U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–196 PDF 2004

10 YEARS OF GPRA—RESULTS, DEMONSTRATED

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY

AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT REFORM

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 31, 2004

Serial No. 108–175

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house

http://www.house.gov/reform

(II)

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM

TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

DOUG OSE, California

RON LEWIS, Kentucky

JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida

EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

TOM LANTOS, California

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California

C.A. ‘‘DUTCH’’ RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

——— ———

———

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont

(Independent)

MELISSA WOJCIAK, Staff Director

DAVID MARIN, Deputy Staff Director

ROB BORDEN, Parliamentarian

TERESA AUSTIN, Chief Clerk

PHIL BARNETT, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania, Chairman

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

MAJOR R. OWENS, New York

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

EX OFFICIO

TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

MIKE HETTINGER, Staff Director

LARRY BRADY, Professional Staff Member

SARA D’ORSIE, Clerk

ADAM BORDES, Minority Professional Staff Member

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Hearing held on March 31, 2004 ............................................................................ 1

Statement of:

Breul, Jonathan D., senior fellow, IBM Center for the Business of Government .......................................................................................................... 33

Dalton, Patricia, Director, Strategic Issues, General Accounting Office ..... 8

DeMaio, Carl, president and founder, the Performance Institute ................ 43

Keevey, Richard F., director, Performance Consortium, National Academy

of Public Administration .............................................................................. 52

McGinnis, Patricia, president and CEO, the Council for Excellence in

Government ................................................................................................... 64

Mercer, John, GPRA & Performance Management Services ........................ 72

Metzger, Carl J., director, Government Results Center ................................ 91

Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:

Breul, Jonathan D., senior fellow, IBM Center for the Business of Government, prepared statement of .................................................................. 36

Dalton, Patricia, Director, Strategic Issues, General Accounting Office,

prepared statement of ................................................................................... 12

DeMaio, Carl, president and founder, the Performance Institute, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 47

Keevey, Richard F., director, Performance Consortium, National Academy

of Public Administration, prepared statement of ....................................... 54

McGinnis, Patricia, president and CEO, the Council for Excellence in

Government, prepared statement of ............................................................ 66

Mercer, John, GPRA & Performance Management Services, prepared

statement of ................................................................................................... 75

Metzger, Carl J., director, Government Results Center, prepared statement of ........................................................................................................... 95

Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from the State

of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of ...................................................... 3

Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the State

of New York, prepared statement of ........................................................... 5

(1)

10 YEARS OF GPRA—RESULTS,

DEMONSTRATED

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY AND

FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT, COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM, Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in room

2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Russell Platts

(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.

Present: Representatives Platts, Towns, and Maloney.

Staff present: Mike Hettinger, staff director; Dan Daly, counsel;

Larry Brady and Tabetha Mueller, professional staff members;

Amy Laudeman, legislative assistant; Sarah D’Orsie, clerk; Adam

Bordes, minority professional staff member; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.

Mr. PLATTS. A quorum being present, this hearing of the Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management

will come to order.

I have a brief opening statement and ask, without objection, that

my full statement be submitted for the record.

I was pleased to be part of the request for the General Accounting Office to examine the effects that the Government Performance

and Results Act has had on the Federal Government. I certainly

commend GAO for its work, and I feel it is very important for us

in Congress to go back and analyze how the laws that are passed

are implemented. We need to make sure that GPRA is having a

positive impact on agency management.

The findings of the report were encouraging. GAO found that

GPRA has improved the focus of the Federal Government. The report also identifies some important challenges, and we look forward

to discussing these areas here today.

Many of the successes we have seen under the President’s management agenda, including the evolution of the Program Assessment Rating Tool, could not have happened without the foundation

established by GPRA. It is important for Congress to pay close attention to management reforms. These efforts are not the most exciting issues, but there are few matters more important for us to

focus on than ensuring that the Federal Government is well run

and results oriented.

Today, we are delighted to have a great panel of witnesses before

the subcommittee. We have the author of the report, Pat Dalton,

Director of Strategic Issues at the General Accounting Office.

2

Again, I thank you and your staff for a tremendous effort in compiling all the information and making a great assessment for us to

build on as we go forward.

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PLATTS. We also have a panel of experts who have spent a

good deal of time looking at these issues from the private sector,

including Jonathan Breul from the IBM Center for the Business of

Government. We appreciate having you back before the subcommittee again, Jonathan.

Carl DeMaio is president and founder of the Performance Institute.

Richard Keevey is director of Performance Consortium, at the

National Academy of Public Administration. As a holder of a degree in public administration, I appreciate Mr. Keevey’s work.

Patricia McGinnis is president and CEO of the Council for Excellence in Government.

John Mercer is widely known as the father of GPRA. We appreciate your participation today.

Last but not least, Carl Metzger, director of the Government Results Center.

As a committee, we thank each of you for being with us.

I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Towns from New York, for

the purpose of an opening statement.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts follows:]

3

4

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing

as we continue to evaluate the progress being made in the Government Performance and Results Act.

Today’s hearing focuses on GAO’s recent report evaluating the

impact of GPRA among the agency community and its progress toward making our government a more results-oriented institution.

As this subcommittee knows, initiatives like these have been attempted for over 5 decades through both legislative mandates and

administration of both political parties, but have often resulted in

only limited progress. While I support our efforts to bring about

greater efficiency and accountability in the programs and services

that our Nation depends on, it appears that the intent of the GPRA

has only been partially fulfilled.

There seems to be a divide among the number of agencies that

are committed to utilizing the performance information provided

through GPRA and those that choose to only comply with its reporting requirements. Perhaps this is due to a lack of agency leadership and commitment to the requirements under the statute, or

an inadequate level of training and guidance from OMB for agency

managers to understand the information obtained through the

process.

Let me also add that agency management often struggles in establishing appropriate outcome-oriented goals for the program and

linking such measures to long-term strategic objectives for both individual program and agency mission.

Last, agencies are now facing new challenges for implementing

performance and budget-based measurements through program assessment rating tools as part of the President’s Management Agenda Budget and Performance Integration Initiative. With this, I am

concerned that agencies are now being required to comply with two

separate reporting requirements, while not yet realizing or understanding the benefits of GPRA.

If GPRA is to substantiate the intended benefits that were envisioned when it was enacted 10 years ago, OMB must recommit

itself to the cause through increased guidance and communication

with the agency community on establishing appropriate measurements and implementation strategies for all programs. Moreover,

the utilization of a governmentwide performance plan for an integrated approach to cross-cutting agency issues must be completed.

I look forward to the hearing today and look forward to hearing

from the witnesses. On that note, I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]

5

6

7

8

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Towns.

Now I ask for all of our witnesses to be sworn in.

[Witnesses sworn.]

Mr. PLATTS. The clerk will note that all witnesses affirm the

oath.

Again, the subcommittee appreciates your presence here today,

and your substantive written testimonies that you provided to us

ahead of time. We would ask if you could stay as close as possible

to the initial 5 minutes for opening statements. Because we have

a large panel, we will try to stay close to the 5 minutes, and then

we will have questions.

Ms. Dalton, we will begin with you.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC

ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be

here today to talk about the Government Performance and Results

Act.

Prior to enactment of GPRA, our work at GAO on performance

measurement showed that Federal agencies generally lacked the

infrastructure needed to manage and report on results in a way

that was transparent to the Congress and to the American people.

Today, based on a decade of work in this area, we can safely say

we have seen a transformation in the capacity of the Federal Government to manage for results.

This capacity includes an infrastructure of outcome-oriented strategic plans, performance measures and accountability reporting

that have significantly improved over time and provide a solid

foundation for improving the performance of Federal programs.

However, there are a number of challenges that remain.

Our recent report for this subcommittee and others provides a

comprehensive assessment of GPRA at its 10-year anniversary.

Our report is based on a large body of work, including three governmentwide surveys over the past 10 years of Federal managers

and seven focus groups with managers of 23 out of the 24 CFO act

agencies. My statement today will briefly summarize our findings

on the effectiveness of GPRA, the challenges facing agencies and,

finally, how the Federal Government can continue to shift toward

a more results oriented focus. Ten years after enactment, GPRA requirements have laid a solid foundation of results-oriented agency

planning measurement and reporting.

First of all, the strategic framework that GPRA established has

been very important. GPRA addressed agency shortcomings by creating a comprehensive and consistent statutory foundation of required agency-wide strategic plans, annual performance plans and

annual performance reports. It provided consistency as opposed to,

in the past, the ‘‘flavor of the month’’ where we had, MBOs, ZZB,

and other management initiatives.

Cultural changes also have occurred. Performance planning and

measurement have slowly, yet increasingly, become a part of agency cultures. A new vocabulary is being used, new approaches are

being taken to problem solving, decisions are discussed in terms of

results and performance, not just activities and processes. Rethinking of agency missions has also occurred.

9

A performance management infrastructure has been established.

Federal managers reported having significantly more of the types

of performance measures called for by GPRA, particularly outcomeoriented performance measures. The chart to my right illustrates

what we have seen in the three surveys from 1997, 2000 and 2003,

and it is consistently trending upwards in terms of the types of

measures being reported—especially of all types in the outcomes.

At the same time, we are also observing a significant decline in

the percentage of Federal managers who found factors hindering

measuring performance or using performance information.

The foundation of results-oriented planning and reporting that

has been established through GPRA is reflected in the quality of

the plans and reports of the six Federal agencies we reviewed as

part of our work. We found significant improvement in strategic

plans, annual performance plans and annual performance and accountability reports of Education, Energy, HUD, Transportation,

SBA and SSA compared to our reviews of their earlier plans and

reports. However, there is still further room for improvement, particularly in addressing cross-cutting issues, using program evaluations, discussing and improving data credibility, and linking cost to

performance.

The final area that we find a significant positive effect in is in

the transparency of government. It has increased under GPRA.

Prior to GPRA, few agencies reported their performance information externally; now it is reported on a regular basis. OMB is a key

consumer of performance information, most recently through the

PART assessment. Our survey data suggested that more Federal

managers, especially at the SES level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their efforts under GPRA, and they found that

OMB was not micromanaging this process, which gives them more

ownership of the process.

GPRA also improves the transparency of government results to

the American public with more information and new types of information being available.

Now, as I said, there are challenges and there are significant

ones that continue to remain: first of all, top leadership commitment.

While one might expect an increase in agency leadership commitment since GPRA was enacted, our governmentwide surveys of

Federal managers have not shown significant increases, although

I would note there is a significant difference in the perceptions between the SES and non-SES managers. However, OMB’s recently

demonstrated leadership in its review of performance information

from a budgetary perspective, using the PART tool, is a step in the

right direction. Our interviews with senior political appointees of

both the Clinton and the current Bush administrations also reflect

a commitment to results-oriented management. This commitment

clearly needs to be demonstrated at lower levels in the organization.

