Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government
Published: 2009-09-24T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Since 1997, periodic GAO surveys indicate that overall, federal managers have more performance information available, but have not made greater use of this information for decision making. To understand the barriers and opportunities for more widespread use, GAO was asked to (1) examine key management practices in an agency in which managers' reported use of performance information has improved; (2) look at agencies with relatively low use of performance information and the factors that contribute to this condition; and (3) review the role the President and Congress can play in promoting a results-oriented and collaborative culture in the federal government. This testimony is primarily based on GAO's report, Results-Oriented Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, which is being released today. In this report, GAO made recommendations to the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Interior for improvements to key management practices to promote greater use of performance information at FEMA, the National Park Service, Bureau of Reclamation, as well as at Interior. Both DHS and Interior generally agreed with these recommendations. The testimony also draws from GAO's extensive prior work on the use of performance information and results-oriented management.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's prior work identified key management practices that can promote the use of performance information for decision making to improve results, including: demonstrating leadership commitment; aligning agency, program, and individual performance goals; improving the usefulness of performance information; building analytic capacity; and communicating performance information frequently and effectively. The experience of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) illustrates how strengthening these practices can help an agency increase its use of performance information. According to GAO's most recent 2007 survey of federal managers, the percentage of CMS managers reporting use of performance information for various management decisions increased by nearly 21 percentage points since 2000--one of the largest improvements among the agencies surveyed. CMS officials attributed this positive change to a number of the key practices, such as the agency's leaders communicating their commitment to using performance information to drive decision making. Conversely, the experiences of the Department of the Interior (Interior) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security indicated that the absence of such commitment can discourage managers and their staff from using performance information. According to GAO's 2007 survey, Interior and FEMA ranked 27 and 28, respectively, out of 29 agencies in their reported use of performance information for various management functions. Based on further survey data analysis, reviews of planning, policy, and performance documents, and management interviews, GAO found that inconsistent application of key practices at FEMA and Interior--such as routine communication of how performance information influences decision making--contributed to their relatively low survey scores. 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. The President and Congress also have unique and critical roles to play by driving improved federal agency performance. By focusing attention on certain high-level goals and tracking agency performance, the President and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) can send a message that using performance information is critical for achieving results and maximizing the return on federal funds invested. Through its oversight, Congress can also signal to agencies that results matter by articulating performance expectations for areas of concern and following up to ensure that performance goals are achieved. The President and Congress can also play a role in improving government performance in areas that require the concerted efforts of multiple agencies and programs to address, such as preparing for and responding to a pandemic influenza. A governmentwide strategic plan could support collaborative efforts by identifying long-term goals and the strategies needed to address crosscutting issues.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here to discuss our work on strategies that can help  foster a more results-oriented and collaborative culture across the federal  government. How the federal government performs and the results it  achieves have a significant effect on many of the American public’s most  pressing concerns—whether it be preparations for and response to  pandemic influenza, reduction in pollutants that contribute to climate  change, or rigorous oversight of financial markets. Given increasing public  demands for a more effective 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.
It has been more than 16 years since Congress passed the Government  Performance and Results Act (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 strategic plans  and are routinely generating performance information to measure and  report progress toward their strategic goals. However, as we testified  before this subcommittee in July 2008, our periodic surveys of federal  managers on their use of performance information show that while  significantly more federal managers reported having performance  measures for their programs than they did 10 years ago, their reported use  of performance information to make management decisions has not  changed significantly.
To better understand the barriers to and opportunities for more  widespread use, we drew from our extensive body of work assessing the  progress federal agencies have made in managing for results, including  our work on key management practices that can contribute to the use of  performance information in management decision making. These  practices are: demonstrating leadership commitment, communicating the  importance of using performance information frequently and effectively,  creating a clear “line of sight” linking individual performance with  organizational results, improving the usefulness of performance  information, and developing the capacity to collect and use performance  information (see fig. 1).
We also conducted further analysis of our surveys of federal managers on  their use of performance information. Using this analysis as a starting  point, we looked in depth at the management practices at the Department  of the Interior (Interior) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency  (FEMA), where a smaller percentage of managers reported making  extensive use of performance information compared to their counterparts  across the federal government. According to our 2007 survey, Interior and  FEMA ranked 27 and 28 respectively out of 29 agencies in their reported  use of performance information for various management functions (see  app. 1 for ranking of all 29 agencies). We also examined the management  practices at the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) within  the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), where managers’  reported use of performance information increased significantly over a  seven-year period. To obtain the different perspectives of bureau,  program, and field managers on challenges they faced in using  performance information, 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); at FEMA, we selected  the Disaster Assistance and Mitigation Directorates; and at CMS, we  selected 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.
