United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on Government Reform and

Oversight

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

10:00 a.m., EST

Wednesday

February 12, 1997

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and

Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

Statement of James F. Hinchman

Acting Comptroller General of the United States

GAO/T-GGD-97-43

Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss how Congress can use the

Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as it seeks to reduce the

cost and improve the performance of the federal government. There is a

broad consensus within the federal government, and among students of its

institutions, that part of the solution to the federal government’s fiscal

problems must be better management of its programs and activities. The

American people also are rightly demanding that government operate in a

more efficient and businesslike manner. However, improving management

in the federal sector will be no easy task, but GPRA can assist in

accomplishing it.

As its title indicates, GPRA’s focus is on results. In crafting GPRA, Congress

recognized that congressional and executive branch decisionmaking had

been severely handicapped by the absence in many agencies of the basic

underpinnings of well-managed organizations. Our work has found

numerous examples of management-related challenges stemming from

unclear agency missions; the lack of results-oriented performance goals;

the absence of well-conceived agency strategies to meet those goals; and

the failure to gather and use accurate, reliable, and timely program

performance and cost information to measure progress in achieving

results.

In recent years, Congress has put in place a statutory framework for

addressing these long-standing challenges and helping Congress and the

executive branch make the difficult trade-offs that the current budget

environment demands. This framework includes as its essential elements

the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act; information technology reform

legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the

Clinger-Cohen Act; and GPRA. The CFO Act, as expanded and amended by

the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), spelled out an ambitious

and long overdue agenda to address the lack of timely, reliable, useful, and

consistent financial information in the federal government. The

information technology reform legislation is directed at more effective

management and use of information technology to better support

agencies’ missions and improve program performance. GPRA—with its

focus on clarifying missions, setting programmatic goals, and measuring

performance towards those goals—is the centerpiece of this statutory

framework.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

In enacting this framework, Congress was seeking to create a more

focused, results-oriented management decisionmaking process within

both Congress and the executive branch. These laws each responded to a

need for accurate, reliable information for executive branch and

congressional decisionmaking, information that has been sadly lacking in

the past, as much of our work has demonstrated. Implemented together,

these laws provide a powerful framework for developing fully integrated

information about agencies’ missions and strategic priorities,

results-oriented performance goals that flow from those priorities,

performance data to show the achievement (or not) of those goals, the

relationship of information technology investments to the achievement of

performance goals, and accurate and audited financial information about

the costs of achieving mission outcomes.

As agreed with the Committee, today I will provide an overview of the

major management challenges that our work has shown agencies face. I

will then discuss how GPRA can be used to address those challenges and

better ensure that agencies are the focused, results-driven organizations

that today’s fiscal environment requires. I will conclude with some

suggestions for Congress to consider about how it can use GPRA to enhance

congressional oversight and decisionmaking. My statement is based on a

large body of work we have done on management and operational issues

across agencies and levels of government.1

 This work includes our

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

and Results Act, which draws on the experiences of leading public sector

organizations and suggests a path that agencies can take to implement

GPRA.

2

 My statement is also based on the work we are completing to meet

the requirement in GPRA that we report by June 1 of this year on the act’s

implementation and prospects for governmentwide compliance.

GPRA seeks to shift the focus of federal management and decisionmaking

from a preoccupation with the number of tasks completed or services

provided to a more direct consideration of the results of programs—that

is, the real differences the tasks or services provided make in people’s

lives. As a starting point, GPRA requires executive agencies to

complete—no later than September 30 of this year—strategic plans in

which they define their missions, establish results-oriented goals, and

identify the strategies they will use to achieve those goals. GPRA requires

1

Some of these products, along with other relevant GAO work, are listed in the “Related GAO

Products” section at the end of this statement.

2

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act

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

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

agencies to consult with Congress and solicit the input of others as they

develop these plans. Next, beginning with fiscal year 1999, executive

agencies are to use their strategic plans to prepare annual performance

plans. These performance plans are to include annual goals linked to the

activities displayed in budget presentations as well as the indicators the

agency will use to measure performance against the results-oriented goals.

Agencies are subsequently to report each year on the extent to which

goals were met, provide an explanation if these goals were not met, and

present the actions needed to meet any unmet goals.

Federal Effectiveness

Has Been Undermined

by Major Management

Challenges

Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency must now ask itself some

basic questions: What is our mission? What are our goals, and how can we

measure our performance? How will we achieve those goals? How will we

use performance information to make improvements? The questions that

must be addressed to implement GPRA are directly related to the most

pressing management challenges that we have identified through our

work. These long-standing management challenges must be successfully

addressed if the federal government is to become more effective and

better managed.

