Government Performance: GPRA Modernization Act Provides Opportunities to Help Address Fiscal, Performance, and Management Challenges
Published: 2011-03-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The federal government is the world's largest and most complex entity, with about $3.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2010 that fund a broad array of programs and operations. GAO's long-term simulations of the federal budget show--absent policy change--growing deficits accumulating to an unsustainable increase in debt. While the spending side is driven by rising health care costs and demographics, other areas should also be scrutinized. In addition, there are significant performance and management challenges that the federal government needs to confront. GAO was asked to testify on how the provisions of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) could, if effectively implemented, help address these challenges. Our statement is based on our past and ongoing work on GPRA implementation, as well as our recently issued reports (1) identifying opportunities to reduce potential duplication in government programs, save tax dollars, and enhance revenue; and (2) updating our list of government operations at high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or the need for broad-based transformation. As required by GPRAMA, GAO will periodically evaluate implementation of the act and report to Congress on its findings and recommendations.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GAO's past and ongoing work illustrates how GPRAMA could help address government challenges in five areas: 1) Adopting a more coordinated and crosscutting approach to achieving meaningful results. GPRAMA could help inform reexamination or restructuring efforts and lead to more efficient and economical service delivery in overlapping program areas by identifying the various agencies and federal activities--including spending programs, regulations, and tax expenditures--that contribute to crosscutting outcomes. These program areas could include multiple employment and training programs or numerous teacher quality initiatives, among others. 2) Addressing weaknesses in major management functions. Agencies need more effective management capabilities to better implement their programs and policies. GPRAMA requires long-term goals to improve management functions in five key areas: financial, human capital, information technology, procurement and acquisition, and real property. GAO's work has highlighted opportunities for improvements in each of these areas and aspects of several of them are on the GAO high-risk list. 3) Ensuring performance information is both useful and used in decision making. Agencies need to consider the differing needs of various stakeholders, including Congress, to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used. For performance information to be useful, it must be complete, accurate, valid, timely, and easy to use. Yet decision makers often do not have the quality performance information they need to improve results. To help address this need, GPRAMA requires (1) disclosure of information about accuracy and validity, (2) data on crosscutting areas, and (3) quarterly reporting on priority goals on a publicly available Web site. 4) Instilling sustained leadership commitment and accountability for achieving results. Perhaps the single most important element of successful management improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of top leaders, as shown by their personal involvement in reform efforts. GPRAMA assigns responsibilities to a Chief Operating Officer and Performance Improvement Officer in each agency to improve agency management and performance. 5) Engaging Congress in identifying management and performance issues to address. In order for performance improvement initiatives to be useful to Congress for its decision making, garnering congressional buy-in on what to measure and how to present this information is critical. GAO has previously noted the importance of considering Congress a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to consult with Congress.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss how the provisions put into place  by the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) Modernization  Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), could help address significant fiscal,  performance, and management challenges facing the federal government.  The federal government is the world’s largest and most complex entity,  with about $3.5 trillion in outlays in fiscal year 2010 that fund a broad  array of programs and operations. Looking forward, our long-term  simulations underscore the need to begin addressing the long-term federal  fiscal outlook. Absent changes in fiscal policy, the structural imbalance  between spending and revenue paths lead to large and growing deficits.  The accumulation of large deficits leads to an unsustainable increase in  debt over the long term. This, in turn, will limit budget flexibility and the  federal government’s ability to respond to future challenges.
Addressing these fiscal challenges will require action on several fronts.  First, all federal programs and activities—discretionary programs,  mandatory spending, revenues, and tax expenditures—need to be  reexamined. Second, program structures that are outmoded, overlapping,  duplicative, fragmented, and not up to the challenges of the times must be  reformed or restructured. In this regard, we recently issued a report that  identified over 80 areas of potential duplication, overlap, or fragmentation  as well as cost savings and revenue-enhancing opportunities. In addition,  weaknesses in management capacity, both governmentwide and in  individual agencies, undermine efficient and effective government. Here  too, our recent update to our high-risk list identified numerous  opportunities to reduce costs and improve government performance.
Moving forward, the GPRA Modernization Act can offer opportunities to  help make tough choices in setting priorities as well as reforming  programs and management practices to better link resources to results.
