Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results
Published: 2004-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in effect for 10 years. In that context, the subcommittee asked GAO to discuss our recent report, Results- Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. Our testimony addresses the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a focus on results in the federal government.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GPRA's requirements have established a solid foundation of results-oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA. GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking of resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area to increase the use of performance information to make decisions about resources. In our report, we also found agency strategic and annual performance plans and reports have improved over initial efforts. Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top leadership commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can hinder the development of results-oriented cultures in agencies. Furthermore, in certain areas, federal managers continue to have difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on results, and linking institutional, program, unit, and individual performance measurement and reward systems. Finally, there is an inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across federal agencies. OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management issues during the past several years. However, OMB has showed less commitment to GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and is not using the governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to develop an integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view, governmentwide strategic planning could better facilitate the integration of federal activities to achieve national goals.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss our report, Results-Oriented  Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving  Greater Results. The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA)  was enacted in 1993 to bring about a greater focus on results in the federal  government. Prior to the enactment of GPRA, our work on performance  measurement in the federal government showed that federal agencies  generally lacked the infrastructure needed to manage and report on results  of federal programs in a way that was transparent to Congress and the  American people. Today, based on a decade of work in this area, we can  safely say we have seen a transformation in the capacity of the federal  government to manage for results. This capacity includes an infrastructure  of outcome-oriented strategic plans, performance measures, and  accountability reporting that have significantly improved over time and  provide a solid foundation for improving the performance of federal  programs. However, a number of challenges to GPRA implementation  remain.
In light of the serious fiscal, security, and other emerging challenges the  nation faces, having such a capacity has never been more important.  Without effective short- and long-term planning, which takes into account  the changing environment and needs of the American public, recognizes  the challenges they face, and establishes goals to be achieved, federal  agencies risk delivering programs and services that may or may not meet  society’s most critical needs. At a cost to taxpayers of over $2 trillion  annually, the federal government should be able to demonstrate to the  American public that it can anticipate emerging issues, develop sound  strategies and plans to address them, and be accountable for the results  that have been achieved.
My statement today will focus on the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a  focus on results in the federal government. Specifically, I will discuss   (1) the effect of GPRA over the last 10 years in creating a governmentwide  focus on results and the government’s ability to deliver results to the  American public, including an assessment of the changes in the overall  quality of agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual  performance reports, (2) the challenges agencies face in measuring  performance and using performance information in management  decisions, and (3) how the federal government can continue its shift  toward a more results-oriented focus.
To meet our reporting objectives, we reviewed our extensive prior work  on GPRA best practices and implementation and collected  governmentwide data to assess the government’s overall focus on results.  We conducted a random, stratified, governmentwide survey of federal  managers comparable to surveys we conducted in 1997 and 2000. We also  held eight in-depth focus groups—seven composed of federal managers  from 23 federal agencies and one with GPRA experts. We also interviewed  top appointed officials from the current and previous administrations.  Finally, we judgmentally selected a sample of six agencies that we  reviewed for changes in the quality of their strategic plans, performance  plans, and performance reports since their initial efforts. The agencies we  selected included the Departments of Education (Education), Energy  (DOE), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation  (DOT) and the Small Business (SBA) and Social Security Administrations  (SSA). We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from January through  November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: GPRA Established a Management Framework
paragraphs: GPRA is the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in  place during the 1990s to help resolve the long-standing management  problems that have undermined the federal government’s efficiency and  effectiveness and to provide greater accountability for results. GPRA was  intended to address several broad purposes, including strengthening the  confidence of the American people in their government; improving federal  program effectiveness, accountability, and service delivery; and enhancing  congressional decision making by providing more objective information  on program performance.
