GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Requesters

RESULTS-ORIENTED 

MANAGEMENT 

Strengthening Key 

Practices at FEMA 

and Interior Could 

Promote Greater Use 

of Performance 

Information 

August 2009 

GAO-09-676 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

August 2009

RESULTS-ORIENTED MANAGEMENT

Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior 

Could Promote Greater Use of Performance 

Highlights of GAO-09-676, a report to Information 

congressional requesters 

Since 1997, periodic GAO surveys 

indicate that overall, federal 

managers have more performance 

information available but have not 

made any greater use of this 

information for decision making. 

Based on GAO’s most recent 

survey in 2007, GAO was asked to 

(1) identify agencies with relatively 

low use of performance 

information and the factors that 

contribute to this condition; and 

(2) examine practices in an agency 

with indications of improvement in 

use of performance information. 

GAO analyzed results from its 

surveys of federal managers across 

29 agencies, reviewed key agency 

documents related to using 

performance information—such as 

Performance and Accountability 

Reports—and interviewed agency 

and selected subunit managers 

about their management practices. 

GAO also compared management 

practices, at selected agencies with 

those GAO has identified as 

promoting the use of performance 

information for decision making. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making recommendations 

to the Departments of Homeland 

Security and the Interior for 

improvements to key management 

practices to promote greater use of 

performance information at FEMA, 

NPS, Reclamation, as well as at 

Interior. Interior agreed in principle 

and DHS generally concurred, but 

disagreed that FEMA should 

develop an interim performance 

management plan. GAO clarified 

this recommendation to address 

the concern. 

According to GAO’s 2007 survey of federal managers on their use of 

performance information for decision making, the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of the Interior (Interior), 

ranked 27 and 28 out of 29 agencies. Several factors contributed to this 

relatively low use. At both FEMA and Interior, the demonstrated commitment 

of agency leaders to using performance information—a key management 

practice—was inconsistent. While some FEMA programs and regions 

encouraged use of performance information to plan for and respond to 

unpredictable events, others expressed uncertainty as to how they could use 

performance information in the face of uncontrollable external factors. FEMA 

managers were also hampered by weak alignment among agency, program, 

and individual goals, as well as limited analytic capacity to make use of 

performance information. At Interior and the National Park Service (NPS), 

managers reported a proliferation of measures, including some that, while 

meaningful for department-level accountability, were not relevant to their dayto-day management. Managers at NPS and the Bureau of Reclamation also 

said that poorly integrated performance and management information systems

contributed to an environment where the costs of performance reporting—in 

terms of time and resources—outweighed what they described as minimal 

benefits. While both FEMA and Interior have taken some promising steps to 

make their performance information both useful and used, these initiatives 

have thus far been limited. 

Survey question

Rest of government

Interior

FEMA

Source: GAO.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

My agency's top leadership

demonstrates a strong commitment

to using performance information

to guide decision making

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

50%

37%

32%

The experience of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

highlights the role that strengthened management practices can play. 

According to GAO’s 2000 and 2007 survey results, the percentage of managers 

at CMS reporting use of performance information for various management 

decisions increased by nearly 21 percentage points—one of the largest 

improvements among agencies over that period. CMS officials attributed this 

change to a combination of key management practices they had employed, 

including, but not limited to: leadership commitment to using performance 

information; alignment of strategic and performance goals; improving the 

usefulness of performance information; and building the analytic capacity to 

collect and use performance information. 

View GAO-09-676 or key components.

For more information, contact Bernice 

Steinhardt at (202) 512-6806 or 

steinhardtb@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-09-676 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 4 

FEMA and Interior Were Hindered in Using Performance 

Information for Decision Making by Weak or Inconsistent 

Application of Key Management Practices 12 

Officials at CMS Headquarters and Selected Programs Said Key 

Management Practices Had Promoted Use of Performance 

Information for Decision Making 35 

Conclusions 44 

Recommendations for Executive Action 46 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 47 

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 50 

Appendix II Agency Rankings Based on Index of 2007 Survey 

Results 56 

Appendix III Timeline of Major Government Results-Oriented 

Management Reforms 58 

Appendix IV Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 59 

Appendix V Comments from the Department of the Interior 62 

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 66 

Related GAO Products 67 

 Use of Performance Information 
Figures 

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having 

Performance Measures 5 

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using 

Information Obtained from Performance Measurement for 

Various Management Decision-Making Functions 6 

Figure 3: Practices That Can Promote the Use of Performance 

Information for Decision Making 7 

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That 

Agency’s Top Leadership Demonstrated a Strong 

Commitment to Using Performance Information to Guide 

Decision Making 13 

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Identified Lack of 

Leadership Commitment to Using Performance 

Information as a Hindrance to Measuring Performance or 

Using Performance Information 13 

Figure 6: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported They 

Were Held Accountable for Their Agency’s 

Accomplishments of Strategic Goals 18 

Figure 7: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Agency 

Investment in Performance Data Capacity 20 

Figure 8: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Top 

Leadership Commitment to Using Performance 

Information to Guide Decision Making 22 

Figure 9: Interior Managers Reported Being Held Accountable to a 

Similar Extent as Rest of Government 23 

Figure 10: Interior Managers Reported Using Performance 

Information to Identify Problems, Take Corrective 

Actions, or Develop Strategy to a Lesser Extent than Rest 

of Government 24 

Figure 11: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That 

Difficulty in Determining Meaningful Measures Hinders 

Using Performance Information 27 

Figure 12: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported Top 

Leadership Demonstrated Commitment to Achieving 

Results 36 

Figure 13: CMS Region IV Communicated Performance Information 

with Stakeholders to Improve Quality of Care in Nursing 

Homes 37 

Figure 14: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That 

Agency Managers at Their Level Are Held Accountable for 

the Results of Their Programs 38 

Page ii GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Figure 15: CMS Reported Alignment among Department and 

Agency Goals and Individual Performance Objectives 39 

Figure 16: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That 

Difficulty Determining Meaningful Measures Hinders 

Using Performance Information 40 

Figure 17: A CMS Region IV Manager Described How Easier Access 

to Performance Data Contributed to Improved NursingHome Survey Frequency in Alabama 42 

Figure 18: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That 

Training Was Provided to Help Accomplish Key 

Management Tasks 43 

Figure 19: Average Change in Percentage of Federal Managers 

Reporting Use of Performance Information to a Great or 

Very Great Extent, 2000-2007 53 

Figure 20: Agency Ranking Based on 2007 Survey Results on Use of 

Performance Information 57 

Page iii GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Abbreviations 

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services 

CQISCO Consortium for Quality Improvement and Survey & 

 Certification Operations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Maps 

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act 

Interior Department of the Interior 

NPS National Park Service 

OCSQ Office of Clinical Standards and Quality 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PAR Performance and Accountability Report 

PART Program Assessment Rating Tool 

PMA President’s Management Agenda 

PMAP Performance Management Appraisal Program 

PMDS Performance Management Data System 

PMIS Project Management Information System 

PPS Performance Plan System 

Recovery Act American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 

SCHIP State Children’s Health Insurance Program 

SES Senior Executive Service 

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

United States. The published product 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. 

Page iv GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Page 1 GAO-09-676 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

August 17, 2009 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper 

Chairman 

The Honorable John McCain 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government 

 Information, Federal Services, and International Security 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Tom Coburn 

United States Senate 

How the federal government performs and the results it achieves have a 

significant effect on many of the most pressing issues of concern to the 

American public—whether it be the creation of jobs by providing timely 

and targeted aid for recovery programs, rigorous oversight of financial 

markets, effective responses to natural disasters, reduction in pollutants 

that contribute to climate change, or delivery of water to arid regions of 

the country. Given increasing public demands for a more effective, 

transparent, and accountable federal government, it is more important 

than ever that federal agencies establish meaningful goals for improving 

performance, monitor progress in achieving their goals, and use 

information about performance to make decisions that can improve 

results. 

For the purposes of this report, we define performance information to 

mean data collected to measure progress toward achieving an agency’s 

established mission or program-related goals. Performance information 

can focus on various dimensions of performance such as outcomes, 

outputs, quality, timeliness, customer satisfaction, or efficiency. It can 

inform key management decisions such as setting program priorities, 

allocating resources, identifying program problems and taking corrective 

action to solve those problems; or it can help determine progress in 

meeting the goals of programs or operations. Performance information 

may be collected to address internal management needs or external 

reporting requirements such as the Government Performance and Results 

 Use of Performance Information 
 

Act of 1993 (GPRA),1 or the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART), 

used by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the previous 

administration.2

Our periodic surveys on performance and management issues since 19973

have indicated that federal managers today have significantly more 

performance information available for the programs they manage than 

they did 10 years ago. However, on the whole, federal managers have 

shown little or no progress in increasing their use of performance 

information to manage for results. While some agencies have reported 

significant improvements, others remain unchanged.4

 In an effort to 

increase the use of performance information by agency managers, you 

asked that we conduct reviews at selected agencies to better understand 

what may hinder their use of performance information in managerial 

decision making and to identify opportunities for improvement. Our 

objectives were to: (1) identify agencies with relatively low use of 

performance information and the factors that contribute to this condition; 

and (2) examine practices in an agency where there were indications of 

improvement in its use of performance information. 

 

1

Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). Congress enacted GPRA to address several 

broad purposes, including improving federal program effectiveness, accountability, and 

service delivery; and enhancing congressional decision making by providing more objective 

information on program performance. See app. III for more information on GPRA and other 

federal management reforms. 

2

OMB created PART, a diagnostic tool that was intended to provide a consistent approach 

for evaluating federal programs as part of the executive budget formulation process. 

Through PART, OMB sought to create better ties between program performance and the 

allocation of resources. Although PART was discontinued as of the change in 

administration in 2009, it is likely that OMB will continue some form of agency assessment 

that will require performance information. See app. III for more information on PART and 

other federal management reforms. 

3

Our surveys were completed in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007 and were designed to obtain the 

observations and perceptions of respondents on various aspects of results-oriented 

management topics such as the presence and use of performance measures, hindrances to 

measuring performance and using performance information, and agency climate. Most of 

the items on our surveys asked respondents to rate the strength of their perception on a 5-

point extent scale ranging from “to no extent” at the low end of the scale to “to a very great 

extent” at the high end. For more information on our survey methodology and selected 

survey results see app. I. 

4

GAO, Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using 

Performance Information to Achieve Results, GAO-08-1026T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 

3008). In addition to our testimony, our survey results are also available: GAO, Government 

Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and Management Issues, 

an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T, GAO-08-1036SP (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008). 

Page 2 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

To address both of our objectives, we reviewed our prior work on resultsoriented management, including key practices that can promote greater 

use of performance information. We also reviewed prior reports and other 

relevant materials on GPRA and PART. 

To address our first objective, we first drew on our 2007 survey results to 

identify agencies where relatively fewer managers reported making 

extensive use of performance information. Based on this ranking and 

other considerations, we chose the Department of the Interior (Interior) 

and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which ranked 

27th and 28th respectively out of 29 agencies (see app. II, fig. 20). We then 

conducted interviews with senior-level officials responsible for operations, 

budget, human capital, and performance-reporting functions at each 

agency to gain an understanding of the performance-based management 

policies and practices established at the top levels of their organizations. 

We also asked officials and managers to identify areas where they faced 

difficulties in using performance information for decision making. To 

obtain the perspective of bureau, program, and field managers on 

challenges they faced in using performance information at their level, we 

interviewed officials from selected component organizations that covered 

significant and diverse aspects of each agency’s mission. At Interior, we 

selected the National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation) for review; and at FEMA, we selected the Disaster 

Assistance and Mitigation Directorates. 

To address our second objective of examining practices in an agency 

where improvement in the managers’ use of performance information 

appears to have progressed, we selected the Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS). Comparing survey results from 2000 and 2007, 

CMS managers’ reported use of performance information across selected 

areas of key decision making increased by nearly 21 percentage points. 

However, because CMS scored significantly below the rest of government 

in responses to survey items on managerial use of performance 

information in 2000, their 2007 responses to these items reflect a 

significant turnaround (see app. I, fig. 19). At CMS, we interviewed top 

headquarters officials, officials and managers in Regions IV and IX, and in 

two lines of business—the Consortium for Quality Improvement and 

Survey & Certification Operations (CQISCO) and the Consortium for 

Financial Management and Fee for Service Operations. It should be noted 

that we did not systematically assess the quality of the performance 

information used in the examples we cite. In addition, although we 

describe how performance information was used to make decisions in our 

Page 3 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

examples, we did not examine whether such use ultimately resulted in 

improved outcomes. 

At all three agencies, we interviewed selected officials and managers to 

gauge the extent to which key management practices—that we previously 

reported can promote use of performance information to manage for 

results—had been implemented. We also reviewed agency policies, 

procedures, and documentation related to results-oriented management 

such as their strategic plans, performance measures, and individual 

performance-management systems. See appendix I for a more detailed 

discussion of our scope and methodology. 

We performed our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; 

Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco and Sacramento, California; and 

Atlanta, Georgia; from March 2007 to May 2009 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. 

Over the past 16 years, a succession of legislative reforms and executive 

guidance have been aimed at improving the effectiveness of federal 

programs by transforming the departments and agencies that administer 

those programs to be more results-oriented and performance-based. A key 

element of these reforms is the Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 (GPRA), which among other things required executive agencies to 

establish results-oriented goals and performance measures and report on 

the progress achieved. More recently, OMB created the Program 

Assessment Rating Tool (PART), a diagnostic tool intended to provide a 

consistent approach for evaluating federal programs. (See app. III for a 

timeline of results-oriented-management reforms.) As we reported in July 

2008,5

 we have seen a positive 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 provides a solid foundation for improving the 

performance of federal programs. In particular, significantly more federal 

managers reported to a great or very great extent having the types of 

Background 

 

5

GAO-08-1026T. 

Page 4 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

performance measures called for by GPRA and PART than they did 10 

years ago (see fig. 1).6

Figure 1: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Performance 

Measures 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

1997

2007

Source: GAO.

