larger programs or

among themselves—with no adverse impact on students’ access to

postsecondary education, and that the federal government could

anticipate administrative savings of 10 percent each year, or a total of

$550 million in budget authority (adjusted for inflation) over 5 years.13

Similarly, we reported in 1995 on the federal programs that assisted urban

communities and their residents through a complex system involving

multiple federal agencies.14 We found that the government’s Catalog of

Federal Domestic Assistance listed over 340 federal economic

development-related programs administered by 13 agencies. These were in

the areas of housing, economic development, and social services. We

reported that, considered individually, many of these programs may have

made sense. However, the proliferation of federal programs and the lack

of coordination among agencies could impose a burden on local

organizations that attempted to piece together programs to serve their

communities. In particular, the neighborhood organizations we studied

found it burdensome to manage multiple programs with individual funding

streams, application requirements, and reporting expectations.

The Results Act requires that agencies consult with Congress as they

develop strategic plans. These consultations are under way now as

agencies prepare to issue their plans by September 30, 1997, as required by

the Act. As Congress provides input to agencies’ strategic plans, it can

insist that agencies show how their programs are aligned with related

efforts in other agencies. Congress can also use the planning process to

seek opportunities to streamline government by comparing the

effectiveness of similar program efforts carried out by different agencies.

13Addressing The Deficit: Budgetary Implications of Selected GAO Work for Fiscal Year 1998

(GAO/OCG-97-2, Mar. 14, 1997).

14Economic Development Programs (GAO/RCED-95-251R, July 28, 1995) and Community

Development: Comprehensive Approaches and Local Flexibility Issues (GAO/T-RCED-96-53, Dec. 5,

1995).

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

A Clear Sense of Agency

Direction

Closely related to the issue of ensuring a coordinated response to national

needs, is the issue of each agency having a clear sense of direction in

terms of what it is in business to accomplish. Sustained congressional

input into agencies’ strategic planning efforts is vital, both to ensure that

missions are based in statute and to identify cases where statutory

requirements need to be modified or clarified due to changed

circumstances.

Over the years, our work has identified instances where an agency’s

effectiveness was hampered by the lack of a clearly defined mission and

goals—a concrete sense of why the organization exists and what it is to

accomplish. For example, our work has shown that the Department of

Energy (DOE) needs to reevaluate its basic mission.15 DOE’s responsibilities

and priorities have changed dramatically over time. The DOE of today is a

very different organization from what it was in 1977, when as a newly

created agency, its mission was to respond to a perceived national energy

crisis. Thus, while energy research, conservation, and policymaking

dominated early DOE priorities, national defense and environmental

cleanup now overshadow those areas.

Meanwhile, new DOE mission areas in science and industrial

competitiveness have emerged and are pressing for priority attention. To

each new phase, DOE leadership responded with a vastly different agenda

concerning DOE’s basic responsibilities and how the agency should be

managed. We have reported that these shifts have contributed to uneven

performance in many mission areas. For example, during the time that DOE

emphasized nuclear weapons production, it gave little attention to the

environmental consequences. Partly as a result of this inattention,

environmental cleanup will now cost between $189 and $265 billion by

DOE’s estimate.

In another example, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was

established in 1970 under a presidential reorganization plan in response to

concerns over protecting public health, as well as air, water, and land

resources. Subsequently, as environmental threats were identified,

Congress gave EPA responsibility for implementing over a dozen

environmental laws. We reported in May 1995 that, because it did not have

an overarching legislative mission and its environmental responsibilities

had not been integrated, EPA had not been able to target its resources to

15Department of Energy: A Framework for Restructuring DOE and Its Missions (GAO/RCED-95-197,

Aug. 21, 1995).

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

reduce the greatest risks to human health and the environment.16 EPA has

been working with state governments, industry, environmental groups,

and other interested parties since 1992 to select the most appropriate

national environmental goals. Building on these goals, EPA is also ranking

the relative risk of environmental problems to help identify the most

appropriate goals for the agency.

Congress can also use the Results Act to work with the executive branch

to clarify its expectations for the goals that agencies should seek to

achieve. Federal agencies often face a variety of competing priorities that

require them to strike balances among a variety of competing policy goals.

Multiple priorities, which in many cases are a natural by-product of the

need to build a legislative majority and are frequently built into the intent

and design of an agency or program, constitute one of the primary

challenges to government management and performance. For example,

agencies often must weigh the demands of program customers for

responsive services against the cost of providing those services. These and

other competing priorities continually need to be weighed against one

another; otherwise, one or two priorities may be inappropriately

overemphasized at the expense of others.

A Systematic Focus on

Results

A third critical area where Congress can use the Results Act is in better

ensuring that agencies are managing to achieve results rather than just

focusing on activities or processes. Many agencies have a difficult time

moving from measuring program activities to establishing results-oriented

goals and performance measures. The fundamental reason that this is so

difficult is that, to manage on the basis of results, agencies must move

beyond what they control—that is, their activities—to focus on what they

merely influence—their results.

