Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Government 

Efficiency and Financial Management, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

United States General Accounting Office 

GAO

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST 

Wednesday, March 31, 2004 RESULTS-ORIENTED 

GOVERNMENT 

GPRA Has Established a 

Solid Foundation for 

Achieving Greater Results 

Statement of Patricia A. Dalton, Director 

Strategic Issues 

GAO-04-594T 
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-594T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Patricia A. 

Dalton at (202) 512-6806 or 

daltonp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-04-594T, testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Government 

Efficiency and Financial Management, 

Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives 

March 2004

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT

GPRA Has Established a Solid 

Foundation for Achieving Greater Results 

GPRA’s requirements have established a solid foundation of results-oriented 

performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the federal 

government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having 

significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA 

(see fig. below). GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of resources 

to results, although much remains to be done in this area to increase the use 

of performance information to make decisions about resources. In our 

report, we also found agency strategic and annual performance plans and 

reports have improved over initial efforts. 

Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant challenges

to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top leadership commitment 

to achieving results within agencies and OMB can hinder the development of 

results-oriented cultures in agencies. Furthermore, in certain areas, federal 

managers continue to have difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, 

collecting useful data on results, and linking institutional, program, unit, and 

individual performance measurement and reward systems. Finally, there is 

an inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across federal agencies. 

OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is 

responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these 

challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management issues 

during the past several years. However, OMB has showed less commitment 

to GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and is not using the 

governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to develop an 

integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view, governmentwide 

strategic planning could better facilitate the integration of federal activities 

to achieve national goals. 

Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of Performance 

Measures Called for by GPRA 

The Government Performance and 

Results Act (GPRA) has been in 

effect for 10 years. In that context, 

the subcommittee asked GAO to 

discuss our recent report, ResultsOriented Government: GPRA Has 

Established a Solid Foundation 

for Achieving Greater Results. 

Our testimony addresses the 

effectiveness of GPRA in creating a 

focus on results in the federal 

government. 

In our recent report, we 

recommended that the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) 

improve its guidance and oversight 

of GPRA implementation, as well 

as develop a governmentwide 

performance plan. We also 

suggested that Congress consider 

amending GPRA to require that 

(1) agencies update their strategic 

plans at least once every 4 years, 

consult with congressional 

stakeholders at least once every 

new Congress, and make interim 

updates to strategic and 

performance plans as appropriate, 

and (2) the President develop a 

governmentwide strategic plan. 

OMB generally agreed with our 

recommendations, but stated that 

the President’s Budget can serve as 

both a governmentwide strategic 

and annual plan. However, we 

believe the budget provides neither 

a long-term nor an integrated 

perspective on the federal 

government’s performance. 
Page 1 GAO-04-594T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report, Results-Oriented 

Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving 

Greater Results.

1

 The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) 

was enacted in 1993 to bring about a greater focus on results in the federal 

government. Prior to the enactment of GPRA, our work on performance 

measurement in the federal government showed that federal agencies 

generally lacked the infrastructure needed to manage and report on results 

of federal programs in a way that was transparent to Congress and the 

American people. Today, based on a decade of work in this area, we can 

safely say we have seen a transformation in the capacity of the federal 

government to manage for results. This capacity includes an infrastructure 

of outcome-oriented strategic plans, performance measures, and 

accountability reporting that have significantly improved over time and 

provide a solid foundation for improving the performance of federal 

programs. However, a number of challenges to GPRA implementation 

remain. 

In light of the serious fiscal, security, and other emerging challenges the 

nation faces, having such a capacity has never been more important. 

Without effective short- and long-term planning, which takes into account 

the changing environment and needs of the American public, recognizes 

the challenges they face, and establishes goals to be achieved, federal 

agencies risk delivering programs and services that may or may not meet 

society’s most critical needs. At a cost to taxpayers of over $2 trillion 

annually, the federal government should be able to demonstrate to the 

American public that it can anticipate emerging issues, develop sound 

strategies and plans to address them, and be accountable for the results 

that have been achieved. 

My statement today will focus on the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a 

focus on results in the federal government. Specifically, I will discuss 

(1) the effect of GPRA over the last 10 years in creating a governmentwide 

focus on results and the government’s ability to deliver results to the 

American public, including an assessment of the changes in the overall 

quality of agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 

 1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a 

Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C., Mar. 10, 

2004). 
Page 2 GAO-04-594T 

performance reports, (2) the challenges agencies face in measuring 

performance and using performance information in management 

decisions, and (3) how the federal government can continue its shift 

toward a more results-oriented focus. 