Clarifying the Agency

Mission

Efforts to build an effective and efficient organization must begin with a

clearly defined mission—a concrete sense of why the organization exists

and what it is to accomplish. Over the years, our work has identified

instances where an agency’s effectiveness was hampered by the lack of a

clearly defined mission.

For example, our work has shown that the Department of Energy (DOE)

needs to reevaluate its basic mission.3 DOE’s responsibilities and priorities

have changed dramatically over time. The DOE of today is a very different

organization from what it was in 1977 when as a newly created agency, its

mission was to respond to a perceived national energy crisis. Thus, while

energy research, conservation, and policymaking dominated early DOE

priorities, national defense and environmental cleanup now overshadow

those areas. Meanwhile, new mission areas in science and industrial

competitiveness have emerged and are pressing for priority attention. With

each new phase, DOE leadership brought a vastly different agenda

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

managed. These shifts have contributed to uneven performance in many

3

Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges In Implementing GPRA In Science Agencies

(GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

mission areas. For example, during the time that DOE emphasized nuclear

weapons production, it gave little attention to the environmental

consequences. In part as a result, environmental cleanup will now cost

between $189 and $265 billion by DOE’s estimate.

DOE is undertaking strategic planning efforts intended, among other things,

to ensure that it is identifying and addressing its critical mission areas and

setting priorities for its efforts. Sustained congressional involvement in

DOE’s planning efforts, and in the similar efforts under way at other

agencies, is vital both to ensure that missions are based in statute and to

identify cases where statutory requirements need to be modified or

clarified.

While progress is needed in better defining the missions of individual

agencies, it is equally important to manage and coordinate federal program

efforts that cut across several agencies. Our work has shown that program

area after program area—such as federal land management, food safety,

and early childhood development—suffers from fragmented and

overlapping initiatives.4

 Such unfocused efforts waste scarce funds,

confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall

effectiveness of the federal effort. As Congress provides input to agencies’

strategic plans, it can insist that agencies show how their programs are

aligned with related efforts in other agencies. Congress can also use the

planning process to seek opportunities to streamline government by

comparing the effectiveness of similar program efforts carried out by

different agencies.

Establishing

Results-Oriented

Performance Goals

As successful organizations define their missions, they also establish

results-oriented performance goals that can be used to assess whether

they are fulfilling their missions. We are finding that many agencies have a

difficult time moving from measuring program activities to establishing

results-oriented goals and managing to achieve those results.

The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers an example of goal-setting

and performance measurement efforts that could be better focused on

mission. SBA was created to help small businesses and strengthen the

overall economy by increasing business and job opportunities. However, it

had no results-oriented performance goals for its section 8(a) Minority

4

See, for example, Federal Land Management: Streamlining and Reorganization Issues

(GAO/T-RCED-96-209, June 27, 1996); Food Safety: A Unified, Risk-Based Food Safety System Needed

(GAO/T-RCED-94-223, May 25, 1994); and Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and

Overlapping Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct. 31, 1994).

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

Enterprise Development Program, even though Congress defined the

success of this program in its enabling legislation. This legislation defined

success as “the number of competitive firms that exit the program without

being unreasonably reliant on section 8(a) contracts and that are able to

compete on an equal basis in the mainstream of the American economy.”5

We and SBA’s Inspector General have pointed to the need for SBA to

measure the success of the program as defined by Congress.6 SBA officials

are now committed to gathering the information to track how many firms

leaving the program are not reliant on section 8(a) contracts—a major first

step in determining whether the program is helping small businesses as

intended.

The fundamental reason that establishing results-oriented goals is so

difficult is that, to set such goals, agencies must move beyond what they

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

influence—their results. Many federal services are delivered through third

parties, such as states and nonprofit organizations, that may have goals

that differ from those of the federal government. Moreover, in some

program areas, such as basic scientific research, it can take years before

the results, if any, of the federal effort become apparent. And even then, it

can be very difficult to identify the extent to which the federal effort led to

a given result. The consultation process is a vehicle for Congress and

agencies to use to reach an understanding of the challenges confronting

particular programs and agreement on what goals are appropriate given

those challenges.