Survey question

0 20 40 60 80 100

Outcome measuresa

Quality measuresa

Customer Service

measuresa

Efficiency measuresa

Output measuresa

Notes: Data are from GAO 1997 and 2007 surveys. 

a

There is a statistically significant difference between 1997 and 2007 surveys. Hereafter, the 

differences in percentages reported are statistically significant unless otherwise indicated. 

However, the ultimate benefit of collecting performance information—

improved decision making and results—is only fully realized when this 

information is used to support management planning and decision-making 

functions. The results of our 2007 survey showed that despite having more 

performance measures available, the extent to which managers make use 

of this information to improve performance has remained relatively 

unchanged. As shown in figure 2, six of the eight categories of 

 

6

GAO-08-1026T. Hereafter, when describing our survey results, we are reporting the 

percentage of federal managers who selected the “great” or “very great extent” response to 

survey items. 

Page 5 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

management activities we asked about in both 2000 and 2007 showed no 

statistically significant change over the past 10 years: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using Information 

Obtained from Performance Measurement for Various Management DecisionMaking Functions 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

1997

2007

Source: GAO.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Developing and

managing contractsb

Rewarding government

employees I manage or

supervise

Setting individual job

expectations for the

government employees

I manage or supervisea

Setting new or revising

existing performance goalsa

Refining program

performance measuresa

Coordinating program

efforts with other internal

or external organizationsa

Adopting new program

approaches or changing

work processes

Allocating resourcesa

Setting program prioritiesa

Survey question

Notes: Data are from GAO 1997 and 2007 surveys. 

a

Differences in percentages between 1997 and 2007 were not statistically significant. 

b

This question was not asked in 1997. 

As our survey results showed, despite legislative and administration 

efforts to focus federal management decisions on maximizing the results 

Page 6 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

achieved with federal funds, changing the way federal managers make 

decisions is not simply a matter of making more program performance 

information available. Based on our work on management reform efforts 

as well as analysis of federal managers’ responses to our surveys, we have 

identified several key management practices that can promote the use of 

performance information (see fig. 3).7

Figure 3: Practices That Can Promote the Use of Performance Information for 

Decision Making 

Uses

Source: GAO.

Improved results

Practices

Identify 

problems and 

take corrective 

action

Develop

strategy 

and allocate 

resources

Recognize 

and reward

performance

Identify and 

share effective 

approaches

Demonstrating

management 

commitment

Improving the 

usefulness of 

performance 

information

Developing

capacity to use 

performance 

information

Communicating

performance 

information 

frequently

and effectively

Aligning

agencywide 

goals, 

objectives, 

and measures

Our prior report grouped these practices into five categories as described 

below. 

 

7

GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 

Page 7 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Demonstrating 

Management Commitment 

The commitment of agency managers to results-oriented management is 

critical to increased use of performance information for policy and 

program decisions. Demonstrating the willingness and ability to make 

decisions and manage programs on the basis of results, and inspiring 

others to embrace such a model, are important indicators of 

management’s commitment. Management can show this type of 

commitment by leading frequent, regular performance-review meetings to 

discuss progress made toward the achievement of results, and by involving 

staff from different organizational levels in performance-review meetings. 

These methods can assist agencies in identifying performance problems 

and in developing performance-improvement plans based on collected 

performance information. 

Aligning Agencywide 

Goals, Objectives, and 

Measures 

Agencies can encourage greater use of performance information by 

aligning agencywide goals and objectives, and by aligning program 

performance measures at each operating level with those goals and 

objectives. GPRA requires that agencies use performance measurement to 

reinforce the connection between their long-term strategic goals and the 

day-to-day activities of their managers and staff. To meet the GPRA 

requirements, an agency should cascade its goals and objectives 

throughout the organization and should align performance measures to the 

objectives from the executive level down to the operational levels. 

Furthermore, a greater focus on results can be created by cascading 

organizational goals and objectives down to the individual performance 

level. This alignment increases the usefulness of the performance 

information collected to decision makers at each level, and reinforces the 

connection between strategic goals and the day-to-day activities of 

managers and staff. 

Improving the Usefulness 

of Performance 

Information to Better Meet 

Management’s DecisionMaking Needs 

To ensure that performance information will be both useful and used in 

decision making throughout the organization, agencies need to consider 

users’ differing policy and management information needs. To be useful, 

performance information must meet users’ needs for completeness, 

accuracy, consistency, timeliness, validity, and ease of use. Other 

attributes that affect the usefulness of information include, but are not 

limited to, relevance, credibility, and accessibility. Measures should be 

selected specifically on the basis of their ability to inform the decisions 

made at each organizational level, and should be appropriate to the 

responsibilities and control at each level. In that regard, involving 

managers in the development of performance goals and measures is 

Page 8 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

critical to increasing the relevance and therefore the usefulness of 

performance information to their day-to-day activities. 

Developing Agency 

Capacity 

The practice of building analytical capacity to use performance 

information—both in terms of staff trained to do analysis and availability 

of research and evaluation resources—is critical to using performance 

information in a meaningful fashion. Such capacity can be enhanced by 

training to develop the competencies and skills of managers to plan 

strategically, develop robust measures of performance, and analyze what 

the performance data mean. Performance management literature also 

states that training is a key factor in improving employees’ capabilities and 

enabling employee involvement in achieving performance improvements. 

Communicating 

Performance Information 

Frequently and Effectively 

Improving the communication of performance information among staff 

and stakeholders can facilitate the use of performance information by 

agency managers. Improvements can be achieved through frequent and 

routine communication, and the use of effective communication tools, 

such as visual aids. Frequent, regular communication is key for managers 

to inform staff and other stakeholders of their commitment to achieve the 

agency’s goals and to keep these goals in mind as they pursue their day-today activities. Frequently reporting performance information also allows 

managers to review the information in time to take action to make 

improvements. Program managers can also communicate performance 

information upward through the management hierarchy, and across 

operating units. Vehicles for such communication include poster displays, 

performance scorecards, intranet sites, e-mail, and distribution of monthly 

performance-review meeting minutes. 

Agencies Reviewed As noted above, to better understand what may hinder use of performance 

information and to identify opportunities for improvement, we selected 

FEMA, Interior, and CMS for more extensive review: 

Although an independent agency originally, FEMA has been a part of the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) since 2003. FEMA’s primary 

mission is to reduce the loss of life and property and protect the nation 

from all hazards, including natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other 

man-made disasters, by leading and supporting the nation in a risk-based, 

comprehensive emergency-management system of preparedness, 

protection, response, recovery, and mitigation. There are eight 

directorates within FEMA, each dedicated to formulating policy and 

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency 

Page 9 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

administering programs from the headquarters office located in 

Washington, D.C., and from 10 regional offices located across the United 

States. For fiscal year 2009, Congress appropriated approximately $15.6 

billion for FEMA and FEMA programs, including $610 million in the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act).8

 For this study, 

we reviewed the Mitigation Directorate, which manages a range of 

programs designed to reduce future losses to homes, businesses, schools, 

public buildings, and critical facilities from floods, earthquakes, tornadoes, 

and other natural disasters; and the Disaster Assistance Directorate. 

Within the Disaster Assistance Directorate, we focused on the Public 

Assistance program, which administers FEMA’s grants for emergency 

work, such as debris removal, and permanent work such as repairing and 

replacing damaged buildings following major disasters to state and local 

governments, authorized tribal organizations, and specific types of 

nonprofit organizations. 

Interior oversees nine separate agencies and bureaus with a wide range of 

responsibilities including resource use and protection, providing 

recreation opportunities on public lands, and honoring the nation’s 

obligations to American Indians and Alaskan Natives. For this study, we 

examined the National Park Service (NPS), which is responsible for 

preserving the natural and cultural resources and protecting the wildlife of 

the national parks so that they will remain unimpaired for the enjoyment 

of this and future generations, and the Bureau of Reclamation 

(Reclamation), which is responsible for managing, developing, and 

protecting water and related resources in an environmentally and 

economically sound manner. In the Omnibus Appropriations Act, 2009, 

Congress appropriated more than $10 billion for Interior, with NPS and 

Reclamation receiving approximately $2.56 billion and $1.11 billion 

Department of the Interior

 

8

Disaster Relief and Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-329, 

div. B, 122 Stat. 3574, 3592 (Sept. 30, 2008); Department of Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, div. D, 122 Stat. 3574, 3670-676 (Sept. 30, 

2009); Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (Feb.17, 2009). The Recovery Act provided stimulus 

funding for preserving and creating jobs and promoting economic recovery and for 

investment in transportation, environmental protection, and other infrastructure. The 

Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that the Recovery Act’s combined spending 

and tax provisions will cost $787 billion, of which over $580 billion will be in additional 

spending. 

Page 10 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

respectively.9 In addition, the Recovery Act provided approximately $3 

billion for Interior, including $750 million for NPS and $1 billion for 

Reclamation.10

CMS, a component of the Department of Health and Human Services, is 

the largest purchaser of health care in the United States, serving about 95 

million Medicare, Medicaid, and State Children’s Health Insurance 

Program (SCHIP) beneficiaries. CMS’ fiscal year 2009 budget of $776.3 

billion supports the entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and 

SCHIP and includes $35.9 billion in the Recovery Act. CMS has 

approximately 4,570 employees located in its headquarters and in 10 

regions throughout the country. In February 2007, CMS reorganized its 

regional management from a geography-based reporting structure to a 

consortia structure based on the agency’s key lines of business: Medicare 

health plans, Medicare financial management, Medicare fee for service 

operations, Medicaid and children’s health, survey and certification of 

health care providers, and quality improvement. For this study, we 

reviewed the Consortium for Quality Improvement and Survey & 

Certification Operations (CQISCO), which is responsible for, among other 

activities, oversight of state surveys and activities intended to monitor the 

quality of nursing homes and other types of health care facilities that 

participate in Medicare and Medicaid.11 Our prior work had identified 

more than 40 recommendations to CMS to improve oversight of nursing 

homes, which included recommendations intended to improve CMS’

of performance data.

Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services 

 use 

n 

 

12 Also, both Medicare and Medicaid programs are o

9

Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. 

No. 111-8, div. C, 123 Stat. 524, 609 (Mar. 11, 2009); Department of the Interior, 

Environment, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-8, div. E, 123 

Stat. 701–725. Interior was funded by continuing resolutions for the 2009 fiscal year up until 

the Omnibus Appropriations Act was enacted. See Pub. L. No. 111-6, 123 Stat. 522 (Mar. 6, 

2009); Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 

2009, Pub. L. No. 110-329, div. A, Continuing Appropriations Resolution, 2009, 122 Stat. 

3574, 3575, 3593 (Sept. 30, 2008). 

10Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115, 137, 166-168 (Feb. 17, 2009). 

11CMS contracts with states to assess the quality of care provided by Medicare and 

Medicaid participating facilities. 

12GAO, Nursing Home Reform: Continued Attention Is Needed to Improve Quality of 

Care in Small but Significant Share of Homes, GAO-07-794T (Washington, D.C.: May 2, 

2007). For a full bibliography of our prior work on nursing homes, see GAO, Medicare and 

Medicaid Participating Facilities: CMS Needs to Reexamine Its Approach for Funding 

State Oversight of Health Care Facilities, GAO-09-64 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2009). 

Page 11 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

GAO’s high-risk list due to their size and complexity, as well as their 

susceptibility to mismanagement and improper payments.13

According to our 2007 survey of federal managers, FEMA and Interior 

were two of the lowest users of performance information among the 29 

federal agencies surveyed. Several factors contributed to this relatively 

low use. At both FEMA and Interior, the demonstrated commitment of 

agency leaders to using performance information—a key management 

practice—was inconsistent. FEMA managers were also hampered by 

weakly aligned goals and limited analytic capacity to make use of 

performance information. At Interior and NPS, we observed, and officials 

and managers reported, a proliferation of measures, including some that, 

while meaningful for department-level accountability, were not relevant to 

their day-to-day management. Field managers we interviewed at NPS also 

said that poorly integrated performance and management information 

systems contributed to an environment where the costs of performance 

reporting—in terms of time and resources—outweighed what they 

described as minimal benefits to their decision making. While both FEMA 

and Interior have taken some promising steps to make their performance 

information both useful and used, these initiatives have thus far been 

limited. 

FEMA and Interior 

Were Hindered in 

Using Performance 

Information for 

Decision Making by 

Weak or Inconsistent 

Application of Key 

Management 

Practices 

FEMA Leadership 

Inconsistently 

Demonstrated 

Commitment to Using 

Performance Information 

in Certain Directorates, 

Regions 

As we have previously reported, demonstrating the willingness and ability 

to make decisions and manage programs on the basis of results and 

inspiring others to embrace such a model are important indicators of 

leadership’s commitment to using performance information.14 Our 2007 

survey results indicated that, compared to the rest of government, a 

smaller percentage of FEMA managers agreed their top leadership 

demonstrated a strong commitment to using performance information to 

guide decision making (see fig. 4). 

 

13GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

14GAO-05-927. 

Page 12 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Agency’s Top 

Leadership Demonstrated a Strong Commitment to Using Performance Information 

to Guide Decision Making 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Rest of government

FEMA

Source: GAO.

50%

32%

0 20 40 60 80 100

My agency’s top leadership

demonstrates a strong commitment

to using performance information

to guide decision making

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

At the same time, a significantly greater percentage of FEMA managers—

27 percentage points more than managers across the rest of government—

agreed that lack of leadership commitment is a hindrance to their use of 

performance information (see fig. 5). 

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Identified Lack of Leadership 

Commitment to Using Performance Information as a Hindrance to Measuring 

Performance or Using Performance Information 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Rest of government

FEMA

Source: GAO.

52%

25%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Lack of ongoing top executive

commitment or support for using

performance information to make

program/funding decisions

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

Our interviews with officials at FEMA were consistent with these survey 

results, indicating that management commitment was demonstrated 

inconsistently across the program directorates and regions we reviewed. 

Leaders and managers we spoke to throughout the management hierarchy 

were clearly committed to carrying out FEMA’s mission. The level of 

commitment to using performance information for decision making, 

Page 13 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

however, appeared to vary among those we interviewed. Further, several 

FEMA headquarters officials said that top leadership commitment to using 

performance information, demonstrated by one of the agency’s former 

leaders, had not permeated the organizational culture and that it was 

unclear whether recently instituted practices would be sustained under 

the new administration. 

