a

GAO

United States General Accounting Office

Testimony

Before the Committee on Government Reform, 

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT

Thursday, September 18, 2003

RESULTS-ORIENTED 

GOVERNMENT

Using GPRA to Address 

21st Century Challenges

Statement of David M. Walker

Comptroller General of the United States

GAO-03-1166T
GPRA, which was enacted in 1993, provides a foundation for examining 

agency missions, performance goals and objectives, and results. While this 

building effort is far from complete, it has helped create a government-wide 

focus on results by establishing a statutory framework for management and 

accountability. This framework can improve the performance and 

accountability of the executive branch and enhance executive branch and 

congressional decisionmaking. In view of the broad trends and long-term 

fiscal challenges facing the nation, there is a need to consider how the 

Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and executive agencies can 

make better use of GPRA’s planning and accountability framework to 

maximize the performance of not only individual programs and agencies, but 

also of the federal government as whole in addressing these challenges. 

The necessary infrastructure has been built to generate meaningful 

performance information. For example, through the strategic planning 

requirement, GPRA has required federal agencies to consult with the 

Congress and key stakeholders to reassess their missions and long-term 

goals as well as the strategies and resources they will need to achieve their 

goals. It also has required agencies to articulate goals for the upcoming 

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

agencies are required to report annually on their progress in achieving their 

annual performance goals. Therefore, information is available about current 

missions, goals, and results. 

We are now moving to a more difficult but more important phase of GPRA 

implementation, that is, using results-oriented performance information as a 

part of agencies’ day-to-day management, and congressional and executive 

branch decision-making. However, much work remains before this 

framework is effectively implemented across the government, including (1) 

transforming agencies’ organizational cultures to improve decisionmaking 

and strengthen performance and accountability, (2) developing meaningful, 

outcome-oriented performance goals and measures and collecting useful 

performance data, and (3) addressing widespread mission fragmentation and 

overlap. Furthermore, linking planned performance with budget requests 

and financial reports is an essential step in building a culture of performance 

management. Such an alignment can help to infuse performance concerns 

into budgetary deliberations. However, credible outcome-based 

performance information is critical to foster the kind of debate that is 

needed. 

The Committee asked GAO to 

discuss the Government 

Performance and Results Act’s 

(GPRA) success in shifting the 

focus of government operations 

from process to results and to 

evaluate the extent to which 

agency managers have embraced 

GPRA as a management tool. 

Further, the Committee was 

interested in any recommendations 

GAO may have to improve the 

effectiveness of GPRA. 

GAO is conducting a 

comprehensive review of the 

effectiveness of GPRA since its 

enactment, including updating the 

results of our federal managers 

survey. The results of this review 

will be available next month. 

We did not make recommendations 

in this testimony. However, we 

suggested a range of options that 

the Congress could use to 

strengthen GPRA as a tool to meet 

the challenges the federal 

government faces at the beginning 

of the 21st century. These options 

include simplifying and 

streamlining agency performance 

information, developing 

governmentwide strategic and 

annual performance plans, 

enhancing congressional oversight, 

and establishing chief operating 

officers in selected agencies. 

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1166T.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Patricia Dalton 

at (202) 512-6737 or daltonp@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-03-1166T, a testimony 

before the Committee on Government 

Reform, House of Representatives 

September 18 2003

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT

Using GPRA to Address 21st Century 

Challenges 
Page 1 GAO-03-1166T 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

Now that the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has 

reached its 10th anniversary, I appreciate the opportunity to address the 

progress made in creating a government-wide focus on results and how the 

federal government could make better use of GPRA in meeting the 

significant, emerging challenges we face as a nation while, at the same 

time, becoming more economical, effective, and efficient in doing 

government business. We are currently performing a comprehensive 

review of the effectiveness of GPRA since its enactment in 1993—including 

updating the results of our federal managers survey—for this and other 

congressional committees. Those results will be available later next 

month. Therefore, my statement today draws primarily from our many 

previous reports assessing GPRA’s implementation.

Over the last decade, the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), and other executive agencies have worked to implement a 

statutory framework to improve the performance and accountability of the 

executive branch and to enhance executive branch and congressional 

decision making.1

 The core elements of this framework include financial 

management and information technology reforms as well as resultsoriented management legislation, particularly GPRA. As a result of this 

framework, there has been substantial progress in the last few years in 

establishing the basic infrastructure needed to create high-performing 

federal organizations.

