United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Subcommittee on Management, Information

and Technology

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

For Release on

Delivery Expected at

9:30 a.m. EDT

Tuesday

June 3, 1997

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Prospects for Effective

Implementation of

the Government

Performance and Results

Act

Statement of L. Nye Stevens, Director

Federal Management and Workforce Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-113

Summary 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

The Government Performance and Results Act, which is referred to as

“GPRA” or “the Results Act,” seeks to shift the focus of federal management

and decisionmaking away from a preoccupation with the activities that are

undertaken—such as grants or inspections made—to a focus on the

results of those activities—such as real gains in employability, safety,

responsiveness, or environmental quality. Under the Results Act, GAO was

to report to Congress by this week on the Act’s implementation. Yesterday,

GAO released its report in response to that mandate.

GAO’s work shows that to this point, the implementation of the Results Act

has achieved mixed results, which will lead to highly uneven

governmentwide implementation in the fall of 1997. On the one hand, GAO

found that the experiences of some of the Results Act pilot agencies and

related efforts by nonpilot agencies showed that significant performance

improvements were possible when an agency adopted a disciplined

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

using performance information to improve effectiveness. On the other

hand, GAO’s survey of a random sample of civilian managers and

supervisors in 24 major executive branch agencies found that although

there had been progress over the last 3 years, managers reported that

many agencies did not appear to be well positioned to provide in 1997 an

answer to the fundamental Results Act question of whether programs have

produced real results.

GAO found that agencies are confronting five key challenges that have

limited the effective implementation of the Results Act. These challenges

include those associated with (1) establishing clear agency missions and

strategic goals, especially when program efforts are overlapping or

fragmented; (2) measuring performance, particularly when the federal

contribution to a result is difficult to determine; (3) generating the

results-oriented performance information needed to set goals and assess

progress; (4) instilling a results-oriented organizational culture within

agencies; and (5) linking performance plans to the budget process.

Addressing some of these challenges will raise significant policy issues for

Congress and the administration to consider, some of which will likely be

very difficult to resolve. GAO noted that the Act’s success or failure should

not be judged on whether contentious policy issues are fully resolved;

rather, judgment of the success or failure of the Act should turn on the

extent to which the information produced through the required

goal-setting and performance measurement practices—once those

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Summary 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

practices are successfully implemented—helps inform policy decisions

and improve program management.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss the status of the implementation

of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the prospects

for its effective governmentwide implementation. In essence, the Act,

which is referred to as “GPRA” or “the Results Act,” seeks to shift the focus

of federal management and decisionmaking away from a preoccupation

with the activities that are undertaken—such as grants or inspections

made—to a focus on the results of those activities—such as real gains in

employability, safety, responsiveness, or environmental quality.

Congress understood that the management changes required to effectively

implement the Results Act would not come quickly or easily. The Act

therefore included a phased implementation approach that began in fiscal

year 1994 with pilot projects on the Act’s performance planning and

reporting requirements. Under the Results Act, we were to report to

Congress by this week on the implementation of the Act, including the

prospects for compliance by executive agencies beyond those that

participated in the pilot phase.

Yesterday, we released our report responding to that mandate, and, as

requested by the Subcommittee, my comments today are based on that

report.1

 We drew on a large body of work we have done in recent years on

the Results Act and on related goal-setting, performance measurement,

and accountability concepts. We also surveyed a random sample of civilian

managers and supervisors at the general schedule (GS) and general

management (GM) levels GS/GM-13 through Senior Executive Service (SES)

levels in 24 major executive branch agencies.2

 These 24 agencies

accounted for over 99 percent of the federal government’s net outlays for

fiscal year 1996. The sample was stratified by whether the manager was

SES or non-SES and by whether the manager was working in an agency or

agency component that was designated as a Results Act pilot and that we

were able to isolate in drawing our sample. Of the approximately 1,300

managers surveyed, we received usable responses from about 72 percent.