In our report that is being released today, Results-Oriented Management:  Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote  Greater Use of Performance Information, we described the factors that  contributed to differences among managers’ reported use of performance  information at CMS, FEMA, and Interior. In my testimony today, I will  highlight the main findings from this report focusing on (1) the practices  that helped CMS promote results-oriented management and (2) actions  FEMA and Interior can take to improve their use of performance  information for decision making. In addition, drawing from earlier work,  my testimony will highlight opportunities for the President and the Office  of Management and Budget (OMB) to strengthen agency efforts to use  performance information to manage for results and the role that Congress  can play to support governmentwide initiatives to improve performance.
subsections: section_title: Adoption of Key Management Practices Promoted Greater Use of Performance Information at CMS
paragraphs: 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 the extent to which managers at each agency reported using  performance information. Our analysis of CMS survey results,  management interviews, and agency policies, performance reports, and  other relevant documents indicated that the adoption of key management  practices contributed to this improvement.
subsections: section_title: Demonstrating Leadership Commitment to Using Performance Information
paragraphs: Our 2007 survey results showed that significantly more CMS managers  agreed that their leadership is committed to achieving results, than they  did in 2000 (see fig. 2).
Nearly all of the CMS officials we interviewed credited the commitment of  one or more agency leaders—such as the CMS Administrator or the Chief  Operating Officer—for their increased use of performance information to  achieve results. One way in which leaders can demonstrate their  commitment is through frequent communication of established goals and  progress made toward those goals. As an example, in an effort to reduce  the incidence of pressure ulcers among nursing home residents, a Region  IV manager described to us how regional leadership began to routinely  share performance information about the pressure-ulcer problem with the  many stakeholders involved with patient care including hospital and  nursing-home personnel, patient advocates, emergency medical  technicians, and others. CMS contracts with states to assess the quality of  care provided by Medicare and Medicaid-participating facilities, such as  nursing homes, and is therefore several steps removed from the delivery of  health-care services to patients and the resulting health outcomes.  According to CMS Region IV managers we interviewed, this indirect  influence had been considered a limiting factor in CMS’ ability to affect  outcomes among nursing-home patients. However, these same managers  said that leadership commitment to getting stakeholders to the table and  sharing performance information with them were critical factors in  bringing about a reduction in the incidence of pressure ulcers. In that  region, between fiscal years 2006 and 2008, this improvement translated  into nearly 2,500 fewer long-stay nursing-home residents with pressure  ulcers.
section_title: Strengthening Alignment among Agency, Program, and Individual Performance Goals
paragraphs: Our survey results also indicated that between 2000 and 2007, a  significantly greater percentage of CMS managers reported that they were  held accountable for program results (see fig. 3).
In 2006, as part of a change throughout HHS, the agency adopted a new  performance-management system that links organizational and program  goals with individual accountability for program results. Top CMS  headquarters officials said that the new system had made individual  accountability for program results more explicit. They 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 broad department and agency-level goals.
To illustrate, broad goals for preventive healthcare cascade from HHS  through a CMS director responsible for increasing early detection of  breast cancer among Medicare beneficiaries, to a CMS Health Insurance  Specialist responsible for communications to raise awareness of the  importance of mammograms and other preventive measures.
section_title: Improving the Usefulness of Performance Information
paragraphs: Our survey results show that between 2000 and 2007, there was a  significant decline in the percentage of CMS managers who reported that  difficulty developing meaningful measures was a hindrance to using  performance information (see fig. 4).
According to CMS officials, to ensure that performance information was  useful to managers, they limited the number of measures for GPRA  reporting purposes to the 31 that represented the agency’s priorities. 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 opportunities to improve performance to close the  gaps.
section_title: Developing Analytic Capacity to Use Performance Information
paragraphs: Our survey results and interviews with several CMS officials indicate that  the agency also took steps to develop their staff’s capacity to use  performance information, such as investing in improved data systems and  offering increased training opportunities on a range of topics related to  performance planning and management. Between 2000 and 2007, there  was a significant positive increase on all six survey questions related to  managers’ access to training over the past three years on the use of  performance information for various activities (see fig. 5).