For example, in contrast to pre-GPRA planning and performance 

measurement, agencies are now producing more results-oriented goals and 

performance information. They have also begun to identify their plans to 

coordinate with other federal agencies on program areas that cut across 

agency boundaries. Finally, all of this information is much more 

transparent to the Congress, OMB, and the public in the form of published 

plans and reports, which were not generally available prior to GPRA.

However, moving beyond the realm of individual agency performance, we 

now have both an opportunity and an obligation to take a look across the 

federal government at what it should be doing and how it should go about 

1

U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for 

Performance-Based Management and Accountability, GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52 (Washington, 

D.C.: Jan. 28, 1998).
Page 2 GAO-03-1166T 

doing its work. GPRA, with its focus on strategic planning, the 

development of long-term goals, and accountability for results, provides a 

framework the Congress and the executive branch can use to consider the 

appropriate mix of long-term strategic goals and strategies needed to 

address the challenges we face, given the significant resource constraints 

that will exist long into the future.

As I discussed in my speech before the National Press Club on

September 17,

2

 the federal government is in a period of profound transition 

and faces an array of challenges and opportunities to enhance 

performance, ensure accountability, and position the nation for the future. 

A number of overarching trends, such as diffuse security threats and 

homeland security needs, increasing global interdependency, the shift to a 

knowledge-based economy, and the looming fiscal challenges facing our 

nation drive the need to reconsider the role of the federal government in 

the 21st century, how the government should do business (including how it 

should be structured), and in some instances, who should do the 

government’s business.

GAO has sought to assist the Congress and the executive branch in 

considering the actions needed to support the transition to a more high 

performing, results-oriented, and accountable federal government. We 

believe that it is crucial for both the Congress and the executive branch to 

work together constructively and on a bipartisan basis in addressing a 

range of “good government” issues.

My statement today will focus on four points:

• the impact of current trends and increasing fiscal challenges;

• the foundation for results-oriented management created in response to 

GPRA;

• the need to make better use of GPRA as a tool to address the trends and 

challenges; and 

• options for strengthening congressional oversight.

2

David M. Walker, Comptroller General of the United States, Truth and Transparency: The 

Federal Government’s Financial Condition and Fiscal Outlook, speech delivered before 

the National Press Club, September 17, 2003.
Page 3 GAO-03-1166T 

My statement is based on our large body of work in recent years assessing 

GPRA implementation as well as other management and budget issues. We 

conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards.

Impact of Emerging 

Trends and Fiscal 

Challenges

With the 21st century challenges we are facing, it is more vital than ever to 

maximize the performance of federal agencies in achieving their long-term 

goals. The federal government must address and adapt to major trends in 

our country and around the world. At the same time, our nation faces 

serious long-term fiscal challenges. Increased pressure also comes from 

world events: both from the recognition that we cannot consider ourselves 

“safe” between two oceans—which has increased demands for spending on 

homeland security—and from the U.S. role in combating terrorism in an 

increasingly interdependent world. To be able to assess federal agency 

performance and hold agency managers accountable for achieving their 

long-term goals, we need to know what the level of performance is. GPRA 

planning and reporting requirements can provide this essential 

information.

Our country’s transition into the 21st century is characterized by a number 

of key trends, including

• the national and global response to terrorism and other threats to our 

personal and national security;

• the increasing interdependence of enterprises, economies, markets, civil 

societies, and national governments, commonly referred to as 

globalization;

• the shift to market-oriented, knowledge-based economies;

• an aging and more diverse U.S. population;

• rapid advances in science and technology and the opportunities and 

challenges created by these changes;

• challenges and opportunities to maintain and improve the quality of life 

for the nation, communities, families, and individuals; and

• the changing and increasingly diverse nature of governance structures 

and tools.
Page 4 GAO-03-1166T 

As the nation and government policymakers grapple with the challenges 

presented by these evolving trends, they do so in the context of rapidly 

building fiscal pressures. GAO’s long-range budget simulations show that 

this nation faces a large and growing structural deficit due primarily to 

known demographic trends and rising health care costs. The fiscal 

pressures created by the retirement of the baby boom generation and rising 

health costs threaten to overwhelm the nation’s fiscal future. As figure 1 

shows, by 2040, absent reform or other major tax or spending policy 

changes, projected federal revenues will likely be insufficient to pay much 

beyond interest on publicly held debt. Further, our recent shift from 

surpluses to deficits means the nation is moving into the future in a weaker 

fiscal position.