The overall survey results are statistically generalizable to the 24 agencies

included in the survey. The survey data in our report that I will discuss

today are the estimated percentages of how officials would have

1

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

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

2

In reporting this survey data, when we use the term “manager” or “federal manager,” we are referring

to both managers and supervisors.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

responded had the entire universe of eligible officials been surveyed. In

general, percentages reported for the entire sample have confidence

intervals ranging from + 5 percentage points to + 12 percentage points. In

other words, if all managers in the 24 agencies included in our population

had been surveyed, the chances are 95 out of a 100 that the results

obtained would not differ from the sample estimate, in the most extreme

case, by more than + 12 percentage points.

Progress in

Implementing the

Results Act Has Been

Mixed

Our work shows that, to this point, the implementation of the Results Act

has achieved mixed results, which will lead to highly uneven

governmentwide implementation in the fall of 1997. Although agencies are

likely to meet the upcoming statutory deadlines for producing initial

strategic plans and annual performance plans, we found that those

documents will not be of a consistently high quality or as useful for

congressional and agency decisionmaking as they could be. On a more

positive note, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) selected over 70

performance planning and reporting pilots that far exceeded the number

required by the Act and that should provide a rich body of experience for

agencies to draw on in the future. Congress, too, has shown a growing

interest in and support for the governmentwide implementation of the Act.

For example, the House Majority has established teams consisting of staff

from various committees to lead its strategic plan consultation efforts.

These teams have been reaching out to agencies to review and comment

on agencies’ strategic plans.

We also found that the experiences of some of the Results Act pilot

agencies and related efforts by nonpilot agencies showed that significant

performance improvements were possible when an agency adopted a

disciplined approach to setting results-oriented goals, measuring its

performance, and using performance information to improve

effectiveness. For example, the Veterans Health Administration improved

services to veterans by more rigorously assessing the results of the

medical care it provides. In particular, the Veterans Health Administration

reported that it used performance information to target the most

important improvement opportunities and thereby lowered the mortality

rate for cardiac procedures by an average of 13 percent over the last 8

years.

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

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

used customer satisfaction and other performance information to identify

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

and make program changes, including providing additional staff to handle

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

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

increased from 74 to 83 percent from fiscal year 1995 to fiscal year 1996.3

Although these and other performance improvements are noteworthy, the

reported examples of substantial performance improvements were

relatively few, and many agencies did not appear to be well positioned to

provide in 1997 a results-oriented answer to the fundamental Results Act

question: What are we accomplishing? For example, we reported in

January 1997 that the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s

(HUD) Public Housing Management Assessment Program did not collect

important information needed to manage and assess its results.4

 The

program is to assess the performance of local housing authorities by

measuring factors such as the numbers of outstanding work orders and

uncollected rents. However, the system does not measure other factors,

such as housing quality, that are essential for assessing the results that

housing authorities are achieving, as well as for determining which

housing authorities are performing well or poorly.

The situation at HUD appears to be typical. We surveyed federal managers

about the extent to which critical performance measures were available

for their programs. As figure 1 shows, according to our survey, only

32 percent of federal managers said that, to a great or very great extent,

they have the types of performance measures that would demonstrate

whether their programs or operations were achieving their intended result.

The figure also shows that 38 percent or less of federal managers reported

having, to a great or very great extent, other important performance

measures, such as efficiency and quality measures.

3

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

Feb. 20, 1997).

4

Public Housing: HUD Should Improve the Usefulness and Accuracy of Its Management Assessment

Program (GAO/RCED-97-27, Jan. 29, 1997).

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

Figure 1:

GAO Managers' Responses Show Key 

Performance Measures Lacking

0

20

40

60

80

100

27

19

11

19 17

38

32 32 31

26

Demonstrate to others if

 programs are achieving

 intended results

Types of performance measures

 Tell if programs are

 satisfying customers 

 Tell about the quality

of the products or services

 provided by programs

Tell how many things

 produced or 

 services provided

 by programs

Tell if programs are

 operating efficiently

Percent of managers reporting existence of measures to a great/very great extent

3 years ago

Currently

Source: GAO survey data.