The often limited or indirect influence that the federal government has in

determining whether a desired result is achieved complicates efforts to

measure program performance. Our work has shown that measuring the

federal contribution can be particularly challenging for regulatory

programs; scientific research programs; and programs that deliver services

to taxpayers through third parties, such as state and local governments.

For example, isolating the effectiveness of the federal government’s

economic development programs is a daunting challenge. Numerous

16Managing for Results: EPA’s Efforts to Implement Needed Management Systems and Processes

(GAO/T-RCED-97-133, Apr. 15, 1997); and Environmental Protection: Current Environmental

Challenges Require New Approaches (GAO/T-RCED-95-190, May 17, 1995).

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

external forces, including broad national economic trends and assistance

communities may receive from state and local governments and the

private sector, contribute to local economic development. Despite the

challenge, a focus on results is critical to providing decisionmakers with

potentially vital information needed to assess the value of the federal

effort.

We reported in 1996 that a study of the effectiveness of the Department of

Commerce’s Economic Development Administration (EDA) programs

found that income in the counties that received EDA funding grew

significantly faster than income in the counties that received no aid.17

However, when the researchers simultaneously considered EDA’s programs

and factors unrelated to EDA, they found that EDA’s programs had a very

small effect on income growth rates during the period that the aid was

received and had no significant effects in the 3 years after the aid ceased.

EDA’s programs thus could explain only a small part of the difference in the

growth rates between the two groups of counties.

Congressional input into agencies’ strategic planning efforts may be

needed to ensure that agencies gather the performance information and

conduct the evaluations necessary to assess the worth of the federal

investment in programs. For example, we reported in April 1997 that

although an extensive body of literature exists on Head Start—a program

that over the last 30 years has served over 15 million children at a total

cost of $31 billion—the research is inadequate for drawing conclusions

about the impact of the national program in any area in which Head Start

provides services, such as school readiness or health-related services.18

We found that the Department of Health and Human Service’s planned

research will focus on new and innovative service delivery strategies and

demonstrations but will provide little information on the impact of regular

Head Start programs. We concluded that the size and costs of the Head

Start program appear to warrant an investment in the research needed to

provide information on the results of the program.

Sound and Realistic

Agency Strategies

Finally, the effective implementation of the Results Act can help Congress

and the executive branch ensure that agencies have in place the programs

and strategies that will best achieve results. As the example of the Coast

17Economic Development: Limited Information Exists on the Impact of Assistance Provided by Three

Agencies (GAO/RCED-96-103, Apr. 3, 1996).

18Head Start: Research Provides Little Information on Impact of Current Program (GAO/HEHS-97-59,

Apr. 15, 1997).

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

Guard that I mentioned earlier suggests, once an agency begins to focus on

results and understand how its programs affect the degree to which

desired results occur, the agency often makes significant program changes

to better achieve those desired results.

Moreover, Congress should rightfully expect that each agency’s plans and

programs will make efficient use of budgetary resources and that, if

reductions need to be made, those resources will be used in a way that

maintains, to the fullest extent possible, the agency’s ability to carry out its

mission. Our work has shown that many agencies are currently struggling

to develop coherent strategies for restructuring their organizations,

workforces, and operations to meet results-oriented goals in a

cost-effective manner.

This need for a coherent strategy is particularly true in the area of

information technology.19 The sound application and management of

information technology to support strategic goals must be an important

part of any serious attempt to improve agency mission performance, cut

costs, and enhance responsiveness to the public. We have noted that the

successful implementation of information technology reform

legislation—which, among other things, requires that agencies have a

strategy that links technology investments to achieving programmatic

results—is critical to ensuring the wise use of the billions of dollars the

government is investing in information systems.20

We also have found that agencies need to do a better job of designing

mission-based strategies to improve efficiency and reduce costs. For

example, we recently reported that the Department of State does not have

a comprehensive strategy to restructure its operations to adjust to today’s

needs.21 State’s vast network of embassies and consulates, together with

the way they are configured and operated, has remained largely

unchanged despite communications and transportation advances,

geopolitical changes, and new budget realities. State has not been able to

make hard choices about resource priorities for its wide range of locations

19For further information see: Information Technology Investment: Agencies Can Improve

Performance, Reduce Costs, and Minimize Risks (GAO/AIMD-96-64, Sept. 30, 1996); Information

Management Reform: Effective Implementation Is Essential for Improving Federal Performance

(GAO/T-AIMD-96-132, July 17, 1996); and GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994.

20Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9, Feb. 1997).

21State Department: Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions (GAO/NSIAD-96-124, Aug. 29,

1996).

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

and functions, or to fundamentally rethink the way that it does business, in

order to reduce its operating costs.

Integrating

Performance

Information With

Budget and

Appropriations

Decisions Is a Key

Implementation Issue

Ultimately, achieving the kinds of performance and management

improvement discussed today will require close linkage with the federal

government’s budget and appropriations process. While providing needed

tools and approaches for agency managers, these statutory reforms will

also generate new information and perspectives that can be particularly

useful to the process of allocating scarce resources among competing

national priorities. Although many factors appropriately influence

appropriations decisions, effective implementation of the Results Act will

add critical information about what citizens and the nation are receiving

for each dollar spent, thereby helping to restore public confidence at a

time when increasingly more difficult resource decisions must be made.