Figure 1: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming Discretionary 

Spending Grows with GDP after 2003 and All Expiring Tax Provisions Are Extended

Notes: Although all expiring tax cuts are extended, revenue as a share of gross domestic product 

(GDP) increases through 2013 due to (1) real bracket creep, (2) more taxpayers becoming subject to 

the Alternative Minimum Tax, and (3) increased revenue from tax-deferred retirement accounts. After 

2013, revenue as a share of GDP is held constant. This simulation assumes that currently scheduled 

Social Security benefits are paid in full throughout the simulation period. 

0

10

20

30

40

50

2003 2015 2030 2040

Fiscal year

Percentage of GDP

Net interest

Social Security

Medicare and Medicaid

All other spending

Source: GAO.
Page 5 GAO-03-1166T 

The United States has had a long-range budget deficit problem for a 

number of years, even during recent years when we had significant annual 

budget surpluses. Unfortunately, the days of surpluses are gone, and our 

current and projected budget situation has worsened significantly. The 

bottom line is that our projected budget deficits are not manageable 

without significant changes in “status quo” programs, policies, processes, 

and operations.

Doing nothing is simply not an option, nor will marginal efforts be enough. 

Difficult choices will have to be made. Clearly, the federal government 

must start to exercise more fiscal discipline on both the spending side and 

the tax side. While many spending increases and tax cuts may be popular, 

they may not all be prudent. However, there is not a single solution to the 

problems we face; a number of solutions are needed. It will take the 

combined efforts of many parties over an extended period for these efforts 

to succeed.

GPRA Provides a 

Foundation for 

Results-Oriented 

Management

GPRA, which was enacted 10 years ago, provides a foundation for 

examining agency missions, performance goals and objectives, and results. 

While this building effort is far from complete, it has helped create a 

governmentwide focus on results by establishing a statutory framework for 

performance management and accountability. The necessary 

infrastructure has been built to generate meaningful performance 

information. 

For example, through the strategic planning requirement, GPRA has 

required federal agencies to consult with the Congress and key 

stakeholders to reassess their missions and long-term goals as well as the 

strategies and resources they will need to achieve their goals. It also has 

required agencies to articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are 

aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Finally, agencies are required 

to report annually on their progress in achieving their annual performance 

goals. Therefore, information is available about current missions, goals, 

and results.

Our prior assessments of the quality of agency planning and reporting 

documents indicate that significant progress has been made in meeting the 

basic requirements of GPRA. For example, we found improvements in 

agencies’ strategic plans, such as clearer mission statements and long-term
Page 6 GAO-03-1166T 

goals.

3

 Also, after we found many weaknesses in agencies’ first annual 

performance plans, subsequent plans showed improvements, such as the 

frequent use of results-oriented goals and quantifiable measures to address 

performance.

4

Finally, a high and increasing percentage of federal managers we surveyed 

in 1997 and 2000 reported that there were performance measures for the 

programs with which they were involved.5

 Those managers who reported 

having performance measures also increasingly reported having outcome, 

output, and efficiency measures. We will be updating our analysis of the 

quality of agency planning and reporting efforts and our survey of federal 

managers as part of our 10-year retrospective review of GPRA. The report 

will be available next month.

Using GPRA as a Tool 

to Address 21st Century 

Trends and Challenges

As we move further into the 21st century, it becomes increasingly important 

for the Congress, OMB, and other executive agencies to consider how the 

federal government can maximize performance and results, given the 

significant fiscal limitations I have described. GPRA can help address this 

question by linking the results that the federal government seeks to achieve 

to the program approaches and resources that are necessary to achieve 

those results. The performance information produced by GPRA’s planning 

and reporting infrastructure can help build a government that is better 

equipped to deliver economical, efficient, and effective programs that can 

help address the challenges facing the federal government. 

Clearly, federal agencies have made strides in laying the foundation of 

planning and performance information that will be needed to address our 

3

U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Observations on Agencies' 

Strategic Plans, GAO/T-GGD-98-66 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 1998).

4

U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued 

Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans, GGD/AIMD-99-215 (Washington, D.C.: July 

20, 1999).

