United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Science

House of Representatives

For Release

on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m. EDT

Wednesday

July 30, 1997

RESULTS ACT

Observations on Federal

Science Agencies

Statement by Susan Kladiva

Associate Director, Energy, Resources, and Science Issues

Resources, Community, and Economic

Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-97-220

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

We are pleased to be here today to discuss the implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act, often referred to as the Results

Act or GPRA, in federal science agencies. A focus on results, as intended by

the Results Act, is aimed at improving the efficiency and effectiveness of

the federal government. In the science and technology area, where more

than 20 agencies spent $60 billion in fiscal year 1996, the potential for

unnecessary overlap is particularly high and close coordination is

essential. While some shared responsibilities are fine, uncoordinated

program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program

customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.

Coordination among federal programs contributing to the same or similar

results can ensure that goals are consistent and, as appropriate, program

efforts are mutually reinforcing.

As agreed with the Committee, my statement will focus on six agencies’

fulfillment of the requirements of the Results Act and the interagency

coordination of crosscutting science programs, activities, or functions that

are similar or complementary to those of other federal agencies. Regarding

the requirements of the Results Act, we focused on two

elements—(1) agencywide goals and objectives and (2) past and future

program evaluations. The six agencies I will discuss include the

Departments of Commerce, Energy, and Transportation, as well as the

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the National Science Foundation

(NSF), and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). My

statement is based on our review of the agencies’ draft strategic plans,

discussions with agency officials, and our general knowledge of the

science agencies.

In summary, Mr. Chairman:

Overall, the draft strategic plans show progress toward meeting the

purposes of the Act; however, only one of the six agencies’ plans contains

all six of the Act’s critical elements. In addition, some of the completed

elements were insufficient. For example, the goals and objectives were

frequently results-oriented, but it was unclear in all of the plans how some

of the goals would be measured. Developing effective performance

measures for these program goals will be a major challenge for science

agencies. Furthermore, five of the six plans did not include information on

past and future program evaluations and the one inclusion could be

improved. Because the draft plans do not contain all six elements, the

Page 1 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
Congress is missing critical pieces of information for its consultations with

the agencies.

Under Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, the agencies’

final submission should include a summary of consultation efforts,

including crosscutting activities. Currently, the agencies’ draft plans

generally do not address how crosscutting activities correspond with

those of other agencies. In addition, the plans generally do not address

whether such shared responsibilities were coordinated in the development

of the draft plans. However, some of the agencies’ missions and goals do

involve or overlap those of other agencies. Despite the fact that the draft

plans do not reflect coordination activities, several agencies have initiated

efforts to coordinate crosscutting research programs governmentwide. But

coordination has occurred primarily at the program level rather than at the

senior management level which is necessary to ensure consistency of

program objectives among agencies. In our opinion, recognition of such

coordination activities as part of the final submission will be useful to the

Congress in making funding decisions that involve similar or

complementary science programs.

Now, I will briefly discuss these issues within the context of each of the

six agencies. More details are provided in our reports on each of these

agencies’ implementation of the Results Act, as listed in appendix I to my

statement.

Background The Results Act is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of

federal programs by establishing a process to set goals for program

performance and to measure results. As a starting point, the Act requires

virtually every executive agency to develop a strategic plan covering at

least 5 years. It also requires that an agency’s strategic plan contain the

following six critical elements: a mission statement; agencywide goals and

objectives; the strategies and resources needed to achieve the goals and

objectives; the relationship between the long-term goals and objectives

and the annual performance goals; the key external factors that could

affect the achievement of goals; and a description of how program

evaluations were and will be used to establish or revise strategic goals.

When developing a strategic plan, the Results Act requires that the agency

shall consult with the Congress and shall solicit and consider the views

and suggestions of those entities potentially affected by or interested in

such a plan. Furthermore, guidance from OMB states that when general

Page 2 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
goals and objectives have crosscutting functions, programs, or activities,

agencies may have a shared responsibility for defining and achieving them.

Thus, agencies should ensure that appropriate and timely consultation

occurs with other agencies during the development of strategic plans with

crosscutting goals and objectives. Though the Act does not include a

requirement that the draft strategic plans should contain a description of

how the activities of an agency relate and will be coordinated with the

activities of other agencies with similar programs, OMB guidance does

provide that the letter transmitting the strategic plan include a summary of

the general scope and nature of the consultation and the types of entities

consulted. In addition, OMB guidance on preparation of annual

performance plans beginning in fiscal year 1999, states that agencies

should indicate those goals and indicators that are being mutually

undertaken in support of programs or activities of an interagency,

crosscutting nature.