As indicated in figure 1, while still viewed as low, significantly more

managers reported the existence of results-oriented and other

performance measures to a greater extent currently than 3 years ago. For

example, when asked to recollect what the situation was 3 years ago,

19 percent of federal managers reported that, to a great or very great

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

extent, they had results-oriented measures, compared to 32 percent who

reported that they had such measures today. This represents a

13 percentage point change over what federal managers perceived the

situation to have been 3 years ago, suggesting that results-oriented

performance information, which is essential to the success of the Results

Act, is becoming more widely available.

Obviously, it is not sufficient merely to measure current performance. The

Results Act envisions that performance information will be used to make

decisions and better manage programs. We asked federal managers about

the extent to which results-oriented performance information was used to

help make key decisions about their programs. As figure 2 shows, the

reported use of such information was limited.

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

Figure 2:

GAO Managers' Responses Show Limited Use of 

Results-Oriented Performance Information

0

20

40

60

80

100

16 14 12 9

21 20

16 13

Used by the agency to

 help develop its budget 

Uses of results-oriented performance information

Used as the basis for

 funding decisions 

 Used as the basis for

 program changes by

 management above

 respondent

Used as the basis for

 legislative changes

Percent of managers reporting use of performance information to a great/very great extent

3 years ago

Currently

Source: GAO survey data.

Similar to the situation with performance measures, federal managers

reported some positive changes in what they recollected the situation to

have been 3 years ago. Although these changes are statistically significant

for most of the uses shown in the figure, these changes have been modest.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

Even among those federal managers who reported that, to a great or very

great extent, they had measures that demonstrate their programs are

achieving intended results, their reported use of results-oriented

performance information was not high. No more than 37 percent of the

managers reported that performance information was used to a great or

very great extent to help make any of the key decisions shown in figure 2.

These survey results underscore how far agencies still have to progress in

the use of results-oriented performance information. Although there has

been progress over the last 3 years, many agencies still have not developed

the information necessary to determine whether their programs are

accomplishing their intended results. Where managers reported that their

agencies had results-oriented performance measures, the results-oriented

information generally was not being used to a great or very great extent to

help make decisions affecting their programs.

Key Challenges

Remain to Effective

Implementation of the

Results Act

We found that agencies are confronting five key challenges that have

limited the implementation of the Results Act. These challenges include

those associated with (1) establishing clear agency missions and strategic

goals, especially when program efforts are overlapping or fragmented;

(2) measuring performance, particularly when the federal contribution to a

result is difficult to determine; (3) generating the results-oriented

performance information needed to set goals and assess progress;

(4) instilling a results-oriented organizational culture within agencies; and

(5) linking performance plans to the budget process. As Congress

recognized when it passed the Results Act and as the experiences of pilot

agencies and related efforts by nonpilot agencies suggest, these challenges

will not be quickly or easily resolved. I will briefly describe each of these

five challenges and give some examples.

Establishing Clear

Missions and Strategic

Goals

One challenge to the effective implementation of the Results Act is

traceable to overlapping and fragmented program efforts. Crosscutting

program efforts, such as student loan or economic development programs,

present the logical need to coordinate efforts to ensure that goals are

consistent and, as appropriate, that program efforts are mutually

reinforcing. We found that, when this is not done, overlapping and

fragmented program efforts can undermine efforts to establish clear

missions and goals. Such uncoordinated overlapping and fragmented

program efforts can frustrate program customers, waste scarce resources,

and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort.

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

For example, we reported in 1995 on the Department of Education

programs that provided loans and grants to students to help finance their

higher education.5

 We found that although the student loan and Pell grant

programs provided the majority of federal financial aid to students for

postsecondary education, another 22 smaller programs were targeted to

specific segments of the postsecondary school population, such as

prospective students from disadvantaged families or women and

minorities who are underrepresented in graduate education. These 22

programs were collectively funded at $1.1 billion for fiscal year 1995. We

concluded that these smaller grant programs could be considered

candidates for consolidation—with other larger programs or among

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

education. We also found that the federal government could anticipate

administrative savings of 10 percent each year, or a total of $550 million in

budget authority (adjusted for inflation) over 5 years.

In addition to the problem of overlapping and fragmented programs,

agencies are challenged in setting goals because those goals often must

reflect a balance of competing policy priorities. For example, we reported

in April 1997 that the Forest Service had increasingly shifted the emphasis

of its efforts from producing timber to sustaining wildlife.6

 This shift was

taking place in reaction to requirements in planning and environmental

laws and their judicial interpretation—reflecting changing public values

and concerns—together with social, ecological, and other factors.

However, we noted that the demand for recreation was also expected to

grow and may increasingly conflict with efforts to sustain wildlife and

produce timber. We found that the disagreement both within the Forest

Service and among key external stakeholders, including Congress, on how

the Forest Service is to resolve conflicts or make choices among

competing uses on its lands had seriously undermined its efforts to

establish the goals and performance measures needed to ensure

accountability. We concluded that until general agreement is reached, the

Forest Service’s decisionmaking is likely to continue to be inefficient and

ineffective.

5

Department of Education: Information on Consolidation Opportunities and Student Aid

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

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

6

Forest Service Decision-Making: A Framework for Improving Performance (GAO/RCED-97-71,

Apr. 29, 1997).

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

Measuring Performance A second challenge to the effective implementation of the Results Act is

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

determining whether a desired result is achieved, which complicates the

effort to measure the discrete federal contribution to a specific result. Our

work has shown that measuring the federal contribution is particularly

challenging for regulatory programs; scientific research programs; and

programs that deliver services to taxpayers through third parties, such as

state and local governments. For example, determining the impact of

economic development programs has been a daunting task because of the

numerous external forces—including broad national economic trends and

the assistance that communities may receive from state and local

governments and the private sector—that may contribute to local

economic development.

Separating out the effects of federal program efforts can be extremely

difficult, as we observed in a 1996 review of economic development

programs, because it would require, first, documentation that there had

been some improvement in a targeted area; second, linkage of specific

program elements to actual economic changes; and third, measurement of

the growth stemming from other influences on the economy of the

targeted area in order to isolate the impact that could be attributed to the

economic development program.7

Some agencies are exploring approaches that begin to address the

difficulty they are having in developing useful results-oriented

performance information. Among the approaches that are detailed in our

report are (1) using impact evaluations; (2) using intermediate

performance measures; (3) using a range of measures; and (4) working

with stakeholders to identify and reach consensus on the most meaningful

measures for the program.

Generating

Results-Oriented

Performance Information

A third challenge to the effective implementation of the Results Act is the

lack of results-oriented performance information in many agencies, which

hampers efforts to identify appropriate goals and confidently assess

performance. Even when data exist, we have consistently found that the

quality of agencies’ performance data is often questionable due to several

factors, including the need to rely on third parties to provide data. For

example, Department of Veterans Affairs officials told us that some of

their results-oriented measures for a Loan Guaranty program were new

7

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

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

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

and that baseline data were not available on those measures.

Consequently, they did not have data on past performance to use in setting

some of the program’s fiscal year 1998 goals. In some of these cases, the

Department indicated in its fiscal year 1998 budget submission that those

goals were “to be determined.” In another example, Department of

Agriculture officials said they eliminated some performance measures that

had been part of their Results Act pilot’s annual performance plan because

they did not have a way to collect data on those measures. Lacking these

data, they did not have an informed basis on which to set goals.

Instilling a

Results-Oriented

Organizational Culture

A fourth challenge to the effective implementation of the Results Act

centers on the need to instill within agencies an organizational culture that

focuses on results, and this remains a work in progress across the federal

government. According to our survey, federal managers rated the

commitment of top leadership to achieving results as higher currently than

they did 3 years ago. However, federal managers’ responses to our survey

also suggested that not much progress has occurred in agencies to develop

and sustain cultures that focus on results. For example, when we asked

federal managers about the extent to which they or supervisors at their

levels had the authority they needed to help their agencies accomplish

their strategic goals, the federal managers did not perceive that they had

more such authority currently than they recalled having 3 years ago.

Significantly, for federal managers from the Results Act pilots that we

were able to isolate for our sample, managers’ perception of the extent of

their authority currently was much lower than their perception of the

situation 3 years ago. For example, 40 percent of SES managers from

selected pilots reported that managers at their level had authority to help

the agency accomplish its strategic goals to a great or very great extent

currently, while their perception of this extent of authority 3 years ago was

56 percent—a difference of 16 percentage points.

These survey results suggest that as agencies implement the Results Act

and strive to become more results oriented, they need to pay special

attention to ensuring that key managers have the authority they need to

achieve intended results. In passing the Results Act, Congress recognized

that if federal managers were to be held accountable for program results,

they would need the authority and flexibility to achieve those results.

Congress also understood the importance of affording federal program

managers the freedom to be innovative and creative and to marshal

resources to achieve results.

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

Thus, the Results Act authorizes agencies to apply for managerial

flexibility waivers of nonstatutory administrative procedural requirements

and controls in their annual performance plans. The Act further specified

that managerial accountability and flexibility waivers were to be piloted

during fiscal years 1995 and 1996. However, as we reported in April 1997,

the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot did not work as

intended.8

 We found that three major factors contributed to the failure of

the managerial accountability and flexibility pilot to work as intended.

First, changes in federal management practices and laws that occurred

after the Act was enacted affected agencies’ need for the waivers. Second,

agencies could use other, less rigorous, means to obtain waivers from

administrative requirements. Third, unlike its active approach to the first

set of Results Act pilots covering performance planning and reporting, OMB

did not work actively with agencies that were seeking to take part in the

managerial accountability and flexibility pilot.

Linking Performance Plans

to the Budget Process

Finally, a fifth challenge to the effective implementation of the Results Act

is the need to link agencies’ performance plans directly to the budget

process through the Results Act requirement to base the annual program

performance goals on the budget’s program activity structure.9

 We have

found that the extent to which the budget’s program activity structure can

be directly linked to a results-oriented performance framework varies

widely among activities, and adjustments and accommodations in the

program activity structure may be needed. Reaching agreement on such

changes between Congress and the executive branch will be a

time-consuming and difficult process that will likely take more than one

budget cycle to resolve.

An Augmented

Reporting Framework

Holds Promise for

Strengthening Federal

Decisionmaking and

Accountability

The Results Act is the cornerstone of a series of initiatives that are

intended to provide a comprehensive framework for integrating program,

cost, and budget information. Improved financial reporting and auditing

required by the Chief Financial Officers Act should strengthen the

reliability of cost and performance information. The Federal Accounting

Standards Advisory Board (FASAB) has developed a new set of reporting

concepts and accounting standards that underpin OMB’s guidance to

8

GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work As Intended (GAO/GGD-97-36,

Apr. 10, 1997).

9

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

Mar. 27, 1997).

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
Statement 

Managing for Results: Prospects for

Effective Implementation of the

Government Performance and Results Act

agencies on the form and content of their agencywide financial

statements.

FASAB standards include a new reporting model for federal agencies geared

to providing users with information about budgetary integrity, operating

performance, stewardship, and systems and controls. These standards also

include cost accounting standards that became effective beginning with

fiscal year 1997 and are the first set of standards that are to account for

the full costs of federal programs. For the first time, decisionmakers are to

be provided with annual “report cards” on the costs, management, and

effectiveness of federal agencies. The FASAB cost accounting standards, if

successfully implemented, are to provide decisionmakers with information

on the costs of all resources used, including the costs of services provided

by others to support activities or programs. Such information would allow

for comparisons of the costs of various programs and activities with their

performance outputs and results.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, the performance improvements already

reported strongly suggest that the basic goal-setting and performance

measurement model used by the Results Act, if successfully implemented,

will be an important tool to improve federal management and

performance. However, addressing some of the challenges that I have

highlighted today, such as crosscutting program efforts and balances

among competing priorities, will raise significant policy issues for

Congress and the administration to consider, some of which will likely be

very difficult to resolve.

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

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

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

information produced through the required goal-setting and performance

measurement practices—once those practices are successfully

implemented—helps inform policy decisions and improve program

management. Although progress thus far has been mixed and

implementation this fall will be uneven, the Results Act has shown that it

has the potential for improving the federal government’s performance and

sharpening executive branch and congressional decisionmaking.

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

questions.

(410143) Page 14 GAO/T-GGD-97-113
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