To meet our reporting objectives, we reviewed our extensive prior work 

on GPRA best practices and implementation and collected 

governmentwide data to assess the government’s overall focus on results. 

We conducted a random, stratified, governmentwide survey of federal 

managers comparable to surveys we conducted in 1997 and 2000. We also 

held eight in-depth focus groups—seven composed of federal managers 

from 23 federal agencies and one with GPRA experts. We also interviewed 

top appointed officials from the current and previous administrations. 

Finally, we judgmentally selected a sample of six agencies that we 

reviewed for changes in the quality of their strategic plans, performance 

plans, and performance reports since their initial efforts. The agencies we 

selected included the Departments of Education (Education), Energy 

(DOE), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation 

(DOT) and the Small Business (SBA) and Social Security Administrations 

(SSA). We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from January through 

November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. 

GPRA is the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in 

place during the 1990s to help resolve the long-standing management 

problems that have undermined the federal government’s efficiency and 

effectiveness and to provide greater accountability for results. GPRA was 

intended to address several broad purposes, including strengthening the 

confidence of the American people in their government; improving federal 

program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing 

congressional decision making by providing more objective information 

on program performance. 

As a key part of the framework, GPRA requires executive agencies to 

complete strategic plans in which they define their missions, establish 

results-oriented goals, and identify the strategies that will be needed to 

achieve those goals. GPRA also requires executive agencies to prepare 

annual performance plans that articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal 

year that are aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Finally, GPRA 

requires agencies to measure performance toward the achievement of the 

goals in the annual performance plan and report annually on their progress 

in program performance reports. 

GPRA Established a 

Management 

Framework 
Page 3 GAO-04-594T 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays an important role in 

the management of federal government performance and, specifically, 

GPRA implementation. Part of OMB’s overall mission is to ensure that 

agency plans and reports are consistent with the President’s budget and 

administration policies. OMB is responsible for receiving and reviewing 

agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 

performance reports. To improve the quality and consistency of these 

documents, OMB issues annual guidance to agencies for their preparation, 

including guidelines on format, required elements, and submission 

deadlines. Further, GPRA requires OMB to prepare a governmentwide 

performance plan, based on agencies’ annual performance plan 

submissions. 

Ten years after enactment, GPRA’s requirements have laid a solid 

foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and 

reporting. Focus group participants and high-level political appointees, as 

well as OMB officials we interviewed, cited positive effects of GPRA that 

they generally attributed to GPRA’s statutory requirements for planning 

and reporting. Performance planning and measurement have slowly yet 

increasingly become a part of agencies’ cultures. The results of our survey 

of federal managers indicate that since GPRA went into effect 

governmentwide in 1997, federal managers reported having significantly 

more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA—

particularly outcome-oriented performance measures. Survey data also 

suggested that more federal managers, especially at the Senior Executive 

Service (SES) level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their 

agencies’ efforts under GPRA. 

One of the premises of GPRA is that both congressional and executive 

branch oversight of federal agency performance were seriously hampered 

by a lack of adequate results-oriented goals and performance information. 

Our 1992 review of the collection and use of performance data by federal 

agencies revealed that, although many agencies collected performance 

information at the program level, few agencies had results-oriented 

performance information to manage or make strategic policy decisions for 

the agency as a whole.2

 GPRA addressed agencies’ shortcomings by 

 2

United States General Accounting Office, Program Performance Measures: Federal 

Agency Collection and Use of Performance Data, GAO/GGD-92-65 (Washington, D.C.: May 

4, 1992). 

GPRA Laid the 

Foundation for a 

More ResultsOriented Federal 

Government 
Page 4 GAO-04-594T 

creating a comprehensive and consistent statutory foundation of required 

agencywide strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 

performance reports. Participants in all eight of our focus groups cited the 

creation of this statutory foundation as one of the key accomplishments of 

GPRA. Furthermore, prior to GPRA few agencies reported their 

performance information externally. In contrast, OMB officials we 

interviewed as part of our current review suggested that OMB has been a 

key consumer of agency performance information produced under GPRA 

and that it has provided a foundation for their efforts to oversee agency 

performance. Focus group participants also suggested that a major 

accomplishment of GPRA is the improved the transparency of government 

results to the American public. 