A former Deputy Administrator, who served as FEMA’s chief operating 

officer before he left his position as part of the change in administration, 

said that he believed strongly in using performance information to identify 

areas for improvement. He said that when he arrived at FEMA in 2006, the 

agency culture was response driven and there was little recognition that 

performance information could be used to make improvements. As a first 

step, he said he had focused on improving FEMA’s business practices in 

areas such as hiring, financial management, and information systems. He 

also introduced performance information briefings on disaster assistance–

related areas of concern—such as housing for Hurricane Ike victims—in 

an effort to improve performance. For example, he said that by reviewing 

data on various aspects of the post–Hurricane Ike replacement housing 

situation—such as individual housing needs, the inventory of mobile 

homes, and the rate of mobile home installation—he was able to identify 

and fix a bottleneck in providing an adequate supply of temporary 

housing. Another FEMA official with responsibilities for performance 

reporting said that such disaster assistance metrics were important first 

steps in using performance information to improve disaster response. 

However, he noted that these metrics were specific to that disaster and 

that more work is needed to develop performance measures that can be 

applied to all disaster response situations. 

More recently, the former Deputy Administrator said he had begun to turn 

his attention to FEMA’s performance at the regional level. For example, he 

said he had begun to work with the regions to require strategic plans and 

quarterly performance reporting to his office. He acknowledged, however, 

that some regions are better than others at using performance information 

and that these quarterly reporting efforts were still immature. Further, our 

interviews with other officials indicated that only one reporting cycle had 

been completed before the former Deputy Administrator had left. 

Our interviews with top officials and regional program managers in the 

Disaster Assistance and Mitigation Directorates indicated that leadership 

commitment to using performance information varied among directorates 

and regions. In the Disaster Assistance Directorate, one headquarters 

official told us that he does not need performance targets to help him 

Page 14 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

determine whether his directorate is accomplishing its mission. He says he 

relies primarily on verbal communications with the leadership and from 

FEMA’s regions, joint field offices, and members of Congress to identify 

issues to be addressed and areas that are running well. Although he said 

he does use data to monitor how well the directorate is responding to 

postdisaster inquiries for assistance, such as the call center statistics from 

FEMA’s National Processing Service Center, his description indicated that 

these data mostly reflect workload and activity levels, rather than 

performance against goals. 

Another headquarters official within the Disaster Assistance Directorate’s 

Public Assistance program said he does not receive formal performance 

reports from regional program managers, nor are any performance reports 

required of him by his supervisors. He noted that goals for the Public 

Assistance program are established for the field at the regional level and 

that the directorate’s role is primarily one of developing policies and 

guidance. Although regional staff completed reports on various activities 

related to his programs, he said he was uncertain how he would use these 

regional reports since performance monitoring was not his focus. Instead, 

he said that he spoke to the regions on an ad hoc basis as performance 

problems arose. 

Officials responsible for Disaster Assistance Directorate programs in two 

of three regions we reviewed similarly described the ad hoc nature of 

performance reporting to headquarters. One said that, although he has 

begun to issue quarterly reports on various data, such as funding 

obligation rates, to his Regional Administrator that are shared with 

headquarters, he had not received any comments or feedback on what is 

reported. Another regional Disaster Assistance Directorate official told us 

that although regional program supervisors and staff meet quarterly to 

discuss timeliness related to funding obligations and project worksheet 

completion,15 among other items, they do not communicate performance 

information to the directorate head or headquarters on a regular basis. 

Officials from the third region we interviewed said that, although they 

anticipated that new strategic planning initiatives might change how they 

report on performance in the future, they did not review performance 

information with their regional staff, nor did they communicate it to 

headquarters. Officials we interviewed within the Disaster Assistance 

Directorate expressed reluctance toward holding their staff accountable 

 

15A critical step in the Public Assistance program process is the completion of a project 

worksheet, which documents eligible work and estimated cost. 

Page 15 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

for meeting performance goals due to external factors, such as the 

unpredictability of disasters beyond their control. Further, some 

expressed uncertainty as to how they could use performance information 

in the face of uncontrollable external factors. 

Example 1: Mitigation Directorate 

Leadership Used Performance 

Information to Engage Partners in 

Improving Map Modernization 

Outcomes

The Mitigation Directorate works with 

multiple stakeholders, including state and 

local governments, the insurance 

community, and private contractors to 

ensure that flood-prone communities have 

the most current and reliable flood data

available, and that those communities are 

in compliance with regulations referencing 

current Flood Insurance Rate Maps

(FIRM), which are used to regulate land 

development through flood-plain management and for flood insurance purposes. 

Communities that fail to adopt the new 

maps by the FIRM effective date are 

suspended from the National Flood 

Insurance Program, which can negatively 

affect local real-estate transactions and 

limit the community’s eligibility for disaster 

assistance. In an effort to improve 

community compliance, the Mitigation 

Directorate set an annual performance 

target of 93 percent of communities

adopting new maps by the FIRM effective 

date. They closely monitored performance 

by incorporating the map adoption rate 

into state grant agreements, map 

modernization contracts, and FEMA’s

regional performance scorecards. 

According to Mitigation Directorate 

officials, they frequently reviewed map 

modernization performance information 

with their external stakeholders and 

FEMA’s regional management, which sent 

a clear signal that they were paying 

attention to outcomes. According to these 

headquarters officials, they were able to 

meet or exceed their performance target of 

93 percent, in part as a result of their 

frequent communication and review of 

performance information. 

In contrast, according to several officials from the Mitigation Directorate, 

they had begun to use performance information to more effectively 

manage under unpredictable circumstances. These officials said that the 

former Mitigation Administrator’s commitment to performance and 

accountability helped change the directorate culture to one that 

encouraged use of performance information to plan for and respond to 

factors outside of their control. For example, storms and other natural 

events can disrupt the Mitigation Directorate’s production work related to 

flood-plain maps modernization. To plan for possible disruptions, 

Mitigation Directorate officials said they review performance information 

on progress toward map modernization goals on a monthly basis, in 

connection with weather forecasts. This review helps them to determine in 

advance if they are at risk of missing performance targets and to identify 

corrective actions or contingency plans in order to get back on track 

toward achieving their goals. They also described their own commitment 

to using performance information as a means to demonstrate the value of 

their programs, make improvements, and achieve results (see example 1). 

In addition, Mitigation Directorate officials from both the national office 

and from two of the three regions we reviewed noted frequent 

communication and review of program performance information. For 

example, each of the Mitigation Directorate’s three divisions developed 

score cards including performance measures that are reviewed quarterly. 

Mitigation Directorate officials also told us they involved staff throughout 

the directorate and their external stakeholders including insurance 

companies, the lending community, and state and local officials in their 

efforts to establish preliminary performance goals and measures. One 

regional manager we spoke to said that directorate and regional leadership 

fostered collaboration by encouraging regional staff to develop and share 

ideas for metrics and targets through weekly conference calls devoted to 

discussing performance information. 

Mitigation Directorate officials said that developing measures and holding 

staff and contractors accountable for their performance was not an easy 

transformation. They said that one key to this culture change was for the 

leadership to strike an appropriate balance between holding managers 

accountable for agency goals and building trust among managers and staff 

that performance information would be used as an improvement tool, 

Page 16 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

rather than as a punitive mechanism. Finally, Mitigation Directorate 

officials said that once managers and staff began to see that measuring 

performance can actually help them to improve results, they became more 

supportive of their leadership’s efforts to use performance information in 

their decision making. 

FEMA Has Not 

Consistently Aligned 

Agency, Program, and 

Individual Performance 

Goals 

As we reported previously,16 agencies can promote use of performance 

information by aligning agencywide goals and objectives, and by aligning 

program performance measures at each operating level with those goals 

and objectives. FEMA’s current strategic plan includes high-level strategic 

goals, such as, “deliver easily accessible and coordinated assistance for all 

programs.” FEMA officials said they had recently completed an addendum 

to the strategic plan that can be updated to reflect evolving circumstances. 

These officials acknowledged, however, that these goals and measures are 

high level and that establishing performance goals at the regional or 

division level would help FEMA to cascade organizational goals down to 

individual staff. 

According to our interviews with other top officials, FEMA had started to 

develop regional performance measures and align them with different 

operating levels of the agency. In mid-2008, FEMA’s leadership directed all 

regions to begin developing regional strategic plans; however, several 

officials described challenges in ensuring that these plans included 

meaningful performance measures that aligned with those at the 

directorate and agency level. The regions’ early efforts produced 

performance measures that, from the program directorates’ perspective, 

were often not aligned with their program goals. Subsequently, FEMA 

performance and operations officials worked with the regions and national 

program directorate leaders to refine the measures and to provide training, 

which included information on aligning activities and outputs with 

strategic goals. As of late 2008, FEMA had developed an initial set of 38 

regional performance measures that are intended to link to the agency’s 

strategic goals. It was unclear, however, when the regions will begin 

collecting data on these metrics to establish baseline performance levels 

and targets for improvement. Top officials acknowledged that efforts to 

align regional goals with the agency’s strategic objectives is a work in 

progress and will take some time to complete. 

 

16GAO-05-927. 

Page 17 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

We have reported that a greater focus on results can be created by 

cascading organizational goals and objectives down to the individual 

performance level, helping individuals to see the connection between their 

daily activities and organizational goals and providing a basis for holding 

individuals accountable for their results.17 However, our 2007 survey 

results indicated 44 percent of FEMA managers reported being held 

accountable for agency strategic goals, compared to 60 percent of their 

counterparts in the rest of government (see fig. 6). 

Figure 6: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported They Were Held 

Accountable for Their Agency’s Accomplishments of Strategic Goals 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Rest of government

FEMA

Source: GAO.

60%

44%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Agency managers/supervisors at my

level are held accountable for agency

accomplishment of its strategic goals

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

FEMA lacked a performance-management system that can cascade 

organizational goals to the individual performance level—that is, create a 

“line of sight” linking individual goals and organizational success. In 

September 2008, FEMA human capital management officials told us that 

aligning agency goals with non-Senior Executive Service (SES) 

performance objectives was being accomplished through the 

implementation of DHS’ ePerformance Management System.18 At that time, 

according to officials, approximately 30 percent of permanent full-time 

employees had been converted to the new system. However when 

Congress disallowed DHS from further implementing the humanresources-management system then in place, in October 2008,19 DHS 

 

17GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003). 

18FEMA’s SES managers were covered by DHS’ human-capital-management system, which 

required linkages between agency goals and individual performance objectives. 

19Pub. L. No. 110-329, div. D, § 522. 

Page 18 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

rescinded its ePerformance Management and related human-resources 

systems. For fiscal year 2009, FEMA chose to revert to its previous 

appraisal system, which it had established in the mid-1990s. Although 

human-capital officials told us that this appraisal system encourages 

supervisors and employees to develop work plans, our review of policies 

and appraisal documents indicated no requirement to align individual 

performance objectives with agency or program performance goals. A 

human-capital official at FEMA noted that, in an effort to forestall 

multiple, time-consuming changes to FEMA’s performance-management 

system, the agency did not want to invest further resources in this area 

until the agency is able to ascertain how DHS is proceeding with 

department-level performance-management policies and systems. This 

official also explained that changes to FEMA’s current performance 

management policies or guidance—which covers both bargaining-unit and 

non-bargaining-unit employees—would be subject to negotiation with its 

employee labor unions. 

Interviews with management officials from three regions further indicated 

that the practice of cascading organizational goals to the individual 

performance level was applied inconsistently across regions. The top 

official from one region said that the region does not include GPRA goals 

or other agency-level goals in individual performance agreements and 

noted that FEMA is not very mature in individual performance 

management. Although the top official from another region said that in the 

absence of direction from headquarters, he had worked to link individual 

performance objectives to FEMA’s strategic goals, the performance 

agreement example provided to us included expected outcomes that were 

not easily measurable, such as, “... build trust and confidence with the 

state and local partners.” An official from a third region said that while the 

now-defunct ePerformance Management System was useful in helping the 

region to establish such linkages, FEMA’s current performance 

management system is a “sham” because it provides no tool to measure 

performance against goals. Limited goal alignment in the area of individual 

performance management may hinder managers’ ability to understand 

how their roles and responsibilities affect broader results. For example, 

one official told us that without such alignment, it was difficult to show 

staff how their efforts supported FEMA’s mission. It was also difficult to 

hold managers accountable for results. 

Page 19 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

FEMA Officials Said 

Inadequate Information 

Systems, Analytic Skills 

Hindered Use of 

Performance Information 

The practice of building analytic capacity is critical to using performance 

information in a meaningful fashion. Our review of FEMA’s analytic 

capacity to use performance information—in terms of both management 

information systems and trained employees—revealed some weaknesses. 

According to our 2007 survey, the percentage of FEMA managers reporting 

that their agency is investing in resources to improve the agency’s capacity 

to use performance information is lower than the rest of government (see 

fig. 7). 

Figure 7: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Agency Investment in 

Performance Data Capacity 

0 20 40 60 80 100

My agency is investing in

resources to improve the

agency’s capacity to use

performance information

Rest of government

FEMA

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Source: GAO.

33%

19%

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

These survey results were consistent with the perspective we heard from 

key headquarters officials who told us that poorly integrated systems 

made it difficult for FEMA managers to use performance information. 

According to one official, in order to gather performance information, it 

was necessary to write programs to generate specific reports for each of 

the systems and then manually integrate the information, making it 

difficult to produce repeatable and verifiable reports. For example, in 

order to pull performance information together at the program-directorate 

level, this official told us he had to ask the few technical staff capable of 

working with the systems to devote a significant amount of time and effort 

to producing the information. FEMA officials told us they were pursuing a 

new budget system, RM Online, which includes a component intended to 

make high-level program and program performance information readily 

available to senior managers. However, the agency was still evaluating the 

system and it was unclear when it might be implemented. 