My statement today, which is based on our past and ongoing work, will  focus on five key areas where the requirements of GPRAMA could help  address government challenges. In particular, the act calls for:    a more coordinated and crosscutting approach to achieving meaningful    efforts to address weaknesses in major management functions,    ensuring performance information is both useful and used in decision    sustained leadership commitment and accountability for achieving results,    engaging Congress in identifying management and performance issues to  address.
Finally, my statement will speak to GAO’s role in evaluating  implementation of this act.
subsections: section_title: Adopting a More Coordinated and Crosscutting Approach to Achieving Meaningful Results
paragraphs: The federal government faces a series of challenges that in many instances  are not possible for any single agency to address alone. Many federal  program efforts, including those related to ensuring food safety, providing  homeland security, monitoring incidence of infectious diseases, or  improving response to natural disasters, transcend more than one agency.  Agencies face a range of challenges and barriers when they attempt to  work collaboratively. GPRAMA establishes a new framework aimed at  taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results  and improving government performance. It requires the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB), in coordination with agencies, to  develop—every 4 years—long-term, outcome-oriented goals for a limited  number of crosscutting policy areas. On an annual basis, OMB is to  provide information on how these long-term crosscutting goals will be  achieved.
This approach will provide a much needed basis for more fully integrating  a wide array of federal activities as well as a cohesive perspective on the  long-term goals of the federal government that is focused on priority  policy areas. It could also be a valuable tool for governmentwide  reexamination of existing programs and proposals for new programs.
Our recent report on duplication, overlap, and fragmentation highlights a  number of areas where a more crosscutting approach is needed—both  across agencies and within a specific agency. Effective GPRAMA  implementation could help inform reexamination or restructuring efforts  related to these and other areas by identifying the various agencies and  federal activities—including spending programs, regulations, and tax  expenditures—that contribute to each crosscutting goal. Examples from  our work include:    Employment and training programs: In fiscal year 2009, 47 federal  employment and training programs spent about $18 billion to provide  services, such as job search and job counseling, to program participants.  Most of these programs are administered by the Departments of Labor,  Education, and Health and Human Services (HHS). We found that 44 of the  47 programs overlap with at least one other program in that they provide  at least one similar service to a similar population. Our review of 3  programs among the largest—Temporary Assistance for Needy Families  (TANF), Employment Service, and Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult  programs—found that they provide some of the same services to the same  population through separate administrative structures. Although the  extent to which individuals receive the same services from these programs  is unknown due to limited data, these programs maintain parallel  administrative structures to provide some of the same services such as job  search assistance to low-income individuals.
At the state level, the TANF program (which also provides a wide range of  other services) is typically administered by the state human services or  welfare agency, while the Employment Service and WIA Adult programs  are typically administered by the state workforce agency and provided  through one-stop centers. Agency officials acknowledged that greater  efficiencies could be achieved in delivering services through these  programs but said factors such as the number of clients that any one-stop  center can serve and one-stop centers’ proximity to clients, particularly in  rural areas, could warrant having multiple entities provide the same  services. Colocating services and consolidating administrative structures  may increase efficiencies and reduce costs, but implementation can be  challenging.
Some states have colocated TANF employment and training services in  one-stop centers where Employment Service and WIA Adult services are  provided. Three states—Florida, Texas, and Utah—have gone a step  further by consolidating the agencies that administer these programs, and  state officials said this reduced costs and improved services, but they  could not provide a dollar figure for cost savings. States and localities may  face challenges to colocating services, such as limited office space. In  addition, consolidating administrative structures may be time consuming  and any cost savings may not be immediately realized.
To facilitate further progress by states and localities in increasing  administrative efficiencies in employment and training programs, we  recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and HHS work  together to develop and disseminate information that could inform such  efforts. As part of this effort, Labor and HHS should examine the  incentives for states and localities to undertake such initiatives, and, as  warranted, identify options for increasing such incentives. Labor and HHS  agreed they should develop and disseminate this information. HHS noted  that it lacks legal authority to mandate increased TANF-WIA coordination  or create incentives for such efforts. Sustained oversight by Congress  could help ensure progress is realized.
Military health system: The responsibilities and authorities for the  Department of Defense’s (DOD) military health system are distributed  among several organizations within DOD with no central command  authority or single entity accountable for minimizing costs and achieving  efficiencies. Under the military health system’s current command  structure, the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Health  Affairs, the Army, the Navy, and the Air Force each has its own  headquarters and associated support functions. Annual military health  system costs have more than doubled from $19 billion in fiscal year 2001  to $49 billion in 2010 and are expected to increase to over $62 billion by  2015.