As we recently reported, the Results Act is a significant break from

previous federal initiatives that sought to more closely “connect resources

with results.”22 Under the Results Act, agencies are required to plan and

measure performance using program activity structures that are the basis

for agencies’ budget requests. Previous initiatives tended to devise unique

planning structures, and, not surprisingly, congressional interest and use

quickly waned as performance information reflecting the new planning

structures could not be directly tied to familiar oversight categories and

patterns.

The Results Act aims to provide systematic information on the

performance of government programs and to link this information with

current budget presentations. While this approach should improve

prospects for use within budgetary processes, it also presents a challenge.

An agency’s program activity structure is often the product of longstanding

negotiated agreements between individual appropriations subcommittees

and the executive branch. As such, program activity structures represent a

variety of organizational, process, project, or other orientations. For

example, the “space station” program activity in the National Aeronautics

and Space Administration’s budget is a discrete program. In contrast, the

“park service management” program activity under the National Park

Service’s budget represents process and/or functional efforts.

22Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA Implementation (GAO/AIMD-97-46,

Mar. 27, 1997).

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

Because of the wide variability across program activities, the suitability of

the current program activity structures for the Results Act’s performance

planning and measurement also will vary. Consequently, over time, some

modifications may be needed in program activity structures to achieve the

intended results-based orientation.

Integrated

Performance, Cost,

and Management

Reports Provide Basis

for Improved

Decisionmaking and

Oversight

If effectively implemented, the statutory framework that Congress has put

in place will result in a wealth of program performance and cost

information not previously available to decisionmakers and the public.

The program performance information that agencies are to generate under

the Results Act will be a valuable new resource for Congress to use in its

program authorization, oversight, and appropriations responsibilities. To

be most useful in these various contexts, the information needs to be

consolidated with critical financial and program cost data in financial

statements, which agencies are to produce and have audited under the CFO

Act.23

To promote the needed consolidation, and building on the requirements of

the Results Act and the CFO Act, reporting concepts and standards

developed by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board (FASAB)

are intended to provide congressional and other decisionmakers for the

first time with annual “report cards” on the costs, management, and

effectiveness of federal agencies.24 The new reporting model for federal

agencies is geared to providing users with information about budgetary

integrity, operating performance, stewardship, and systems and controls.

As authorized by GMRA, OMB is piloting accountability reports that are

consistent with the FASAB accountability reporting concept. OMB worked

with six agencies to pilot the development of accountability reports for

fiscal year 1995 and added an additional eight agencies to the pilot test in

fiscal year 1996. According to OMB, additional agencies will produce

accountability reports for fiscal year 1997. By consolidating and

integrating the separate reporting requirements of the Results Act, the CFO

Act, and other specified acts, the accountability reports are to show the

degree to which an agency met its goals, at what cost, and whether the

23Financial Management: Continued Momentum Essential to Achieve CFO Act Goals

(GAO/T-AIMD-96-10, Dec. 14, 1995).

24FASAB was created in October 1990 by the Secretary of the Treasury, the Director of OMB, and the

Comptroller General to consider and recommend accounting principles for the federal government.

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

agency was well run.25 We have suggested that these accountability

reports could serve as a basis for annual or at least biennial

comprehensive oversight hearings on each department and major

independent agency.26

FASAB’s new cost accounting standards are intended to further strengthen

federal decisionmaking by requiring agencies to provide relevant and

reliable cost information that can be used, for example, to relate the costs

of various programs and activities to their performance outputs. The FASAB

concepts and standards underpin OMB’s guidance to agencies on the form

and content of their agencywide financial statements. Moreover, under the

Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996, agencies’

financial management systems are to, among other things, comply with

FASAB standards beginning with fiscal year 1997.

In summary, Messrs. Chairmen, Congress has put in place a statutory

framework with the essential ingredients needed to address long-standing

weaknesses in federal management and to create a federal government

that is more responsive and cost-effective. The key now is for agencies to

implement that framework and for the executive branch and Congress to

use it to help make decisions and ensure accountability. Given the

experiences of the foreign and state governments that have been seeking

to instill a more results-oriented approach to management for some years

now, the implementation of the Results Act, and of the other key parts of

the framework, has not been, and will not be, quick or easy.

Moreover, addressing some of the challenges that I have highlighted today,

such as addressing crosscutting program efforts and balancing competing

priorities, will raise significant policy issues for Congress and the

administration to consider, some of which will likely be very difficult to

resolve. The Results Act’s success or failure should not be judged on

whether contentious policy issues are fully resolved; rather, judgment of

the success or failure of the Act should turn on the extent to which the

information produced through the required goal-setting and performance

measurement practices—once those practices are successfully

implemented—helps inform policy decisions and improve government

management and performance.

25Managing For Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and Executive Branch Decisionmaking

(GAO/T-GGD-97-43, Feb. 12, 1997).

26Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong Congressional Role

(GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Statement 

Managing for Results: The Statutory

Framework for Improving Federal

Management and Effectiveness

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any

questions.

(410154) Page 14 GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100