As a key part of the framework, GPRA requires executive agencies to  complete strategic plans in which they define their missions, establish  results-oriented goals, and identify the strategies that will be needed to  achieve those goals. GPRA also requires executive agencies to prepare  annual performance plans that articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal  year that are aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Finally, GPRA  requires agencies to measure performance toward the achievement of the  goals in the annual performance plan and report annually on their progress  in program performance reports.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays an important role in  the management of federal government performance and, specifically,  GPRA implementation. Part of OMB’s overall mission is to ensure that  agency plans and reports are consistent with the President’s budget and  administration policies. OMB is responsible for receiving and reviewing  agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual  performance reports. To improve the quality and consistency of these  documents, OMB issues annual guidance to agencies for their preparation,  including guidelines on format, required elements, and submission  deadlines. Further, GPRA requires OMB to prepare a governmentwide  performance plan, based on agencies’ annual performance plan  submissions.
section_title: GPRA Laid the Foundation for a More Results- Oriented Federal Government
paragraphs: Ten years after enactment, GPRA’s requirements have laid a solid  foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and  reporting. Focus group participants and high-level political appointees, as  well as OMB officials we interviewed, cited positive effects of GPRA that  they generally attributed to GPRA’s statutory requirements for planning  and reporting. Performance planning and measurement have slowly yet  increasingly become a part of agencies’ cultures. The results of our survey  of federal managers indicate that since GPRA went into effect  governmentwide in 1997, federal managers reported having significantly  more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA— particularly outcome-oriented performance measures. Survey data also  suggested that more federal managers, especially at the Senior Executive  Service (SES) level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their  agencies’ efforts under GPRA.
One of the premises of GPRA is that both congressional and executive  branch oversight of federal agency performance were seriously hampered  by a lack of adequate results-oriented goals and performance information.  Our 1992 review of the collection and use of performance data by federal  agencies revealed that, although many agencies collected performance  information at the program level, few agencies had results-oriented  performance information to manage or make strategic policy decisions for  the agency as a whole. GPRA addressed agencies’ shortcomings by  creating a comprehensive and consistent statutory foundation of required  agencywide strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual  performance reports. Participants in all eight of our focus groups cited the  creation of this statutory foundation as one of the key accomplishments of  GPRA. Furthermore, prior to GPRA few agencies reported their  performance information externally. In contrast, OMB officials we  interviewed as part of our current review suggested that OMB has been a  key consumer of agency performance information produced under GPRA  and that it has provided a foundation for their efforts to oversee agency  performance. Focus group participants also suggested that a major  accomplishment of GPRA is the improved the transparency of government  results to the American public.
A key purpose of GPRA was “to improve the confidence of the American  people in the capability of the Federal Government, by systematically  holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results.”  When asked about the direct effects of GPRA on the public, an estimated  23 percent of the federal managers surveyed agreed to a moderate or  greater extent that GPRA improved their agency’s ability to deliver results  to the American public. High-level political appointees we interviewed  cited a number of examples of how the structure of GPRA created a  greater focus on results in their agencies. Participants in our focus groups  had mixed perceptions of GPRA’s effect on their agencies’ ability to  deliver results to the American public. Participants indicated GPRA has  had a positive effect by shifting the focus of federal management from  program activities and processes to achieving the intended results of those  programs. Other focus group participants had difficulty attributing the  results their agencies achieved directly to GPRA’s requirements.
Focus group and survey results suggest that performance planning and  measurement have slowly, but increasingly, become a part of agencies’  cultures. Compared to the results of our 1997 governmentwide survey of  federal managers, in our 2003 governmentwide survey more managers  reported having performance measures for their programs. When we  asked managers who said they had performance measures which of the  five types of measures they used to a “great” or “very great” extent, they  reported statistically significant increases in all five types of measures  between 1997 and 2003 (see fig. 1).
Similarly, focus group participants commented on certain cultural changes  that had taken place within their agencies since the passage of GPRA in  which the “vocabulary” of performance planning and measurement—that  is, a greater focus on performance measurement, orientation toward  outcomes over inputs and outputs, and an increased focus on program  evaluation—had become more pervasive. This perception is partly borne  out by our survey results. Consistent with our survey results indicating  increases in results-oriented performance measures and increasing GPRA  knowledge, we also observed a significant decline in the percentage of  federal managers who agreed that certain factors hindered measuring  performance or using the performance information. For example, of those  who expressed an opinion, the percentage of managers who noted that  determining meaningful measures was a hindrance to a “great” or “very  great” extent was down significantly from 47 percent in 1997 to 36 percent  in 2003. Likewise, the percentage that agreed to a “great” or “very great”  extent that different parties’ use of different definitions to measure  performance was a hindrance also declined significantly from 49 percent  in 1997 to 36 percent in 2003.
Our survey data suggested that more federal managers, especially at the  SES level, believed that OMB was paying attention to their agencies’  efforts under GPRA (see fig. 2), but with no corresponding increase in  their concern that OMB would micromanage the programs in their  agencies. In our survey, we asked respondents to assess the extent to  which OMB pays attention to their agencies’ efforts under GPRA. In 2003,  the percentage of respondents who responded “great” or “very great” to  this question (31 percent) was significantly higher than in 2000 (22  percent). Of those, SES respondents showed an even more dramatic  increase, from 33 to 51 percent. We also asked respondents to describe the  extent to which their concern that OMB would micromanage programs in  their agencies was a hindrance to measuring performance or using  performance information. The percentage among those expressing an  opinion that it was a hindrance to a “great” or “very great” extent was  low—around 24 percent in 2003—with no significant difference between  2000 and 2003.
The foundation of results-oriented planning and reporting that has been  established is also reflected in the quality of the plans and reports of six  federal agencies we reviewed for our report. Beginning with federal  agencies’ initial efforts to develop effective strategic plans in 1997 and  annual performance plans and reports for fiscal year 1999, Congress, GAO,  and others have commented on the quality of those efforts and provided  constructive feedback on how agency plans and reports could be  improved. On the basis of our current review of the strategic plans, annual  performance plans, and annual performance and accountability reports of  six selected agencies—Education, DOE, HUD, DOT, SBA, and SSA—we  found that these documents reflect much of the feedback that was  provided.
The quality of the six agencies’ strategic plans we reviewed reflected  improvements over these agencies’ initial strategic plans. In our current  review, the six strategic plans we looked at reflected many new and  continuing strengths as well as improvements over the 1997 initial draft  plans, but we continued to find certain persistent weaknesses. Of the six  elements required by GPRA, the plans generally discussed all but one— program evaluation—an area in which we have found agencies often lack  capacity. Although the strategic plans listed the program evaluations  agencies intended to complete over the planning period, they generally did  not address how the agencies planned to use their evaluations to establish  new or revise existing strategic goals, as envisioned by GPRA. Finally,  although not required by GPRA, the strategic plans would have benefited  from more complete discussions of how agencies planned to coordinate  and collaborate with other entities to address common challenges and  achieve common or complementary goals and objectives.
The six selected agencies’ fiscal year 2004 annual performance plans  addressed some weaknesses of earlier plans, but there is still significant  room for improvement. Most of the 2004 plans that we reviewed showed  meaningful improvements over the fiscal year 1999 plans by showing a  clearer picture of intended performance, providing strategies and  resources that were more specifically related to achieving agency goals,  and providing a greater level of confidence that performance data would  be credible. But these plans also contained a number of serious  weaknesses, such as inadequate discussion of coordination and  collaboration and inconsistent or limited discussions of procedures used  to verify and validate performance data, which limited their quality and  undermined their usefulness.
Our review of the six agencies’ fiscal year 2002 performance and  accountability reports showed a number of strengths and improvements  over their fiscal year 1999 performance reports, as well as areas that  needed improvement. These fiscal year 2002 reports generally allowed for  an assessment of progress made in achieving agency goals. In addition, the  majority of agencies discussed the progress achieved in addressing  performance and accountability challenges identified by agency inspectors  general and GAO. However, many of the weaknesses we identified in the  agencies’ fiscal year 2002 reports were related to the significant number of  performance goals not achieved or for which performance data were  unavailable. In addition, the majority of the reports we reviewed did not  include other GPRA requirements, such as a summary of the findings from  program evaluations. Finally, only one of the six agencies clearly linked its  costs to the achievement of performance goals or objectives.
section_title: Challenges to GPRA Implementation Exist
paragraphs: While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies  more results oriented, we found numerous challenges remain. These  challenges included (1) top leadership does not consistently show  commitment to achieving results, (2) managers reported mixed results in  the use of performance information, (3) managers continue to confront a  range of human capital management challenges, (4) managers face  persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals, measuring  performance, and collecting useful data, (5) crosscutting issues are not  adequately addressed, and (6) managers’ views that Congress’ use of  performance information is limited.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership Commitment
paragraphs: As we noted in previous GAO reports, top leadership commitment and  sustained attention to achieving results, both within the agencies and at  OMB, are essential to GPRA implementation. While one might expect an  increase in agency leadership commitment since GPRA was implemented,  our governmentwide surveys of federal managers have not shown  significant increases. Furthermore, although OMB has recently  demonstrated leadership in its review of performance information from a  budgetary perspective using the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART)  tool, it is unclear whether the results of those reviews, such as changes in  program performance measures, will complement and be integrated with  the long-term, strategic focus of GPRA. OMB provided significantly less  guidance on GPRA implementation for the fiscal year 2005 budget,  compared to the very detailed guidance provided in prior years. Without  consistent guidance from OMB on meeting GPRA requirements and  following best practices, it may be difficult to maintain the improvements  in agency performance plans and reports or bring about improvements in  areas where weaknesses remain.
Additionally, we found that timing issues may affect the development of  agency strategic plans that are meaningful and useful to top leadership.  The commitment and sustained attention of top leadership within  agencies, OMB, and Congress is critical to the success of strategic  planning efforts. A strategic plan should reflect the policy priorities of an  organization’s leaders and the input of key stakeholders if it is to be an  effective management tool. However, GPRA specifies time frames for  updating strategic plans that do not correspond to presidential or  congressional terms. As a result, an agency may be required to update its  strategic plan a year before a presidential election and without input from  a new Congress. If a new president is elected, the updated plan is  essentially moot and agencies must spend additional time and effort  revising it to reflect new priorities. Our focus group participants, including  GPRA experts, strongly agreed that this timing issue should be addressed  by adjusting time frames to correspond better with presidential and  congressional terms.
section_title: Use of Performance Information to Manage
paragraphs: The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized  when this information is actually used by managers to bring about desired  results. Federal managers reported mixed results in the use of  performance information (see fig. 3). Focus group participants and survey  respondents noted that although many federal managers understand and  use results-oriented management concepts in their day-to-day activities,  such as strategic planning and performance measurement, they do not  always connect these concepts to the requirements of GPRA. According to  our 2003 survey results, the reported use of performance information to a  “great” or “very great” extent for nine management activities, such as  setting program priorities or setting individual job expectations for staff,  ranging from 41 to 66 percent, has not changed significantly since our first  survey in 1997. One exception was the reported use to a “great” or “very  great” extent of performance information to adopt new program  approaches or change work processes, which was significantly lower than  the 1997 results. GPRA’s usefulness to agency leaders and managers as a  tool for management and accountability was cited as a key  accomplishment numerous times by focus group participants. However, a  number of alternative views indicated that the usefulness of GPRA as a  management tool has been limited. Our survey data also indicate that  managers perceive their participation in activities related to the  development of performance information has been limited.
section_title: Human Capital Management
paragraphs: Human capital management considerations also pose challenges to GPRA  implementation. In our survey, federal managers reported that they are  held accountable for program results, but may not have the decision- making authority they need to accomplish agency goals. When asked the  extent to which managers or supervisors at their levels were held  accountable for the accomplishment of agency strategic goals, 57 percent  responded to a “great” or “very great” extent in 2003. Also, there was little  difference between the views of SES and non-SES managers in the area of  accountability. (See fig. 4.)
In contrast, there was a significant difference between SES and non-SES  managers’ perceptions of having the decision-making authority they  needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals. Compared to the  57 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great  or very great extent in 2003, only 38 percent of non-SES managers  reported having such authority to a great or very great extent. (See fig. 5.)
Moreover, fewer than half of managers reported receiving relevant  training. Managers also perceived a lack of positive recognition for helping  agencies achieve results. Unfortunately, most existing federal performance  appraisal systems are not designed to support a meaningful performance- based pay system in that they fail to link institutional, program, unit, and  individual performance measurement and reward systems. In our view,  one key need is to modernize performance management systems in  executive agencies so that they link to the agency’s strategic plan, related  goals, and desired outcomes and are therefore capable of adequately  supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions.
section_title: Performance Measurement
paragraphs: Managers reported persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented  goals, measuring performance, and collecting useful data. Focus group  participants and survey respondents noted that outcome-oriented  performance measures were especially difficult to establish when the  program or line of effort was not easily quantifiable. For example,  implementing GPRA in a regulatory environment and meeting GPRA  reporting requirements for intergovernmental grant programs are  particularly challenging. Managers also identified difficulties in  distinguishing between the results produced by the federal program and  results caused by external factors or nonfederal actors, such as with grant  programs. Finally, managers reported that timely and useful performance  information is not always available.
section_title: Crosscutting Issues
paragraphs: Crosscutting issues continue to be a challenge to GPRA implementation.  Our review of six agencies’ strategic and annual performance plans  showed some improvement in addressing their crosscutting program  efforts, but a great deal of improvement is still necessary. We have  previously reported and testified that GPRA could provide OMB, agencies,  and Congress with a structured framework for addressing crosscutting  policy initiatives and program efforts. It can also be a valuable tool to  address mission fragmentation and program overlap. OMB could use the  provision of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide  performance plan to integrate expected agency-level performance. It could  also be used to more clearly relate and address the contributions of  alternative federal strategies. Unfortunately, this provision has not been  fully implemented. Instead, OMB has used the President’s Budget to  present high-level information about agencies and certain program  performance issues.
The current agency-by-agency focus of the budget does not provide the  integrated perspective of government performance envisioned by GPRA.  For example, the fiscal year 2004 budget identified budget requests and  performance objectives by agency, such as the U.S. Department of  Defense, as opposed to crosscutting governmentwide themes. From this  presentation, one could assume that the only activities the U.S.  government planned to carry out in support of national defense were those  listed under the chapter “Department of Defense.” However, the chapter  on the fiscal year 2004 budget discussing “the Department of State and  International Assistance Programs,” contains a heading titled, “Countering  the Threat from Weapons of Mass Destruction.” And while OMB may have  a technical reason for not classifying this task as being related to national  defense or homeland security, it is unclear that a lay reader could make  that distinction. The fiscal year 2005 budget also identified budget requests  and performance objectives by agency, not by crosscutting theme.
A strategic plan for the federal government could provide an additional  tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as well as  proposals for new programs. If fully developed, a governmentwide  strategic plan could potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the long- term goals of the federal government and provide a much needed basis for  fully integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal  activities. Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of key  stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism for building consensus.  Further, it could provide a vehicle for the President to articulate long-term  goals and a road map for achieving them. In addition, a strategic plan  could provide a more comprehensive framework for considering  organizational changes and making resource decisions. The development  of a set of key national indicators could be used as a basis to inform the  development of governmentwide strategic and annual performance plans.  The indicators could also link to and provide information to support  outcome-oriented goals and objectives in agency-level strategic and annual  performance plans.
section_title: Congressional Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Finally, focus group members believed that one of the main challenges to  GPRA implementation was the reluctance of Congress to use performance  information when making decisions, especially appropriations decisions.  However, less than one quarter of federal managers in the 2003 survey  shared that concern. Further, a recent Congressional Research Service  review suggests that Congress uses performance information to some  extent, as evidenced by citations in legislation and committee reports.  While there is concern regarding Congress’ use of performance  information, it is important to make sure that this information is useful. In  other words, the information presented and its presentation must meet the  needs of the user. Regular consultation with Congress about both the  content and format of performance plans and reports is critical.
As a key user of performance information, Congress also needs to be  considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRA provides  a vehicle for Congress to explicitly state its performance expectations in  outcome-oriented terms when consulting with agencies on their strategic  plans or when establishing new programs or exercising oversight of  existing programs that are not achieving desired results. This would  provide important guidance to agencies that could then be incorporated in  agency strategic and annual performance plans.
section_title: Recommendations and Matters for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: The challenges we identified in our report are not new—most have not  changed significantly since we first reported on governmentwide  implementation of GPRA. However, we have frequently reported on  approaches that agencies, OMB, and Congress could use to address the  challenges. These approaches include strengthening the commitment of  top leadership to creating and sustaining a focus on results; taking a  governmentwide approach to achieving outcomes that are crosscutting in  nature; improving the usefulness of performance information to managers,  Congress, and the public; and improving the quality of performance  measures and data. Collectively, these approaches form the agenda that  federal agencies, OMB, and Congress will need to follow to bring about a  more sustainable, governmentwide focus on results.
In our report we recommended that the Director of OMB implement five  suggestions to improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA  implementation:    To provide a broader perspective and more cohesive picture of the federal  government’s goals and strategies to address issues that cut across  executive branch agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB fully  implement GPRA’s requirement to develop a governmentwide  performance plan.
To achieve the greatest benefit from both GPRA and PART, we  recommend that the Director of OMB articulate and implement an  integrated and complementary relationship between the two. GPRA is a  broad legislative framework that was designed to be consultative with  Congress and other stakeholders, and allows for varying uses of  performance information. PART looks through a particular lens for a  particular use—the executive budget formulation process.
To improve the quality of agencies’ strategic plans, annual performance  plans, and performance and accountability reports and help agencies meet  the requirements of GPRA, we recommend that the Director of OMB  provide clearer and consistent guidance to executive branch agencies on  how to implement GPRA. Such guidance should include standards for  communicating key performance information in concise as well as longer  formats to better meet the needs of external users who lack the time or  expertise to analyze lengthy, detailed documents.
To help address agencies’ performance measurement challenges, we  recommend that the Director of OMB engage in a continuing dialogue with  agencies about their performance measurement practices with a particular  focus on grant-making, research and development, and regulatory  functions to identify and replicate successful approaches agencies are  using to measure and report on their outcomes, including the use of  program evaluation tools. Additionally, we recommend that the Director of  OMB work with executive branch agencies to identify the barriers to  obtaining timely data to show progress against performance goals and the  best ways to report information where there are unavoidable lags in data  availability. Governmentwide councils, such as the President’s  Management Council and the Chief Financial Officers Council, may be  effective vehicles for working on these issues.
To facilitate the transformation of agencies’ management cultures to be  more results oriented, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with  agencies to ensure they are making adequate investments in training on  performance planning and measurement, with a particular emphasis on  how to use performance information to improve program performance.
We also identified two matters for congressional consideration to improve  the governmentwide focus on results:    To ensure that agency strategic plans more closely align with changes in  the federal government leadership, Congress should consider amending  GPRA to require that updates to agency strategic plans be submitted at  least once every 4 years, 12-18 months after a new administration begins  its term. Additionally, consultations with congressional stakeholders  should be held at least once every new Congress and interim updates  made to strategic and performance plans as warranted. Congress should  consider using these consultations along with its traditional oversight role  and legislation as opportunities to clarify its performance expectations for  agencies. This process may provide an opportunity for Congress to  develop a more structured oversight agenda.
To provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to  address issues that cut across federal agencies, Congress should consider  amending GPRA to require the President to develop a governmentwide  strategic plan.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: In commenting on a draft of our report, OMB generally agreed with our  findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our  recommendations, but stated that the President’s Budget represents the  executive branch’s governmentwide performance plan and could also  double as a governmentwide strategic plan. However, because of the  budget’s focus on agency-level expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year,  we believe that the President’s Budget provides neither a long-term nor an  integrated perspective on the federal government’s performance. We also  provided relevant sections of the draft to the six agencies whose plans and  reports we reviewed. DOE, HUD, and SSA disagreed with some of our  observations, and we changed or clarified relevant sections of the report,  as appropriate.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased  to answer any questions you or the other members of the Committee may  have at this time.
For future contacts regarding this testimony, please call Patricia A. Dalton,  Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6806. Other individuals who made  key contributions to this testimony were Elizabeth Curda and Kimberly  Gianopoulos.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.