In addition to weaknesses in information-systems capacity, according to 

several officials we interviewed, there were a limited number of staff with 

the analytic capacity necessary to work with performance metrics. The 

Page 20 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

former Deputy Administrator said that when he joined FEMA in 2006, 

managers and staff did not use or understand performance data. A highranking directorate official told us that he was trying to increase use of 

performance information to improve workflow and other operations in his 

area. However, he said he lacked staff with the skills to analyze 

information for decision-making purposes. Another official with 

responsibilities for performance measurement said that the lack of 

analytically-skilled staff throughout the agency posed a challenge to using 

performance information. According to this same official, in order to 

improve the agency’s capacity to use performance information, FEMA has 

begun to provide training on performance measurement to directorate and 

regional managers. Our review of the training materials indicated that they 

addressed specific areas that we have identified as critical to using 

performance information, including strategic planning, developing robust 

performance measures, and analyzing what the performance data mean. 

FEMA has also developed strategic planning guidance that outlines an 

approach for developing performance measures and evaluating 

performance, among other goals. However, so far, the training has been 

provided only to representatives from each region and directorate 

managers in headquarters, and a key official acknowledged that not all 

directorates have been equally effective at pushing the training out to their 

managers and staff in the regions. 

Interior, NPS Officials and 

Managers Reported 

Uneven Leadership 

Commitment to Using 

Performance Information 

for Decision Making 

We have previously reported that to drive continuous improvement 

throughout an agency and inspire employees to accomplish challenging 

goals, it is critical that leadership demonstrates its commitment to resultsoriented management.20 We have also reported that top leadership can 

demonstrate such commitment by clearly communicating how they use 

performance information for decision making. On survey items related to 

managers’ perceptions of their leadership’s commitment to using 

performance information, Interior’s 2007 results were lower than those in 

the rest of government (see fig. 8). 

 

20GAO-05-927. 

Page 21 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Figure 8: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Top Leadership 

Commitment to Using Performance Information to Guide Decision Making 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Rest of government

Interior

Source: GAO.

50%

37%

0 20 40 60 80 100

My agency’s top leadership

demonstrates a strong commitment

to using performance information

to guide decision making

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

Our interviews with top leadership and managers provided further insight 

into these survey results. At all levels, we observed that leaders and 

managers conveyed a strong commitment to accomplishing the agency’s 

mission. However, their commitment to using performance information for 

decision making was less evident. For example, the former Deputy 

Secretary of the Interior said that, although she reviewed performance 

information at the end of the year in connection with preparing the 

department’s annual performance report, she was not involved in regularly 

monitoring the performance information reported under GPRA and 

PART.21 Another Interior official characterized the department’s strategic 

plan as more of a vehicle for communicating high-level goals and 

accomplishments than as a tool for management decision making. This 

view that top leadership did not use performance information to make 

decisions was supported by several NPS managers who referred to the 

performance reporting process as “feeding the beast,” because they 

receive little or no communication from either Interior or NPS 

headquarters in response to the information they are required to report, 

leading them to assume that no one with authority reviews or acts on this 

information. 

 

21In discussing hindrances to using performance information, managers we interviewed at 

Interior generally referred to performance information developed to meet GPRA and PART 

reporting requirements. Both GPRA and PART were intended to enhance decision making 

by requiring agencies to develop results-oriented performance goals linked to agency 

missions and report on the results achieved. See app. III for more information on GPRA 

and PART. 

Page 22 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

As we have previously reported, leaders can demonstrate their 

commitment to using performance information for various management 

functions in a number of ways, such as 

1. holding individuals accountable for results by evaluating their 

performance against goals; 

2. identifying problems in existing programs, to try to identify the causes 

of problems and to develop corrective actions; 

3. developing strategies, planning and budgeting, identifying priorities, 

and making resource allocation decisions to affect programs in the 

future; and 

4. identifying more effective approaches to program implementation and 

sharing those approaches more widely across the agency.22 

At Interior our 2007 survey results on questions related to accountability 

indicated that Interior’s managers were similar to those in the rest of 

government. For example, 75 percent of Interior managers—similar to 

those at other agencies—reported being held accountable for results (see 

fig. 9). 

Figure 9: Interior Managers Reported Being Held Accountable to a Similar Extent as 

Rest of Government 

Survey question

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Rest of government

Interior

Source: GAO.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Agency managers/supervisors at my

level are held accountable for the

result(s) of the program(s)/operation(s)/

project(s) they are responisble fora

Agency managers/supervisors at my

level are held accountable for agency

accomplishment of its strategic goalsa

60%

56%

72%

75%

Notes: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

a

The differences in responses between Interior and the rest of government on these two items are not 

statistically significant. 

 

22GAO-05-927. 

Page 23 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Several NPS managers we interviewed corroborated these survey results, 

citing how performance information was used to hold them individually 

accountable for achieving certain performance goals. However, this focus 

on individual accountability did not appear to extend to using 

performance information for other management functions that leading 

organizations employ, such as identifying problems, taking corrective 

actions, or developing strategy (see fig. 10). 

Figure 10: Interior Managers Reported Using Performance Information to Identify 

Problems, Take Corrective Actions, or Develop Strategy to a Lesser Extent than 

Rest of Government 

Survey question

Rest of governement

Interior

Source: GAO.

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Taking corrective action to

solve program problems

Identifying program

problems to be addressed

Developing program strategy

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

51%

38%

40%

61%

41%

60%

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

Our interviews with top leaders and managers at NPS may help to explain 

these survey results. A senior headquarters official at NPS responsible for 

park operations said that he is not involved in regularly monitoring the 

performance of the park system in achieving GPRA and PART-related 

performance goals and does not use this information to manage park 

operations. Rather, he regularly communicated with his staff about other 

Page 24 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

management issues, such as the rate at which funds are obligated.23

However, obligation rates, while helpful in assessing the pace at which 

projects are progressing, do not provide information about the results 

achieved with these funds and therefore may not be useful in driving 

performance improvements. He also said that although GPRA and PARTrelated goals were not useful to him in making operational and program 

management decisions, NPS had included these goals in managers’ 

performance agreements in order to comply with Interior’s individual 

performance management policies.24 However, this official—and other 

NPS senior officials and managers we interviewed—was concerned that 

GPRA and PART information was sometimes used to evaluate individual 

performance without appropriate context or recognition of what is outside 

managers’ control. Some noted, for example, that storms and flooding can 

have an effect on maintenance and repair performance targets, and air and 

water quality goals are dependent on environmental factors outside of the 

parks. 

We have previously reported25 that successful organizations typically 

create ambitious performance goals aimed at achieving significant 

improvements in performance, rather than marginal improvements of just 

a few percentage points. However, several NPS officials and managers told 

us that GPRA and PART targets were not always set at ambitious levels. 

An NPS headquarters official explained that targets set at the park and 

regional levels are aggregated at the agency level and subject to evaluation 

in the context of past performance and anticipated funding. If necessary, 

headquarters will adjust performance targets to appropriate levels. He also 

noted that parks and regions are advised at the beginning of every 

planning cycle that targets should be based on what can be realistically 

accomplished during the course of the fiscal year. However, some park 

managers we spoke to said that they were directed by their superiors to 

set targets at levels they can safely meet because they and their superiors 

 

23Funds are obligated when a definite commitment is made that creates a legal liability of 

the government for the payment of goods and services ordered or received. An agency may 

incur an obligation, for example, when it places an order, signs a contract, awards a grant, 

or purchases a service. 

24More recently, according to another senior headquarters official, Interior had 

discontinued the requirement to include GRPA goals in SES individual performance plans. 

However, NPS guidance concerning its SES members’ fiscal year 2008 performance plans 

indicated that GPRA performance information would be taken into consideration in 

individual performance evaluations. 

25GAO, Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance, AIMD/GGD-95-130R

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 27, 1995). 

Page 25 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

could otherwise be penalized. Without sufficiently ambitious goals, 

managers may not have incentives to use performance information to 

identify opportunities for significant improvement. 

Although our interviews indicated some concerns that NPS leadership had 

focused more on using performance information for accountability than to 

help make improvements, some regional and park managers did note 

examples of specific program areas, such as cultural resources and 

facilities management, where they had begun to see their NPS leadership 

take a broader approach to using performance information. For example, 

one regional director said that the cultural-resources program leadership 

based in headquarters had effectively communicated to the regions how 

they used information from the PART review to inform their funding 

decisions. He went on to say that even though some of the decisions they 

made about prioritizing certain projects over others were painful, staff in 

the field understood how the performance information they submitted 

contributed to the program’s funding decisions. He noted that his park 

superintendents appreciated when program leaders communicated that 

the information they provided was useful and demonstrated how it 

informed their decision-making processes. 

Measures That Lacked 

Credibility to Bureau Level 

Managers, in Combination 

with a Proliferation of 

Measures, Detracted from 

Usefulness of Performance 

Information 

We reported previously that performance information must be useful and 

meet differing policy and management information needs in order to 

encourage its use for decision making.26 Our 2007 survey results show that, 

compared to the rest of government, a significantly higher percentage of 

Interior managers reported that difficulty determining meaningful 

measures is a barrier to using performance information (see fig. 11). 

 

26GAO-05-927. 

Page 26 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Figure 11: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Difficulty in 

Determining Meaningful Measures Hinders Using Performance Information 

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Rest of government

Interior

Source: GAO.

58%

39%

0 20 40 60 80 100

Difficulty determining meaningful

measures hinders measuring

performance or using the

performance information

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

Our interviews at NPS and Reclamation may help to explain these survey 

results, with managers describing several types of problems that detract 

from the usefulness of the performance information they are required to 

report. 

We reported previously that, to be useful, performance information should 

be consistent, timely, valid, relevant, and credible, among other 

attributes.27 At both NPS and Reclamation, managers we interviewed said 

they do not consider certain GPRA and PART measures to be meaningful 

indicators of performance. For example, Reclamation managers report on 

a performance measure of the amount of water they deliver, but according 

to a number of managers within the bureau, this measure is not 

meaningful because it reflects unpredictable changes in weather 

conditions that could affect their customers’ needs, rather than how well 

they are performing (see example 2 on the next page). 

Some GPRA, PART Measures 

Lacked Credibility for Decision 

Making at the Bureau Level 

Some managers suggested it would make more sense to have a measure 

that takes into account how well they manage water supply in relation to 

customer needs, rather than amount delivered. Headquarters officials at 

Interior and Reclamation said they view the measure as an important 

statistic related to one of Reclamation’s primary missions, to deliver water, 

and that they do not expect managers to meet the water-delivery targets if 

circumstances change. One official also noted that performance 

information on this measure is accompanied by narrative that explains 

 

27GAO-05-927. 

Page 27 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

whatever factors may have affected the amount of water delivered. 

However, Interior included annual goals for this measure for fiscal years 

2009 and 2010, and reported on the results of this goal for the past four 

years in its fiscal year 2008 Performance Accountability Report. Several 

Reclamation managers we interviewed said that this measure lacked 

credibility and was not used to make decisions. Despite the concerns 

expressed by regional and frontline managers, an Interior official noted 

that Reclamation had not proposed an alternative measure, which may be 

due to the difficulty of defining a quantifiable, verifiable measure. 

Example 2: Reclamation Managers

Described How a Performance 

Measure That Lacked Relevance 

Was Not Useful for Decision Making

Reclamation delivers approximately 10 

trillion gallons of water to more than 31 

million customers including farmers, 

municipalities, and irrigation districts

each year. According to Reclamation 

officials, it is critical that they frequently 

monitor performance information related 

to water delivery in order to mitigate the 

effect of water shortages on their 

customers. Reclamation is responsible 

for identifying potential water shortages

as early as possible and restricting 

delivery when supply is running low. To 

identify potential shortages, Reclamation 

managers need information that can tell 

them how well they are managing their 

supply of water. Instead, Reclamation 

managers report against a target for the 

amount of water delivered, which is not 

adjusted for changes in critical factors

such as weather conditions or customer 

needs. For example, if there is a lot of 

rainfall, Reclamation customers do not 

need the bureau to deliver water. By not 

delivering water, Reclamation is meeting 

customer needs and being a responsible 

steward of a natural resource, but it is

also failing to meet its performance goal. 

Under these circumstances, Reclamation 

officials pointed out, if a manager were to 

make a decision based on a performance 

goal related to the amount of water 

delivered, he would have a perverse 

incentive to deliver water that is not 

needed.

At both NPS and Reclamation, managers we interviewed described 

performance information that lacked credibility because the measures do 

not accurately define comparable elements or do not take into account 

different standards across bureaus or units. For example, several NPS 

managers noted that one of the measures they report, “percent of historic 

structures in good condition,” does not differentiate between a large, 

culturally significant structure such as the Washington Monument and a 

smaller, less significant structure such as a group of headstones. 

Consequently, a manager could achieve a higher percentage by 

concentrating on improving the conditions of numerous less significant 

properties. Similarly, measures related to trail maintenance do not take 

into account the baseline conditions or the purpose of the trails, which can 

vary greatly and affect the level of resources needed for maintenance. 

Some park managers expressed concern that certain performance 

measures falsely imply a consistency among units being compared, which 

could lead to inaccurate conclusions if decision makers do not take the 

proper context into consideration when reviewing information. Some 

managers also said that the long-term nature of some of the GPRA goals—

many of which they acknowledged as critical—made it difficult to use the 

related performance information for daily decision making. For example, 

one headquarters official explained that the goal of restoring damaged 

park lands to a desired condition is an important aspect of NPS’ mission, 

but progress may be slow and the result may not be achieved for many 

years. 

As we have reported,28 involving managers in the development of 

performance goals and measures is critical to increasing the credibility 

and therefore the usefulness of performance information to their day-today activities. A couple of NPS managers acknowledged that in the early 

stages of GPRA implementation, they were more involved, and felt more 

 

28GAO-05-927. 