It is important to recognize that the final strategic plans are not due to the

Congress and OMB until September 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act

anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to perfect the process

and that the final plans would be continually refined as future planning

cycles occur. Thus, our comments reflect a snapshot of the plans when

they were submitted to the Congress, between May and July, and are

intended to provide insights that may help this Committee and the

agencies work together to successfully implement the Results Act. We also

recognize that the agencies are continuing to revise their strategic plans

with input from OMB, congressional staff, and other stakeholders.

National Science

Foundation

While NSF addresses five of the six required elements of the Results Act, at

least four of them need further development, and the sixth element—key

external factors—is not included in its draft strategic plan.1

 Although NSF

defines goals and objectives in the draft plan, many of these goals are not

expressed in a measurable form, making it unclear whether the

Foundation and the Congress will be able to assess whether the goals are

achieved. NSF’s draft plan also does not discuss how the agency used

specific program evaluations to develop its strategic goals or the other

components of the plan. Further details are needed on a schedule for

future evaluations, the scope of and methodology for future evaluations,

and how the findings could be useful in assessing NSF’s goals and

performance plans.

1

We reviewed the draft strategic plan dated June 9, 1997.

Page 3 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
The draft plan acknowledges the crosscutting nature of NSF’s work but

does not show evidence of interagency coordination. It emphasizes the

importance of NSF’s many partners in the research and education

enterprise but does not identify these partners or provide sufficient

information to determine the extent to which NSF and its partners’

functions are duplicative or overlapping. However, we identified

similarities of mission in the draft plans developed by NSF, Energy, and

Commerce. For example, the Foundation’s mission includes promoting the

progress of science, and one of its overarching goals is to enable the

United States to uphold a position of world leadership in all aspects of

science, mathematics, and engineering. Similarly, Energy’s science mission

is to ensure that the United States retains its leadership in science and

technology. Also comparable is Commerce’s mission, which includes

keeping America competitive with cutting-edge science and technology.

Although not identified in NSF’s draft plan, agency officials cite efforts to

coordinate the crosscutting areas. For example, NSF has shared its draft

plan on the Internet. Furthermore, according to NSF’s Assistant to the

Director for Science Policy and Planning, the Foundation participates in a

number of groups such as the National Science and Technology Council,

the Committee on Fundamental Science, and the Research Roundtable.

While one purpose of these groups is to coordinate, NSF’s draft plan does

not mention these groups or the frequency of their discussions. We have

found that although these agency forums have provided an important

opportunity for agencies to work together to address common concerns in

goal setting and performance measurement, they have not generally

attempted to coordinate crosscutting program efforts.

Department of Energy Energy’s draft plan fully addresses only two of the six required

elements—the mission statement and the goals and objectives—and

partially addresses a third—the strategies element.2

 We found that the

goals and objectives cover the agency’s major functions and operations,

and that the goals are generally results-oriented. However, in reviewing

the multiple objectives for each goal, we identified several objectives that

were stated in ways that will make it difficult to measure whether they are

being achieved. Furthermore, Energy did not complete the element related

to the impact of program evaluations on the development of strategic

goals. The Department is finalizing these elements and expects to include

them in the final plan.

2

We reviewed the draft strategic plan dated June 16, 1997.

Page 4 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
Although Energy does not mention crosscutting programs or coordination

efforts in its draft plan, the Department is sharing its draft plan with other

federal agencies. Energy’s draft plan does not identify programs and

activities that are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies,

primarily because the Department believes its functions are unique. On the

basis of our work, however, we believe that Energy’s broad missions do

involve or overlap those of other agencies. As previously discussed, we

have identified the potentially overlapping missions of Energy, Commerce,

and NSF. Another example of potential overlap is in science education.

Energy’s draft strategic plan states that it will use its laboratories and the

nation’s universities to contribute to the nation’s science and mathematics

education. Similarly, NSF’s authorizing legislation directs it to initiate and

support science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all

fields of science and engineering.

