Managing For Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance Information for Management Decision Making
Published: 2005-09-09T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993 has laid a foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and reporting in the federal government. Performance planning and measurement have slowly, yet increasingly, become a part of agencies' cultures. For planning and performance measurement to be effective, federal managers need to use performance information to identify performance problems and look for solutions, develop approaches that improve results, and make other important management decisions. According to GAO's periodic surveys, federal managers reported having more performance measures in 2003 than in 1997. However, the data also showed that managers' reported use of performance information for program management activities has remained essentially unchanged from 1997 levels. GAO was asked to identify (1) how federal agencies can use performance information to make management decisions and (2) practices that can enhance or facilitate the use of performance information to make management decisions.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Agencies can use performance information to make various types of management decisions to improve programs and results. Agencies can also implement a number of practices that can enhance or facilitate the use of performance information. GAO identified four broad types of management decisions for which federal managers can use performance information and five different types of practices that can contribute to greater use of performance information. The five federal agencies that GAO examined for this report provide examples of how agencies can use performance information for key management decisions and practices that can enhance or facilitate such use. While agencies face different management conditions and challenges and operate under different authorities, the general uses and practices highlighted in this report could be adapted by other agencies. Helpful next steps would be for agency experiences in using performance information to be more widely shared; and, for agencies to be encouraged to adapt the practices to their unique situations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government is in a period of profound transition and faces an  array of challenges and opportunities to enhance performance, ensure  accountability, and position the nation for the future.  These 21st century  challenges include the nation’s large, long-term fiscal imbalance, evolving  national and homeland security threats, increasing global interdependence,  the global shift to market-oriented knowledge-based economies, an aging  and more diverse population, and rapid advances in science and  technology.  In the face of these pressures, it is vital to maximize the  performance of federal agencies in achieving their long-term goals.  The  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) planning and  reporting requirements can provide the essential information needed to  assess federal agencies’ performance, hold agencies accountable for  achieving results, and help the baseline review of federal programs,  operating functions, and activities needed to respond to the nation’s long- term structural fiscal imbalance.  GPRA requires executive agencies to  develop strategic plans, prepare annual performance plans, measure  progress toward the achievement of the goals in the annual performance  plans, and report annually on their progress in program performance  reports.
For planning and performance measurement to be effective, federal  managers need to use performance information to identify performance  problems and look for solutions, develop approaches that improve results,  and make other important management decisions.  A 2004 GAO report that  reviewed the effectiveness of GPRA found that while the percentage of  federal managers who report having performance measures for their  programs has increased over time, their use of performance information in  making key management decisions, such as adopting new program  approaches or changing work processes, has not.   Federal agencies also  appear to differ considerably in the extent to which they use performance  information to manage.
Identifying practices associated with the increased use of performance  information could be helpful to federal agencies seeking to better use  performance information to inform their decisions and ultimately achieve  results.  Although performance information could also be helpful for  external purposes, such as congressional decision making, transparency,  and public accountability, this report focuses on use of performance  information by federal agency managers.
This report responds to your request that we identify (1) how federal  agencies can use performance information to make management decisions  and (2) practices that can facilitate the use of performance information.
To address the objectives, we reviewed relevant literature, including  previous GAO reports, spoke to experts in using performance information,  and held group discussions with federal program managers. We also  interviewed individuals within five federal agencies and reviewed  documentation to illustrate in greater detail how program managers have  used performance information to make decisions and specific agency  practices that facilitated those uses. We selected the five agencies—the  Departments of Commerce, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans Affairs,  and the Small Business Administration—on the basis of a number of  factors, including a relatively high agency score on our 2000 GPRA survey  regarding the extent to which agency managers reported using  performance information, and relatively good agency marks in the  September 2004 Executive Branch Management Scorecard (President’s  Management Agenda).  We also considered information obtained from  interviews with experts, and diversity in terms of program type and size. It  should be noted that we did not attempt to identify all agencies and  programs that could have illustrated these uses and practices.  In addition,  we reviewed existing relevant information regarding the quality of  performance information where available but did not systematically assess  the quality of the performance information used in the examples we cite.   Finally, for most of the examples, we describe how performance  information was used to make decisions, but we did not attempt to verify  that the use ultimately resulted in improved outcomes.  (See appendix I for  a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology and for further  information on the five agencies.)  We conducted our work in accordance  with generally accepted government auditing standards from September  2004 through August 2005.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: GPRA helped create a governmentwide focus on results by establishing a  statutory framework for performance management and accountability,  with the necessary infrastructure to generate meaningful performance  information.  GPRA introduced planning and reporting requirements that  seek to shift the focus of federal management and decision making from a  preoccupation with the number of program tasks or activities completed or  services provided to a more direct consideration of the results of programs.   The Act was intended to improve federal program effectiveness,  accountability, and service delivery.  GPRA requires federal agencies to  develop strategic plans with long-term, outcome-oriented goals and  objectives, annual goals linked to the long-term goals, and annual reports  on the results achieved.  Agencies are required to measure progress toward  the achievement of the goals in annual performance plans and report  annually on their progress in program performance reports.