According to one official we spoke with, increasing her staff’s skills in  conducting analyses of performance information and presenting findings  was a gradual process that required training, coaching, and guidance.
section_title: FEMA and Interior Were Hindered in Using Performance Information for Decision Making by Weak or Inconsistent Application of Key Management Practices
paragraphs: Just as the adoption of key management practices can facilitate greater  use of information and a greater focus on results, the absence of these  practices can hinder widespread use. Fewer managers at FEMA and  Interior reported making extensive use of performance information for  decision making compared to managers at other agencies. Survey results,  interviews with senior level-officials and regional and program managers,  and a review of policies and other documents related to performance  planning and management at both agencies showed that inconsistent use  of these practices contributed to this condition.
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. 6).
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,  however, appeared to vary among those we interviewed. For example, in  the Disaster Assistance Directorate, one headquarters official told us that  he does not need performance targets to help him determine whether his  directorate is accomplishing its mission, relying instead on verbal  communications with the leadership and with FEMA’s regions, joint field  offices, and members of Congress to identify issues to be addressed and  areas that are running well.
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; rather, he said that he spoke to the  regions on an ad hoc basis as performance problems arose. These officials  expressed reluctance toward holding their staff accountable for meeting  performance goals due to external factors, such as the unpredictability of  disasters beyond their control. Further, they expressed uncertainty as to  how they could use performance information in the face of uncontrollable  external factors. As noted below, however, other managers in FEMA have  found ways to take unpredictable occurrences into account as they  monitor their progress in achieving performance goals.
FEMA faces other hurdles, including the lack of a performance- management system requiring managers to align agency goals with  individual performance objectives, which makes it challenging for  managers to hold individuals accountable for achieving results. The  agency also lacks adequate information systems for ensuring that  performance information can be easily collected, communicated, and  analyzed. For example, in order to gather performance information across  directorates, one official reported that 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. Further, according to several officials we interviewed,  there was a limited number of staff with the analytic skills necessary to  work with performance metrics.
As with FEMA, at Interior we observed that leaders and managers at all  levels conveyed a strong commitment to accomplishing the agency’s  mission. Interior’s survey results were similar to FEMA’s results on items  related to managers’ perceptions of their leadership’s commitment to  using performance information. Interior’s 2007 results were also lower  than those in the rest of government (see fig. 7).
According to officials we interviewed, leaders at Interior and NPS did not  effectively communicate to their staff how, if at all, they used performance  information to identify performance gaps and develop strategies to better  achieve results. Several NPS managers 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.
Furthermore, some bureau-level managers at NPS and Reclamation said  the performance measures they are required to report on were not always  useful for their decision making, either because there were too many or  because they were not credible. 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. However, in the seven years since the inception of the former  administration’s Performance Assessment Rating Tool (PART) initiative,  Interior has expanded its performance reporting to include 440 PART  program measures, in addition to the approximately 200 strategic  performance measures used to track progress against its strategic and  annual plans, as required by GRPA. A senior headquarters official at  Interior said that the number of measures makes it difficult for senior  leaders and managers to focus on priorities and easily identify  performance gaps among the different program areas. At NPS alone,  managers were required to report on 122 performance measures related to  GPRA and PART.
Managers at both NPS and Reclamation also described performance  information that lacked credibility because the measures either did not  accurately define comparable elements or did not take into account  different standards across bureaus or units. For example, several NPS  managers noted that one of the measures on which 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.
Poorly integrated performance and management information systems  further hindered NPS and Reclamation managers’ efforts to use  performance information to inform their decision making. For example,  according to some Reclamation managers we interviewed, 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.