A key purpose of GPRA was “to improve the confidence of the American 

people in the capability of the Federal Government, by systematically 

holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results.” 

When asked about the direct effects of GPRA on the public, an estimated 

23 percent of the federal managers surveyed agreed to a moderate or 

greater extent that GPRA improved their agency’s ability to deliver results 

to the American public. High-level political appointees we interviewed 

cited a number of examples of how the structure of GPRA created a 

greater focus on results in their agencies. Participants in our focus groups 

had mixed perceptions of GPRA’s effect on their agencies’ ability to 

deliver results to the American public. Participants indicated GPRA has 

had a positive effect by shifting the focus of federal management from 

program activities and processes to achieving the intended results of those 

programs. Other focus group participants had difficulty attributing the 

results their agencies achieved directly to GPRA’s requirements. 

Focus group and survey results suggest that performance planning and 

measurement have slowly, but increasingly, become a part of agencies’ 

cultures. Compared to the results of our 1997 governmentwide survey of 

federal managers, in our 2003 governmentwide survey more managers 

reported having performance measures for their programs. When we 

asked managers who said they had performance measures which of the 

five types of measures they used to a “great” or “very great” extent, they 
Page 5 GAO-04-594T 

reported statistically significant increases in all five types of measures 

between 1997 and 20033

 (see fig. 1). 

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific Types of 

Performance Measures To a Great or Very Great Extent 

a

There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997 and 2003 surveys. 

Similarly, focus group participants commented on certain cultural changes 

that had taken place within their agencies since the passage of GPRA in 

which the “vocabulary” of performance planning and measurement—that 

is, a greater focus on performance measurement, orientation toward 

outcomes over inputs and outputs, and an increased focus on program 

evaluation—had become more pervasive. This perception is partly borne 

out by our survey results. Consistent with our survey results indicating 

 3

Types of measures were defined in the questionnaire as follows: Performance measures 

that tell us how many things we produce or services we provide (output measures); 

performance measures that tell us if we are operating efficiently (efficiency measures); 

performance measures that tell us whether or not we are satisfying our customers 

(customer service measures); performance measures that tell us about the quality of the 

products or services we provide (quality measures); and performance measures that would 

demonstrate to someone outside of our agency whether or not we are achieving our 

intended results (outcome measures). 
Page 6 GAO-04-594T 

increases in results-oriented performance measures and increasing GPRA 

knowledge, we also observed a significant decline in the percentage of 

federal managers who agreed that certain factors hindered measuring 

performance or using the performance information. For example, of those 

who expressed an opinion, the percentage of managers who noted that 

determining meaningful measures was a hindrance to a “great” or “very 

great” extent was down significantly from 47 percent in 1997 to 36 percent 

in 2003. Likewise, the percentage that agreed to a “great” or “very great” 

extent that different parties’ use of different definitions to measure 

performance was a hindrance also declined significantly from 49 percent 

in 1997 to 36 percent in 2003. 

Our survey data suggested that more federal managers, especially at the 

SES level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their agencies’ 

efforts under GPRA (see fig. 2), but with no corresponding increase in 

their concern that OMB would micromanage the programs in their 

agencies. In our survey, we asked respondents to assess the extent to 

which OMB pays attention to their agencies’ efforts under GPRA. In 2003, 

the percentage of respondents who responded “great” or “very great” to 

this question (31 percent) was significantly higher than in 2000 (22 

percent). Of those, SES respondents showed an even more dramatic 

increase, from 33 to 51 percent. We also asked respondents to describe the 

extent to which their concern that OMB would micromanage programs in 

their agencies was a hindrance to measuring performance or using 

performance information. The percentage among those expressing an 

opinion that it was a hindrance to a “great” or “very great” extent was 

low—around 24 percent in 2003—with no significant difference between 

2000 and 2003. 
Page 7 GAO-04-594T 

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers and SES Managers Who Reported That 

OMB Paid Attention to Their Agency’s Efforts Under GPRA to a Great or Very Great 

Extent 

a

There was a statistically significant difference between 2000 and 2003 surveys. 