Page 28 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

committed to the process of developing goals and measures than they do 

currently, but that is no longer the case. Several Reclamation managers 

also said that they believed they had little influence in defining or revising 

GPRA and PART measures and that as a result, they do not take ownership 

of the performance information. According to a senior Interior 

headquarters official, however, the department has continued to provide a 

forum for bureaus to propose modifications or alternatives to existing 

measures. For example, every 3 years, Interior requests proposals for 

changes or revisions, which are then reviewed by bureau and department 

officials, OMB, and the general public. However, several managers we 

interviewed at NPS and Reclamation said that when they have proposed 

changes to measures that they find misleading or irrelevant, they did not 

always see evidence that their suggestions were considered or acted upon. 

An Interior headquarters official explained that suggestions received from 

the bureau level may not always be appropriate for adoption at the 

department level, where it is important to have measures that can provide 

Interior decision makers with a view over its bureaus’ aggregate 

performance against mission goals. In these cases, the department 

forwards the suggestions to the bureau policy makers responsible for 

performance measurement and reporting for their consideration. This 

official pointed out that Interior’s aggregated performance measures do 

not preclude the bureaus from reviewing disaggregated performance 

information; or other performance information that is more meaningful or 

relevant to their particular management decision-making needs. 

We have previously reported that to be useful and meaningful to managers 

and staff across an agency, performance measures should be limited at 

each organizational level to the vital few that provide critical insight into 

the agency’s core mission and operations.29 Setting such a limit also helps 

to ensure, among other things, that the costs involved in data collection 

and analyzing the data do not become prohibitive. However, in the 7 years 

since the inception of the former administration’s PART assessment 

initiative, Interior has expanded its performance reporting to include 440 

PART program measures, in addition to its approximately 200 strategic 

performance measures that satisfy GPRA reporting requirements on its 

nine bureaus. A senior headquarters official at Interior said that the annual 

Proliferation of Performance 

Measures at Interior and NPS 

Detracted from Usefulness 

 

29GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996). 

Page 29 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Performance and Accountability Report30 contains so much data that it is 

difficult for senior leaders and managers to focus on priorities and easily 

identify performance gaps among the different program areas. 

At NPS, managers are required to report on over 120 performance 

measures related to GPRA and PART, covering a broad range of programs 

and projects including concessions, facilities, volunteer hours, visitor 

satisfaction, recreation opportunities, safety elements, and the condition 

of natural, historical, and cultural resources. At NPS, a senior 

headquarters official echoed the concern stated by an Interior official, 

noting that the volume and scope of performance information that 

managers are required to collect and report make it difficult for them to 

determine which aspects of performance are important to department and 

service leadership. Moreover, regional and park managers stated that the 

resources needed to collect and report on the large volume of GPRA and 

PART measures are extensive. Managers staffed to smaller parks with 

fewer employees were particularly concerned about the workload 

associated with collecting and reporting on all of these measures, with one 

noting that it was at the direct expense of park operations and 

maintenance activities. Several managers told us that new measures and 

reporting requirements were frequently introduced with new programs 

and initiatives, but that they were unaware of any efforts at NPS to review 

or retire performance measures that may no longer represent management 

priorities. 

According to officials at Interior and NPS, they were aware of issues 

related to the usefulness of performance information as currently 

collected and reported. The former Deputy Secretary of the Interior said 

that department-level measures were not necessarily useful for making 

day-to-day management decisions. She attributed this to Interior’s effort to 

create measures with reach, which she defined as a few simple measures 

that can provide a view of how all of their bureaus are performing against 

broad outcome goals. She contrasted the department-level measures with 

rich measures that are intended to provide detailed information that 

makes sense on the ground and can be used to manage programs. 

Although this official said that, by definition, there should only be a few 

high-level reach measures, she acknowledged that there had been a 

proliferation of measures, which made it difficult to manage. 

 

30Current OMB guidance calls for agencies to combine the annual performance report 

required by GPRA with their financial statement and accountability report into a 

Performance and Accountability Report (PAR). 

Page 30 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

To address these concerns, some efforts had been initiated at both 

organizations to improve the usefulness of performance information 

without adding to the existing data-collection and reporting process. A 

senior headquarters official at Interior described how he worked with 

department and bureau managers to select a subset of 26 key performance 

indicators from the department’s more than 200 strategic performance 

measures to help internal and external audiences focus on the 

department’s critical mission areas. These 26 measures are aggregated 

across bureaus with shared performance goals and link their performance 

with cost information. For example, Interior reported that in 2007, the 

department spent approximately $114.4 million to control about 635,000 

acres—or 1.7 percent—of total acres with invasive plant species. These 

data capture expenditures and progress made by the four bureaus—NPS, 

Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management, and Fish and Wildlife 

Service—that collectively contribute to the goal. According to this official, 

these summary indicators are intended to help senior officials navigate the 

large volume of performance information so they can more easily identify 

areas that are achieving results and focus on areas that need improvement. 

By linking budget information to these key indicators, this official said he 

was able to improve the usefulness of the performance information as a 

decision-making tool for Interior, providing top leaders with a snapshot of 

the cost of meeting various goals. 

Interior and NPS Have 

Undertaken Efforts to Improve 

the Usefulness of Performance 

Information 

At NPS we observed several initiatives that were intended to improve the 

usefulness of performance information. The NPS Scorecard, for example, 

was developed by the NPS Comptroller—with input from headquarters, 

the regions, and the parks—as a diagnostic tool to evaluate performance 

and efficiency across the organization. The current version of the 

scorecard includes 34 financial, organizational, and strategic performance 

indicators derived from existing data sources and scores each park 

relative to its counterparts. Although still under development, some 

managers described the NPS scorecard as a promising instrument because 

it provided them with an analysis of their performance and efficiency in 

comparison to other parks, among other reasons. They also appreciated 

that the scorecard pulled information from existing NPS databases and did 

not require additional investment in data collection or reporting. However, 

some managers expressed concerns that the scorecard compared park 

performance to an average of all parks rather than an established 

benchmark. On an annual basis, to meet NPS-wide goals, specific 

performance targets are established for individual parks. Therefore, it is 

possible that a park that met or exceeded these agreed upon performance 

targets, but was still below the NPS-wide average, would receive an 

unfavorable rating on the scorecard. 

Page 31 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Another approach that was being adopted in some of the NPS regions we 

reviewed—the Core Operations Analysis—is a park-level funding and 

staffing planning process that is intended to improve park efficiency and 

ensure that a park’s resource-allocation decisions are linked to its core 

mission goals. Regional-level managers who engaged in the Core 

Operations Analysis said it was useful in establishing goals based on the 

park’s priorities, monitoring progress toward achieving those goals, and 

holding park superintendents accountable for meeting established goals, 

in contrast to the GPRA and PART goals, which several managers 

perceived as relating to department- or program-level planning efforts and 

long-term goals. One region had taken the additional step of establishing 

linkages between their analysis and GPRA goals with assistance from a 

senior Interior official. 

In addition, two park superintendents we interviewed said they were able 

to make GPRA and PART measures useful for their day-to-day 

management decision making by linking them to shorter-term, operational 

goals. For example, one had created an annual work plan that linked 

GPRA goals to intermediate tasks necessary to achieve those goals so that 

staff could see how their efforts contributed to aggregate or long-term 

outcomes. Specifically, the GPRA target that “87 percent of visitors 

understand and appreciate the site’s significance” was linked to two 

intermediate goals: “research and preserve information on stories and 

resources” and “conduct 7 guided tours per day, 362 days per year.” 

Another said that he incorporated targets related to these GPRA goals in 

all of his managers’ performance plans in order to make the performance 

information more meaningful on an annual basis. 

Although these initiatives appeared to be positive steps toward ensuring 

that performance measures were useful for decision making at different 

operating levels—as well as to help focus leaders and managers on 

performance priorities—they did not appear to reduce the volume of 

performance information that NPS and Reclamation were required to 

report. As a result, efforts to ensure that performance information was 

useful at the bureau level may have been hindered. For example, the two 

park managers who had linked shorter-term or disaggregated targets to 

GPRA goals told us that they were atypical in taking this approach. They 

explained that many of their colleagues were not able to develop bridge 

measures or interim goals due to lack of training, time, or staff resources 

relative to their reporting workload; or because they were responsible for 

reporting on too many measures as a result of the scope of their park’s 

operations. This perspective was borne out by our interviews with other 

park superintendents who said they expended significant resources to 

Page 32 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

report on many measures that lacked relevance to their management 

decision making. One park manager told us that he did not have the staff 

available to collect and use information over and above what was already 

required. 

Labor-Intensive and Poorly 

Integrated Data Systems 

Increase Burden of 

Performance Reporting at 

NPS and Reclamation 

According to NPS managers we interviewed at all levels, lack of 

integration among NPS’ multiple data systems—and little flexibility to 

modify its primary performance information system to accommodate 

evolving programs and requirements—contributed to a time-consuming, 

labor-intensive performance-reporting process. At NPS, managers were 

required to use the Performance Management Data System (PMDS) to 

collect GPRA performance information. However, regional and park 

managers we spoke to said that the system was not easy to use for data 

entry or for obtaining information needed to manage programs or 

operations. One headquarters official confirmed that the system had not 

been designed as a management tool, but was designed simply to 

aggregate performance from the parks. Several managers described the 

system as slow and difficult to use and noted this was especially 

problematic for NPS’ remote parks that do not have high-speed system 

access.31 NPS managers we interviewed also said that PMDS cannot be 

used to integrate GPRA data with other information that would be useful 

for decision making such as park projects status and funding information, 

facilities condition information, or other park program performance 

information that is not covered by current GPRA measures. Several park 

managers described how another system, the Project Management 

Information System (PMIS), captures the park’s project proposals and is 

useful in tracking park-level projects’ status and funding. Although PMIS 

has a field where park managers can enter expected performance 

outcomes related to GPRA goals, because there are no automated linkages 

between the two systems, doing so would require additional data entry. 

Further, a NPS headquarters official said that PMDS does not have the 

flexibility to generate new reports to satisfy evolving reporting 

requirements, which can be problematic when NPS is expected to 

demonstrate results associated with special funding initiatives such as the 

Centennial Commitment—a multiyear initiative that provided NPS with 

$100 million in fiscal year 2008 to augment existing park funding. 

 

31A headquarters official indicated that in 2007, changes were made to PMDS to improve 

the data-entry process. However, none of the managers we interviewed in 2008 through 

early 2009 commented on these changes. 

Page 33 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

According to this official, PMDS was not designed to differentiate 

Centennial dollars—or any other special appropriations—from their 

annual appropriation; rather the system was set up to collect performance 

information, regardless of funding source, from individual park units. 

According to this same official, PMDS does not attribute specific 

performance results to discrete fund sources because gains in 

performance are often the result of multiple fund sources over multiple 

years. To satisfy Centennial reporting requirements, managers had to 

collect and report additional performance information, using other 

systems, to show what they did with Centennial dollars and what types of 

results they accomplished. 

One park manager noted that although the lack of integration and 

flexibility was an inconvenience for the largest parks, they generally had 

enough staff to absorb the workload. However, some managers 

responsible for smaller, geographically isolated parks that do not employ 

many staff said that these issues presented a challenge to their ability to 

enter data and generate required reports. A top official at Interior also 

acknowledged that this was especially difficult for smaller parks where a 

few staff members have to serve in many roles and may not have enough 

time to collect all of the required data. 

Some Reclamation managers we spoke to also said that a lack of 

integrated systems made it difficult for them to collect and report on 

performance information. According to a regional manager responsible for 

GPRA reporting, there is no one centralized database to which a 

Reclamation executive can go to find out how the bureau is doing on all of 

Reclamation’s required performance goals. The lack of linkage among the 

different Reclamation systems required managers to enter the same data 

multiple times, which some managers said is a burden. 

Page 34 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

In 2000, significantly fewer managers at CMS—then known as the Health 

Care Financing Administration—reported using performance information 

for various management decisions, as compared to their counterparts in 

the rest of government. Between our 2000 and 2007 surveys, however, 

CMS showed one of the largest average increases in the percentage of 

managers who reported using performance information for certain 

decisions. This increase placed CMS in about the middle of our agency 

rankings, which were based on an index of 2007 survey results designed to 

reflect each agency’s managers’ reported use of performance information 

(see fig. 20 in app. II). Selected officials we interviewed attributed this 

change to the combined effect of key management practices they 

employed, including leadership commitment to using performance 

information; alignment of strategic and performance goals; improving the 

usefulness of performance information; and building the analytic capacity 

to collect and use performance information. They also cited the legislative 

mandate for expanded performance reporting included in the Medicare 

Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 as 

another key change factor.32 According to these managers and officials, 

their increased use of performance information helped them to identify 

problems and solutions to improve results. 

Officials at CMS 

Headquarters and 

Selected Programs 

Said Key Management 

Practices Had 

Promoted Use of 

Performance 

Information for 

Decision Making 

CMS Managers Said Highly 

Visible Leadership 

Commitment, Frequent 

Communication Fostered 

Use of Performance 

Information 

Our 2007 survey results indicated that CMS managers are at about the 

same level as the rest of government in reporting leadership commitment 

to results-oriented management, but compared to 2000, significantly more 

CMS managers agreed that their leadership is committed to using 

performance information (see fig. 12). 

 

32Pub. L. No. 108-173, 117 Stat. 2066 (Dec. 8, 2003). 

Page 35 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Figure 12: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported Top Leadership 

Demonstrated Commitment to Achieving Results 

0 20 40 60 80 100

My agency's top leadership

demonstrates a strong

commitment to achieving results

2000

2007

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Source: GAO.

46%

69%

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2000 and 2007 surveys. 

Nearly all of the CMS officials we interviewed credited the commitment of 

one or more agency leaders—such as the CMS Administrator, Chief 

Operating Officer, or a Consortium head—for their increased use of 

performance information to achieve results. Some of them further 

described how leadership demonstrated their commitment. For example, a 

budget official told us that at the first staff meeting of the year he 

distributes the Chief Financial Officer’s performance plan and priorities to 

lay out for staff their performance goals for the year. He also described 

how each group director is given a poster-sized chart outlining his/her 

performance goals and program-specific GPRA goals for the year, which 

hang in their offices. As another example, an official we interviewed in 

Region IX described how top management discusses performance goals 

and the accomplishment of goals in staff meetings. She also noted that 

they feature information on performance milestones in their 

organizational newsletter. 