Environmental quality is another area of potential overlap. The science

and technology portion of Energy’s draft plan contains a strategy to

conduct high-quality research on environmental quality. Similarly, one of

EPA’s goals is to develop and apply the best available science for

addressing current and future environmental hazards as well as new

approaches toward improving environmental protection.

Department of

Commerce

Commerce’s draft strategic plan contains four of the six critical elements,

but each of the four, including the goals and objectives element, has

weaknesses.3

 While there are linkages among themes, goals, objectives,

and responsible components, the goals and objectives are not as

results-oriented as they could be. For example, the goal to support

restructuring export controls for the 21st century could be made more

results-oriented by identifying the purpose of the restructuring. Moreover,

the draft plan does not explicitly discuss the program evaluations used to

establish general goals and objectives and has no schedule for future

program evaluations.

Commerce’s draft plan also does not identify crosscutting programs and

activities or whether such shared responsibilities were coordinated in the

development of the draft plan. The draft plan does describe, in very

general terms, some of the existing partnerships between Commerce

agencies and various public and private entities. However, as stated

earlier, we identified mission overlap between NSF, Energy, and

Commerce. Another example of potential overlap occurs in Commerce’s

3

We reviewed the draft strategic plan dated June 1997.

Page 5 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
grant program to promote the use of advanced telecommunications in the

public and nonprofit sectors. A number of other federal agencies,

including NSF, also support telecommunications projects for similar

constituencies.

National Aeronautics

and Space

Administration

Of the six elements required by the Results Act, NASA includes four in its

draft strategic plan. The two that are not explained in enough detail are

the relationship between NASA’s long-term goals and annual performance

goals and a description of program evaluations.4

 While the goals outlined

by NASA appear to meet the Results Act’s requirements, progress toward

some of the goals, such as the goal to acquire and encourage knowledge

and technologies that promote our quality of life, may prove difficult to

assess. As we recently reported, it is inherently difficult to measure the

performance of research and development programs because the results

are typically not apparent until many years later.5

 The draft does not

explicitly discuss or demonstrate how program evaluations were used in

establishing or revising agency goals and objectives, nor does it provide a

schedule for future evaluations.

NASA’s draft plan also does not identify specific programs and activities

that are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies, and the

plan does not address interagency coordination. Many of NASA’s objectives,

however, are shared with other agencies. For example, one of NASA’s

objectives related to long-term climate and ozone research involves NSF,

the Department of Energy, and Commerce’s National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration. Moreover, like NSF’s mission of advancing

scientific knowledge, one of NASA’s missions is to advance and

communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the

solar system, and the environment of space for research.

The draft plan does not address what interagency coordination occurred

to address the shared responsibilities. However, the draft plan does note

the importance of working with other agencies in achieving its objectives,

and NASA officials stated that coordination has occurred at the program

level. NASA officials stated that each strategic enterprise coordinated its

objectives with the relevant agencies at the program level. They noted that

NASA officials participate in many crosscutting groups, like the Research

Roundtable, where programmatic objectives are discussed. They also

4

We reviewed the draft strategic plan dated May 1997.

5

Measuring Performance: Strengths and Limitations of Research Indicators (GAO/RCED-97-91, Mar. 21,

1997).

Page 6 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
noted that for the last few years, the agency has shared its strategic plan

with other federal agencies.

Environmental

Protection Agency

EPA’s draft plan contains four of the six elements required by the Results

Act, certain aspects of which could be improved.6

 Although the goals and

objectives—one of the completed elements—are generally results-oriented

and measurable, some do not clearly define the expected results, and it is

unclear how EPA would assess progress toward achieving them.

Furthermore, the large number of goals (10), objectives (45), and

subobjectives (200) may make it difficult for the Congress and others to

discern EPA’s priorities—what will be most important to the agency over

the next several years. The two missing elements are (1) the relationship

between EPA’s long-term goals and the annual performance goals and

(2) program evaluations used in developing the plan and a schedule for

future evaluations.

EPA’s draft plan does not discuss the agency’s programs and activities that

are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies, but it does

address the need for coordination with its stakeholders, which include

federal entities. Our past work has found that EPA—as the central federal

agency responsible for safeguarding the environment—carries out a

number of mission-related activities that are crosscutting or similar to

those of other federal agencies. For example, as we discussed previously,

EPA and Energy both conduct research on environmental quality. In

addition, EPA shares responsibilities with other agencies for collecting and

managing the data needed to perform environmental assessments. Thus,

EPA must coordinate data for health assessments with a number of

different agencies, including NSF.