A second challenge is in the use of performance information to

manage. The benefit of collecting performance information is only

fully realized when the information is actually used by managers

to bring about desired results. Federal managers report mixed results in the use of information, and this is illustrated on the upper

10

chart here, which compares the use of information on a number of

dimensions over our three surveys. As you can see, it has pretty

much stayed level.

One point I would add, that is more on a positive note, when we

asked managers whether or not they were considering strategic

planning goals in their key management tasks, their responses

were much more favorable. The ranges went up to from the high

60’s to the high 70’s percent, so there are some favorable signs.

The human capital arena also presents some challenges. In our

survey, Federal managers reported that they were being held accountable for program results, but did not feel they had the decisionmaking authority they needed to accomplish agency goals.

Again, there was a distinctive difference in perceptions between the

SES and the non-SES managers.

We also noted that fewer than half the managers reported receiving relevant training, and this is important in that we found a correlation between having training and using performance information.

Finally, in the human capital arena, managers also perceived a

lack of positive recognition for helping their agencies achieve results.

Performance measurement continues to be a challenge. There are

challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals, measuring performance and collecting useful data. Outcome-oriented performance

measures were especially difficult to establish for programs in

which a line of effort was not easily quantifiable. Managers also

identified difficulties in distinguishing between the results produced by the Federal program and results caused by external factors or non-Federal actors.

A fifth challenge is in the cross-cutting area. Cross-cutting issues

continue to be a challenge in GPRA implementation. We found

some improvement in addressing cross-cutting efforts, but a great

deal more is needed. OMB could use the provision of GPRA that

calls for developing a governmentwide performance plan to better

integrate expected agency level performance across agency lines.

The current agency-by-agency focus of the budget does not provide

the integrated perspective on government performance envisioned

by GPRA.

A strategic plan for the Federal Government would be an additional tool that would provide longer-range perspectives on integration and priorities.

The final area that we identified as a challenge was Congress’

use of information. Our focus group members believe that the reluctance of Congress to use performance information when making

decisions, especially appropriation decisions, was a hindrance.

However, we did find some indications of congressional use, but

clearly more use of performance information could be made.

While there is concern among the agencies regarding Congress’

use of performance information, it is important to make sure this

information is useful. In other words, the information presented

amd its presentation must meet the needs of the users, not only

the Congress, but also the agencies themselves as evidenced by this

chart at my right.

11

The challenges that we have identified are not new. Most have

not changed significantly since we first reported on the governmentwide implementation of GPRA. However, we have frequently

reported on approaches that agencies, Congress, and OMB could

use to address these challenges. These approaches include

strengthening the commitment of top leadership, taking a governmentwide approach to cross-cutting issues, improving to usefulness

of performance information to managers, Congress and the public,

and improving the quality of performance information.

Collectively, these approaches form the agenda that the Federal

agencies, OMB and the Congress will need to follow to bring about

a more sustained, governmentwide focus on results.

In our report, we made five recommendations to OMB to address

many of these challenges. I am pleased to report that OMB has already started to take some steps to implement our recommendations. We also identified two matters for congressional consideration to improve governmentwide focus on results, first changing

the cycle of the agency strategic plans and second, in addition to

the governmentwide performance plan, requiring a governmentwide strategic plan I am pleased to note that you, Mr. Chairman,

have introduced legislation on changing the timing of the agency

strategic plans.

Performance-based management as envisioned by GPRA requires

transforming organizational cultures to improve decisionmaking,

maximizing performance, and ensuring accountability. This transformation is not an easy one and requires investments of time and

resources as well as sustained leadership, commitment and attention. We have come a long way in this transformation, but it is not

yet complete.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am

pleased to answer any questions.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Ms. Dalton. Thank you for a great job

in putting together a good report. It will serve as a foundation as

we look to strengthen GPRA.

Ms. DALTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Breul.

STATEMENT OF JONATHAN D. BREUL, SENIOR FELLOW, IBM

CENTER FOR THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT

Mr. BREUL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The key elements of the Government Performance and Results

Act were actually first outlined in 1989 in the fiscal year 1990

budget during the last year of the Reagan administration. In a

chapter titled Government of the Future, the Office of Management

and Budget described the need for strategic planning, monitoring

of performance, an emphasis on results, and greater managerial

flexibility and accountability.

Today, the Federal Government is now in the 7th year of governmentwide implementation of the performance-based, results-oriented system of management envisioned by GPRA. Agencies have

made very substantial progress, and efforts continue to significantly improve the use and value of performance information. To

a surprising and welcome extent, an increasing number of departments and agency officials are embracing results-based government.

The first issue you asked us to address is the effect of GPRA over

the last 10 years. The first and perhaps principal effect of GPRA

is that we now have a sensible, bipartisan statutory framework for

results-based management. Ten years ago no laws existed that supported or required a comprehensive governmentwide approach to

performance-based management.

GPRA has also benefited from being part of a series of important

statutory reforms under way, thanks to this committee, including,

for example, the Chief Financial Officers Act and efforts by the

Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board to improve financial

reporting. In addition, the bipartisan nature of the reform gave it

added strength.

GPRA was conceived by a Republican Senator, passed under a

Democratic committee chair, and signed by a Democratic President.

Recently, President Bush has made results a key element of his

management agenda.

Strategic planning is a second important effect of GPRA. At the

beginning of the 1990’s, only a very small handful of agencies did

any strategic planning. Now, a decade later, strategic planning is

commonplace. Not only is it now required at the department level,

but in almost every bureau, agency and activity throughout the

government.

In the last 6 months, agencies completed a third round of those

strategic plans. Compared to the first round in 1997, the plans

have become slimmer, more attractive and much more readable.

Importantly, over time, they have become much less a statement

of vision and more of a 5 to 6-year operating plan.

Performance measurement is the third important effect of GPRA.

Ten years of experience with the act has greatly expanded the supply of results-oriented information. Agencies have improved the

focus of their planning, they have strengthened the quality of their

performance information, and now are producing useful baselines

from which to assess future program performance.

34

Under the Bush administration, interest in performance measurement has accelerated. Use of the performance information to influence resource allocation and program management decisions is

expanding as the Program Assessment Rating Tool has been used

to systematically evaluate programs.

The second matter you asked us to address are challenges that

agencies face. I would suggest that the first challenge is program

evaluation. GPRA has prompted a revival of interest in program

evaluation, in part because the statute for the first time defines

program evaluation on a governmentwide basis and stipulates that

it be addressed in an agency’s strategic plans as well as annual reports. Unfortunately, however, despite the efforts to place a premium on evaluation, both the supply and demand for it remain

weak.

In the long run, sustaining a credible, performance-based focus

in budgeting is going to require significant improvements in evaluation capacities and information across the Federal agencies, as

well as in third parties that implement Federal programs. H.R.

3826 is a helpful step in this regard.

The second challenge agencies face is identifying the full costs of

their programs in the budget. In order to improve our understanding of the true cost of a program, budget accounts and activities

should be charged consistently for the full annual cost of the resources used. Because of the requirements in law and other precedent, the existing budget reporting structure includes all budget

costs, but does not always link those full costs to a program in one

place.

An example of this problem are employee costs such as those relating to retirement. Pensions for new employees and military employees were reformed in the mid-1980’s, with employers paying

their share of the accruing costs, yet costs for employees hired

under the earlier Civil Service Retirement System have only partly

been charged to programs. Similar anomalies exist with capital

costs, support services and environmental costs.

A third challenge agencies face is developing integrated reporting

systems. At present, few agencies have automated systems that

routinely link information on costs and goals for budget performance reporting. With the exception of the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration and possibly the Department of Defense,

there are no automated management systems to provide a systematic framework for tracking costs and goals from planning through

enactment and on to execution.

GPRA reporting is still often a paper-intensive exercise that focuses on statutory reporting to the Congress. Agencies prepare

their budget requests using capabilities that are not linked to central automated systems. Many actually enter the data in Excel

spreadsheets, and annual budget requests to the OMB and to the

Budget Committees are, for the most part, paperwork products.

Policy decisions, however, are made based on information, and

increasingly the challenge is no longer a scarcity of information,

but how to manage the flood of that information. The challenge of

using this information is one of making that information routinely

and systematically available to the decisionmakers, whether they

be at the program level or here in Congress.

35

The fourth challenge facing agencies is performance budgeting.

Performance budgeting is the next logical step in the implementation of GPRA. This year, for the first time, many departments and

nearly all major agencies developed a performance budget for OMB

and sent a performance budget justification for fiscal year 2005 to

their Appropriations Committees.

Finally, you asked us to comment on how the government can

continue to shift to a more results-oriented focus. The initial years

of implementing GPRA were focused on developing a performance

management framework accompanied by a growing interest in the

use of performance information. However, as I suggested, systematic integration of performance into day-to-day management and

budget decisionmaking has not yet occurred.

Ultimately, agencies must routinely link information on costs

and goals. They need to involve program managers in directing the

setting of costs and performance goals, and then they need to hold

managers accountable for the results they produce for systems of

information that are transparent to decisionmakers and the public.

Together, GPRA and the CFO Act have made the foundation for

performance budgeting by establishing the infrastructure in agencies to improve the supply of information on performance and costs.

Sustained executive branch leadership and congressional oversight

will be required to build on this foundation to make it useful and

used.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Breul.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Breul follows:]

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. DeMaio.

STATEMENT OF CARL DeMAIO, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER,

THE PERFORMANCE INSTITUTE

Mr. DEMAIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking

Member Towns. I am Carl DeMaio from the Performance Institute.

We are pleased to be here this afternoon to comment on how to

evaluate the results of the Government Performance and Results

Act. We have spent 5 years since our founding looking at performance-based management in government at the Federal, State and

local level, and the question we always ask is, how do you instill

and implement a performance-based management system in government. It is not like in the private sector, there are different

rules, and hopefully some of the commentary we share today will

inform you and help you in your deliberations on how to improve

the Results Act.

First, the Government Performance and Results Act provides all

the statutory framework that Federal agencies need to manage for

results. We do not need to go and refine the existing framework in

terms of what it requires agencies to do. It asks agencies to develop

a long-range plan, to translate that long-range plan into an annual

plan, to set performance measures, to look at results, and to figure

out whether the outcomes are being achieved, not just activities;

and ultimately it asks agencies to link this to their annual budget

request so Congress can deliberate over where the resources can go

to have the greatest impact.

So as a system or a framework for results-based management,

GPRA hits the nail on the head. And it has taken a while to implement and there have been some bumps on the road, but the statute

itself is sound.

But as Ranking Member Towns pointed out correctly, implementation of the statute in each agency has been uneven. Some are

taking it to heart and really implementing a performance management system and generating improved information for decisionmaking. Others, unfortunately, are treating it as yet another requirement mandate and generating reams of paper.