CMS Survey & Certification Division managers of Region IV of the 

Consortium for Quality Improvement and Survey & Certification 

Operations (CQISCO) attributed improvements in performance against 

GPRA goals—such as reducing the incidence of pressure ulcers among 

nursing-home patients—to leadership commitment to using performance 

information and frequent communication of performance information with 

stakeholders, among other factors. According to CMS Region IV managers 

we interviewed, they are several steps removed from nursing-home healthcare delivery, which in the past had been seen as a limiting factor in their 

ability to affect outcomes among nursing-home patients. One manager 

cited the regional leadership’s commitment to getting external 

stakeholders to the table—even those outside of CMS’ realm of regulatory 

Page 36 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

oversight—as a critical factor to improving outcomes. She further 

described frequent, effective communication of performance information 

among stakeholders as a means to getting them to work together. See 

figure 13 for more information on these efforts. 

Figure 13: CMS Region IV Communicated Performance Information with Stakeholders to Improve Quality of Care in Nursing 

Homes 

When Region IV was charged with reducing the prevalence 

of pressure ulcers among nursing home residents by more 

than 11 percenta —an outcome the region could not directly 

control—a Region IV official said “we knew we had to try 

something different.” According to the Associate Regional 

Administrator, this different approach included collaboration 

with the internal and external stakeholders that could 

contribute to improved performance against their regional 

pressure ulcer reduction goal. They engaged hospital and 

nursing home personnel, patient advocates, emergency 

medical technicians, quality improvement organizations, state 

survey agencies, and others.They shared performance 

information about the problem and collaborated on possible 

causes and solutions. 

According to CMS regional officials, collaboration on goals

and shared performance information were among key factors

in bringing about improvements in the prevalence of pressure 

ulcers among nursing home residents in each of the eight 

states in their region. In Region IV, between fiscal years 2006 

and 2008, this improvement translated into nearly 2,500 

fewer long-stay nursing home residents with pressure ulcers.

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Performance goal

Reduce incidence of pressure ulcers by 11%

Performance goal achieved

2,441 fewer long-stay

residents with pressure ulcersa

External

stakeholders

Internal

stakeholders Collaboration on goals

and shared performance 

information

a

In the 2-year period during fiscal years 2006-2008, Region IV reduced the percentage of long-stay 

nursing-home residents with pressure ulcers from 9.3 percent to 8.3 percent, which represented an 

11 percent decrease, or 2,441 fewer cases. 

According to several headquarters officials we interviewed, as a result of 

leadership support that emphasized communication internally and 

externally and other key drivers, CMS has undergone a culture change that 

places a greater emphasis on using performance data to achieve results. 

Page 37 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Our survey results indicated that between 2000 and 2007, a significantly 

greater percentage of CMS managers reported that they were held 

accountable for program results (see fig. 14). 

Figure 14: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That Agency Managers at 

Their Level Are Held Accountable for the Results of Their Programs 

CMS Managers Reported 

Alignment among Agency, 

Program, and Individual 

Performance Goals 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Agency managers/

supervisors at my level

are held accountable for the

results of the program(s) they

are responsible for

2000

2007

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Source: GAO.

42%

77%

Survey question

Note: Data are from GAO 2000 and 2007 surveys. 

Top CMS headquarters officials said that a new performance-management 

system that required linkages between organizational, program, and 

individual goals had made individual accountability for program results 

more explicit. In 2006, CMS began to implement the Department of Health 

and Human Services’ four-tiered system, Performance Management 

Appraisal Program (PMAP), for non-SES employees at the agency.33 Under 

PMAP, employees are held accountable for both administrative and 

program performance. Top CMS officials described how agency goals and 

objectives were embedded in the Administrator’s performance agreement 

and cascaded down through the management hierarchy, so that each level 

of management understood their accountability for achieving the agency’s 

broad goals. For example, broad goals for preventive health care cascaded 

from the Department of Health and Human Services to a Health Insurance 

Specialist in CMS’ Office of Clinical Standards and Quality (OCSQ), who 

was responsible for communications to raise awareness among 

beneficiaries (see fig. 15). 

 

33CMS’ SES are covered separately by the agency’s automated program, the Performance 

Plan System (PPS). The PPS supports the guidelines and requirements as outlined in the 

Department of Health and Human Services’ Senior Executive and Organizational 

Performance Management System. 

Page 38 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Figure 15: CMS Reported Alignment among Department and Agency Goals and Individual Performance Objectives 

Source: GAO analysis of CMS information.

• Promote and encourage preventive health care including mental 

 health, lifelong healthy behaviors, and recovery

• Improve early detection of breast cancer among Medicare 

beneficiaries age 65 years and older by increasing the percentage 

 of women who receive a mammogram

• Achieve 2 percent increase in mammography for the targeted 

 participating providers by end date of this work period

• Increase provider awareness of the importance of preventive 

services by educating 80 percent of targeted physician groups 

 for the core prevention theme related to screening mammography 

by end date of this period

• Fosters a team atmosphere whereby effective communications 

and collaboration are promoted both within and outside of the 

 division 

• Ensures effective staff communications and coordination in 

addressing media and congressional requests; recommends one 

 proactive communication effort per quarter to benefit beneficiary 

awareness or stakeholders, or both, through outreach 

Strategic goal / performance goal Strategic objective / performance objective

Supervisor,

Health Insurance Specialist, OCSQ

Promote and encourage preventive health 

care, including mental health, lifelong health 

behaviors and recovery specifically through 

collaborative partnerships

Director,

Quality Improvement Group, OCSQ

Supervisor,

Health Insurance S pecialist, OCSQ

Increase in utilization of Medicare preventive 

benefits (defined as influenza vaccination, 

screening mammography, and initial 

preventive services examination)

CMS

Director,

Quality Improvemen Quality I mprovement G roup OCS, Q

Improve early detection of breast cancer

Department of Health and Human Services

CMS

Department o f H ealth and Human Services

Improve the safety, quality, affordability, and 

accessibility of health care including 

behavioral health care and long-term care 

Page 39 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Our survey results show that between 2000 and 2007, there was a 

d that 

Figure 16: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That Difficulty Determining 

significant decline in the percentage of CMS managers who reporte

difficulty developing meaningful measures was a hindrance to using 

performance information (see fig. 16). 

Use of Performance Information

Meaningful Measures Hinders Using Performance Information 

Note: Data are from GAO 2000 and 2007 surveys. 

Our interviews with CMS officials provided insight into steps they had 

e 

cause 

s 

ve 

CMS Officials Said 

s 

ged Use 

Selecting a Vital Few

Performance Measure

with Relevance to 

Managers Encoura

of Performance 

Information 

0 20 40 60 80 100

Difficulty determining

meaningful measures

hinders measuring

performance or using

the performance

information

2000

2007

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

Source: GAO.

65%

48%

Survey question

taken to ensure that performance information was useful to managers. 

They said they selected measures for GPRA reporting purposes that wer

useful for decision making and limited the number of measures to the 31 

that represented the agency’s priorities. According to an official 

responsible for strategic planning and performance reporting, be

quality of care is a top priority for CMS, many of their measures—such a

incidence of pressure ulcers among nursing-home residents—reflect this 

focus. This official noted that it would be unmanageable to measure and 

report on every aspect of their programs and processes. They ultimately 

settled on a set of performance goals that helped managers and staff 

identify performance gaps and where there are opportunities to impro

performance to close the gaps. 

Page 40 GAO-09-676 
 

At CMS, our prior work identified the need for the agency to develop 

better management information systems, among other actions, to improve 

oversight of nursing-home quality and safety.34 More recently, we 

acknowledged that CMS had pursued important upgrades in the system 

used to track the results of state survey activities and has increased its 

analyses of data to improve oversight.35 This is consistent with CMS 

finance and administrative officials’ statements that the agency had 

invested in systems infrastructure to manage using performance 

information. A CQISCO manager responsible for Survey & Certification 

performance reporting in Region IV noted that easier access to 

performance information through improved data systems had enabled 

them to use performance information more effectively to identify 

problems and develop solutions. CQISCO managers and staff can now use 

more than 350 standard performance reports in exercising their oversight 

of state agencies responsible for surveying nursing-home quality. For 

example, a CQISCO Region IV official told us that they use many of these 

performance reports at quarterly meetings with state survey officials and 

that the performance information is helpful in identifying aberrant trends 

and illustrating these trends to the states. They also compare performance 

to prior years to determine whether positive outcomes have occurred. 

CQISCO Region IV officials provided an example of how a report on the 

frequency of state nursing-home quality surveys, which includes 

information that had not been easily accessible several years ago, helped 

them to improve outcomes in a particular state (see fig. 17). 

Improved Data Systems 

and Training Opportunities 

Enhanced CMS’ Capacity 

to Identify Problems and 

Devise Solutions 

 

34GAO, Nursing Homes: Additional Steps Needed to Strengthen Enforcement of Federal 

Quality Standards, GAO/HEHS-99-46 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 18, 1999). 

35GAO, Nursing Homes: Despite Increased Oversight, Challenges Remain in Ensuring 

High-Quality Care and Resident Safety, GAO-06-117 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 28, 2005). 

Page 41 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

Figure 17: A CMS Region IV Manager Described How Easier Access to Performance Data Contributed to Improved NursingHome Survey Frequency in Alabama 

Source: GAO analysis of CMS data.

Every nursing home receiving Medicare or Medicaid payment 

must be inspected by the state survey agency against federal 

quality-of-care and fire safety standards not less than once 

every 15 months.

a

 Performance is measured in terms of the 

percentage of surveys a state conducts within this required 

interval. In CMS’s Southeast Region, a Survey & Certification 

Division official said that investments in data systems made it 

easier to obtain the performance information that helped them 

improve outcomes related to Alabama’s nursing-home 

oversight activities. In the middle of fiscal year 2007, the 

regional Survey & Certification team was reviewing a

performance report on the frequency of Alabama’s nursing 

home surveys and found that over 90 percent had not met 

standards for timeliness. When states fail to conduct timely 

surveys, there is a risk that quality of care issues, such as

preventing avoidable pressure ulcers, weight loss, or 

accidents, will go undetected in between surveys. In response, 

the team put together a “Request for Action Plan” to 

Alabama’s State Survey Agency that included a range of data

reports on the state’s performance. “When the state agency 

sees the problems presented in black and white, it really 

encourages them to take action,” the manager said. The team 

continued to provide the information to the state and, over 

time, fewer and fewer surveys missed the timeliness standard. 

Partway into fiscal year 2009, CMS’s reports on Alabama’s

nursing-home survey frequency showed 100 percent 

compliance with the maximum survey interval standard (see 

fig. below). Several years ago, the official noted, the 

information on state survey frequency was not as easy to 

access. “These days, it doesn’t take a technical expert to run 

these reports or interpret the information—they’ve been 

designed so that managers and staff can use them.” According 

to the official, improved availability of performance information 

has contributed to improved results. 

Percentage of Alabama nursing-home quality surveys that 

did not meet standard for timeliness, FY2007–FY2009

0

Percentage

Fiscal year

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80

76.6

39.4

0

2007

2008

2009b

a

In addition, the statewide average interval for these surveys must not exceed 12 months. CMS 

generally interprets these requirements to permit a statewide average interval of 12.9 months and a 

maximum interval of 15.9 months for each home. 42 U.S.C. § 1395i-3(g). 

b

As of February 2009. 

According to our prior work, inadequate staff expertise may have hindered 

CMS from using performance information in monitoring state performance 

of nursing-home oversight.36 In 2003, officials in three regions said lack of 

staff expertise, among other issues, prevented them from using reports 

that were available to aid them in overseeing state survey activities. Our 

survey results, along with recent interviews with several CMS officials, 

 

36GAO, Nursing Home Quality: Prevalence of Serious Problems, While Declining, 

Reinforces Importance of Enhanced Oversight, GAO-03-561 (Washington, D.C.: July 15, 

2003). 

Page 42 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

indicate that the agency has taken steps to develop its staff’s capacity to 

use performance information. Between 2000 and 2007, there was a 

significant positive increase on all six survey questions related to 

managers’ access to training over the past 3 years on use of performance 

information for various activities (see fig. 18). 

Figure 18: Percentage of CMS Managers Who Reported That Training Was Provided 

to Help Accomplish Key Management Tasks 

Survey question

Percentage responding to a “great” or “very great” extent

2000

2007

Source: GAO.

0 20 40 60 80 100

Conduct strategic planning

Set program performance goals

Develop program

performance measures

Assess the quality of

performance data

Use program performance

information to make decisions

Link the performance of

program(s)/operation(s)/project(s)

to the achievement of

agency strategic goals

29%

58%

38%

57%

49%

15%

24%

9%

34%

17%

54%

22%

Note: Data are from GAO 2000 and 2007 surveys. 

Key officials in CMS’ headquarters told us that the agency had provided 

training on a range of topics related to performance measurement, such as 

Page 43 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

“The Government Performance Logic Model,” “Aligning Project 

Management with Organizational Strategy,” and “Strategic Planning and 

Performance Measurement.” According to one CQISCO Region IV official, 

increasing her staff’s skills in conducting analyses of performance 

information and presenting findings was a gradual process that required 

training, coaching, and guidance. She said that there are one to two formal 

training opportunities for staff every year and that the Consortium holds 

quarterly meetings that address topics such as how to analyze data to 

identify problems. Another key approach was to hold staff individually 

accountable for using performance information in reports they present to 

senior management. Additionally, in 2006, Region IV’s Survey & 

Certification Division began to include a performance element in all of its 

managers’ performance agreements related to performance information 

use. 

It has been more than 16 years since Congress passed GPRA in an effort to 

ensure that federal agencies have the infrastructure and tools they need to 

improve results. Across the federal government, agencies have developed 

and implemented strategic plans and are routinely generating performance 

information to report progress toward their strategic goals. Our survey of 

government managers, however, showed that GPRA’s legislative 

requirements and other performance improvement initiatives are not 

sufficient to ensure that managers will actually use performance 

information to manage for results. At FEMA and Interior, inconsistencies 

or weaknesses in key management practices at these agencies—such as 

demonstrating leadership commitment, aligning goals, ensuring usefulness 

of performance measures, and building analytic capacity—appeared to 

hinder their use of performance information. 