EPA’s draft plan makes broad reference to the need for coordination with

federal agencies as well as other stakeholders to accomplish its mission.

As such, EPA is currently taking steps to coordinate its plan with other

agencies to address crosscutting programs and activities. To further refine

its plan and determine areas of potential overlap between EPA and federal

agencies with related responsibilities, EPA identified 16 federal agencies

with crosscutting or similar functions and sent each of them a draft outline

for the strategic plan in May 1997, and the full draft in early July 1997, for

their review and comment. In addition, EPA is reviewing these agencies’

draft plans to identify areas in which duplication of activities exists and

further coordination is warranted. According to EPA officials, the agency is

6

We reviewed the draft strategic plan dated July 1997.

Page 7 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
including in its coordination all of the other five science agencies

discussed in this testimony.

Department of

Transportation

Although Transportation’s draft plan includes all six critical elements, we

believe that only three of the six meet the Act’s requirements, including

the mission statement, long-term goals, and a description of program

evaluations.7

 The five long-term goals encompass the Department’s major

functions and operations and are within the Department’s span of

influence. However, they could be improved by stating all goals in a

measurable form to allow for future assessments of their achievement.

Furthermore, they are stated in general terms whereas sufficiently precise

goals can better direct and guide agency staff toward fulfilling the agency’s

mission. The program evaluation information is insufficient to determine

the scope and methodology or the key issues to be addressed. Without this

information, it is difficult to determine how or if scheduled evaluations

relate to Transportation’s goals.

Transportation’s draft plan does not identify the crosscutting activities nor

show evidence of interagency coordination. Supporting documents that

Transportation used to prepare its draft plan indicate that the Department

considered a number of crosscutting issues but did not include the

information in the plan. Again, however, one of the science-related

strategies outlined in Transportation’s draft strategic plan focuses on

research and technology to foster economic growth and enable research

and education. Transportation’s draft plan recognizes that there are other

federal stakeholders and provides for establishing partnerships. However,

it is silent on whether the Department coordinated with other federal

agencies that have programs and activities that are crosscutting or similar

to Transportation’s. According to a senior Transportation official,

coordination is an ongoing activity and no specific coordination was done

for the purposes of preparing the draft plan.

In conclusion, the Results Act process provides an opportunity for

agencies to begin improving the coordination and execution of

crosscutting science issues across the federal government. The lack of

coordinated performance goals that are results-oriented may be

problematic as the Congress begins to evaluate programs and activities

that are crosscutting among the science agencies. In addition, fully

resolving the problem of potential overlap and duplication will take time

7

We reviewed the draft strategic plan provided to congressional committees on July 2, 1997.

Page 8 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
and require sustained leadership by this Committee, OMB, and agency

senior management to ensure that science agencies coordinate their

efforts and develop coordinated goals among crosscutting programs and

activities. Congressional consultations on agencies’ strategic plans provide

an ongoing opportunity for the Congress and the executive branch to work

together to minimize the extent and potential consequences of overlap and

fragmentation in federal program efforts. Special attention devoted to

crosscutting issues and coordination activities in the strategic plans will

improve this consultation process. Congressional oversight, such as is

occurring here today, is also key.

This concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any

questions you or the Members of the Committee may have.

Page 9 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
Page 10 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
Page 11 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
Related GAO Reports

Results Act: Observations on the National Science Foundation’s Draft

Strategic Plan (GAO/RCED-97-203R, July 11, 1997).

Results Act: Observations on the Department of Energy’s Draft Strategic

Plan (GAO/RCED-97-199R, July 11, 1997).

The Results Act: Observations on Commerce’s June 1997 Draft Strategic

Plan (GAO/GGD-97-152R, July 14, 1997).

Results Act: Observations on NASA’s May 1997 Draft Strategic Plan

(GAO/NSIAD-97-205R, July 22, 1997).

Results Act: Observations on Environmental Protection Agency’s Draft

Strategic Plan (GAO/RCED-97-209R, July 30, 1997).

Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation’s Draft

Strategic Plan (GAO/RCED-97-208R, July 30, 1997).

(141090) Page 12 GAO/T-RCED-97-220
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

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

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

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

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100