Despite the challenges facing FEMA and Interior, we also observed  various initiatives and program areas within the agencies where leaders  were committed to increasing the use of performance information; and  were demonstrating that commitment by communicating the importance  of using data to identify and solve problems, involving their managers in  efforts to develop useful measures, and connecting individual performance  with organizational results. Within FEMA, Mitigation Directorate officials  we interviewed reported that they had begun to use performance  information to plan for and respond to factors outside of their control, a  change that they attributed in large part to the former Mitigation  Administrator’s commitment to performance and accountability. For  example, storms and other natural events can disrupt the Mitigation  Directorate’s production work related to floodplain maps modernization,  which is a key step in ensuring that flood-prone communities have the  most reliable and current flood data available. To plan for possible  disruptions, Mitigation Directorate officials said they reviewed  performance information on progress toward map modernization goals on  a monthly basis with their external stakeholders, including state and local  governments and insurance companies and FEMA’s regional management,  which sent a clear signal that Mitigation’s leadership was paying attention  to outcomes. According to these officials, this review helped them to  determine in advance if they were 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. Moreover, they said, they were able  to meet or exceed their performance target of 93 percent of communities  adopting new floodplain maps, in part, as a result of their frequent  communication and review of 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,  rather than as a punitive mechanism. Finally, Mitigation Directorate  officials said that managers and staff became more supportive of their  leadership’s efforts to use performance information in their decision  making once they began to see that measuring performance could help  them to improve results.
At Interior and NPS, officials were aware that managers continue to  struggle with the high volume of performance information they are  required to collect, and have initiated various strategies designed to  improve the usefulness of performance information without adding to the  existing data-collection and reporting process. For example, NPS’ Core  Operations Analysis is a park-level funding and staffing planning process,  recently adopted by several regions, that is intended to improve the  efficiency of park operations 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.
Our report contains recommendations to the Secretary of the Department  of Homeland Security (DHS) for FEMA and the Secretary of the Interior,  designed to build upon the positive practices we identified within these  agencies. We recommended that FEMA augment its analytic capacity to  collect and analyze performance information and strengthen linkages  among agency, program, and individual performance. We also  recommended that Interior, NPS, and Reclamation review the usefulness  of their performance measures in conjunction with OMB and refine or  discontinue performance measures that are not useful for decision  making. Finally, to FEMA, Interior, and NPS, we made recommendations  intended to improve the visibility of agency leadership’s commitment to  using performance information in decision making. Both DHS and Interior  generally agreed with these recommendations.
section_title: Building an Enduring Results-Oriented and Collaborative Culture Requires Demonstrated Leadership Commitment from the President and Congress
paragraphs: As we have noted in the past, the President and Congress both have  unique and critical roles to play in demonstrating their commitment to  improving federal agency performance results. Both OMB and Congress  can send strong messages to agencies that results matter by articulating  expectations for individual agency performance and following up to  ensure that performance goals are achieved. At the same time, they also  need to address performance problems in the areas of government that  require the concerted efforts of multiple agencies and programs.  Increasingly, many of the outcomes we look for—such as prevention of  terrorist attacks, reduction in incidence of infectious diseases, or  improved response to natural disasters—go beyond the scope of any one  single agency. In these cases, agencies must work closely together to  achieve desired results.
subsections: section_title: The President and OMB Can Promote Greater Use of Performance Information Governmentwide
paragraphs: The President can send a signal to federal managers that using  performance information is critical for achieving results and maximizing  the return on federal funds invested by selecting and focusing his attention  on achieving certain critical goals, such as creating or retaining jobs  through investments under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  of 2009. As a first step, OMB has begun to issue guidance to agencies on  identifying a limited number of high-priority performance goals, with the  explicit message that performance planning is a key element of the  President’s agenda to build a high-performing government. With this  recent guidance, OMB has also put agencies on notice that the executive- branch leadership is paying attention to their performance, by establishing  regular reviews of the progress agencies are making to improve results in  these high-priority areas.
As the primary focal point for overall management in the federal  government, OMB can support agency efforts to use performance  information by encouraging agencies to invest in training, identifying and  disseminating leading practices among agency managers, and assisting  agencies in adopting these practices where appropriate. As we previously  reported, our survey results showed a positive relationship between  managers who reported receiving training and development on setting  program performance goals and those who report using performance  information when setting or revising performance goals. However, as we  testified in July 2008, while our survey found a significant increase in  training since 1997, only about half of our survey respondents in 2007  reported receiving any training that would assist in analyzing and making  use of performance information. We previously recommended that OMB  ensure that agencies 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.  Although the agency has not yet implemented this recommendation, an  official who oversees OMB’s management initiatives said that OMB has  recently launched a collaborative Wiki page for federal agencies.  According to this official, the Wiki is intended to provide an on-line forum  for federal managers to share lessons learned and leading practices for  using performance information to drive decision making.