The foundation of results-oriented planning and reporting that has been 

established is also reflected in the quality of the plans and reports of six 

federal agencies we reviewed for our report. Beginning with federal 

agencies’ initial efforts to develop effective strategic plans in 1997 and 

annual performance plans and reports for fiscal year 1999, Congress, GAO, 

and others have commented on the quality of those efforts and provided 

constructive feedback on how agency plans and reports could be 

improved. On the basis of our current review of the strategic plans, annual 

performance plans, and annual performance and accountability reports of 

six selected agencies—Education, DOE, HUD, DOT, SBA, and SSA—we 

found that these documents reflect much of the feedback that was 

provided. 
Page 8 GAO-04-594T 

The quality of the six agencies’ strategic plans we reviewed reflected 

improvements over these agencies’ initial strategic plans. In our current 

review, the six strategic plans we looked at reflected many new and 

continuing strengths as well as improvements over the 1997 initial draft 

plans, but we continued to find certain persistent weaknesses. Of the six 

elements required by GPRA, the plans generally discussed all but one—

program evaluation—an area in which we have found agencies often lack 

capacity. Although the strategic plans listed the program evaluations 

agencies intended to complete over the planning period, they generally did 

not address how the agencies planned to use their evaluations to establish 

new or revise existing strategic goals, as envisioned by GPRA. Finally, 

although not required by GPRA, the strategic plans would have benefited 

from more complete discussions of how agencies planned to coordinate 

and collaborate with other entities to address common challenges and 

achieve common or complementary goals and objectives. 

The six selected agencies’ fiscal year 2004 annual performance plans 

addressed some weaknesses of earlier plans, but there is still significant 

room for improvement. Most of the 2004 plans that we reviewed showed 

meaningful improvements over the fiscal year 1999 plans by showing a 

clearer picture of intended performance, providing strategies and 

resources that were more specifically related to achieving agency goals, 

and providing a greater level of confidence that performance data would 

be credible. But these plans also contained a number of serious 

weaknesses, such as inadequate discussion of coordination and 

collaboration and inconsistent or limited discussions of procedures used 

to verify and validate performance data, which limited their quality and 

undermined their usefulness. 

Our review of the six agencies’ fiscal year 2002 performance and 

accountability reports showed a number of strengths and improvements 

over their fiscal year 1999 performance reports, as well as areas that 

needed improvement. These fiscal year 2002 reports generally allowed for 

an assessment of progress made in achieving agency goals. In addition, the 

majority of agencies discussed the progress achieved in addressing 

performance and accountability challenges identified by agency inspectors 

general and GAO. However, many of the weaknesses we identified in the 

agencies’ fiscal year 2002 reports were related to the significant number of 

performance goals not achieved or for which performance data were 

unavailable. In addition, the majority of the reports we reviewed did not 

include other GPRA requirements, such as a summary of the findings from 

program evaluations. Finally, only one of the six agencies clearly linked its 

costs to the achievement of performance goals or objectives. 
Page 9 GAO-04-594T 

While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies 

more results oriented, we found numerous challenges remain. These 

challenges included (1) top leadership does not consistently show 

commitment to achieving results, (2) managers reported mixed results in 

the use of performance information, (3) managers continue to confront a 

range of human capital management challenges, (4) managers face 

persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals, measuring 

performance, and collecting useful data, (5) crosscutting issues are not 

adequately addressed, and (6) managers’ views that Congress’ use of 

performance information is limited. 

As we noted in previous GAO reports, top leadership commitment and 

sustained attention to achieving results, both within the agencies and at 

OMB, are essential to GPRA implementation. While one might expect an 

increase in agency leadership commitment since GPRA was implemented, 

our governmentwide surveys of federal managers have not shown 

significant increases. Furthermore, although OMB has recently 

demonstrated leadership in its review of performance information from a 

budgetary perspective using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) 

tool,4

 it is unclear whether the results of those reviews, such as changes in 

program performance measures, will complement and be integrated with 

the long-term, strategic focus of GPRA. OMB provided significantly less 

guidance on GPRA implementation for the fiscal year 2005 budget, 

compared to the very detailed guidance provided in prior years. Without 

consistent guidance from OMB on meeting GPRA requirements and 

following best practices, it may be difficult to maintain the improvements 

in agency performance plans and reports or bring about improvements in 

areas where weaknesses remain. 

Additionally, we found that timing issues may affect the development of 

agency strategic plans that are meaningful and useful to top leadership. 