5

For additional details on our two previous governmentwide surveys, see U.S. General 

Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management 

Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies, GAO-01-592 (Washington, D.C.: May 25, 2001), 

Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership 

Skills, GAO-01-127 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2000), and The Government Performance 

and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven, GAO/GGD-97-

109, Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1997).
Page 7 GAO-03-1166T 

21st century challenges. We are now moving to a more difficult but more 

important phase of GPRA implementation, that is, using results-oriented 

performance information as a routine part of agencies’ day-to-day 

management, and congressional and executive branch decision making. 

To achieve a greater focus on results and maximize performance, federal 

agencies will need to make greater use of GPRA documents, such as 

strategic plans, to guide how they do business every day—both internally, 

in terms of guiding individual employee efforts, as well as externally, in 

terms of coordinating activities and interacting with key stakeholders.

However, much work remains before this framework is effectively 

implemented across the government, including (1) transforming agencies’ 

organizational cultures to improve decision making and strengthen 

performance and accountability, (2) developing meaningful, outcomeoriented performance goals and measures and collecting useful 

performance data, (3) addressing widespread mission fragmentation and 

overlap, and (4) using performance information in allocating resources.

Uneven Progress in Building 

Results-Oriented 

Organizational Cultures

The cornerstone of federal efforts to successfully meet current and 

emerging public demands is to adopt a results orientation, that is, to 

develop a clear sense of the results an agency wants to achieve as opposed 

to the products and services (outputs) an agency produces and the 

processes used to produce them. Adopting a results orientation requires 

transforming organizational cultures to improve decision making, 

maximize performance, and ensure accountability—it entails new ways of 

thinking and doing business. This transformation is not an easy one and 

requires investments of time and resources as well as sustained leadership 

commitment and attention.

Our prior work on GPRA implementation has found that many agencies 

face significant challenges in establishing an agency-wide resultsorientation.

6

 Federal managers we surveyed have reported that agency 

leaders do not consistently demonstrate a strong commitment to achieving 

results. Furthermore, these managers believed that agencies do not always 

positively recognize employees for helping the agency accomplish its 

strategic goals.

6

GAO-01-592, GAO-01-127, and GAO/GGD-97-109.
Page 8 GAO-03-1166T 

In addition, we have reported that high-performing organizations seek to 

shift the focus of management and accountability from activities and 

processes to contributions and achieving results. However, although many 

federal managers in our survey reported that they were held accountable 

for the results of their programs, only a few reported that they had the 

decision making authority they needed to help the agencies accomplish 

their strategic goals.

Finally, although managers we surveyed increasingly reported having 

results-oriented performance measures for their programs, the extent to 

which these managers reported using performance information for any of 

the key management activities we asked about mostly declined from earlier 

survey levels.

7

 

To be positioned to address the array of challenges we face, federal 

agencies will need to transform their organizational cultures so that they 

are more results-oriented, customer-focused, and collaborative. Leading 

public organizations here in the United States and abroad have found that 

strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any 

serious change management initiative and efforts to transform the cultures 

of government agencies. Performance management systems are integral to 

strategic human capital management. Such systems can be key tools to 

maximizing performance by aligning institutional performance measures 

with individual performance and creating a “line of sight” between 

individual and organizational goals. Leading organizations use their 

performance management systems as a key tool for aligning institutional, 

unit, and employee performance; achieving results; accelerating change; 

managing the organization day to day; and facilitating communication 

throughout the year so that discussions about individual and organizational 

performance are integrated and ongoing.

8

7

We asked about five key management activities: setting program priorities, allocating 

resources, adopting new program approaches or changing work processes, coordinating 

program efforts with other organizations, and setting individual job expectations.

8

U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles From Nine Private 

Sector Organizations, GAO/GGD-00-28 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 31, 2000).
Page 9 GAO-03-1166T 

Developing Meaningful, 

Outcome-Oriented 

Performance Goals and 

Collecting Useful 

Performance Data

Another key challenge to achieving a governmentwide focus on results is 

that of developing meaningful, outcome-oriented performance goals and 

collecting performance data that can be used to assess results. 