Conclusions 

At FEMA, despite their strong commitment to achieving mission results, 

some of the officials we interviewed did not demonstrate the same level of 

commitment to using performance information in decision making, 

especially in the face of unpredictable circumstances such as natural 

disasters. Strengthening the commitment of FEMA’s leaders alone, 

however, would not be enough to ensure that managers throughout the 

agency are well-positioned to use performance information to manage for 

results. The agency also had gaps in performance information, such as 

immature performance measurement at the regional level, which made it 

difficult to establish a line of sight over strategic, program, regional, and 

individual performance goals. These gaps, coupled with a lack of a 

performance-management system that required goal alignment, made it 

challenging for managers to hold individuals accountable for achieving 

Page 44 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

results. Furthermore, FEMA faces other hurdles, such as a lack of trained 

staff and inadequate information systems, to ensure that performance 

information can be easily collected, communicated, and analyzed. 

However, despite the presence of these challenges, there are some 

emerging efforts that FEMA’s leadership could build on, such as consistent 

and timely regional reporting against performance goals. 

At Interior and NPS we observed a management culture where 

performance information was primarily used for after-the-fact 

accountability and reporting purposes, but not as a tool for improving 

results. Leaders at Interior and NPS were not effectively communicating 

how, if at all, they used performance information to identify performance 

gaps and develop strategies to better achieve results. Instead, the greater 

emphasis on using performance information to hold individuals 

accountable for achieving goals may be contributing to the perception that 

it is being used to punish poor performers rather than to improve overall 

performance. Leaders who do not effectively strike a balance among such 

uses of performance information run the risk of creating perverse 

incentives where managers are afraid to fail rather than inspired to 

succeed. 

Under GPRA and PART, Interior collectively tracks nearly 650 

performance measures, which made it difficult for leadership and 

management at all levels to focus on critical priorities. Even where there 

was management commitment to using performance information 

proactively, some bureau-level managers at NPS and Reclamation said 

GPRA and PART measures were not useful for decision making, either 

because there were too many or they were not credible. A labor-intensive, 

cumbersome performance-information system further hindered NPS and 

Reclamation managers’ efforts to use performance information to inform 

their decision making. Interior’s more recent focus on key performance 

indicators and NPS’ efforts to develop more useful performance 

information for park-level decision making could be the foundation for 

further improvements. 

Our review of selected areas at CMS indicated a possible roadmap for 

agencies seeking to increase their use of performance information to 

improve results. There, it was clear that agency leaders were committed to 

using performance information and they made it a priority to build the 

analytic capacity to do so. Managers credited the use of the very same 

management practices that were weak or inconsistent at our other case 

agencies with helping improve their ability to manage for results. Although 

these managers noted that they could not control ultimate quality-of-care 

Page 45 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

outcomes—such as the incidence of pressure ulcers among nursing-home 

patients—they said that communicating performance information to 

states, nursing homes, and other stakeholders helped them to work 

collaboratively to improve results. 

Managing for results will become even more critical under the Recovery 

Act: both Interior and FEMA have seen significant increases in their 

funding; in the case of Reclamation, funding has more than doubled. With 

the economic health of the nation at stake, federal managers of these and 

other agencies will be expected to allocate these resources to achieve 

critical results. 

The Secretary of DHS should direct the Administrator of FEMA to take the 

following three actions: 

1. direct agency leadership to demonstrate its commitment to using 

performance information for decision making by reviewing 

performance results with subordinate managers on a regular and 

recurring basis and communicating decisions based on performance 

information to show that performance information is reviewed and 

acted upon; 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

2. augment FEMA’s analytic capacity to collect and analyze performance 

information by 

a. continuing to build upon recent efforts to provide training to 

directorate and regional managers to enhance their use of 

performance information, which includes topics such as strategic 

planning, developing robust performance measures, and analyzing 

what the performance data mean; and 

b. reviewing performance information systems to address users’ 

needs for integrated, timely, and relevant performance 

information; 

3. improve linkages among agency, program, and individual performance 

by 

a. continuing to engage program and regional managers in efforts to 

develop, and where appropriate refine, intermediate, measurable 

performance targets that cascade from agency strategic goals; 

and 

b. in the absence of a DHS-wide performance-management system, 

developing interim guidance for FEMA’s current performanceappraisal system, covering supervisors and managers, on how to 

align individual performance objectives with program and agency 

Page 46 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

goals. Such guidance could include information on how work 

plans can be used to align individual and agency performance 

goals and objectives, examples of alignment from subunits within 

FEMA that are already implementing this practice, or other 

approaches to promoting such alignment. 

The Secretary of the Interior should take the following two actions: 

1. direct departmental leadership and the Director of NPS to demonstrate 

their commitment to using performance information for decision 

making by reviewing performance results with subordinate managers 

on a regular and recurring basis and communicating decisions based 

on performance information to show that performance information is 

reviewed and acted upon; 

2. direct departmental leadership, the Director of NPS, and the 

Commissioner of Reclamation in conjunction with OMB to review the 

usefulness of their performance measures and refine or discontinue 

performance measures that are not useful for decision making. The 

review should also consider options for reducing the burden of 

collecting and reporting performance information. This review should 

involve managers at all levels to take into account their differing needs 

for performance information. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of DHS, the Secretary of 

the Interior, and the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human 

Services for comment. We received written comments from DHS and 

Interior, which are reprinted in appendices IV and V. The Department of 

Health and Human Services provided only technical comments, which 

were incorporated as appropriate. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

DHS concurred with two of our three recommendations and partially 

concurred with the third. DHS also noted efforts underway that may 

ultimately address some of these recommendations, such as FEMA’s 

recently established Performance Improvement Council, which is working 

in conjunction with other FEMA teams to address performance issues 

across the agency. With regard to our third recommendation concerning 

improved linkages among agency, program, and individual performance 

goals, DHS agreed that FEMA should continue to develop or refine 

intermediate performance targets that cascade from agency strategic 

goals. However, DHS did not concur that, in the absence of a DHS-wide 

performance-management system, FEMA should develop an interim plan 

to allow managers to hold staff accountable for the accomplishment of 

agency strategic goals. DHS commented that an interim plan is not 

Page 47 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

advisable at this time because the current FEMA Employee Performance 

System covers both non-bargaining and bargaining unit employees, and an 

interim performance management system would require FEMA to support 

two systems until it could be bargained. Since DHS appeared to interpret 

our recommendation to mean that FEMA should develop and maintain one 

or more interim systems, which was not our intention, we contacted 

officials from both agencies for clarification. Upon further discussion with 

FEMA human capital officials, we revised the language of our 

recommendation to state that the agency should develop interim guidance 

for its current performance appraisal system for managers and 

supervisors. FEMA officials agreed that developing interim guidance for its 

managers and supervisors would not require them to develop dual systems 

or to negotiate with its employee labor unions. They further acknowledged 

that such guidance could help lay the groundwork for implementing DHS’ 

future performance management system and indicated their willingness to 

address the recommendation as clarified. 

Interior agreed in principle with the recommendations in the report and 

noted that it is in the process of revising its strategic plan in a manner that 

will be responsive to our recommendations. The department also provided 

additional comments on some of the findings contained in the report. 

First, Interior noted that Bureau of Reclamation, rather than Interior, sets 

goals related to water delivery. In response, we revised our report to 

indicate that Interior included—rather than set—a goal for this measure 

for fiscal years 2009 and 2010, and reported on the results of this goal for 

the past four years in its fiscal year 2008 Performance Accountability 

Report (PAR). Interior also commented that the specific water delivery 

measure we discussed as lacking credibility is provided only for reference 

at the end of Interior’s PAR and is not emphasized. While it is true that this 

measure is shown at the end of the report, it is nonetheless labeled as a 

performance measure and Reclamation must collect and report the 

performance data, even though both Interior and Reclamation officials 

agreed that these data were not used in decision making. 

Second, Interior expressed concern related to our finding that at both NPS 

and Reclamation, managers we interviewed described certain 

performance measures as lacking credibility. Interior stated that they 

would like to continue to emphasize outcome measures and suggested that 

our report associated long-term measures with a lack of credibility. In 

addition, Interior commented that our report implies a need for an 

increase in specific, narrower-focused measures to improve credibility and 

use among managers. We disagree that we equated long-term measures 

with low credibility among managers. As we reported, managers we 

Page 48 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
 

interviewed said that credibility issues were a result of measures that do 

not accurately define comparable elements or do not take into account 

different standards across bureaus or units. Furthermore, we agree that 

Interior should continue to emphasize outcome measures, and do not 

believe that our report encourages adoption of additional, narrow 

measures as a solution to the credibility issues we noted. On the contrary, 

one of our findings was the large volume of performance measures may be 

hindering managers’ efforts to relate short-term or disaggregated 

performance targets to longer-term outcome goals. As we stated in the 

report, limiting measures to the vital few at each organizational level can 

ensure there is useful, meaningful performance data available to managers 

and staff across an agency. 

Interior also provided additional perspective on our recommendation that 

it work with NPS, Reclamation, and OMB to review the usefulness of their 

performance measures. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

date of this letter. We will then send copies of this report to the Secretary 

of DHS, the Secretary of the Interior, and the Secretary of the Department 

of Health and Human Services, and other congressional committees 

interested in results-oriented government and management issues at DHS, 

Interior, and CMS. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 

GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me 

at (202) 512-6806 or at steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

last page of this report. Individuals who made key contributions to this 

Bernice Steinhardt 

report are listed in appendix VI. 

Director, Strategic Issues 

Page 49 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

Page 50 GAO-09-676 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

To develop a better understanding of what practices may inhibit or 

promote the use of performance information in managerial decision 

making our objectives were to: (1) identify agencies with relatively low 

use of performance information and the factors that contribute to this 

condition; and (2) examine practices in an agency where there were 

indications of improvement in its use of performance information. We 

conducted a review of three agencies to identify what barriers and 

challenges hinder managers’ use of performance information and, in 

addition for objective two, what practices appear to have contributed to 

agency efforts to improve managerial use of performance information. To 

address both of our objectives, we began by examining the results of our 

four surveys of performance and management issues,1

 reviewing our prior 

reports and other relevant materials on results-oriented management, the 

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the Office 

of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Performance Assessment Ratings 

Tool (PART). We also compared management practices at selected 

agencies with those we have previously identified as enhancing the use of 

performance information for decision making.2

To identify agencies for our review, we used our survey results from 2000 

and 2007 since both were designed to provide analysis of data at the 

agency and department level as well as governmentwide. For purposes of 

selecting agencies for review under objective one, we used our 2007 

survey data to calculate an agency average “core uses” index score to 

identify agencies with a lower percentage of managers reporting 

performance information use relative to their counterparts at other 

agencies. See appendix II for detailed information on how we developed 

the core uses index score and a table showing each agency’s ranking and 

index score. 

 

1

Our surveys were conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007. For information on the design 

and administration of each of the four surveys, see GAO, The Government Performance 

and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven, 

GAO/GGD-97-109 (June 2, 1997); Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key 

Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies, GAO-01-592 (May 25, 2001); ResultsOriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater 

Results, GAO-04-38 (Mar. 10, 2004); and most recently, Government Performance: Lessons 

Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Achieve 

Results, GAO-08-1026T (Washington, D.C.: July 24, 3008) 

2

GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005). 

 Use of Performance Information 
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

In deciding which agencies to select, we focused on those agencies with 

the lowest ranking. For that subset of agencies, we reviewed additional 

performance-related material such as the Office of Personnel 

Management’s Federal Human Capital Survey, and OMB’s PART 

assessments to aid us in the selection process. Since we expected that our 

review could potentially produce recommendations concerning agencyspecific performance management issues we observed in the course of our 

review, we also conducted an environmental scan of recent and ongoing 

GAO research at our potential case-study agencies to avoid duplicating 

similar work.3

 Based on these considerations, we selected the Department 

of the Interior (Interior) and Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA). 

In the initial phase of our review of these two agencies, we conducted 

interviews with senior-level officials responsible for operations, budget, 

human resources, and performance-reporting functions at each agency to 

gain an understanding of their performance-based management policies 

and practices established at the top levels of the organization. To help 

guide us in determining where to further focus our review, we also asked 

officials and managers to identify particular areas that could provide 

illustrative examples of the challenges and difficulties they faced in using 

performance information for decision making. Based on these initial 

interviews and other information, we then identified programs and 

operational areas for more in-depth review. 

At Interior, we selected the National Park Service (NPS) and Bureau of 

Reclamation (Reclamation) for review. At both NPS and Reclamation, we 

interviewed senior-level officials responsible for operations, budget, 

policy, human resources, and performance-management functions. At 

NPS, we interviewed management and program officials from four of 

seven regions: Pacific West, National Capital, Southeast, and 

Intermountain Regions. We interviewed park superintendents and 

program managers from two parks within each of the four regions for a 

total of eight parks. Of the four regions and eight parks, we conducted site 

visits at three of the regional management offices, and four national parks; 

the other interviews were conducted over the phone. In our sample, we 

 

3

Although the Forest Service had the lowest ranking among all federal agencies, our recent 

work at this agency had already resulted in recommendations to address key management 

issues that we will continue to monitor. 

Page 51 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

included a mix of small, medium, and large parks, which we defined by the 

size of their operating budget: 

(1) small parks had an operating budget of less than $1 million; 

(2) medium parks had an operating budget of $1 million to $10 million; and 

(3) large parks had an operating budget of more than $10 million. 

We also selected parks on the basis of their diversity across resource types 

that included national historic parks, national battlefields, national 

recreation areas, and national seashores. We interviewed senior and line 

managers from three of five of their major national program areas, 

including Natural Resources, Stewardship, and Science programs; Cultural 

Resources programs; and Park Planning, Facilities, and Lands programs. 