In addition to providing support to help improve agency-level  performance, OMB is uniquely positioned to facilitate collaborative,  governmentwide performance toward crosscutting goals. As noted above,  there are numerous performance challenges, ranging from combating  terrorism to preventing the spread of infectious diseases, which transcend  organization lines and require the concerted efforts of multiple agencies  and programs. We have previously reported that GPRA could provide  OMB, agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing  crosscutting program efforts. OMB, for example, could use the provision  of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop an annual governmentwide  performance plan to integrate expected agency-level performance. Such a  plan could help the executive branch and Congress address critical federal  performance and management issues such as conflicting agency missions,  jurisdiction issues, and incompatible procedures, data, and processes. As  we pointed out in our July 2008 testimony, this provision has not been  implemented fully.
In addition to the annual performance plan, a governmentwide strategic  plan could identify long-term goals and strategies to address issues that  cut across federal agencies. To that end, we have also recommended that  Congress consider amending GPRA to require the President to develop a  governmentwide strategic plan. Such a plan—supported by a set of key  national outcome-based indicators of where the nation stands on a range  of economic, environmental, safety and security, social, and cultural  issues—could offer 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.
section_title: Ensuring Performance Information Is Useful to and Used by Congress Is Key to Success of Governmentwide Performance Initiatives
paragraphs: By routinely incorporating agency performance issues into its  deliberations and oversight, Congress can send an unmistakable message  to agencies that they are expected to manage for results. As we have noted  in our earlier work, however, Congress needs to be actively involved in  early conversations about what to measure and how to present this  information. We previously reported that the PART process used by the  prior administration did not systematically incorporate a congressional  perspective and promote a dialogue between Congress and the President.  As a result, most congressional committee staff we spoke to did not use  the PART results to inform their deliberations. Although the Obama  Administration intends to adopt a new performance improvement and  analysis framework, any new framework should include a mechanism to  consult with members of Congress and their staffs about what they  consider to be the most important performance issues and program areas  warranting review. Engaging Congress early in the process could help  target performance improvement efforts toward those areas most likely to  be on the agenda of Congress, thereby increasing the likelihood that they  will use performance information in their oversight and deliberations.
Additionally, as we noted in our July 2008 testimony, Congress could  consider whether a more structured oversight mechanism would be  helpful in bringing about a more coordinated congressional perspective on  governmentwide performance issues. Just as the executive branch needs  to better address programs and challenges that span multiple departments  and agencies, Congress might find it useful to develop structures and  processes that provide a coordinated approach to overseeing agencies  where jurisdiction crosses congressional committees. We have previously  suggested that one possible approach could involve developing a  congressional performance resolution identifying the key oversight and  performance goals that Congress wishes to set for its own committees and  for the government as a whole. Such a resolution could be developed by  modifying the annual congressional budget resolution, which is already  organized by budget function. This may involve collecting the input of  authorizing and appropriations committees on priority performance issues  for programs under their jurisdiction and working with crosscutting  committees such as the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and  Governmental Affairs, the House Committee on Oversight and  Government Reform, and the House Committee on Rules.
In conclusion, while federal agencies have become better positioned to  manage for results, there is still much to be done to shift the focus of  federal managers from merely measuring agency performance to actively  managing performance to improve results. Our work indicates that  widespread adoption of the key management practices we have identified  is a critical first step. At the same time, the President and Congress each  have unique and critical roles to play in building a high-performing,  results-oriented, and collaborative culture across the government. Beyond  this, the creation of a long-term governmentwide strategic plan, informed  by a set of key national indicators, and an annual governmentwide  performance plan could provide important tools for integrating efforts  across agencies to achieve results on the challenging issues that  increasingly face our nation in the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond  to any questions you or other members of the subcommittee may have at  this time.
section_title: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information about this testimony, please contact me at   (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this testimony. Individuals who made key contributions to this  testimony were Elizabeth Curda (Assistant Director), Jessica Nierenberg,  Laura Miller Craig, Kate Hudson Walker, Karin Fangman, Melanie  Papasian, A.J. Stephens, and William Trancucci.
section_title: Appendix I: Agency Ranking Based on 2007 Survey Results on Use of Performance Information
subsections: section_title: Rank
paragraphs: National Aeronautics and Space Administration Department of Housing and Urban Development Department of the Treasury (excluding Internal Revenue Service)
Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services United States Agency for International Development Department of Agriculture (excluding Forest Service)
Department of Homeland Security (excluding Federal Emergency Management Agency)
Department of Transportation (excluding Federal Aviation Administration)
Department of Health and Human Services (excluding Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services)
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.