Performance measurement under GPRA is the ongoing monitoring and 

reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward 

preestablished goals. It tends to focus on regularly collected data on the 

level and type of program activities, the direct products and services 

delivered by the program, and the results of those activities. For programs 

that have readily observable results or outcomes, performance 

measurement may provide sufficient information to demonstrate program 

results. In some programs, however, outcomes are not quickly achieved or 

readily observed, or their relationship to the program is uncertain. In such 

cases, more in-depth program evaluations may be needed, in addition to 

performance measurement, to examine the extent to which a program is 

achieving its objectives.

However, our work has raised concerns about the capacity of federal 

agencies to produce evaluations of program effectiveness.

9

 Few of the 

agencies we reviewed deployed the rigorous research methods required to 

attribute changes underlying outcomes to program activities. Yet we have 

also seen how some agencies have profitably drawn on systematic program 

evaluations to improve their measurement of program performance or 

understanding of performance and how it might be improved.

10 For 

example, to improve performance measurement, two agencies we 

reviewed used the findings of effectiveness evaluations to provide data on 

program results that were otherwise unavailable.

Our work has also identified substantial, long-standing limitations in 

agencies’ abilities to produce credible data and identify performance 

improvement opportunities that will not be quickly or easily resolved.11 

For example, policy decisions made when designing federal programs, 

9

U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Agencies Challenged by New 

Demand for Information on Program Results, GAO/GGD-98-53 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 

1998).

10U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure 

or Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 29, 2000).

11U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in 

Producing Credible Performance Information, GAO/GGD-00-52 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 

2000).
Page 10 GAO-03-1166T 

particularly intergovernmental programs, may make it difficult to collect 

timely and consistent national data. In administering programs that are the 

joint responsibility of state and local governments, the Congress and the 

executive branch continually balance the competing objectives of 

collecting uniform program information to assess performance with giving 

states and localities the flexibility needed to effectively implement 

intergovernmental programs.

Using GPRA to Address 

Mission Fragmentation and 

Overlap

While progress has been made by federal agencies in laying a foundation of 

performance information for existing program activities and structures, the 

federal government has not realized the full potential of GPRA to address 

program areas that cut across federal agency boundaries. The government 

has made strides in this area in recent years. For example, in reviewing 

agencies’ crosscutting plans in the area of wildland fire management, we 

found that both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service, 

within the Department of Agriculture, discussed their joint participation in 

developing plans and strategies to address the growing threats to our 

forests and nearby communities from catastrophic wild fires.

12 The 

Congress could make greater use of agency performance information to 

identify potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among federal 

programs. 

Virtually all of the results that the federal government strives to achieve 

require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more agencies. 

Our work has shown that mission fragmentation and program overlap are 

widespread, and that crosscutting federal program efforts are not well 

coordinated.13 For example, we have reported that seven federal agencies 

administer 16 programs that serve the homeless population, with the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development responsible for most of 

the funds. We have also frequently commented on the fragmented nature 

of our food safety system, with responsibility split between the Food Safety 

and Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture, the Food and

12U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting 

Actions and Plans in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and 

Wildland Fire Management, GAO-03-321 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2002).

13U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency 

Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29, 2000), and Managing for 

Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, 

GAO/AIMD-97-146 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997).
Page 11 GAO-03-1166T 

Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services, 

and 10 other federal agencies.

Crosscutting program areas that are not effectively coordinated waste 

scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and undercut the 

overall effectiveness of the federal effort. GPRA offers a structured and 

governmentwide means for rationalizing these crosscutting efforts. The 

strategic, annual, and governmentwide performance planning processes 

under GPRA provide opportunities for each agency to ensure that its goals 

for crosscutting programs complement those of other agencies; program 

strategies are mutually reinforcing; and, as appropriate, common 

performance measures are used. If GPRA is effectively implemented, the 

governmentwide performance plan and the agencies’ annual performance 

plans and reports should provide the Congress with information on 

agencies and programs addressing similar results. Once these programs 

are identified, the Congress can consider the associated policy, 

management, and performance implications of crosscutting programs as 

part of its oversight of the executive branch.

Using Performance 

Information to Inform the 

Allocation of Resources

A key objective of GPRA is to help the Congress, OMB, and other executive 

agencies develop a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in 

relation to what is being spent. Linking planned performance with budget 

requests and financial reports is an essential step in building a culture of 

performance management. Such an alignment infuses performance 

concerns into budgetary deliberations, prompting agencies to reassess 

their performance goals and strategies and to more clearly understand the 

cost of performance. For the fiscal year 2005 budget process, OMB called 

for agencies to prepare a performance budget that can be used for the 

annual performance plan required by GPRA.