At Reclamation, of the five regions, we visited the Mid Pacific Region and 

spoke to officials from two other regions: the Upper Colorado, and Great 

Plains Regions. Within these three regions, we interviewed the regional 

director, GPRA Coordinator, and one area or project manager. These three 

regions are geographically diverse and include a range of operations and 

projects including new construction, dams, and power-generating plants. 

At FEMA, we followed a similar procedure of meeting with senior-level 

officials and soliciting their suggestions for areas or operations that were 

demonstrative of the challenges and difficulties of using performance 

information in managerial decision making. At FEMA, we interviewed top 

officials and program managers from two of their eight Directorates along 

with regional officials and line managers responsible for general 

operations as well as Mitigation and Disaster Assistance Directorate 

program delivery in 3 of FEMA’s 10 regions: Region I in Boston, Region IV 

in Atlanta, and Region IX in San Francisco. 

To address our second objective of identifying an agency where 

improvement in the managers’ use of performance information appears to 

have progressed, we used results from a set of selected items that we 

asked on both the 2000 and 2007 survey. For each agency, we calculated 

the difference between the percent of agency managers reporting their use 

of performance information to a great or very great extent in 2000 and 

2007 across a set of nine items that addressed the use of performance 

information in areas of managerial decision making such as setting 

program priorities, allocating resources, and setting or revising work 

goals. We then calculated the average of these nine differences as an 

Page 52 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

overall descriptive indicator of change in each agency’s managers’ 

reporting on their use of performance information.4

 See figure 19 for the 

results of this analysis. 

 19 for the 

Figure 19: Average Change in Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting Use of Performance Information to a Great or Very 

Great Extent, 2000-2007 

Average change 2000 to 2007

Source: GAO.

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

DOD

OPM

HHS

SBA

Commerce

Interior

HUD

USDA

GSA

Treasury

DOJ

VA

Forest Service

State

Labor

DOT

AID

FEMA

NASA

IRS

SSA

Energy

Education

NSF

NRC

CMS

FAA

EPA

Note: Data are from GAO 2007 survey. 

Similar to our selection procedures for objective one, we focused on those 

agencies showing the greatest positive shift in the percent of managers 

endorsing their use of performance information in their decision making. 

We then reviewed additional performance-related material for that subset 

of agencies showing the greatest change. In selecting an agency for review, 

we considered various factors such as agency size, mission, and workforce 

mix with a view that an agency facing substantive barriers and challenges 

to the use of performance information would yield good illustrative case 

 

4

See GAO, Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance 

and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T, GAO-08-1036SP 

(Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008), for the wording of the nine items used in computing the 

average agency change. These items were 8b, 8c, 8f, 8g, 8h, 8i, 8j, 8k, and 8l. We could not 

use the core-uses index items for this change analysis since it incorporated new items that 

had been added since the 2000 survey. 

Page 53 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

examples of change. We selected the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services (CMS). In our 2000 survey, on five items asking managers about 

the extent to which they had five different types of performance measures, 

for example, outcome, output, customer service, CMS5

 had the lowest 

ranking of all agencies on four of the five items.6

 While CMS has shown 

notable change in its managers’ reported use of performance information, 

its relative standing in 2007 as reflected in appendix II, figure 20, shows it 

to be in about the middle of the distribution of the 29 agencies we ranked. 

At CMS, we interviewed senior-level officials to gain insight into how they 

were able to improve their managers’ use of performance information as 

indicated by our survey results. We asked agency officials to help us 

identify regional- and line-manager interview subjects who could articulate 

their experiences with such a change. Based on this input, we interviewed 

the top officials from two of CMS’ four Consortia: the Consortium for 

Quality Improvement and Survey & Certification Operations and the 

Consortium for Financial Management and Fee for Service Operations. We 

also interviewed regional officials and managers responsible for Survey & 

Certification in Region IV and regional officials responsible for 

administration and outreach in Region IX. At our interviews, we asked 

officials to identify the barriers and challenges they faced in the use of 

performance information and strategies for overcoming them. 

At all the agencies where we conducted our work, our interviews and 

examination of agency documentation such as strategic plans, GPRA 

measures, and performance agreements incorporated a review of the 

extent to which these organizations implemented practices that our work 

has shown can promote the use of performance information for 

management decision making. We also examined our 2007 survey results 

for these agencies to explore what differences in agency responses could 

be useful in identifying conditions or perceptions that were relevant to or 

elaborated on our observations. Throughout the body of the report, the 

differences in percentages are significant unless noted otherwise. 

Although we reviewed available performance information in the examples 

we cite and describe how performance information was used to make 

decisions, we did not attempt to independently assess the reliability of the 

 

5

At the time of the 2000 survey, CMS was known as the Health Care Financing 

Administration. 

6

For all five items, fewer than a fifth of CMS managers reported having any type of measure 

to a great or very great extent. 

Page 54 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 

information or verify that the use resulted in improved outcomes, since 

they were not within the scope of our review objectives. 

We performed our work in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; 

Boston, Massachusetts; San Francisco and Sacramento, California; 

Atlanta, Georgia; from March 2007 to May 2009 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our 

audit objectives. 

Page 55 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix II: Agency Rankings Based on Index Appendix II: Agency Rankings Based on of 2007 Survey Results 

Index of 2007 Survey Results 

As part of our analyses of the 2007 survey data, we identified a set of nine 

items from the questionnaire that inquired about uses of performance 

information that we identified in a previous GAO report.1

 Using those 

items, we developed an index that reflected the extent to which managers’ 

perceived their own use of performance information for various 

managerial functions and decisions as well as that of other managers in 

the agency. To obtain an index score of reported use of performance 

information, we computed an average score for each respondent across 

the nine items we identified. We then averaged the respondent scores from 

each agency to produce an overall index score for each agency. By using 

this average index score, which yields values in the same range as the 5-

point extent scale used on each item, we were able to qualitatively 

characterize index score values using the same response categories used 

for the items constituting the index.2

 Figure 20 shows the relative ranking 

on the index score for each agency in the 2007 survey. 

 

1

See GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for 

Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Sept. 9, 2005). See the online e-supplement, 

GAO, Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and 

Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T, GAO-08-1036SP (Washington, 

D.C.: July 24, 2008) for the wording of the items. The nine items constituting the index are 

questions 8a, 8c, 8d, 8e, 8k, 8m, 10d, 10m, and 11b. 

2

For example, index score values between 1 and 2.99 were viewed as covering the two 

categories of “small” or “to no extent” while values of 3 to 3.99 fit the category “moderate 

extent” and values between 4 and 5 encompassed the categories of “great” or “very great” 

extent. Agency averages ranged from 2.94 to 3.64. 

Page 56 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information 
Appendix II: Agency Rankings Based on Index 

of 2007 Survey Results 

Figure 20: Agency Ranking Based on 2007 Survey Results on Use of Performance Information 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Department of Veterans Affairs

Social Security Administration

National Science Foundation

General Services Administration

Department of Energy

Department of Housing And Urban Development

Department of Education

Department of the Treasury (excluding Internal Revenue Service)

Internal Revenue Service

Environmental Protection Agency

Small Business Administration

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services

Department of Commerce

Office of Personnel Management

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency for International Development

Department of Labor

Department of Agriculture (excluding Forest Service) 

Department of Homeland Security (excluding Federal Emergency Management Agency)

Department of Defense

Department of State

Department of Transportation (excluding Federal Aviation Administration)

Department of Justice

Department of Health and Human Services (excluding Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)

Department of the Interior

Federal Emergency Management Agency

Forest Service

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

Rank Agency/Component

Source: GAO.

Page 57 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix III: Timeline of Major Government Appendix III: Timeline of Major Government Results-Oriented Management Reforms 

Results-Oriented Management Reforms 

1993: Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) 

(Public Law 103-62) to address several broad purposes, including improving federal 

program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing 

congressional decision making by providing more objective information on program 

performance. 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 executive 

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. 

1993: The Clinton administration launched the National Performance Review, later 

renamed the National Partnership for Reinventing Government which was intended to 

transform the federal government to be more results-oriented, performance-based, and 

customer-focused by among other things requiring consideration of employee and 

customer views and increasing the use of technology, especially the Internet, for 

delivery of services and information to the public. 

1994-1996: Congress passed the Government Management Reform Act of 1994 (Public 

Law 103-356), Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), and ClingerCohen Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-106, div. D, E), which together provide a framework 

for developing and integrating information about agencies’ missions and strategic 

priorities, the results-oriented performance goals that flow from those priorities, 

performance data to show the level of achievement of those goals, and the relationship 

of reliable and audited financial information and information technology investments to 

the achievement of those goals. 

2001: With the President’s Management Agenda, the Bush administration attempted to 

resolve long-standing federal management weaknesses by establishing five 

governmentwide management priorities including performance-budget integration and 

improved financial reporting. 

2002: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created the Program Assessment 

Rating Tool (PART), a diagnostic tool that is intended to provide a consistent approach 

for evaluating federal programs as part of the executive budget formulation process. 

Through PART, OMB sought to create better ties between program performance and 

the allocation of resources. 

2003: OMB issued changes to Circular A-11 requiring agencies to submit “performance 

budgets” in lieu of annual performance plans for their fiscal year 2005 budget 

submission to OMB and Congress. 

Page 58 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information 
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department Appendix IV: Comments from the of Homeland Security 

Department of Homeland Security 

Page 59 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 60 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department 

of Homeland Security 

Page 61 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix V: Comments from the Department Appendix V: Comments from the Department of the Interior 

of the Interior 

Note: Page numbers in 

the draft report may 

differ from those in this 

report. 

Page 62 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information 
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 63 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 64 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix V: Comments from the Department 

of the Interior 

Page 65 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Appendix VI: 

A

GAO Contact and Staff 

cknowledgments 

Page 66 GAO-09-676 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

 Use of Performance Information 

Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6806 or steinhardtb@gao.gov GAO Contact 

Elizabeth Curda and Laura Miller Craig managed this assignment. Jessica 

Nierenberg, Thomas M. Beall, Nicholas Benne, and Kate Hudson Walker 

made key contributions to all aspects of the report. David Bixler, Peter 

DelToro, Daniel Dunn, Elizabeth Erdmann, Ellen Grady, William O. 

Jenkins, Jr., Kathleen M. King, Barbara Lancaster, Walter Ochinko, 

Melanie Papasian, Mark Ramage, Jerry Sandau, William Trancucci, and 

John Vocino also provided assistance. In addition, A.J. Stephens provided 

legal support and Donna Miller developed the report’s graphics. 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Medicare and Medicaid Participating Facilities: CMS Needs to 

Reexamine Its Approach for Funding State Oversight of Health Care 

Facilities. GAO-09-64. Washington, D.C.: February 13, 2009. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January 

2009. 

Disaster Recovery: FEMA’s Public Assistance Grant Program 

Experienced Challenges with Gulf Coast Rebuilding. GAO-09-129. 

Washington, D.C.: December 18, 2008. 

Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on 

Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to 

GAO-08-1026T. GAO-08-1036SP. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008. 

Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration 

on Using Performance Information to Improve Results. GAO-08-1026T. 

Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008. 

Nursing Home Reform: Continued Attention Is Needed to Improve 

Quality of Care in Small but Significant Share of Homes. GAO-07-794T. 

Washington, D.C.: May 2, 2007. 

President’s Management Agenda: Review of OMB’s Improved Financial 

Performance Scorecard Process. GAO-07-95. Washington, D.C.: November 

16, 2006. 

National Park Service: Major Operations Funding Trends and How 

Selected Park Units Responded to Those Trends for Fiscal Years 2001 

through 2005. GAO-06-431. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006. 

Nursing Homes: Despite Increased Oversight, Challenges Remain in 

Ensuring High-Quality Care and Resident Safety. GAO-06-117. 

Washington, D.C.: December 28, 2005. 

Program Evaluation: OMB’s PART Reviews Increased Agencies’ 

Attention to Improving Evidence of Program Results. GAO-06-67. 

Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005. 

Performance Budgeting: PART Focuses Attention on Program 

Performance, but More Can Be Done to Engage Congress. GAO-06-28. 

Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005. 

Page 67 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Related GAO Products 

Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance 

Information for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington, 

D.C.: September 9, 2005. 

Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be 

Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results. GAO-04-614. Washington, 

D.C.: May 26, 2004. 

Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 

Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-38. Washington, D.C.: 

March 10, 2004. 

Highlights of a GAO Forum: High-Performing Organizations: Metrics, 

Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st 

Century Public Management Environment. GAO-04-343SP. Washington, 

D.C.: February 13, 2004. 

Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program 

Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. GAO-04-174. 

Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2004. 

Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century 

Challenges. GAO-03-1166T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2003. 

Nursing Home Quality: Prevalence of Serious Problems, While 

Declining, Reinforces Importance of Enhanced Oversight. GAO-03-561. 

Washington, D.C.: July 15, 2003. 

Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 

2003. 

Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative 

Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington, 

D.C.: May 2, 2003. 

Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 

Performance and Organizational Success. GAO-03-488. Washington, D.C.: 

March 14, 2003. 

Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other 

Countries’ Performance Management Initiatives. GAO-02-862. 

Washington, D.C.: August 2, 2002. 

Page 68 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
Related GAO Products 

Results-Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. GAO-01-1084SP. 

Washington, D.C.: August 2001. 

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: Emerging Benefits From Selected Agencies’ Use of 

Performance Agreements. GAO-01-115. Washington, D.C.: October 30, 

2000. 

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

Top Leadership Skills. GAO-01-127. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000. 

Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible 

Performance Information. GAO/GGD-00-52. Washington, D.C.: February 4, 

2000. 

Nursing Homes: Additional Steps Needed to Strengthen Enforcement of 

Federal Quality Standards. GAO/HEHS-99-46. Washington, D.C.: March 

18, 1999. 

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide 

Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.: 

June 2, 1997. 

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance 

and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996. 

Government Reform: Goal-Setting and Performance. GAO/AIMD/GGD-95-

130R. Washington, D.C.: March 27, 1995. 

(450547) Page 69 GAO-09-676 Use of Performance Information
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability 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 GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information. 

Contact: To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 

Washington, DC 20548 

Congressional 

Relations 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper