Unfortunately, the Results Act is off to a slow start. The General Accounting Office, which assessed the agencies' fiscal year 1999 performance plans, found that only 14 of 35 agency plans defined some type of relationship between the program activities listed in their proposed budgets and the performance goals cited in their plans. However, few of those 14 agencies translated those relationships into budgetary terms that is, most agencies did not explain how they would use their funding to achieve their goals. Agencies did make some progress in linking their planning with their budget requests. However, much work remains before performance information will be a useful tool in critical decision-making.
Sustained oversight is essential to the success of the Results Act.
Congressional appropriators and authorizers are in the best position to provide that oversight. There is evidence that Congress is beginning to use of the Results Act as a management and oversight tool. House Majority Leader Dick Armey has demonstrated his continuing interest in the Results Act in numerous statements, including his testimony before the Subcommittee on Government Management, Information, and Technology, which I chair. Senator Fred Thompson from Tennessee, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee has also played a key role. A recent study conducted by the Congressional Research Service confirmed that Congress is increasingly focused on agency performance.