There are several hurdles to fulfilling GPRA’s promise to the

American taxpayer. First, as has been noted, leadership. Agencies

have to commit to results-based management.

Second, the Federal Government has been slow to develop meaningful outcome measures. In looking at the outcome measures that

have been set, most of them fall far short of taxpayer value and

what Congress intended to accomplish with various programs.

Many agencies resist outcome measurement because they feel they

have no control over the outcomes. Whether kids have better reading and math and science scores or whether we have some sort of

public health improvement in America, the question becomes, are

we asking them to just measure things that they control or things

that they are asked to influence on behalf of the American people.

Second, agencies are setting far too many performance measures.

When you add up the number of pages of GPRA performance plans

filled with performance measures, you come up with a total of

16,000 pages produced by Federal agencies annually filled with

data and performance measures. Most of these are measures of efVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Aug 19, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95196.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
44

fort or activity, not results, and so too many measures are being

collected.

Third, there is no coordination among similar programs to see

how various Federal expenditures can be coordinated and we can

work with State and local government to achieve outcomes for the

American people.

Finally, when people ask, how do you lead performance-based

change in an agency, how do you make this real and relevant, we

always respond by suggesting they have to hijack three systems

within the agency.

First, hijack your budget. Require that Federal program managers submit their budget to OMB and ultimately to Congress

using clear performance goals and measures of the agency as a

guide. If they do not show how their program contributes to the

outcome, then they should not receive funding.

Second, hijack your personnel system. Require that agencies hire,

recruit, retain and reward on the basis of contribution to mission.

We have to move from a pay system where everyone talks about

‘‘the salary increase’’ to a pay system where they talk about ‘‘my

salary increase because my contribution to agency mission was recognized.’’

Finally, hijack the grants and acquisition system. We have to

start moving toward a performance-based contracting, a performance-based grants, and a performance-based partnership system

where resources are transferred on the basis of results and our

partners are held accountable.

All of these initiatives received a major shot in the arm with the

President’s management agenda. The President’s management

agenda does not supplant, does not replace, instead it complements

the Government Performance and Results Act in two key ways.

First, it demands accountability and attention be paid by agencies to measure, plan, and budget by results. It was an important

thing for the Office of Management and Budget and the President

to put their name behind GPRA finally. In the initial years of

GPRA, we did not see that level of leadership.

Second, integration. What the President’s management agenda

does is, it looks at five elements of results-oriented management:

budget performance integration, strategic management of human

capital, improved financial management, competition and streamlining, and e-government and says, how do these, all five, capacities contribute to mission attainment. So integration and accountability.

You heard mention of the PMA, GPRA and PART, and how do

they relate to each other. I have always summed it up this way:

GPRA was Congress’ statutory challenge to the executive branch.

The PMA is this administration’s response to, yes, we will be accountable, yes, we will have integration. PART is the quality control mechanism to evaluate the various plans and measures generated by agencies.

In conclusion, what are some of the next steps to improve the results of the so-called Results Act? First, I would sum it up with

Congress needs to be engaged. You must engage in the review of

these strategic plans and performance measures. What do you

think about the 16,000 pages of performance goals and measures?

45

Are there goals and measures on those 16,000 pages that you believe are more informative that the American people should focus

on, that oversight hearings and authorization hearings should focus

on?

We urge you to have your agencies come forward with their strategic plans and performance measures and evaluate them as you

reauthorize Federal programs; and you can take a page out of the

PART and look at 20 percent of Federal programs a year.

Second, Congress should institutionalize program review and assessment. You do not have to endorse the PART, but you should

endorse OMB’s aggressive review of program performance information.

We strongly encourage passage of your legislation, Mr. Platts, for

the pure purpose we should have some sort of assessment, whether

it is PART or whatever the new administration or next administration might want to call it, but a systematic, methodological, and

evidence-based way of looking at performance measures and weeding out bad ones and focusing on good ones.

Finally, we believe you should put a cop on the beat. We are suggesting that Congress create a Congressional Office of Program

Performance that would give Congress its own capacity for performance review. Congress would be able to use the COPP office to

sort through all of the reams of data and measures and plans that

congressional Members and congressional offices are inundated

with each year.

I have talked to many Members of Congress and committee

members that tell me they do not feel that they are at a shortage

of information, but what they are looking for is quality information

that can inform congressional decisionmaking. Well, a COPP office

can be that filter by which Congress evaluates performance information.

A second important function of the COPP office would be to peerreview any ratings or rankings that the OMB publishes each year

should your legislation pass, Mr. Platts.

Finally, we would suggest that the minority and the majority of

each Chamber be allowed to select up to 5 percent of Federal programs for the COPP office to do its own independent evaluation of

each year. Congress needs to invest in its own independent capacity for program review. This is something that could be staffed by

the General Accounting Office and the CBO, but it is not just the

purview of either one of those subagencies. It has to be given its

own charter and its own focus.

In conclusion, these issues of performance evaluation of Federal

programs will only become more important in the coming years.

During this year’s budget, we have seen the percentage of nondefense discretionary funding fall to 18 percent, which means that

the dinner table for domestic programs is getting smaller. It is

harder to figure out where to put our scarce resources.

If we can implement GPRA fully, Congress can have better information, the American people can have better information as to

what works and what does not.

46

Ultimately, GPRA should be judged by its ability to deliver three

principles for the American people: improved performance, enhanced accountability and expanded transparency. By congressional engagement, you can improve implementation of the Results

Act and help us achieve those three principles.

[The prepared statement of Mr. DeMaio follows:]

47

48

49

50

51

52

Mr. PLATTS. We have been joined by Mrs. Maloney.

Mr. Keevey.

STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. KEEVEY, DIRECTOR, PERFORMANCE CONSORTIUM, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION

Mr. KEEVEY. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing.

I am the director of the Performance Consortium at the National

Academy of Public Administration, and I have been a manager and

principal executive at both the Federal and State levels of government. I have been a State budget director, a State controller, and

in the Federal Government I have served as the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service, the Under Secretary for Financial Management for the Department of Defense, and the Chief

Financial Officer at the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development.

Over the course of 40 years in management, I have seen many

a budget system and a lot of new ideas come and go, and I have

seen my fair share of failed attempts to improve government performance.

When I joined the Federal Government in 1994, GPRA had just

been initiated. I inquired then as to what it entailed and was told

that GPRA involved strategic planning and the establishment of effective outcome performance measurements. My response was, I

have been there and I have tried that.

Four years later, as the CFO at HUD, I was developing the Department’s first strategic plan, and while I obviously thought the

endeavor had a lot of initiative behind it and had a lot of momentum, I did not think it had enough traction to be effective in the

long run.

Fortunately, I was wrong in both of these instances because

there is no doubt in my mind that GPRA has made steady progress

during these past 10 years. Indeed, GPRA has been successful, and

I think will only get better as we move forward and better integration is achieved with other results-oriented initiatives already

under way.

The GAO report is correct when it concludes that ‘‘Significant

progress has been made in installing a focus on results in the Federal Government.’’ Furthermore, projects under way at the National Academy of Public Administration confirm this view.

Prior to GPRA, many agencies made few attempts to link budgets to results. There was no stated relationship between agencies’

strategic plans, if in fact they had one, and their requests for funding. There was little or no interest in the cost of programs, the cost

of achieving objectives, and the relationship between cost and performance. Then along came GPRA. GPRA stimulated the process of

planning, targeting and reporting on what government was achieving.

At first, progress was slow. Despite leadership from OMB, there

was inconsistent achievement among agencies. Some took it very

seriously, others just hoped it would go away. Many strategic plans

were filled with a lot of good intentions, but not a lot of sophistication. There were numerous measures that showed workload and

53

outputs, but not a lot of outcomes, and very little connection between cost, work, results, and budgetary requests.

Today, however, many managers and agencies routinely manage

for outcomes. Public benefits achieved and the related costs are

now the definition of outcome rather than simply workload information. And the lexicon of performance management is now the

norm for senior agency managers and top executives.

There is no doubt in my mind that these very aggressive goals

set out by Congress in the GPRA legislation have been achieved in

most cases. But more needs to be done to further enhance these

achievements, particularly regarding the development of more sophisticated outcome measures and the use of information in making budgetary decisions.

One of the earliest issues government executives faced in implementing GPRA was the development of meaningful performance

measures. Historically, governments at all levels tended to focus on

activities or outputs as the means to measure program effectiveness or program success. Therefore, it was quite natural in the

early stages of GPRA that this trend would continue. Developing

outcome-oriented performance measures was and still remains very

difficult, but significant progress is being made.

In government, budgets drive policy and control resource allocation. To that end, we need to press forward on tools that enhance

program analysis and evaluation for GPRA to be completely successful. Accepting that premise, I believe that steps already undertaken by the Office of Management and Budget to introduce the

Program Assessment Rating Tool is a decision that will lead toward a better results-oriented focus.

GPRA provides the overall framework for performance management. However, the GPRA process must be connected to an effective budgetary decisionmaking process such as PART or some future iteration of PART.

My years of experience tell me that unless an instrument like

PART becomes an annual event, the fruits of the GPRA process

will not be fully realized. In my judgment, nothing succeeds in forcing effective program management more than effective and frequent program evaluation.

PART can certainly be improved. For example, OMB now needs

to select activities for evaluation that will facilitate cross-cutting

comparisons of programs that focus on the same outcome. But in

my opinion, GPRA and PART are perfect together. One should not

be a substitute for the other, but both are needed to enhance performance management and to improve budgetary decisionmaking.

Finally, the executive and the legislative branches need to work

together and more aggressively so that both GPRA and PART or

a similar tool are used in a complementary fashion by both

branches of government.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Keevey for your testimony.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Keevey follows:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

Mr. PLATTS. Ms. McGinnis.

STATEMENT OF PATRICIA McGINNIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO,

THE COUNCIL FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT

Ms. MCGINNIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Towns.

The Council for Excellence in Government is made up of leaders

in the private sector who have served in government, and our focus

is squarely on improving the performance and results of government and also increasing the participation and confidence of citizens in their government. So it is all about accountability.

We are very interested, obviously, in the Government Performance and Results Act. In fact, I testified last year before the full

committee on GPRA and was very pleased to see that you’ve included in your legislation one of our recommendations that the timing of these reports coincide with Presidential terms so this can be

more of a routine policy consideration.

There are a number of missing links in the way GPRA has been

implemented, and I compliment GAO and this report on both pointing out the improvements and also identifying some of those missing links. Most of the GAO report focuses on the executive branch

and using GPRA in the management of programs. There is also

some focus on the role of Congress, which we have suggested for

a long time. I thought, when I read it, it would be very interesting

if GAO would, in addition to interviewing and surveying executive

branch leaders, use some of those same approaches with congressional leaders, committee members and congressional staff to really

get a good idea of the potential for increasing the use of this work,

the performance reports and measures in the appropriations and

authorization process, in addition to the oversight process.

I want to talk about three issues which I think need some additional attention. One is connecting the performance plans and reports to high-stakes management and budget decisions, and that

has been discussed quite extensively by my colleagues. Also the expansion of the use of rigorous program evaluation, and Jonathan

Breul alluded to that, and it is certainly included in the GPRA legislation; and then reporting the results to the public.

PART has gone a long way toward making a connection between

performance measurement and performance reporting and budgeting, and that is terrific. In fact, including this performance information in annual budgets makes a lot of sense.

I noticed in the GAO report that only 55 percent of Federal managers report having outcome measures at this point, and even

though that is an improvement over time, there is still a long way

to go. If there were a very strong connection between these measures and the budget, and also if these measures were included in

appropriations reports, for example, I think you would see that

number of 55 percent go up in a hurry if the outcomes of budgeting

and appropriations depended on the quality of such measures.

On the rigorous evaluation—and this is really important because

what I am talking about is something that goes beyond measuring

performance of a program in a fairly short-term timeframe—GPRA

is terrific in talking about the importance of program evaluation to

decisionmaking, but we do not see that has been emphasized over

the 10 years that GPRA has been in effect.

65

We have been working with OMB at the Council on their PART

guidance to include some stronger language about rigorous evaluation of the net impact of different approaches that might be included in a program, and I would actually encourage you, in looking at your legislation, to consider adding some language in terms

of reviewing reports that would allude to what I am talking about.

And, of course, the gold standard for rigorous evaluation is randomized controlled experiments where you actually use randomization and you can determine the impact of one approach as opposed

to another, because that is the only difference between the two population groups.

Of course, there are other methods that could be used, and you

choose the method depending on the timeframe and the nature of

the problem, etc. But this is really important in the long run for

us to actually move the needle on some of these tough problems,

and we have data and we are getting better data, but I don’t think

the needle is moving fast enough for any of us.

In terms of public reporting, this is, I think, just a tremendous

weakness of the implementation of GPRA. There is a wonderful requirement for annual public reports on results, and I am sure that

most people in this country would like to hear on an annual basis

how we are moving the needle on issues that they care about, and

so I thought I would take a look, before coming over here, at some

of those performance reports, just thinking in my role as a citizen

how this would look to me.

Here is one. It looks like a telephone book. I don’t think anyone

who is not very sophisticated could get through this. I am not going

to name the agency because you would see the same thing with almost any agency.

I did notice the improvement in one agency from this to this, and

that is good, but I think we need to get out of the box here and

think about reports that would actually be useful to people who

need these tools to hold government accountable. How we do that?

It is hard to legislate clear report writing. I think Mr. DeMaio has

a point when he urges focusing on a few priorities.

I would suggest it would be wonderful if we had a governmentwide performance report every year that took the top priority items

and told the American people where we are using high-quality data

in moving that needle and showed some trend data; showed something about the challenges and talked about strategies in the future. Again, this takes a serious commitment to making that connection between performance and how the American people can

hold government accountable. But I think if we could do this it

would go a long way to advance the use of this data and integrating it in a very strategic way.

Mr. PLATTS. When you held up the reports, I thought of the general public using it, and that is just one. It takes me back to my

public administration class days when I was given the assignment

to go through one of those reports and make informed commentary

on the—getting down from 16,000 pages to something more manageable.

[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

Mr. PLATTS. Next, we have Mr. Mercer.

When I referenced the ‘‘father of GPRA,’’ it was your work as a

staff member for Senator Roth when this legislation was created.

You certainly bring an important perspective as one who was involved in the creation of this program and requirement and a perspective on where we are 10 years later. I appreciate your being

here.

STATEMENT OF JOHN MERCER, GPRA & PERFORMANCE

MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Mr. MERCER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Towns, for the

opportunity to be here and testify about the implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act. I am going to hop

through my testimony, the full written testimony, which I understand will be inserted in the record. I will just read excerpts from

it.

I am John Mercer, an independent consultant to government

agencies on performance planning, budgeting, and management.

Previously I served for 13 years on staff in the Congress, 5 years

in the House and 8 as counsel to the Senate Governmental Affairs

Committee.

During my service on the Governmental Affairs Committee from

1989 to 1997, my primary responsibility was development and

oversight of Federal management reforms. My involvement with

GPRA includes having proposed the idea for that law to Senator

Bill Roth, then having been asked by him to lead the development

of the legislation and to oversee its enactment and initial implementation.

I will look at a few of the things that have happened over the

last 10 years. Some of the ways in which GPRA has had a positive

effect over the last 10 years in creating a governmentwide focus on

results include the steady improvement in strategic and performance plans shows that Federal agencies have become significantly

more results-oriented in their long-term and annual planning. In

the best plans the relationship between dollars and results is becoming increasingly transparent and there is an increasing sense

within agencies that what GPRA requires is actually just good

business practice and ought to be done regardless of any law.

Turning to page 4, I will touch on some of the challenges that

agencies face. Some of the challenges that agencies face in measuring performance and using performance information in management decisions include the following: cascading the goals and strategies of the departmental and bureau plans down through all levels

of organizational subunits, thereby linking long-term goals to dayto-day activities; integrating the budget with performance information at the program activity and task level by implementing effective managerial cost accounting systems to show full costs of programs and, ideally, the unit costs of activities and outputs; getting

timely, accurate performance data to managers throughout the

year so that they can actually manage their programs for results;

strengthening the linkage between the agency’s support functions

and its programs by ensuring that the support functions such as

CFO, CIO, HR, etc., measure how well they help the agency

73

achieve its programmatic goals; and last, ensuring the validity of

the reported results.

Agencies are actually getting better at identifying meaningful

outcome-oriented goals and the annual performance measures that

support these long-term targets. This has been a major issue of attention by GAO evaluators, as well as a primary focus of OMB’s

PART assessments. However, unless these top level goals cascade

all of the way down through the organization and connect to dayto-day activities, all the agency really has is a wish list, we hope

to achieve these goals, and not a real plan.

If you will move ahead to page 6, I would like to talk about continuing the shift toward a more results-oriented focus. To continue

this shift toward a more results-oriented focus, I would like to address two things in particular that need to happen. Program performance and results will have to have real consequences, both for

the programs themselves and for the managers involved. Second,

there needs to be a much greater degree of congressional involvement in using the GPRA-related performance plans and reports

both in the appropriations process and in conducting general oversight.

Having clear, complete and comprehensive performance plans

and reports is not an end in itself. Developing high-quality plans

will be seen as little more than a paperwork exercise if the results

from implementing those plans has no impact on agency budgets,

program structures and processes, or managerial evaluations.

And then I would like to move to page 9 of my testimony.

Finally, Congress itself has a very important role to play in ensuring a continued shift toward a more results-oriented focus by

the Federal Government. Congressional interest or lack thereof in

this subject sends a strong signal to agencies about whether program performance and results matter. Agencies do read these signals and react.

So far, Congress has generally not shown a great deal of interest

in the substance of agency plans or performance reports or even

suggested how to make them more useful.

Now if I may vent a little frustration here, back in the early days

of GPRA and developing it, I had hoped that the Committees on

Appropriation would become much more supportive of agency efforts to integrate plans and budgets into program performance

budgets. I had hoped that they would welcome a chance to examine

and critique program goals, strategies and results when deciding

program funding levels.

I had also hoped that the authorizing committees would find

these plans and reports to be a font of interesting and useful information. I had imagined real oversight hearings with members referring to specific pages and items in the long-term and annual

plans and in the annual reports while drilling agency officials over

their strategies to achieve measurable results or why past performance did not match the goals.

I had imagined committee and floor debates with members arguing about how best to measure a program’s performance, even offering amendments to change the indicators of success or to increase the target level of performance.

74

Despite my years of experience on Capitol Hill, I had rather naively expected a more enthusiastic response to GPRA plans and reports than we have seen so far.

In an effort to suggest how these GPRA plans and reports and

related analyses by GAO and OMB might be used to conduct better

agency oversight, I have developed a guide for Congress. Because

this guide is intended to help point in the direction of more comprehensive and effective oversight, I call it the COMPAS, the Congressional Oversight of Management and Performance Accountability Scorecard [COMPAS]. I have included it attached to my testimony for reference. It may serve as an illustration of how congressional committees can become more active in supporting a resultsoriented Federal Government.

I should add that while it is cast as a scorecard, it is really intended primarily to serve as a guide and suggestion as to how

issues should be covered in a real, comprehensive oversight hearing.

In conclusion, I think that all too often programs and funding

levels have been justified on the basis of need and good intentions,

that is, how big the problem is and a general conviction that the

more we spend, the better we will address it.

GPRA is essentially a statement that good intentions aren’t good

enough anymore.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Mercer follows:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

86

87

88

89

90

91

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Mercer. And your closing statement

there, ‘‘Good intentions aren’t good enough anymore,’’ I think is

really the focus here. We need to be results-driven and not just intend to do good work but ensure that we are doing good work. Good

capsule summary of our efforts.

Mr. Metzger.

STATEMENT OF CARL J. METZGER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT

RESULTS CENTER

Mr. METZGER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to your questions regarding the effects of GPRA, I

commend the Congress for the well-conceived GPRA framework

that the Congress conceived, with John’s help, your management

reform scrutiny, including the scoring and the use of the GAO to

provide indispensable guides and analyses that have proven so

helpful to agencies.

During the initial stage of 6.5 years, practitioners were simply

producing GPRA documents that addressed requirements in a

timely manner. It was apathy, cynicism or confusion. Identifying

outcomes seemed too difficult to many, but you are well aware of

those early problems.

Practitioners organized informal interagency working groups to

share their progress. Some top leaders but very few program managers were engaged. Nevertheless, the period may be characterized

by stating there were pockets of results.

Progress and congressional scoring gained some top leadership

attention to GPRA compliance. Since that first cycle culminating in

the performance reports for fiscal year 1999, the current stage of

progressive implementation and management has been marked primarily by the PMA budget and performance integration and the

PART to increase commitments from top leaders and managers of

programs.

PMA initiative owners coordinate and report quarterly. Over 400

programs have been PARTed. Top leadership is accountable for results through performance agreements. Such agreements have also

been imposed on many lower level political appointees and managers.

Commonly, departments and major independent agencies have

organized themselves for getting to Green in every initiative by appointing a coordinator who is charged with planning improvements

and reporting quarterly on progress and status.

The GPRA required strategic plans be clearer, more succinct and

integrated for all components. Annual performance plans are better

aligned with strategic plans and now with the budget as performance budgets. Annual reports are sensibly joined for both performance and financial accountability.

Incorporating the program-specific PART has reinforced the entire process. And this committee’s legislative initiative to require

evaluations of all programs within every 5 years is important.

Priorities may shift, of course, but by and large, GPRA’s process

intent of transforming to a results-oriented government has been

institutionalized. This administration’s broader management and

program-specific efforts may be characterized by saying there has

92

been a change from pockets of results progress, to transforming results-oriented cultures in process.

There are still many weaknesses to overcome, but the Clinton administration prepared the ground and started the infrastructure.

The Bush administration has laid a concrete GPRA foundation. To

be sure, challenges abound, not the least of which is identifying

outcome goals and strategies, measuring outcome performance with

the data that are valid, reliable, timely, relevant and reasonable

cost-of-collection and monitoring and reporting through cost-minimized, effective, enterprise-wide performance management systems.

Challenging, too, is making available performance and results information that is useful to customers, stakeholders, agency leaders,

program managers and individual employees for planning decisionmaking, execution and management.

Performance measurement development, especially outcome-related, is still elusive for many kinds of agencies, especially those

in R&D, grantmaking and regulatory affairs as was noted in the

GAO report.

Yet interagency groups of planners, performance budgeters and

evaluators regularly meet to share lessons learned and better practices in those challenged communities of practice; emphasizing that

performance information is helpful for budget justification to OMB,

alternative strategic tradeoffs between sub-units for funds allocation, comparing sourcing costs or overlapping services identification; and encouraging the development of logic models and stakeholder participation, consensus on strategic goals and measures

and utilization of reliable data and evaluation studies.

Those groups monitor the release of GAO reports and OMB guidance such as evaluation studies or the 2006 PART, receiving explanations on usage and foster agencies learning and growth.

For example, VA sharing about an external evaluation of their

Cardiac Care Program underscores evaluations for value for other

agencies at that meeting. And second, the VA sharing their sixpage, 2003 to 2008 Strategic Plan for Employees, specifically for

them, impressed other practitioners on communicating effectively.

It was a clear example for achieving difficult-to-grasp employee

alignment with an agency’s strategic plan, promoting multi-level

understanding of the fit of performance measures and PART reviews within their strategic framework, seeding considerations of

linking resources to results and contributing to the use of performance information in budget formulation and management decisions.

As to continuing the shift to a more results-oriented focus, one

factor that has never changed since the GPRA was signed into law

has been the paramount importance of top leadership commitment

to results-management as has been stated by several on this panel.

While such commitment today is still not totally consistent, President Bush has made progress by requiring performance agreements

and reporting quarterly on their status and progress on his initiatives.

It is true that some Federal managers continue to have difficulty

setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful and timely data on

results and linking institutional program unit and individual performance measurement and reward systems.

93

However, many agencies, today, are transforming their cultures

to become more results-oriented. The challenge for every agency is

to work toward integrating planning, budgeting, total costing, financial management, execution, technology and evaluation into effective performance-management systems in order to manage for

results.

Only one agency to date, NASA, has reached the Green status for

budget and performance integration. They linked full cost budgets

to goals in a single integrated document and instituted a management-information system. As with most agencies, they assign coordinators responsible to work the agency to Green for every management initiative. Multiple documents from fiscal 2003 and before are

now one in fiscal 2004 and 2005 Integrated Budget and Performance Documents, IBPD as they call them, with marginal cost analyses, helping them to say if they gain additionally, how much funding will result in so-and-so result.

The benefits of the NASA system are that it provides a management dashboard; full views of major areas of investment across

their enterprises, themes and programs are available to senior

management, all employees and all working in the NASA domain;

and provides full transparency into cost, schedule, management

and performance status that permits an ability to assess their collective progress against the performance plan.

While other agencies have not made as much integration

progress as NASA, many have focused on recently beginning and

developing results-driven systems and cultures. One example is

NOAA, another science agency. NOAA is transforming its culture

in a sea change manner by reorganizing itself to look anew for fiscal year 2006 at all aspects of strategic and performance planning,

budget and performance integration, program management and reporting. Their objective is to instill in agency employees a sense

that performance matters, that GPRA is in front of everybody, important to and including every employee as a contributor to the

agency’s strategic goals.

Another agency, Farm Service Agency of the USDA, has been

designated as a budget-and-performance management-system pilot

for the entire Department of Agriculture. They have chosen to start

with the basics of strategic-planning consensus with customers and

stakeholders for moving toward a performance-based, results-driven culture in order to serve their customers, 2.2 million registered

farmers and ranchers.

Much like NOAA and FSA, virtually all Government agencies are

in different stages in their cultural transformation to manage for

results. In the years ahead, the Government would profit by not

only integrating and pulling everything together, but as GAO suggests, managing toward a succinct transparent Government-wide

strategic plan that presents the Federal Government’s broad strategic goals, performance measures and targeted results.

At present, evaluations and scoring are only performed for the

President’s Selected Management and Program Initiatives, plus annually selected programs through the PART process. But what we

recommend is the development of a performance management maturity model against which agencies would assess their process maturity.

94

A good example for adaptation may be found in GAO’s just published Executive Guide for IT Investment Management Framework. The framework suggests assessing and improving process

maturity of five increasing mature stages and 13 processes critical

for success in IT investment management.

A similar framework for a performance management enterprise

maturity model would be helpful. Any Government entity’s level of

maturity as a government performance management enterprise

could be assessed in accord with the model so that tactics could be

fashioned to reach the next stage of improvement.

Mr. Chairman, thank you, I hope this testimony will assist you

in your continuing effective Government management reform.

[The prepared statement of Mr. Metzger follows:]

95

96

97

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Metzger.

And thanks to each of you for your oral testimonies here today

as well as your written testimonies and, certainly, the wealth of experience and knowledge that you have shared with us.

As we get into questions—I wanted to be flexible in giving each

of you the time you needed for your opening statements—if we can

try to be as succinct as possible, because I want each of you to have

the opportunity to respond to questions. And given the number of

you, the more succinct, the more questions and issues we can address.

I would like to start with kind of a broad question to each of you.

It concerns your familiarity with the strategic plans of the various

departments and agencies. If you had to pick just one that you

think is the best example, or one of the best examples in using

GPRA which really embraced it and ran with it, to the benefit of

the services being provided, and those receiving services from

whatever department or agency?

And also if there is one you think is the worst example of what

not to do and how GPRA is not being understood and embraced?

You all, or any one of you, are free to respond to the best example or the worst example? Who would like to go?

Mr. KEEVEY. In addition to NASA, I think Labor has produced

a very good report, and I think Education has done a pretty good

job.

Mr. BREUL. I would agree. I think NASA is one of the stellar examples, particularly with all of the changes that have been going

on there and the challenges they are facing. They have done an extraordinary job of being clear and crisp and taking that plan and

cascading it down through all of their operations.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Metzger touched on that connecting to the budgeting and actually having a plan. Anyone want to take a shot at

the worst?

Ms. DALTON. I don’t think I want to take a shot at the worst.

What we found was that all of them are improving. Some of the

better ones, I think, have been mentioned here. I would also add

the Department of Transportation into that category. They initially

were one of the leaders and have continued to be a leader in strategic planning and overall performance planning and management.

Mr. MERCER. I won’t put this in the category of saying that it is

the worst because that implies that I looked at all of them.

I will tell you one that was not very good and the reason I am

willing to tell you is that it was not very good until recently when

they hired me to help them improve it.

With that caveat, SBA did not have a very good plan, and OMB

told them that. And OMB was right. And they had to do a performance plan based on it and integrate it with the budget. In late summer, they scrambled to revise it, and it was a very painful process,

trying to do it very quickly and forcing them really back to square

one, trying to define the outcomes that they actually do contribute

to. Because an entity like SBA, you can imagine the grandiose kind

of rhetoric about how, ‘‘We are going to,’’ and in truth forcing them

through this discipline saying, ‘‘No, we don’t really help all small

businesses. We help those that come to us and how do we know we

are helping them compared to the rest of them?’’

111

Going through that and then devising strategies, now they are

significantly better. They still have a good ways to go. They are

working at it, and they know it and have made it a priority. But

I would say that as of earlier in the summer, they did not a have

very good plan.

Mr. PLATTS. And that is—given their mission of guiding businesses, and if that agency doesn’t do its own good strategic plan,

what example are they setting for the businesses they are seeking

to help, guide and develop?

Mr. MERCER. There is a certain irony in them telling people,

‘‘You ought to have a good business plan if you want to succeed.’’

But again, it’s a problem that a lot of agencies have when they

sit down and just off the top of their head think, what are we trying to accomplish? And the goals become very lofty and you can

imagine the soaring rhetoric. And then when you get down to actually setting targets, it tends to be activity. So when you say, wait

a minute, you are doing a lot of activity, but the goal, how do you

measure that?

And in truth, sometimes you have to lower your goal to what you

really do have an impact on and not all small businesses, because

all small businesses do not come to SBA for help. And how do you

know which ones? And so you start developing measures based on

what percentage of startups and small businesses under a certain

size actually succeed 3 years later. OK. We are going to say, ‘‘Anyone who comes in the door that we help ought to be able to beat

that target,’’ you know, things like that.

Mr. PLATTS. Definitive analysis. And now that we know you are

on the hook of helping to refine their plan, we know their next one

will be in great shape.

Mr. MERCER. There is more work to be done.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Metzger.

Mr. METZGER. Just commenting on your initial query, any department or agency undergoing change drastically, such as Homeland Security, would be challenging for the planning effort.

Those departments, such as Treasury or Transportation, who

have been downsized by sending components over to DHS, those,

too, are challenged by their planning efforts. So those will be troublesome to do.

But as I suggested, referring to the results-oriented culture aspect of things, what we see is where agencies enter in and say, ‘‘We

want to engage our program managers along with representatives

of line offices or functional offices,’’ and they really go into it, because in the managers of program case, they are getting scored on

the PART process and that engages them to a greater extent than

ever before.

But it takes that kind of almost grassroots approach to say

where we are strategically, where are we going in our milestones

and targets to go toward that 5-year or in the NASA case, 25-year

horizon, and to work toward that and see it as a total cultural

change.

Mr. PLATTS. And I will turn to Mr. Towns.

That comment about grassroots is how I see the partnership between PART and GPRA, going from that strategic long-term plan

112

and into the grassroots, how you are doing it and why they complement each other well.

Mr. Towns.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Let me begin with you Ms. McGinnis. You said something I

thought was very interesting, the term of office should coincide

with that. Is the reason you wanted that to happen was because

of being sensitive to the political shifts, or is it a better structure

for the managerial priorities? I mean, that point is not clear to me.

Ms. MCGINNIS. If we are talking about having goals and priorities and measures that are connected to the budget and reflect the

overall policy priorities, I think it has to be connected to the leadership of the executive branch of Government.