Credible outcome-based performance information is absolutely critical to 

fostering the kind of debate that is needed. Linking performance 

information to budgeting carries great potential to improve the budget 

debate by changing the kinds of questions and information available to 

decision makers. However, performance information will not provide 

mechanistic answers for budget decisions, nor can performance data 

eliminate the need for considered judgment and political choice. If budget 

decisions are to be based in part on performance data, the integrity, 

credibility, and quality of these data and related analyses become more 

important. Moreover, in seeking to link resources to results, it will be 
Page 12 GAO-03-1166T 

necessary to improve the government’s capacity to account for and 

measure the total costs of federal programs and activities.

GPRA expanded the supply of performance information generated by 

federal agencies. OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) proposes 

to build on GPRA by improving the demand for results-oriented 

information in the budget. It has the potential to promote a more explicit 

discussion and debate between OMB, the agencies, and the Congress about 

the performance of selected programs. Presumably, PART will identify 

expectation gaps, questions, and areas where further inquiry and analysis 

would be most useful.

Oversight Is Critical to 

Achieving Results

Fifty years of past efforts to link resources with results has shown that any 

successful effort must involve the Congress as a partner. In fact, the 

administration acknowledged that performance and accountability are 

shared responsibilities that must involve the Congress. It will only be 

through the continued attention of the Congress, the administration, and 

federal agencies that progress can be sustained and, more important, 

accelerated. Ultimately, the success of GPRA will be reflected in whether 

and how the Congress uses agency performance information in the 

congressional budget, appropriations, authorization, and oversight 

processes. As a key user of performance information, the Congress also 

needs to be considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset.

More generally, effective congressional oversight can help improve federal 

performance by examining the program structures agencies use to deliver 

products and services to ensure that the best, most cost-effective mix of 

strategies is in place to meet agency and national goals. As part of this 

oversight, the Congress should consider the associated policy, 

management, and policy implications of crosscutting programs.

Options for 

Strengthening GPRA

Information produced in response to GPRA can be useful for congressional 

oversight as well as program management. As I have testified before, there 

are several ways that GPRA could be enhanced to provide better 

governmentwide information. 

First, there are many users of agencies’ performance information—the 

Congress, the public, and the agency itself. One size does not fit all. To 

improve the prospect that agency performance information will be useful 
Page 13 GAO-03-1166T 

to and used by these different users, agencies need to consider the different 

information needs and how to best tailor their performance information to 

meet those needs. This might entail the preparation of simplified and 

streamlined plans and reports for the Congress and other external users.

Second, we have previously reported that GPRA could provide a tool to 

reexamine federal government roles and structures governmentwide. 

GPRA requires the President to include in his annual budget submission a 

federal government performance plan. The Congress intended that this 

plan provide a “single cohesive picture of the annual performance goals for 

the fiscal year.” The governmentwide performance plan could help the 

Congress and the executive branch address critical federal performance 

and management issues, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in 

how we do business. It could also provide a framework for any 

restructuring efforts. Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully 

implemented.

If the governmentwide performance plan were fully implemented, it could 

also provide a framework for congressional oversight. For example, in 

recent years, OMB has begun to develop common measures for similar 

programs, such as job training. By focusing on broad goals and objectives, 

oversight could more effectively cut across organization, program, and 

other traditional boundaries. Such oversight might also cut across existing 

committee boundaries, which suggests that the Congress may benefit from 

using specialized mechanisms to perform oversight (i.e., joint hearings and 

special committees).

Third, a strategic plan for the federal government, along with key national 

indicators to assess the government’s performance, 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 can 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 can 

provide a more comprehensive framework for considering organizational 

changes and making resource decisions. In addition to the annual budget 

resolution on funds, the Congress could also have a performance 

resolution that specifies performance expectations. 
Page 14 GAO-03-1166T 

Developing a strategic plan for the federal government would be an 

important first step in articulating the role, goals, and objectives of the 

federal government. It could help provide critical horizontal and vertical 

linkages. Horizontally, it could integrate and foster synergies among 

components of the federal government as well as help to clarify the role of 

the federal government vis-a-vis other sectors of our society. Vertically, it 

could provide a framework of federal missions and goals within which 

individual federal agencies could align their own missions and goals that 

would cascade down to individual employees. It also could link to a set of 

key national performance indicators.