Designing Strategies to

Meet Results-Oriented

Goals

Congress rightfully expects that each agency’s plans and programs will

make efficient use of budgetary resources and that, if reductions need to

be made, those resources will be used in a way that maintains, to the

fullest extent possible, the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. Our

work has shown that many agencies are currently struggling to develop

coherent strategies for restructuring their organizations, workforces, and

operations to meet results-oriented goals.

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

information technology. The sound application and management of

information technology to support strategic goals must be an important

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

5

102 Stat. 3856, Nov. 15, 1988.

6

Small Business: SBA Cannot Assess the Success of Its Minority Business Development Program

(GAO/T-RCED-94-278, July 27, 1994) and 8(a) Competitive Business Mix Requirements (SBA OIG Audit

Report No. 5-3-E-101-021, Sept. 29, 1995).

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

costs, and enhance responsiveness to the public. The successful

implementation of information technology reform legislation—which

among other things, requires that agencies have a strategy that links

technology investments to achieving programmatic results—is critical to

ensuring the wise use of the billions of dollars the government is investing

in information systems.

More generally, we have found that agencies need to do a better job of

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

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

have a comprehensive strategy to restructure its operations to adjust to

today’s needs.7

 State’s vast network of embassies and consulates, together

with the way they are configured and operated, has remained largely

unchanged despite communications and transportation advances,

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

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

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

order to reduce its operating costs.

Generating Program

Performance and Cost

Information

Conclusions about what the government is accomplishing with the

taxpayers’ money cannot be drawn without adequate program

performance and cost information. Viewing program performance in light

of program costs as envisioned by GPRA—for instance, by establishing the

unit cost per output or outcome achieved—can help Congress make

informed decisions. Unfortunately, program and cost information has not

always been present or reliable enough either to use in decisionmaking or

to provide the requisite public accountability for the use of taxpayers’

money. With successful implementation, the audited financial statements

required by the CFO Act, as expanded by GMRA, will provide congressional

and executive branch decisionmakers with the financial and program cost

information that they have not previously had. This information is to be

provided to decisionmakers in results-oriented reports on the

government’s program results and financial condition that, for the first

time, integrate budget, financial, and program information. These reports

are also to include cost information that enables users to relate costs to

outputs and outcomes.

The Department of Defense (DOD) provides an example of persistent

management problems—among the most severe in government—that

7

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

1996).

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

leave an agency without the most basic financial information.8 Without

this information, DOD is unable to properly manage its vast resources,

including a budget of over $250 billion in fiscal year 1996 and over $1

trillion in assets worldwide. For example, critical cost data is absent for

almost all of DOD’s noncash assets, such as inventories, equipment,

aircraft, and missiles. The DOD’s financial management problems are the

products of years of neglect, and building a workable financial

management structure in DOD is a correspondingly long-term project.

These problems have been candidly acknowledged by the Chief Financial

Officer and other DOD leaders. As part of their implementation of the

requirements of the CFO Act, they are taking some encouraging steps

toward addressing DOD’s financial management deficiencies.

Leading Organizations

Provide a Roadmap

for Effective

Implementation of

GPRA

When it passed GPRA, Congress clearly understood that most agencies

would need to make fundamental management changes to properly

implement this law and that these changes would not come quickly or

easily. As a result, Congress included a pilot phase in GPRA for fiscal years

1994 through 1996. During this phase, selected agencies were to gain

experience in the annual goal-setting and performance measurement

requirements of the act and provide lessons for other agencies. About 70

federal organizations, including components of most cabinet departments

and major independent agencies, participated in this pilot phase.

In addition, at the request of this Committee and the Senate Governmental

Affairs Committee, we undertook a number of studies intended to help

agencies implement GPRA. For example, we were asked to study leading

foreign and state governments that were successfully pursuing

management reform initiatives consistent with GPRA and thereby becoming

more results-oriented.9

 We further were asked whether the experiences of

these and other public sector organizations could yield worthwhile lessons

for agencies as they attempt to implement GPRA. Our June 1996 Executive

Guide is our response to that request. The Executive Guide identifies a set

of key steps and associated practices that leading federal and other public

sector organizations have used to successfully implement reform efforts

consistent with GPRA. Accompanying the discussion of each practice is a

case illustration of a federal agency that has made progress in

incorporating that practice into its operations.

8

See, for example, DOD Accounting Systems: Efforts to Improve System for Navy Need Overall

Structure (GAO/AIMD-96-99, Sept. 30, 1996).

9

Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms

(GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995) and Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for

Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec. 21, 1994).