DOD has made varying levels of progress in implementing limited actions  to consolidate certain common administrative, management, and clinical  functions. However, to reduce duplication in its command structure and  eliminate redundant processes that add to growing defense health care  costs, DOD could take action to further assess alternatives for  restructuring the governance structure of the military health system. A  May 2006 report by the Center for Naval Analyses showed that if DOD and  the services had chosen to implement one of the three larger-scale  alternative concepts studied by DOD, the department could have achieved  significant savings. Our adjustment of those projected savings into 2010  dollars indicates those savings could range from $281 million to $460  million annually depending on the alternative chosen and numbers of  military, civilian, and contractor positions eliminated. DOD officials said  that they generally agreed with the facts and findings in our analysis.
Teacher quality programs: In fiscal year 2009, the federal government  spent over $4 billion specifically to improve the quality of our nation’s 3  million teachers through numerous programs across the government. We  identified 82 distinct programs designed to help improve teacher quality,  either as a primary purpose or as an allowable activity, administered  across 10 federal agencies. The proliferation of programs has resulted in  fragmentation that can frustrate agency efforts to administer programs in a  comprehensive manner, limit the ability to determine which programs are  most cost effective, and ultimately increase program costs.
In 2009, we recommended that the Secretary of Education work with other  agencies as appropriate to develop a coordinated approach for routinely  and systematically sharing information that can assist federal programs,  states, and local providers in achieving efficient service delivery. The  Department of Education has established working groups to help develop  more effective collaboration across Education offices, and has reached  out to other agencies to develop a framework for sharing information on  some teacher quality activities, but it has noted that coordination efforts  do not always prove useful and cannot fully eliminate barriers to program  alignment, such as programs with differing definitions for similar  populations of grantees, which create an impediment to coordination.
Congress could help eliminate some barriers through legislation,  particularly through the pending reauthorization of the Elementary and  Secondary Education Act of 1965 and other key education bills.  Specifically, to minimize any wasteful fragmentation and overlap among  teacher quality programs, Congress may choose either to eliminate  programs that are too small to evaluate cost effectively or to combine  programs serving similar target groups into a larger program. Education  has already proposed combining 38 programs into 11 programs in its  reauthorization proposal, which could allow the agency to dedicate a  higher portion of its administrative resources to monitoring programs for  results and providing technical assistance.
Domestic ethanol production: Congress supported domestic ethanol  production through a $5.4 billion tax credit program in 2010 and through a  renewable fuel standard that applies to transportation fuels used in the  United States. The ethanol tax credit and the renewable fuel standard can  be duplicative in stimulating domestic production and use of ethanol, and  can result in substantial loss of revenue to the Treasury. The ethanol tax  credit was recently extended at 45 cents per gallon through December 31,  2011. The tax credit will cost $5.7 billion in forgone revenues in 2011.  Because the fuel standard allows increasing annual amounts of  conventional biofuels through 2015, which ensures a market for a  conventional corn starch ethanol industry that is already mature, Congress  may wish to consider whether revisions to the ethanol tax credit are  needed, such as reducing, modifying, or phasing out the tax credit.
section_title: Addressing Weaknesses in Major Management Functions
paragraphs: Although agencies have made progress improving their operations in  recent years, they need more effective management capabilities to better  implement new programs and policies. As part of the new  governmentwide framework created by GPRAMA, OMB is required to  develop long-term goals to improve management functions across the  government. The act specifies that these goals should include five areas:  financial management, human capital management, information  technology management, procurement and acquisition management, and  real property management. All five of these areas have been identified by  GAO as key management challenges across the government. Moreover,  some aspects of these areas have warranted our designation as high risk,  either governmentwide or at certain agencies—such as strategic human  capital management and real property management across the federal  government and financial management at DOD.
In addition, a number of the cost-savings or revenue-enhancement  opportunities we recently identified touch on needed improvements to  management functions. Examples include:    Noncompetitive contracts: Federal agencies generally are required to  award contracts competitively, but a substantial amount of federal money  is being obligated on noncompetitive contracts annually. Federal agencies  obligated approximately $170 billion on noncompetitive contracts in fiscal  year 2009 alone. While there has been some fluctuation over the years, the  percentage of obligations under noncompetitive contracts recently has  been in the range of 31 percent to over 35 percent.
Although some agency decisions to forego competition may be justified,  we found that when federal agencies decide to open their contracts to  competition, they frequently realize savings. For example, the Department  of State (State) awarded a noncompetitive contract for installation and  maintenance of technical security equipment at U.S. embassies in 2003. In  response to our recommendation, State subsequently competed this  requirement, and in 2007 it awarded contracts to four small businesses for  a total savings of over $218 million. In another case, we found in 2006 that  the Army had awarded noncompetitive contracts for security guards, but  later spent 25 percent less for the same services when the contracts were  competed.
In July 2009, OMB called for agencies to reduce obligations under new  contract actions that are awarded using high-risk contracting authorities  by 10 percent in fiscal year 2010. These high-risk contracts include those  that are awarded noncompetitively and those that are structured as  competitive but for which only one offer is received. While sufficient data  are not yet available to determine whether OMB’s goal was met, we are  currently reviewing the agencies’ savings plans to identify steps taken  toward that goal, and will continue to monitor the progress agencies make  toward achieving this and any subsequent goals set by OMB.
Undisbursed grant balances: Past audits of federal agencies by GAO and  Inspectors General, as well as agencies’ annual performance reports, have  suggested grant management challenges, including failure to conduct grant  closeouts and undisbursed balances, are a long-standing problem. In  August 2008, we reported that during calendar year 2006, about $1 billion  in undisbursed funding remained in expired grant accounts in HHS’s  Payment Management System—the largest civilian grant payment system,  which multiple agencies use. In August 2008, we recommended that OMB  instruct all executive departments and independent agencies to track  undisbursed balances in expired grant accounts and report on the  resolution of this funding in their annual performance plan and  Performance and Accountability Reports. As of January 13, 2011, OMB had  not issued governmentwide guidance regarding undisbursed balances in  expired grant accounts.
Unneeded real property: Many federal agencies hold real property they do  not need, including property that is excess or underutilized. Excess and  underutilized properties present significant potential risks to federal  agencies because they are costly to maintain. For example, in fiscal year  2009, agencies reported underutilized buildings accounted for over $1.6  billion in annual operating costs. In a June 2010 Presidential Memorandum  to federal agencies, the administration established a new target of saving  $3 billion through disposals and other methods by the end of fiscal year  2012; the President reiterated this goal in his 2012 budget. However,  federal agencies continue to face obstacles to disposing of unneeded  property, such as requirements to offer the property to other federal  agencies, then to state and local governments and certain nonprofits at no  cost. If these entities cannot use the property, agencies may also need to  comply with costly historic preservation or environmental cleanup  requirements before disposing of the property. Finally, community  stakeholders may oppose agencies’ plans for property disposal.
OMB could assist agencies in meeting their property disposal target by  implementing our April 2007 recommendation of developing an action plan  to address key problems associated with disposing of unneeded real  property, including reducing the effect of competing stakeholder interests  on real property decisions. The President’s fiscal year 2012 budget  proposed the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA) for congressional  consideration. The act would establish a Civilian Property Realignment  Board modeled on the Base Closure and Realignment Commission. We are  engaged in discussions with Congress to determine how we can best  support Congress, should the act become law.
section_title: Ensuring Performance Information Is Both Useful and Used in Decision Making
paragraphs: Agencies need to consider the differing information needs of various  users—such as agency top leadership and line managers, OMB, and  Congress—to ensure that performance information will be both useful and  used in decision making. We have previously reported that to be useful,  performance information must meet diverse users’ needs for  completeness, accuracy, validity, timeliness, and ease of use. GPRAMA  puts into place several requirements that could address these needs.
Completeness: Our work on overlap and duplication has found  crosscutting areas, such as surface transportation programs or domestic  food assistance programs, where performance information is limited or  does not exist. In shedding light on these areas, the new crosscutting  planning and reporting requirements could lead to the development of  performance information in areas that are currently incomplete.
Accuracy and validity: Agencies are required to disclose more  information about the accuracy and validity of their performance  information in their performance plans and reports, including the sources  for their data and actions to address limitations to the data.
Timeliness and ease of use: While agencies will continue to report  annually on progress towards the rest of their goals, GPRAMA requires  reporting for governmentwide and agency priority goals on a quarterly  basis. By also requiring information to be posted on a governmentwide  Web site, the act will make performance information more accessible and  easy to use by stakeholders and the public, thus fostering transparency  and civic engagement.
In addition, to help ensure that performance information is used—not  simply collected and reported as a compliance exercise—GPRAMA  requires top leadership and program officials to be involved in quarterly  reviews of priority goals. During these sessions, they are expected to  review the progress achieved toward goals; assess the contributions of  underlying federal organizations, programs, and activities; categorize goals  by their risk of not being achieved; and develop strategies to improve  performance.
To be successful, these officials must have the knowledge and experience  necessary to use and trust the information they are gathering. Building  analytical capacity to use performance information and to ensure its  quality—both in terms of staff trained to do the analysis and availability of  research and evaluation resources—is critical to using performance  information in a meaningful fashion and will play a large role in the  success of government performance improvements. Federal officials must  understand how the performance information they gather can be used to  provide insight into the factors that impede or contribute to program  successes; assess the effect of the program; or help explain the linkages  between program inputs, activities, outputs, and outcomes. To that end,  within 1 year of enactment, GPRAMA requires the Office of Personnel  Management (OPM), in consultation with the Performance Improvement  Council, to identify the key skills and competencies needed by federal  employees to carry out a variety of performance management activities  including developing goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using  performance information. Once those key skills and competencies are  identified, OPM is then required to incorporate those skills and  competencies into relevant position classifications and agency training no  later than 2 years after enactment.
section_title: Instilling Sustained Leadership Commitment and Accountability for Achieving Results
paragraphs: Perhaps the single most important element of successful management  improvement initiatives is the demonstrated commitment of top leaders.  This commitment is most prominently shown through the personal  involvement of top leaders in developing and directing reform efforts.  Organizations that successfully address their long-standing management  weaknesses do not “staff out” responsibility for leading change. Top  leadership involvement and clear lines of accountability for making  management improvements are critical to overcoming organizations’  natural resistance to change, marshalling the resources needed in many  cases to improve management, and building and maintaining the  organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business.
GPRAMA creates several new leadership structures and responsibilities  aimed at sustaining attention on improvement efforts at both the agency  and governmentwide levels. The act designates the deputy head of each  agency as Chief Operating Officer (COO), with overall responsibilities for  improving the management and performance of the agency. In addition,  the act requires each agency to designate a senior executive as  Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) to support the COO. The act also  establishes a Performance Improvement Council—chaired by the OMB  Deputy Director for Management and composed of PIOs from various  agencies—to assist the Director of OMB in carrying out the  governmentwide planning and reporting requirements.
GPRAMA also creates individual and organizational accountability  provisions that have the potential to keep attention focused on achieving  results. For each governmentwide performance goal, a lead government  official is to be designated and held responsible for coordinating efforts to  achieve the goal. Similarly, at the agency level, for each performance goal,  an agency official, known as a goal leader, will be responsible for  achieving the goal. To promote overall organizational accountability, the  act requires OMB to report each year on unmet agency goals. Where a goal  has been unmet for 3 years, OMB can identify the program for termination  or restructuring, among other actions.
section_title: Engaging Congress in Identifying Management and Performance Issues to Address
paragraphs: In order for performance improvement initiatives to be useful to Congress  for its decision making, garnering congressional buy-in on what to  measure and how to present this information is critical. In past reviews,  we have noted the importance of considering Congress a partner in  shaping agency goals at the outset. Congressional committee staff, in  discussing the Program Assessment Review Tool (PART) developed by  the previous administration, told us that communicating the PART  assessment results was not a replacement for the benefit of early  consultation between Congress and OMB about what they consider to be  the most important performance issues and program areas warranting  review.
While GPRA called for agencies to consult with Congress on their strategic  plans, the act did not provide detailed or specific requirements on the  consultation process or how agencies were to treat the information they  obtained. GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements for agencies to  consult with Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide  and agency goals. OMB and agencies are to consult with relevant  committees, obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals  at least once every 2 years. In addition, OMB and agencies are to describe  on the governmentwide Web site or in their strategic plans, respectively,  how they incorporated congressional input into their goals.
Beyond this opportunity to provide input to OMB and agencies as they  shape their plans, Congress can also play a decisive role in fostering  results-oriented cultures in the federal government by using information  on agency goals and results as it carries out its legislative responsibilities.  For example, authorizing, appropriations, and oversight committees could  schedule hearings to determine if agency programs have clear  performance goals, measures, and data with which to track progress and  whether the programs are achieving their goals. Where goals and  objectives are unclear or not results-oriented, Congress could articulate  the program outcomes it expects agencies to achieve. This would provide  important guidance to agencies that could then be incorporated in agency  strategic and annual performance plans. Most important, congressional  use of agency goals and measured results in its decision making will send  an unmistakable message to agencies that Congress considers agency  performance a priority. Congressional oversight and sustained attention by  top administration officials are essential to ensuring further improvement  in the performance of federal programs and operations. In fact, as we  noted in our recent high-risk issues report, these two factors were  absolutely critical to making the progress necessary for the DOD  Personnel Security Clearance Program and the 2010 Census to be removed  from our high-risk list.
section_title: GAO’s Role in Evaluating GPRAMA, High Risks, and Other Major Government Challenges
paragraphs: Realizing the promise of GPRAMA for improving government performance  and accountability and reducing waste will require sustained oversight of  implementation. GAO played a major role in evaluating the  implementation of the original GPRA’s strategic and annual performance  planning requirements, including various pilot provisions. For example, by  evaluating agency plans during a pilot phase, we were able to offer  numerous recommendations for improvement that led to more effective  final plans. We further supported implementation by reporting on leading  management practices that agencies should employ as they implemented  GPRA.
Similarly, GPRAMA includes provisions requiring GAO to review  implementation of the act at several critical junctures, and provide  recommendations for improvements to implementation of the act. First,  following a period of interim implementation, by June 2013, GAO is to  report on implementation of the act’s planning and reporting  requirements—at both the governmentwide and agency levels.  Subsequently, following full implementation, by September 2015 and 2017,  GAO is to evaluate whether performance management is being used by  federal agencies to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of agency  programs. Also in September 2015 and 2017—and every 4 years  thereafter—GAO is to evaluate the implementation of the federal  government priority goals and performance plans, and related reporting  required by the act.
Looking ahead, a number of other required recurrent reports will help to  inform Congress about government management and performance. For  example, GAO has an ongoing statutory requirement to report each year  on federal programs, agencies, offices, and initiatives, either within  departments or governmentwide, which have duplicative goals or  activities. In addition, each year GAO reports on its audit of the  consolidated financial statements of the U.S. government and the  condition of federal financial management systems. GAO continues to  report periodically to Congress on the adequacy and effectiveness of  agencies’ information security policies and practices and other  requirements of the Federal Information Security Management Act of  2002.
Additionally, the Presidential Transition Act of 2000 identifies GAO as a  source of briefings and other materials to help inform presidential  appointees of the major management issues, risks, and challenges they will  face. During the last presidential transition, we identified for Congress and  the new administration urgent issues and key program and management  challenges in the major departments and across government. Finally, GAO  reports to each new Congress on government operations that it identifies  as high risk due to their greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and  mismanagement, or the need for broad-based transformation to address  economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges.
In conclusion, everything must be on the table as we address the federal  long-term fiscal challenge. While the long-term outlook is driven on the  spending side of the budget by rising health care costs and demographics,  other areas of the budget should not be exempt from scrutiny. All areas  should be reexamined in light of the contributions they make to achieving  outcomes for the American public. If programs are overlapping,  fragmented, or duplicative, they must be streamlined. Programs and  management functions at significant risk of waste, fraud, and abuse must  be corrected. GPRAMA provides the administration and Congress with  new tools to identify strategies that are achieving results as well as those  that are ineffective, duplicative, or wasteful that could be eliminated. GAO  stands ready to help Congress ensure that the act’s promises are met.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Sessions, and Members of the  Committee. This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to  answer any questions you may have.
section_title: Contacts
paragraphs: For further information on this testimony, please contact Bernice  Steinhardt, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6543 or  steinhardtb@gao.gov. Key contributions to this testimony were made by  Elizabeth Curda (Assistant Director), and Benjamin T. Licht. Contact  points for our Congressional Relations and Public Affairs offices may be  found on the last page of this statement.
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.