As we reported in our 10-year retrospective report on the effectiveness of  GPRA, the Act’s requirements have laid a solid foundation of results- oriented agency planning, measurement, and reporting that has begun to  address the purposes of GPRA.  Performance planning and measurement  have slowly yet increasingly become a part of agencies’ cultures.   According to three government-wide, random sample surveys of federal  managers conducted by us in 1997, 2000, and 2003, managers reported  having significantly more of the types of performance measures called for  by GPRA, particularly outcome-oriented performance measures, in 2003  than in 1997, when GPRA went into effect governmentwide.
The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized  when this information is actually used by managers to make decisions  oriented toward improving results.  While our surveys found that managers  reported having more performance measures in 2003 than in 1997, the data  showed that the use of performance information for program management  activities did not increase significantly from 1997 levels.   In our survey, we  asked managers about their use of performance information for specific  purposes, such as “setting program priorities”, “allocating resources”, or  “adopting new program approaches.”  As shown in figure 3, the majority of  managers who expressed an opinion reported using performance  information for these uses to a great or very great extent in 2003.  While the  reported use of performance information for these uses to a great or very  great extent fluctuated somewhat between 1997 and 2003, the extent of use  in 2003 was not significantly different from 1997 levels for any category of  use except “adopting new program approaches or changing work  processes”, where use actually decreased.
From our 2000 survey, we also know that use of performance information  has varied widely among agencies.  For example, while 56 percent of  managers overall reported using performance information when setting  program priorities in 2000, the percentage of managers within specific  agencies reporting this use to a great or very great extent ranged from 26  percent to 64 percent.  Similarly, wide variation among agencies was seen  in managers’ reported use of performance information for other types of  management decisions.  For example, the reported use of performance  information to a great or very great extent in agencies ranged from 24 to 66  percent when allocating resources, from 25 to 64 percent when adopting  new program approaches or changing work processes, and from 16 to 66  percent when setting individual job expectations.
section_title: Agencies Can Use Performance Information to Manage for Results
paragraphs: Federal agencies can use performance information to make various types  of management decisions to improve programs and results.  We have  previously reported that leading organizations that have progressed toward  results-oriented management use performance information as a basis for  decision making.  The full benefit of collecting performance information is  realized only when managers actually use it to manage.  From our review of  the literature, agency documents and interviews with experts and agency  officials, we identified four categories of management decisions for which  federal agency managers can use performance information. (See fig. 4).   Managers can use performance information to identify problems in existing  programs, to try to identify the causes of problems, and/or to develop  corrective actions.  They can also use program performance information to  develop strategies, plan and budget, identify priorities, and make resource  allocation decisions to affect programs in the future.  Agency managers can  also use performance information to reward individuals or organizations  who meet or exceed expectations.  Finally, managers can use performance  information to identify more effective approaches to program  implementation and share those approaches more widely across the  agency.
subsections: section_title: Performance Information Can Be Used to Identify Problems in Programs and Take Corrective Action
paragraphs: Agencies can use performance information to identify problems or  weaknesses in programs, to try to identify factors causing the problems,  and to modify a service or process to try to address problems.  We have  reported that leading organizations that have progressed toward results- oriented management have used performance information to identify gaps  in performance, improve organizational processes, and improve their  performance. We found several examples where federal program  managers used performance data to identify problems and corrective  actions at the agencies we examined.