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

Taken together, the key steps and practices drawn from the organizations

we studied provide a useful framework to assist Congress and the

executive branch as they work to implement GPRA. Although each of the

leading organizations we studied set its agenda for management reform

according to its own environment, needs, and capabilities, they all

commonly took three key steps. These steps were to (1) define mission

and desired outcomes or results, (2) measure performance to gauge

progress, and (3) use performance information as a basis for

decisionmaking. In taking these steps, leading organizations also found

that certain leadership practices, such as devolving operational authority

and creating incentives for managers and staff to focus on results, were

central to making the changes needed for the organizations to become

more results-oriented. The key steps and associated practices are

illustrated in the following figure.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

Figure 1: Key Steps and Critical Practices for Implementing GPRA

Reinforce GPRA Implementation

Practices:

9. Devolve decisionmaking

with accountability

10. Create incentives

11. Build expertise

12. Integrate management

reforms

Step 1:

Define Mission and

Desired Outcomes

Practices:

1. Involve stakeholders

2. Assess environment

3. Align activities,

core processes,

and resources

Step 2:

Measure Performance

Practices:

4. Produce measures at

each organizational

level that

demonstrate results,

are limited to the vital

few,

respond to multiple

priorities, and

link to responsible

programs

5. Collect data

Step 3:

Use Performance

Information

Practices:

6. Identify performance

gaps

7. Report information

8. Use information

Source: Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act

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

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

The experiences of public sector organizations that have implemented

public management reforms consistent with GPRA show that, while

performance improvements are possible, it takes time for agencies to

discard old approaches to management and accountability that focus on

activities and to make the transition to a broader focus on results. In fact,

at this early stage in the implementation process, we are finding that the

agencies making the most progress in implementing GPRA are those that

recognize they still have many implementation challenges to solve, while

those making the least progress tend to see little difference between the

requirements of GPRA and the way they have traditionally done business.

Successful organizations generally find that the significant improvements

in performance envisioned by GPRA require major changes in how they do

business, including adjustments in policies, organizational structures,

program content, and core business processes. Our Executive Guide

provides some illustrations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA) traditionally carried out its mission by concentrating its efforts on

post-natural-disaster assistance. However, spurred by intense external

criticism, FEMA stepped back and asked itself the fundamental mission

question: What is our purpose? FEMA concluded that its mission was to

help to mitigate the effects of disasters before they take place rather than

just respond to a disaster after it occurs. As a result, FEMA expanded its

efforts. For example, it now works with local governments to strengthen

building codes so that buildings are better able to withstand disasters, and

it has launched an effort to increase the number of flood insurance

policyholders to help individuals recover from disasters.

The experiences of the GPRA pilot agencies and other federal efforts

consistent with GPRA show that improvements in performance—sometimes

substantial ones—are possible when an organization adopts a disciplined

approach to defining its mission and desired results, measuring its

performance, and using information to make decisions. For example, as

highlighted in our Executive Guide, the Veterans Health Administration

improved services to veterans by more rigorously assessing the results of

the medical care it provides to the nation’s veterans. In particular, the

Veterans Health Administration reported that it used performance

information to target the most important improvement opportunities and

thereby lowered the mortality rate for cardiac procedures by an average

13 percent over the last 8 years. As another example of reexamining a

mission, the Coast Guard shifted the focus of its marine safety program

from regulation to one that includes education. This change contributed to

Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

a significant decline in the towing industry fatality rate—from 91 per

100,000 industry employees in 1990 to 27 per 100,000 in 1995.

GPRA Can Assist

Congressional

Decisionmaking

Congress can use GPRA as the centerpiece of a statutory framework to

provide the vital information it needs to better make decisions. The

congressional consultations on agencies’ strategic plans—which in many

cases are beginning now—provide an important opportunity for Congress

and the executive branch to work together to ensure that missions are

focused, goals are results-oriented and clearly established, and strategies

and funding expectations are appropriate and reasonable. The experiences

of leading organizations suggest that planning efforts that have such

characteristics can become driving forces in improving the effectiveness

and efficiency of program operations. The GPRA strategic planning process

thus provides Congress with a potentially powerful vehicle for clarifying

its expectations for agencies and expanding the focus on results expected

from funding decisions.