The commitment and sustained attention of top leadership within 

agencies, OMB, and Congress is critical to the success of strategic 

planning efforts. A strategic plan should reflect the policy priorities of an 

organization’s leaders and the input of key stakeholders if it is to be an 

effective management tool. However, GPRA specifies time frames for 

 4

PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that it has been using to rate the 

effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus on program results. OMB’s goal is 

to review all federal programs over a 5-year period using the PART tool. 

Challenges to GPRA 

Implementation Exist 

Top Leadership 

Commitment 
Page 10 GAO-04-594T 

updating strategic plans that do not correspond to presidential or 

congressional terms. As a result, an agency may be required to update its 

strategic plan a year before a presidential election and without input from 

a new Congress. If a new president is elected, the updated plan is 

essentially moot and agencies must spend additional time and effort 

revising it to reflect new priorities. Our focus group participants, including 

GPRA experts, strongly agreed that this timing issue should be addressed 

by adjusting time frames to correspond better with presidential and 

congressional terms. 

The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized 

when this information is actually used by managers to bring about desired 

results. Federal managers reported mixed results in the use of 

performance information (see fig. 3). Focus group participants and survey 

respondents noted that although many federal managers understand and 

use results-oriented management concepts in their day-to-day activities, 

such as strategic planning and performance measurement, they do not 

always connect these concepts to the requirements of GPRA. According to 

our 2003 survey results, the reported use of performance information to a 

“great” or “very great” extent for nine management activities, such as 

setting program priorities or setting individual job expectations for staff, 

ranging from 41 to 66 percent, has not changed significantly since our first 

survey in 1997. One exception was the reported use to a “great” or “very 

great” extent of performance information to adopt new program 

approaches or change work processes, which was significantly lower than 

the 1997 results. GPRA’s usefulness to agency leaders and managers as a 

tool for management and accountability was cited as a key 

accomplishment numerous times by focus group participants. However, a 

number of alternative views indicated that the usefulness of GPRA as a 

management tool has been limited. Our survey data also indicate that 

managers perceive their participation in activities related to the 

development of performance information has been limited. 

Use of Performance 

Information to Manage 
Page 11 GAO-04-594T 

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information Obtained From Performance Measurement to a 

Great or Very Great Extent for Various Management Activities 

Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the extent scale. 

a

There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997 and 2003 surveys. 

b

This question was not asked in 1997. 

Human capital management considerations also pose challenges to GPRA 

implementation. In our survey, federal managers reported that they are 

held accountable for program results, but may not have the decisionmaking authority they need to accomplish agency goals. When asked the 

extent to which managers or supervisors at their levels were held 

Human Capital 

Management 
Page 12 GAO-04-594T 

accountable for the accomplishment of agency strategic goals, 57 percent 

responded to a “great” or “very great” extent in 2003. Also, there was little 

difference between the views of SES and non-SES managers in the area of 

accountability. (See fig. 4.) 

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers, SES, and Non-SES in 2003 Reporting to 

a Great or Very Great Extent That They Were Held Accountable for the 

Accomplishment of Agency Strategic Goals 

In contrast, there was a significant difference between SES and non-SES 

managers’ perceptions of having the decision-making authority they 

needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals. Compared to the 

57 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great 

or very great extent in 2003, only 38 percent of non-SES managers 

reported having such authority to a great or very great extent. (See fig. 5.) 
Page 13 GAO-04-594T 

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting To a Great or Very Great 

Extent That Managers/Supervisors at Their Levels Had the Decision-making 

Authority They Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its Strategic Goals 

a

There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997 and 2003 surveys. 

b

There was a statistically significant difference between SES compared to non-SES for each survey. 

Moreover, fewer than half of managers reported receiving relevant 

training. Managers also perceived a lack of positive recognition for helping 

agencies achieve results. Unfortunately, most existing federal performance 

appraisal systems are not designed to support a meaningful performancebased pay system in that they fail to link institutional, program, unit, and 

individual performance measurement and reward systems. In our view, 

one key need is to modernize performance management systems in 

executive agencies so that they link to the agency’s strategic plan, related 

goals, and desired outcomes and are therefore capable of adequately 

supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions. 
Page 14 GAO-04-594T 

Managers reported persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented 

goals, measuring performance, and collecting useful data. Focus group 

participants and survey respondents noted that outcome-oriented 

performance measures were especially difficult to establish when the 

program or line of effort was not easily quantifiable. For example, 

implementing GPRA in a regulatory environment and meeting GPRA 

reporting requirements for intergovernmental grant programs are 

particularly challenging. Managers also identified difficulties in 

distinguishing between the results produced by the federal program and 

results caused by external factors or nonfederal actors, such as with grant 

programs. Finally, managers reported that timely and useful performance 

information is not always available. 

Crosscutting issues continue to be a challenge to GPRA implementation. 

Our review of six agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans 

showed some improvement in addressing their crosscutting program 

efforts, but a great deal of improvement is still necessary. We have 

previously reported and testified that GPRA could provide OMB, agencies, 

and Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting 

policy initiatives and program efforts. It can also be a valuable tool to 

address mission fragmentation and program overlap. OMB could use the 

provision of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide 

performance plan to integrate expected agency-level performance. It could 

also be used to more clearly relate and address the contributions of 

alternative federal strategies. Unfortunately, this provision has not been 

fully implemented. Instead, OMB has used the President’s Budget to 

present high-level information about agencies and certain program 

performance issues. 

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

integrated perspective of government performance envisioned by GPRA. 

For example, the fiscal year 2004 budget identified budget requests and 

performance objectives by agency, such as the U.S. Department of 

Defense, as opposed to crosscutting governmentwide themes. From this 

presentation, one could assume that the only activities the U.S. 

government planned to carry out in support of national defense were those 

listed under the chapter “Department of Defense.” However, the chapter 

on the fiscal year 2004 budget discussing “the Department of State and 

International Assistance Programs,” contains a heading titled, “Countering 

the Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And while OMB may have 

a technical reason for not classifying this task as being related to national 

defense or homeland security, it is unclear that a lay reader could make 

Performance Measurement 

Crosscutting Issues 
Page 15 GAO-04-594T 

that distinction. The fiscal year 2005 budget also identified budget requests 

and performance objectives by agency, not by crosscutting theme. 

A strategic plan for the federal government could provide an additional 

tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as well as 

proposals for new programs. If fully developed, a governmentwide 

strategic plan could potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the longterm goals of the federal government and provide a much needed basis for 

fully integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal 

activities. Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of key 

stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism for building consensus. 

Further, it could provide a vehicle for the President to articulate long-term 

goals and a road map for achieving them. In addition, a strategic plan 

could provide a more comprehensive framework for considering 

organizational changes and making resource decisions. The development 

of a set of key national indicators could be used as a basis to inform the 

development of governmentwide strategic and annual performance plans. 

The indicators could also link to and provide information to support 

outcome-oriented goals and objectives in agency-level strategic and annual 

performance plans. 

Finally, focus group members believed that one of the main challenges to 

GPRA implementation was the reluctance of Congress to use performance 

information when making decisions, especially appropriations decisions. 

However, less than one quarter of federal managers in the 2003 survey 

shared that concern. Further, a recent Congressional Research Service 

review suggests that Congress uses performance information to some 

extent, as evidenced by citations in legislation and committee reports. 

While there is concern regarding Congress’ use of performance 

information, it is important to make sure that this information is useful. In 

other words, the information presented and its presentation must meet the 

needs of the user. Regular consultation with Congress about both the 

content and format of performance plans and reports is critical. 

As a key user of performance information, Congress also needs to be 

considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRA provides 

a vehicle for Congress to explicitly state its performance expectations in 

outcome-oriented terms when consulting with agencies on their strategic 

plans or when establishing new programs or exercising oversight of 

existing programs that are not achieving desired results. This would 

provide important guidance to agencies that could then be incorporated in 

agency strategic and annual performance plans. 

Congressional Use of 

Performance Information 
Page 16 GAO-04-594T 

The challenges we identified in our report are not new—most have not 

changed significantly since we first reported on governmentwide 

implementation of GPRA. However, we have frequently reported on 

approaches that agencies, OMB, and Congress could use to address the 

challenges. These approaches include strengthening the commitment of 

top leadership to creating and sustaining a focus on results; taking a 

governmentwide approach to achieving outcomes that are crosscutting in 

nature; improving the usefulness of performance information to managers, 

Congress, and the public; and improving the quality of performance 

measures and data. Collectively, these approaches form the agenda that 

federal agencies, OMB, and Congress will need to follow to bring about a 

more sustainable, governmentwide focus on results. 