And so having it on that 4-year cycle and requiring the first

plan—I mean, you give a year to make the transition, establish the

priorities, etc., but, yes, I think it is because of this importance of

connection to policymaking and budget, absolutely, regardless of

who is in office. This is not a political statement. It is really just

a statement of what good strategic planning should look like.

Mr. DEMAIO. And Mr. Towns, I would go a step further and say

that Congress needs that same right or opportunity to engage, in

that congressional committees should be looking and scrutinizing

individual program performance measures.

The question of what is a good strategic plan for an agency, that

is the 10,000-foot level. We don’t authorize agencies or departments. We authorize programs, and that is where the PART really

gets the measures down to a program level.

We feel Congress should engage at the program level, because it

authorizes programs, and have the same sort of opportunity to influence those plans.

GPRA doesn’t take politics out of budgeting. It is an inherently

political process. The Federal budget process is inherently political.

It is not economic.

But with GPRA, we have an opportunity to insert performance

into that political process. And so whether it is the administration

having to basically come up with their policies in that first year of

the term and then measure it or Congress, when it receives the

measures, having to say, ‘‘Yes, we accept them and we will hold the

administration accountable using this measuring stick,’’ or, ‘‘We are

going to refine it,’’ both branches must engage using their existing

tools. And one is the appointments process at the beginning, to do

strategic planning, and the other is right of review over agency program budgets.

Mr. BREUL. What has happened recently because of the current

statutory formulation, there is sort of a cicadian rhythm to the

strategic plans. They are required to be revised at least every 3

years.

And so what happened most recently was that the deadline fell

with the fall of 2000 during a Presidential election, and that caused

career officials some anxiety. But there is always suspicion by an

incoming and outgoing administration that somehow there is a little bit of tilt in the way the plan might be structured.

So the wisdom that is prevailing at this point is that it will be

helpful to schedule those strategic plans at the midpoint of a PresiVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Aug 19, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00116 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95196.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
113

dential term so the new administration would be in and have some

familiarity with the programs and could do a structuring of it and

still have some opportunity to use that plan before the next election. And it would take it outside the immediate calendar years of

a Presidential election.

Mr. TOWNS. I want to go to you.

Mr. MERCER. Since the issue of the timing of the strategic plan

cycle came up, Jonathan Breul just mentioned that the planning

ought to be mid-term. I would agree with that because the legislation, Mr. Chairman, that you have developed, I understand the

concept.

And when the new administration comes in 1 year later after

they have been in for a number of months and a new plan is developed, realistically, you don’t get a lot of the people appointed in

that first year who are actually going to be the political leadership

who would have to sign off on these plans.

It may be that it should be after they have been in for 2 years

because a lot of them will have been in just a year. And once they

come in, they are not going to want to be confirmed and then a

month later the plan is due and are they going to sign off on it.

So we have to think about that. I don’t know if it is 2 years or

1 year or something in between or 1 year but then some flexibility.

I still like the idea of a 5-year plan revised every 4 years and somehow made consistent with the Presidential election cycle so an administration comes in and can rightfully feel that they can overhaul the plan and nobody is scrambling at the end, shortly before

a Presidential election to get a strategic plan out the door. Working

through the practicality of it has to be worked on.

Mr. TOWNS. Ms. McGinnis, what role should OMB play in this,

if any?

Ms. MCGINNIS. In what?

Mr. TOWNS. In oversight of agencies in terms of the planning.

Should OMB play any kind of role in this at all in terms of the coordinating?

Ms. MCGINNIS. I think so. I think I would point to the PART

process as an example of a very constructive role for OMB. OMB

traditionally—the budget side of OMB is the strong, powerful side

of OMB. To get budget examiners who are putting the budget together, working with their agency counterparts and their leaders in

OMB to focus on management and performance requires some

process to do that, because they are not naturally going to have the

time or the information to do that.

So making this a routine way of thinking that you are actually

going to construct these budgets based in some part on how the

programs are doing, how much they are improving—and I would

say that the budget decisions are not all going to be to punish programs that aren’t, you know, aren’t moving the needle in the right

direction and reward ones who are. It has to be much more strategic and thoughtful if a program is intended for a very purpose but

it is not making a difference.

And I think that is true of a lot of our domestic programs, to be

honest. Then let’s take a hard look at it. Let’s try to figure out

what the right measures are and look at some long-term evaluation

and try to come up with some changes in that program that might

114

require some additional investment but that will begin to show

some results.

I think OMB has a big role to play in this. But the role of OMB—

and I think the PART changes the perspective of OMB—is not to

be the sort of green eye shades putting the budget together and the

agency to be feared throughout the Government, but a constructive

partner in trying to achieve a higher level of performance. So I

think this PART review is important, and it should be integrated

totally into the budget process.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you.

I yield back.

Mr. PLATTS. As we look to strengthen as we go forward after 10

years, what do you think is going to be most helpful and most critical as we go forward? Is it having a mandatory Government-wide

strategic plan as is suggested?

Is it continuing to enhance the education of the actual managers

and how to develop their GPRA plans and then use those in their

agencies?

Is it the PART process in that we make it statutory so the managers know that more grassroots review is going to be permanent

as GPRA is?

Does one of those or something else jump out as the next critical

step as we try to enhance what GPRA is doing?

Mr. DEMAIO. The overall issue is you will find that things that

are used will be improved.

If you use the performance information that is generated under

the Government Performance and Results Act, it will improve.

Managers will develop capacities. They will start improving the

way it is presented to Congress. They will start using it to drive

decisionmaking. You use it. That is No. 1.

And I think the PART has been a good tool in that it stimulates

OMB’s use because you have to sit down before your budget examiner at least once every 5 years, and you are going to be asked

questions. And it is on a program level. It is not pie-in-the-sky

GPRA strategic planning. It is on a program level.

If Congress had a similar capacity, can you imagine if you had

something like a COPP office that you really did 20 percent of its

own programs based upon 5 percent from the majority and minority in the House and 5 percent from the majority and minority in

the Senate. And they were doing 20 percent. They were peer reviewing OMB’s 20 percent which could be the administration’s priority programs.

You would have programs being used—that information would be

used on a quite regular basis. And they would recognize that we

better put our best foot forward and have answers to these questions.

So your use is needed. Anything that facilitates congressional use

because certainly, as Pat had mentioned, facilitates the budget side

of OMB using performance information. Anything that facilitates

your use like a COPP office or some sort of requirement that performance measures be included in Appropriations Committee print

or what-not, those things would be very helpful in the next 10

years in improving the quality of information.

115

Ms. DALTON. I would say that there are two things, and one is

following up on Carl’s comments about the use of the information.

However, it may not be another level of review, but how do you

make the information that we have available more useful to those

people that need to use it?

Ms. McGinnis showed us the big fat books. We have a system of

performance information and we have a lot of information, but how

do we extract that information and put it into a form that you as

a Member of Congress can find useful for your purposes, how agency managers can, how OMB can?

I think that it is really important to extract the information, and

present it in a way that is easy to use for the users. The American

public isn’t going to look through that thick book. They might look

at a one-page summary or depiction of agency performance.

The second thing that is needed is a Government-wide plan or

some other mechanism that cuts across our current structures,

whether it is the budget structures or the agency structures. We

have programs, for example, that are helping in our education

goals and all these programs are not in the Education Department.

They are in Agriculture. They are in Labor. They are in Health and

Human Services. So we need to break down those barriers.

Mr. KEEVEY. The whole issue of cross-cut analysis is important,

lots of programs going toward the same outcomes located in different areas that may be competing for resources when one is more

effective than the other.

Mr. PLATTS. Looking at economic development as one.

Mr. KEEVEY. I think that is more aptly done in a budget analysis

or program review or budgetary review process as opposed to an

overall strategic plan.

Second, there are lots of programs—and if I could pick one for

example, and that is the whole intergovernmental flow of dollars,

grant-in-aid programs, where it is very difficult to measure the performance because most of the dollars are being spent at a State

level or a local level. The Federal Government may be providing a

large part of it or they may be providing a small part of it, but

there needs to be a better mechanism to get information and common indicators.

We are structuring a panel next month to look at that. And I was

talking with the folks at the Education Department, and I didn’t

realize this. They are actually going to each of the education departments throughout the States and trying to develop some common understanding and agreement on terms and measurements so

that when we put information out about the performance of certain

educational programs, they will have good dialog and information

arriving from the States. I think that is one example where it is

now difficult to measure the performance of grant programs where

we can make a lot of improvements.

Third point, there is a lot of talk about the discretionary programs. But I don’t think the defense programs are exempt from

this kind of analysis also. We talk about the small pie, needing

more concentration to allocate resources from the domestic programs, but the same rigor is applicable to the defense expenditures, their half of the discretionary budget, and need to be focused

for the same kind of analysis.

116

Mr. DEMAIO. Could I carry that on the entitlement?

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Breul is next, and I am trying to go in order

as the individual has indicated by their interest.

Mr. BREUL. I think we have to look at those products that Pat

McGinnis showed us and use them to understand that GPRA at

this point is a reporting exercise. People see it in terms of a bound

book, what I would call shelf work.

I have almost become famous in the Government Accounts Association and the Mercatus Center, for a test I have been using on

the plans. They asked me to review many of them, and I put them

on a kitchen scale. Most weigh well over 3 pounds. That is simply

unacceptable. You have to get them down to a much briefer and

understandable fashion.

Mr. PLATTS. Which goes to the comment as far as it actually

being used and the likelihood of it being acted upon.

Mr. BREUL. A printed document is not going to be used these

days. We have to force it into the way agencies conduct their dayto-day management, personnel evaluations, the way appropriations

and authorization committees undertake their work and make the

data routinely available whether it is through the Internet and

other systems so it is available in ways that are useful for folks in

whatever their line of business.

Ms. MCGINNIS. That is a hard question, because we have all been

trying to figure out where the leverage is. I agree that if we could

think of something that would incentivize the appropriators to use

this information, that would be my No. 1——

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Towns and I would like to know what that incentive is and encourage our colleagues to do that.

Ms. MCGINNIS. Here is what I would say if I could say one thing:

I like the idea of an annual Government-wide report that doesn’t

just—in fact, it shouldn’t be a published document. Could be a

dashboard or a Web application. But that should include and

should look more like a corporate annual report, very small. It

should include a critical few high-priority goals and measures and

the results of some rigorous evaluation.

If we had that every year, I think that discipline would encourage managers, would encourage the kind of strategic thinking and

action that we are looking for around performance in the executive

branch and perhaps also in the Congress if the public, if the constituents had access to such a usable set of information.

And if it were a Web application, it could actually be updated

and people could always go and look and see how their favorite—

or how the things they are interested in are doing. And in fact, you

could imagine a Web application that could allow people to tailor

their own. They could decide what goals and priorities they are interested in and build their own sort of State of the Nation set of

indicators and measures. I think that would be very different than

what we are doing now.