In testimony before this Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs

Committee last March, the former Comptroller General suggested several

key GPRA-related questions that Congress could ask agencies to help

support congressional decisionmaking. These questions centered on

determining how well agencies are measuring outcomes and how GPRA

performance goals and information are being used to drive daily

operations.10 These and similar questions directly related to the

management challenges that I have discussed today can elicit important

information needed for the making of more informed congressional

decisions. The key steps and practices for effective implementation of

GPRA identified in our Executive Guide suggest additional topics for

Congress to pursue to ensure that agencies become results-oriented

organizations that generate the information Congress and citizens need to

assess whether the results are satisfactory.

Over the longer term, we have advocated that congressional committees of

jurisdiction hold annual or at least biennial comprehensive oversight on

each department and major independent agency. The plans and reports

that agencies are to develop under GPRA and the audited financial

statements that are to be prepared under the CFO Act, as expanded by

GMRA, should serve as the basis for those hearings. In addition, broad

accountability reports, which for the first time would present in one place

10Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong Congressional Role

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

Page 11 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

a full range of financial, program performance, and management

information, could be used to shape those hearings.

Consistent with GMRA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked

with six agencies to pilot the development of consolidated accountability

reports for fiscal year 1995. By integrating the separate reporting

requirements of GPRA, the CFO Act, and other specified acts, the

accountability reports are intended to show the degree to which an agency

met its goals, at what cost, and whether the agency was well run. We have

endorsed the concept of an integrated accountability report and are

pleased that OMB has expanded the pilot efforts to allow additional

agencies to produce reports for fiscal year 1996. These reports have the

potential to provide Congress with comprehensive “report cards” on the

degree to which agencies are making wise and effective use of tax dollars.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, GPRA, the CFO Act, and the information

technology reform legislation can be extremely valuable tools to help

Congress and agencies address long-standing managerial problems that

have been a source of frustration to everyone. Sustained congressional

attention to this statutory framework, in a variety of formal and informal

settings, is needed to underscore for agencies the importance that

Congress places on the successful implementation of these laws. In

particular, Congress needs to continue to send the unmistakable message

that it is serious about GPRA, intends to use it as a basis for

decisionmaking, and looks forward to being actively involved in the

consultation process. Strong bipartisan support will enhance that

message. Both Congress and the executive branch have a vested interest in

successfully implementing GPRA. Successful implementation will provide

Congress and the agencies with the management framework and the

information needed to focus on program results, make the hard financial

decisions dictated by the current fiscal environment, and improve the

capability of the federal government to deliver services with the

effectiveness and the efficiency the American people deserve and rightly

demand.

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

any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

Page 12 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Statement 

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist

Congressional and Executive Branch

Decisionmaking

Page 13 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Related GAO Products

Community Development: Status of Urban Empowerment Zones

(GAO/RCED-97-21, Dec. 20, 1996).

Information Technology Investment: Agencies Can Improve Performance,

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

State Department: Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions

(GAO/NSIAD-96-124, Aug. 29, 1996).

Federal Downsizing: Better Workforce and Strategic Planning Could Have

Made Buyouts More Effective (GAO/GGD-96-62, Aug. 26, 1996).

Information Management Reform: Effective Implementation Is Essential

for Improving Federal Performance (GAO/T-AIMD-96-132, July 17, 1996).

Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges In Implementing GPRA In

Science Agencies (GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance

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

Addressing the Deficit: Updating the Budgetary Implications of Selected

GAO Work (GAO/OCG-96-5, June 28, 1996).

Budget and Financial Management: Progress and Agenda for the Future

(GAO/T-AIMD-96-80, Apr. 23, 1996).

Budget Issues: Deficit Reduction and the Long Term (GAO/T-AIMD-96-66,

Mar. 13, 1996).

Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong

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

GPRA Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).

Transforming the Civil Service: Building The Workforce of the Future,

Results of A GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 20, 1995).

Financial Management: Continued Momentum Essential to Achieve CFO

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

Page 14 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Related GAO Products

Deficit Reduction: Opportunities to Address Long-Standing Government

Performance Issues (GAO/T-OCG-95-6, Sept. 13, 1995).

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

Financial Management: Momentum Must Be Sustained to Achieve the

Reform Goals of the Chief Financial Officers Act (GAO/T-AIMD-95-204, July 25,

1995).

Managing for Results: Status of the Government Performance and Results

Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995).

Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal

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

Government Reorganization: Issues and Principles (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166,

May 17, 1995).

Department of Energy: Need to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions

(GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan. 18, 1995).

Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic

Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).

Food Safety: A Unified, Risk-Based Food Safety System Needed

(GAO/T-RCED-94-223, May 25, 1994).

(410111) Page 15 GAO/T-GGD-97-43
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