In our report we recommended that the Director of OMB implement five 

suggestions to improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA 

implementation: 

• To provide a broader perspective and more cohesive picture of the federal 

government’s goals and strategies to address issues that cut across 

executive branch agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB fully 

implement GPRA’s requirement to develop a governmentwide 

performance plan. 

• To achieve the greatest benefit from both GPRA and PART, we 

recommend that the Director of OMB articulate and implement an 

integrated and complementary relationship between the two. GPRA is a 

broad legislative framework that was designed to be consultative with 

Congress and other stakeholders, and allows for varying uses of 

performance information. PART looks through a particular lens for a 

particular use—the executive budget formulation process. 

• To improve the quality of agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance 

plans, and performance and accountability reports and help agencies meet 

the requirements of GPRA, we recommend that the Director of OMB 

provide clearer and consistent guidance to executive branch agencies on 

how to implement GPRA. Such guidance should include standards for 

communicating key performance information in concise as well as longer 

formats to better meet the needs of external users who lack the time or 

expertise to analyze lengthy, detailed documents. 

• To help address agencies’ performance measurement challenges, we 

recommend that the Director of OMB engage in a continuing dialogue with 

agencies about their performance measurement practices with a particular 

focus on grant-making, research and development, and regulatory 

functions to identify and replicate successful approaches agencies are 

using to measure and report on their outcomes, including the use of 

program evaluation tools. Additionally, we recommend that the Director of 

Recommendations 

and Matters for 

Congressional 

Consideration 
Page 17 GAO-04-594T 

OMB work with executive branch agencies to identify the barriers to 

obtaining timely data to show progress against performance goals and the 

best ways to report information where there are unavoidable lags in data 

availability. Governmentwide councils, such as the President’s 

Management Council and the Chief Financial Officers Council, may be 

effective vehicles for working on these issues. 

• To facilitate the transformation of agencies’ management cultures to be 

more results oriented, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with 

agencies to ensure they are making adequate investments in training on 

performance planning and measurement, with a particular emphasis on 

how to use performance information to improve program performance. 

We also identified two matters for congressional consideration to improve 

the governmentwide focus on results: 

• To ensure that agency strategic plans more closely align with changes in 

the federal government leadership, Congress should consider amending 

GPRA to require that updates to agency strategic plans be submitted at 

least once every 4 years, 12-18 months after a new administration begins 

its term. Additionally, consultations with congressional stakeholders 

should be held at least once every new Congress and interim updates 

made to strategic and performance plans as warranted. Congress should 

consider using these consultations along with its traditional oversight role 

and legislation as opportunities to clarify its performance expectations for 

agencies. This process may provide an opportunity for Congress to 

develop a more structured oversight agenda. 

• To provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to 

address issues that cut across federal agencies, Congress should consider 

amending GPRA to require the President to develop a governmentwide 

strategic plan. 

In commenting on a draft of our report, OMB generally agreed with our 

findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our 

recommendations, but stated that the President’s Budget represents the 

executive branch’s governmentwide performance plan and could also 

double as a governmentwide strategic plan. However, because of the 

budget’s focus on agency-level expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, 

we believe that the President’s Budget provides neither a long-term nor an 

integrated perspective on the federal government’s performance. We also 

provided relevant sections of the draft to the six agencies whose plans and 

reports we reviewed. DOE, HUD, and SSA disagreed with some of our 

observations, and we changed or clarified relevant sections of the report, 

as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 
Page 18 GAO-04-594T 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased 

to answer any questions you or the other members of the Committee may 

have at this time. 

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Patricia A. Dalton, 

Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806. Other individuals who made 

key contributions to this testimony were Elizabeth Curda and Kimberly 

Gianopoulos. 

(450313) 
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or 

other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to 

reproduce this material separately. 
The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of 

Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal 

government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; 

evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through the Internet. GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov) contains abstracts and fulltext files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older 

products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate documents 

using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in their entirety, 

including charts and other graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as “Today’s Reports,” on its Web site 

daily. The list contains links to the full-text document files. To have GAO e-mail 

this list to you every afternoon, go to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to e-mail 

alerts” under the “Order GAO Products” heading. 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. A 

check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. 

GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

U.S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Public Affairs