Mr. DEMAIO. I wanted to clarify one thing, and it doesn’t link up

to the appropriations issue. GPRA applies to all programs except

for, in a few small cases, for national security. The important

things that agencies have not gotten in terms of measures on are

the entitlement programs, and they feel it is not their responsibility.

117

Like SSA, should we measure retirement security or should we

talk about how quickly we cut the check? Should we talk about a

strong agriculture system at FSA or how quickly we cut the check?

And the question in my mind has always been, you are administering the law. Part of your responsibility is telling the Congress

whether the law is having an impact in terms of outcome. So it is

all programs.

The reason why I focus on non-defense discretionary is because

that is where you get the appropriators. That is what they are in

charge of. Most of the Government’s budget is on auto pilot. In the

defense area, we know armed services plays a large role in where

that money goes. So the appropriators’ pot is what I am trying to

focus on in terms of helping them inform their decisionmaking.

This year in the budget, we did something to drive some sort of

transparency in terms of how OMB is using it, and that is, we took

their rankings of failed programs versus good programs. And we

said, what was the increase that OMB recommended or the President recommended for a good program versus a bad program?

And you know what, there is correlation. As a taxpayer, I am

pleased with how they are using that to drive budget. Had someone

been able to create a similar structure where you take the President’s rankings or if we have a COPP system, the Office of Program Performance, what rankings they came up with and correlate

it to spending levels as approved by the appropriators, if you had

the sort of public transparency and if this report card was published every year when you got your taxes and you could go online

and look at how your Member of Congress voted, I think you might

see appropriators starting to look at the performance goals and

measures.

So you are not going to get some magic potion to finally get those

committees to say, ‘‘Yes, we are going to go over to House Government Reform, and we are going to talk to you about how to do

GPRA.’’ What you do is engage the public, and that pressure and

that transparency drives behavior.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Towns, did you have other questions?

Mr. TOWNS. Back to you again, Ms. McGinnis. You mentioned

that we should use GPRA and PART in a complementary manner.

Could you go into that?

Ms. MCGINNIS. I think they do complement each other because

GPRA is creating the framework of a plan where you are setting

your goals and your priorities and your measures and then PART

provides the discipline in that framework to actually ask managers

to focus on what their measures are and how they are doing on

those measures and to integrate that into the budget process. I

think they are completely complementary.

Mr. TOWNS. Ms. Dalton, I want to hear from you on that.

Thank you, Ms. McGinnis.

Ms. DALTON. I would agree with Ms. McGinnis that they are integrated in that GPRA provides the base performance information

and the PART process uses that information and tries to make

those links with performance in making resource decisions.

PART is really a tool. It is a means, a mechanism, to use the information that is generated through the whole performance measurement GPRA process and translate it into some of the decisionVerDate 11-MAY-2000 12:05 Aug 19, 2004 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00121 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 D:\DOCS\95196.TXT HGOVREF1 PsN: HGOVREF1
118

making processes in the executive branch. PART provides a systematic look at the information and a targeted way to look at information for decisionmaking.

Mr. METZGER. I just would like to make that emphasis on the

comment before. Early GPRA, one of our problems was engaging

managers of programs. I believe GPRA and PART are essential together for that reason, that PART, being program specific, engaged

lower levels of the department or agency than typically was true

previously with the GPRA’s strategic plans, performance plans.

They seem to be more upper stratosphere by having the PART

or something similar in the future. To engage the managers of programs, you get strength to the entire process.

I would like to second, also, Ms. McGinnis’ point about the Government-wide strategic plan and report. I believe it is very helpful

to any enterprise, be it private or public, to think broadly about the

enterprise as a whole, consider the various components, functions,

mission, etc., of that enterprise, analyze those things but always

thinking about the entire organization, its strengths, weaknesses,

so that you can pinpoint exactly what has to be improved, maybe

even fixed because it is totally broken.

And with this kind of approach, that is why I suggested the performance management maturity model consideration in that you

look at your components of what it takes to manage for results

through a system. You analyze what is preferred. You help agencies target toward various levels of maturity, and in that entire

process, you are going to gain improvements. Just like in the original question about what would be preferred as changes, probably

the best answer is all of those things have to be attended to. And

we have to prioritize them. But we have to really address them all

and consider them all in how the Government as a whole operates

so that we can improve its parts.

Ms. MCGINNIS. Can I clarify one thing because—and this is a bit

of a difference. I would suggest an annual Government-wide performance report, not necessarily the plan. And it is sort of interesting, but—and I know the administration has responded, saying

that the budget is the plan.

I sort of like the idea of asking for a report if the plans are there,

if the budget is there. And on these critical few priorities and

measures, I think that is going to get us closer to what we want

in terms of public accountability than starting with an elaborate

government plan which I fear would look like this or the budget

document.

Ms. DALTON. I would just followup, where we have talked about

a Government-wide plan, that currently is required under the Government Performance and Results Act. It has never been fully implemented. It was produced one time in 1999 and subsequently has

been characterized that the plan has been the budget.

The issue really is, the budget is structured by agency and by account and doesn’t integrate across these lines. Certainly, Ms.

McGinnis’ idea of a performance report naturally would flow from

a plan. A report, on how we did has to be a part of the whole process.

119

Mr. KEEVEY. I have a lot of sympathy for the approach or the

comments coming back from OMB. The Federal Government is a

very, very complex organization.

Mr. TOWNS. You are being kind.

Mr. KEEVEY. It does a lot of things. To suggest that we could concentrate in a particular year on a priority or two and focus on that,

I think is difficult because the priority in one person’s mind is not

a priority in the other person’s mind.

So the organization is complex. There are elements in the budget, albeit it has lots of volumes, there are components of the budget

that could be pulled together perhaps in a better fashion and put

out in a separate document that would hit the areas we are talking

about, that is, give the overall strategic needs of the Government.

But to suggest that it could be compressed so as to focus on certain priorities 1 year versus another year, I would argue that may

not do justice to what the Federal Government is all about because

it is so complex and has so many competing priorities that you may

want to be a little bit more cautious about that.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Mercer.

Mr. MERCER. I share Mr. Keevey’s concerns about trying to do

something on a Government-wide basis. It would either be a massive document that nobody would use; or so generalized that the

information may not be useful; or so selective that it would be political to make the administration look good, picking and choosing

specific indicators.

And we do get a lot of information that comes out about where

the Nation is, the health, education, at a large level every year. I

don’t know to what extent something really large would be useful.

If it would be useful, then certainly.

There may be another approach, and I will offer it as a suggestion. If you are asking what is it that the public would be interested in, the public might be more interested in knowing about specific programs or agencies that they relate to, whether they are a

veteran or somebody that is a community service organization that

is interested in housing or education or whatever. And it is great

to have these large documents.

Realistically, I think what you want is to make it easy for the

public to find pieces of information relating to programs or agencies

that they are interested in. And one way to do that might be to include every year in the 1040 instructions that go out, two or three

pages that just lists Web sites. I know not everybody has a computer or Internet service, but you can’t mail everybody lots of reports. So realistically, that approach makes it easy for the public

to see, at the time they are sitting down to prepare their taxes,

where they can look if they are interested in a particular program,

agency, to see what they are getting for their money. And that is

how you would cast it.

You know, this is where you could go to—and if you are interested in the National Park Service because you take your kids

every summer to the parks and you look down and see the National Park Service Web site, and here is the link to the plans.

You would have to make it easy. You would have to make it easy

for them to follow, but just knowing where we are going with e-government and that sort of thing, I think a focus on that—and the

120

easy way to do it would be to print the list of these sites in a document that everybody gets every year and looks at when they are

doing their taxes and says, here is where you can look to see what

you are getting for your money in particular aspects that might be

of interest to you. That is a thought as to how to make the public

connect to something like this.

Mr. TOWNS. Good point. Thank you again.

I yield back, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Towns. Two other areas before we

wrap up.

Ms. Dalton, you talked about human resource management and

your perspective. If you want to expand on it and others as well,

on how developing strategic plans is actually being used from

human-resource management and matching, what are their mission and goals and what are they supposed to be doing? How are

they actually filling their human capital needs in achieving those

goals?

Ms. DALTON. One of the things in developing a strategic plan, the

agencies need to and the Government needs to be looking at is,

how are we going to achieve our goals? And the key is the people

and having the right skills and mix.

As you are developing your goals, you need to be looking at your

people, the agency’s people and saying, do I have the right skills

to achieve these goals? If not, what kind of training do I need or

how do I acquire that talent? And we need to be looking at that.

There are a couple of things that can be done. Obviously, training and development needs to be focused on. Clearly, we need to

look at how we translate the goals that are identified at the organizational level down to the subcomponents and ultimately down to

the individual, a cascading of those goals down so that each person

can take ownership and say, I am responsible for this, do I have

the skills, do I have the knowledge to do this or is there somebody

around that can help me accomplish these goals? There are a couple of things that need to be done.

Mr. PLATTS. In your opinion, is that match occurring as the norm

or is it more the exception when we are really seeing the use of

strategic planning matching that with human resources?

And I use an example. Our next hearing is in a couple of weeks

with the SEC. As they are meeting the new challenges of SarbanesOxley and have a lot of positions they are filling, their strategic

plan is in the works, but it seems we are getting the cart ahead

of the horse. Is that common in departments, in your opinion?

Ms. DALTON. I think it is common and probably more so in departments that are undergoing change, because often, their skill

needs are going to be different. What they had and what they need

are going to be different. And there is going to have to be a transition period.

What strategic planning does if you are doing it properly, you

look at your means and strategies. And it forces an agency to focus

on those resource issues and say, hey, do I have these things needed to accomplish organizational goals; and if not, what do I need

to do to acquire them? What goes hand-in-hand with a strategic

plan for an organization is also a human capital strategic plan to

be sure that everything matches up.

121

So one of the things I would be looking at in the SEC is, do they

have a strategic plan? Do they have a human capital strategic

plan? Have those been integrated? And because they are faced with

challenges that need to be addressed now as opposed to later, they

may have to develop the plans simultaneously. However, they need

to be working in an integrated fashion so that there is discussion

from the various groups and, often, overlap between the groups.

Mr. BREUL. This is an important area, a linchpin to making all

this work. It is one we are just seeing progress on in significant

ways right now.

Senior executive standards for the SES have been locked in with

this expectation now, so there is a cycle of evaluations that are actually starting to come through with performance measures and

strategic plans reflected in those SES standards.

The enactment of the Homeland Security Department and the

flexibilities given the Defense Department and NASA are based on

performance-based human-resource systems, and that will begin to

make adjustments that will make pay, recognition and a whole

bunch of factors performance-sensitive. And that performance will

tie back to the mission goals. So we are beginning to see some very

significant progress and activity in this area.