A set of key national indicators could also help to assess the overall 

position and progress of our nation in key areas, frame strategic issues, 

support public choices, and enhance accountability. Developing a key 

national indicator system goes beyond any one sector (e.g., public, private, 

or nonprofit). It requires designing and executing a process whereby 

diverse elements of society can participate in formulating key questions 

and choosing indicators in a way that increases consensus over time. Such 

a system will take time to develop. The federal government is an important 

and vital player in establishing such indicators.

14

Fourth, the traditional oversight that the Congress provides to individual 

organizations, programs, and activities has an important role in eliminating 

redundancy and inefficiencies. Important benefits can be achieved 

through focused oversight if the right questions are asked about 

performance and management. Six key questions for program oversight 

are as follows:

• Does the program make sense given 21st century trends and challenges, 

including whether it is appropriate as an initiative of the federal 

government?

• Are there clear performance goals, measures, and data with which to 

track progress? Is the program achieving its goals? If not, why not?

• Does the program duplicate or even work at cross purposes with related 

programs and tools?

14U.S. General Accounting Office, Forum on Key National Indicators: Assessing the 

Nation's Position and Progress, GAO-03-672SP (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003).
Page 15 GAO-03-1166T 

• Is the program targeted properly?

• Is the program financially sustainable and are there opportunities for 

instituting appropriate cost-sharing and recovery mechanisms?

• Can the program be made more efficient through reengineering or 

streamlining processes or restructuring organizational roles and 

responsibilities?

Fifth, creating the results-oriented cultures needed to make GPRA a useful 

management tool depends on committed, top-level leadership and 

sustained attention to management issues. A chief operating officer (COO) 

could provide the sustained management attention essential for addressing 

key infrastructure and stewardship issues and could facilitate the 

transformation process. Establishing a COO position in selected federal 

agencies could provide a number of benefits. A COO would be the focal 

point for elevating attention on management issues and transformational 

change, integrating various key management and transformation efforts, 

and instituting accountability for addressing management issues and 

leading transformational change. A COO would provide a single 

organizational position for key management functions, such as human 

capital, financial management, information technology, acquisition 

management, and performance management as well as for 

transformational change initiatives. To be successful, in many cases, a COO 

will need to be among an agency’s top leadership (e.g., deputy secretary or 

under secretary). However, consistent with the desire to integrate 

responsibilities, the creation of a senior management position needs to be 

considered with careful regard to existing positions and responsibilities so 

that it does not result in unnecessary “layering” at an agency. Consideration 

also should be given to providing a term appointment, such as a 5—7 year 

term. A term appointment would provide sustained leadership. No matter 

how the positions are structured, it is critical that the people appointed to 

these positions have proven track records in similar positions and be 

vested with sufficient authority to achieve results. To further clarify 

expectations and responsibilities, the COO should be subject to a clearly 

defined, results-oriented performance contract with appropriate 

incentives, rewards, and accountability mechanisms. For selected 

agencies, a COO should be subject to a Senate confirmation. In creating 

such a position, the Congress might consider making certain subordinate 

positions, such as the chief financial officer, not subject to Senate 

confirmation.
Page 16 GAO-03-1166T 

Concluding Remarks In view of the broad trends and long-term fiscal challenges facing the 

nation, there is a need to consider how the Congress, OMB, and executive 

agencies can make better use of GPRA’s planning and accountability 

framework to maximize the performance of not only individual programs 

and agencies but also the federal government as whole in addressing these 

challenges. The Congress can play a vital role in increasing the demand for 

such performance information by monitoring agencies’ performance 

results, asking critical questions about goals not achieved, and considering 

whether adjustments are needed to maximize performance in the future. 

The large and growing fiscal gap means that tough, difficult choices will 

have to be made. Doing nothing is not an option. The Congress and the 

administration will need to use every tool at their disposal to address these 

challenges. In addressing these challenges, it will be important to set clear 

goals, involve all key players, and establish viable processes that will lead 

to positive results. Credible, timely, results-oriented performance 

information will be vital to this decisionmaking. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. We in GAO take our 

responsibility to assist in these crucial efforts very seriously. I would be 

pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the 

Committee may have.

(450270)
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. 
GAO’s Mission 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.

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

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.

Order by Mail or Phone 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

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Public Affairs 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