Mr. PLATTS. Yes.

Mr. DEMAIO. One of the items I testified before Chairwoman

Davis’ Subcommittee on Civil Service was exactly on the need to

codify in statute the requirement that agencies develop a humancapital plan. This Administration has made that an initiative that

each agency develop a strategic human-capital plan, but that could

go away if there is a new administration or the current Administration decides to take it in a different direction. So I think Congress could play a key role in codifying that as a statute.

There are two agencies that I would point out besides NASA that

are doing a remarkable job in developing strategic human-capital

plans, and that is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the Internal Revenue Service, which has done a lot to match its work

force changes over a long period of time with recruitment, retention

and reward systems. So this committee could look at those two as

best-practice models.

Mr. KEEVEY. I agree that work force planning is critical, performance measurements are critical and one has to press forward with

them.

On a day-to-day basis in running an organization in running a

governmental entity, things, however are pretty basic. You have to

reward the good people who are performing. You have to have a

system that can get people into the Government and retain the

people in the Government to give them worthwhile jobs, proper

management, proper training, proper pay. Nothing has changed in

the traditional way of managing a good organization. They are a

key strategy and puts the overall emphasis on it.

From my years of experience, the weakness always comes back

to, you don’t have the training for the people or a reward system

so that the high-performers are getting the rewards and those people who are not performing are moved our of the Government and

moved into other organizations perhaps to where their skills and

122

talents better suit them. And that is the way to make the Government perform better in my judgment.

Mr. PLATTS. The final question I have is on the PART process

and as we are looking at legislation to codify that approach, not

necessarily the PART itself but that type of review. Is your opinion

on the role of GAO and the IG—one of the concerns raised—and

while we acknowledge that politics is part of the process here—but

is there a role for GAO or the IG community to, in essence, perform

an oversight on a certain percentage of each PART review that is

done each year to kind of look at what was done and the information that was gathered and then the conclusions that were reached

and then give an opinion on that information? Is that redundant,

or do you think that would be helpful for GAO or IG’s?

Ms. Dalton.

Ms. DALTON. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we did review the

whole PART process in 2004, the initial process. And that is a role

that we can continue to play in looking at the overall process. One

of the things that we looked at in our review is, how is GAO’s work

reflected in the PART assessment? And I think that could be a continuing role.

Ms. MCGINNIS. As part of our role, we produce an incredible

amount of work every year on a wide number of programs and

areas and how is that being reflected in the process. I think that

is how we can probably most efficiently use our resources.

Mr. PLATTS. Thus far, in your view, how has your information

been used in the 400 or so programs?

Ms. DALTON. In the review of the 2004 work, we saw it was being

reflected. In fact a GAO evaluation was considered one of the evaluation tools that OMB expected to be reflected in the PART assessments.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Breul.

Mr. BREUL. Mr. Chairman, I come to this question having, to up

until 2 years ago, spent the last 20 years in the Office of Management and Budget working on these matters. I think it needs to be

recognized that the resource allocation process is inherently political. There are priorities and policies reflected there, and there are

judgments of every kind of personal and political nature. Indeed,

a President ought to have the prerogative, as the Budget and Accounting Act lays out, to put together the budget he or she feels

is appropriate for the Nation and the program put forward.

That said, the Constitution is very clear that the President proposes, and it is the Congress that actually disposes and enacts appropriations. So there is a very open and clear give-and-take. I

don’t think it would be appropriate, however, to get the GAO or the

IGs involved in sort of the mosh pit of the budget process within

the President’s decisionmaking, particularly given the fact that it

is all laid out as clearly as it is on CD-ROMs, published materials

and the rest, with all the frameworks that have been used to evaluate these programs. The judgments and scores and justifications

have made it about as transparent as it has ever been, and I think

that is to the good. But, again, to put the GAO in the midst of that

would be an awkward matter for both parties.

123

Once the budget is out, it is fair game for the public and everybody to see what has been proposed and to make their own judgments as well.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. DeMaio.

Mr. DEMAIO. With the COPP proposal, we believe Congress

should do a review, and we decided not to propose GAO as the

agency to do this. GAO and IGs are inputs into the PART process.

The evaluations that they conduct can be used. PART is not an

evaluation. It summarizes what we do and do not know about a

program’s performance. Just like when OMB publishes its revenue

estimates or its cost estimates, CBO peer reviews that and publishes sometimes a contrary revenue or cost estimate. Congress

desperately needs the capacity to have its own shop that says here

is what we do or do not know about the performance of this program, and we disagree with the administration or we concur.

I would say a COPP office, something like it that could be overseen by this committee and the Budget Committee, and maybe

there is a role for appropriations there, to look at what do we know

and not know, and maybe GAO and IG reports are input that office

looks at, amongst other peer-reviewed and other third-party evaluations, but PART is not an evaluation in and of itself. PART is

a framework for sorting through all of the tons of information, and

Congress and committees want that. They are not at a lack for information, they are at a lack for quality information to drive decisions.

Mr. KEEVEY. Just an observation. The budget is one thing and

the appropriation acts are something else. The gap between what

the President proposes based upon program analysis by OMB,

PART analysis—not that there is not political judgment there—

then it gets into the congressional arena where we have a combination and more information on programs is important. So if you use

the data, for example, that OMB has put together and then add the

political judgment to it, I think that is where it comes together. I

don’t think you necessarily need another entity to critique in some

detail a PART analysis or the analysis that comes through in the

budget, but to take that information, weigh it, bring it together

with your congressional oversight and come out with an appropriation act.

I would be curious to see what the big gap is between what the

budget is proposing and what ultimately gets factored into the appropriation act. There may be some gaps as you go through it.

Mr. MERCER. With respect to the IGs, I don’t know what their

thinking would be today. My only clue was what their thinking was

several years ago when I worked with a lot of them when I was

with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.

From what I recall, this is not at all the kind of thing that the

IGs would welcome, looking at the credibility of a process within

OMB. We had a hard time getting them interested in looking at

management kinds of issues. They did not want to be seen as rendering management-related advice to the agencies. They basically

wanted to look for problems and blow the whistle and yell foul. It

was really pulling teeth.

I can remember the meeting where the chairman of the committee at that time, Senator Glenn, got a politely hostile reaction from

124

a room full of IGs when he told them he would be expecting them

to look at the agency’s management systems and advising them

how to improve it.

That may have changed since then, but I would think about the

best I could comfortably ask IGs to do would be to go in and audit

the performance information. That is a huge role for them. They

do financial audits; but performance audits, verifying the actual results, outputs, activities and outcomes that are reported by the

agencies agency-wide is a huge task. And if we are going to ask

people to use this information, the reported results have to be credible, especially if you want to get it to managers throughout the

year to actually manage for results. That is a huge task. Since it

is internal to the agency, they are probably more comfortable doing

something like that.

Mr. PLATTS. So if the IG is involved, it is a straight objective review.

Mr. MERCER. Right; and something internal to the agency, not I

am going to evaluate the process at OMB and its credibility of the

review there. I don’t think that is something that they would welcome.

Mr. PLATTS. Given that the IG budgets remain part of that department’s or agency’s decisionmaking process and they are not

independent, that complicates their challenge.

Mr. Metzger.

Mr. METZGER. The IGs are, through their semiannual reports,

are being engaged in analyzing performance aspects of their agencies today.

Mr. PLATTS. Mr. Towns, did you have any other questions?

Mr. TOWNS. I have one last question for Ms. Dalton. If GPRA or

PART is used to grade programs without the constructive involvement of the Congress and other stakeholders, they might easily be

used as a partisan tool to accomplish ideological objectives. Is there

any way we can avoid this?

Ms. DALTON. If strategic planning and GPRA are used properly,

it requires the engagement of Congress and all stakeholders. What

an agency is doing has to reflect not only the desires of the executive branch, but also what its oversight committees, its authorizing

committees, want it to do and where those priorities should be reflected. So, yes, Congress has to be and should be engaged in the

process to really reach its full potential.

I think we have some engagement in some areas. We certainly

have a lot of areas where we need to improve that engagement.

One of the things that we have recommended in our report on the

strategic plans that the agencies are developing is, as Ms.

McGinnis also recommended, that the planning cycle be more in

line with the Presidential term so a new strategic plan would be

issued 12–18 months after the new President comes in.

However, we also say that the agencies need to consult with the

Congress at the beginning of each congressional term, because it is

very important that congressional views be reflected in agency strategic planning and subsequently in their performance planning.

Mr. TOWNS. Mr. DeMaio, do you have any comments on that.

Mr. DEMAIO. Our proposal to engage Congress through a COPP

would allow the minority of the Senate and the House to provide

125

a list of programs that they would like the COPP office to review.

And they could also flag programs that they think OMB has not

reviewed appropriately and ask for an independent evaluation.

The other thing is to highlight what Jonathan noted, the PART

is transparent. If you disagree with a score, you can go back and

see it is evidenced based. If you say no, they do not have a good

mission statement, if OMB’s examiner says no, they do not have a

good mission statement based on statute, they have to attach the

mission statement. We encourage the public to review these

PARTs. We have even created a Web site,

www.transparentgovernment.org, where they can download their

own version of the PART and look at the program of their choice.

But Congress would have, as part of the COPP office, the ability

to do this more routinely. It has capacity, and I would suggest that

the minority in both Chambers and the majority in both Chambers

be allowed equal representation in terms of what programs to

evaluate.

Mr. TOWNS. Thank you, and I yield back.

Mr. PLATTS. Thank you, Mr. Towns.

I thank each of you for your participation here today. You bring

a wealth of knowledge to this issue. As we go forward the rest of

this year and the years to come with our oversight responsibilities

with GPRA, and if we are successful in enacting legislation regarding PART or a variation of that, we will continue to look to each

of you for your expertise as to what we are doing right and what

we are doing wrong and how we can continue to partner with the

executive branch and the private sector and, in the end, have good

results for all American taxpayers for funds they are sending this

way.

I would also like to thank the staff on both sides for the hearing,

and especially Dan Daly, counsel. This is his last day officially with

our subcommittee. He is moving over to Chairman Putnam’s Technology Subcommittee, so he is not moving physically very far,

through the wall from where our office is. Dan has been great for

the last 15 months. As I came in as the new chairman, he provided

great counsel to the committee, and to Chairman Horn prior to his

retirement. We wish you well in your new position. Because you

will not be too far, I am sure we will continue to pick your brain

in the months to come.

Mr. TOWNS. I would like to associate myself with the remarks

made. We have enjoyed working with you, Dan, and wish you the

best in your new assignment.

Mr. PLATTS. We will hold the record open for 2 weeks for any additional information that you want to submit, and I once again

thank everybody for their participation. This hearing stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional information submitted for the hearing record follows:]

126

127

128

129

130

Æ