Officials in the Office of Participant Assistance (OPA) at the Employee  Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) in the Department of Labor  (DOL) told us that when data for a performance measure of customer  satisfaction indicated a problem, they changed a process to try to improve  performance. One of EBSA’s functions is to provide information and  assistance for individuals covered by private retirement and health and  welfare plans, plan sponsors, and members of the employee benefits  community.  EBSA has contracted with an outside organization since 2003  to collect data through a specialized survey on customer satisfaction with  EBSA services.   Data indicated that customers whose cases were referred  to the enforcement side of EBSA were reporting lower satisfaction rates.   An analysis of data for specific survey questions identified the need for  improved communication.  Investigating an inquiry or complaint could  sometimes take up to 2 years, and a customer might not receive any  information during that time.  As a result of the performance data, EBSA  changed a standard operating procedure in January 2005 so that customers  would be kept informed about the status of their open inquiries or  complaints. Under the new procedure, when an inquiry is referred to the  enforcement staff for investigation, the OPA benefits advisor informs the  inquirer about the referral and sets realistic expectations for future contact  by an investigator.  Investigative staff are to make initial contact with the  customer no later than 30 days following receipt of the referral and  maintain contact with the inquirer on a quarterly basis until the matter is  resolved.  Managers plan to continue to monitor customer satisfaction to  see whether the changes lead to improved performance.
Through the Performance Enhancement Project (PEP), the Office of  Workforce Investment in DOL has used performance information to  identify the technical assistance needs of state and local employment and  training programs and has then provided targeted assistance to try to  improve performance.  The PEP project, which began in October 2002, has  provided technical assistance and training for targeted state and local  workforce organizations that receive funds under the Workforce  Investment Act (WIA).  Poorly performing states, as shown by the  performance measures (supplemented by analysis from regional DOL  staff), have received technical assistance designed to improve their  performance through PEP.  DOL’s Office of Workforce Investment sent a  questionnaire to all the regional offices and held a conference with them at  the close of the first PEP project to assess the effectiveness of the  technical assistance that had been given.  This information was used to  improve the second year’s project.  Online tutorials have also been  developed under PEP in response to requests from states.
Officials in the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) network that  includes facilities located in Maryland, Virginia, West Virginia, and  Pennsylvania, stated that in response to one of the network facilities not  meeting the heart failure performance measure target, all of the facilities  adopted a new process to improve the network’s performance. According  to an official, in the first quarter of 2004, the network was at risk of not  meeting the entire set of 10 cardiovascular performance measures if one of  its facilities did not improve its low score on the heart failure performance  measure by the end of the year. The heart failure performance measure is  a cumulative performance measure that assesses whether discharged heart  failure patients receive six types of instructions, including instructions for  monitoring weight after discharge and taking medications.  The  instructions are critical because patients’ noncompliance with physicians’  instructions is often a cause for rehospitalization. An agency official stated  that the entire network implemented a new set of mandatory data fields in  patients’ electronic medical records.  The data fields include the six types  of instructions and have to be filled out when a facility discharges a heart  failure patient. According to this official, the result of the implementation  of the new mandatory fields in the patients’ electronic records was that the  facility that was not meeting the heart failure performance measure target  in the first quarter improved its score to the “fully satisfactory” category in  the fourth quarter.
section_title: Performance Information Can Be Used to Develop Agency Strategy, Plan and Budget, Identify Priorities and Allocate Resources
paragraphs: Agencies can use performance information to make decisions that affect  future strategies, planning and budgeting, identifying priorities, and  allocating resources.  We have previously reported that outcome-based  performance information should be used for the allocation of resources  and in deciding among competing priorities in a results-oriented  management system.  In addition, linking cost with performance  information infuses performance concerns into planning and budgetary  deliberations, prompting agencies to reassess their performance goals and  strategies and to more clearly understand the cost of performance.   Performance information also allows program managers to compare their  programs’ results with goals and thus determine where to target program  resources to improve performance.  When managers are faced with  reduced resources, the same analysis can help them target reductions to  minimize negative impacts on program results.  We found a number of  examples among our case agencies of managers using performance  information to identify priorities and allocate resources, and to shape  future program strategy.
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has used  performance information to set priorities in budgeting and to target  resources.  The Senior Associate Administrator for Traffic Injury Control  annually sends out a memo that identifies agency priorities that support the  Department of Transportation’s (DOT) strategic goals and are based on  performance information for traffic-injury-related measures, such as safety  belt use and impaired driver rates.  The memo directs managers to focus  their programs and proposals to support these priorities.   In addition,  NHTSA used performance information on alcohol-related injuries and  fatalities to target grant funding and specific program strategies to states  with the highest impaired driver rates.   Using information reported  through the Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), NHTSA identified  13 states that represented 46 percent of the total number of alcohol-related  fatalities in the United States.  Officials said NHTSA worked closely with  these 13 states to implement the impaired-driving program strategies it had  designed.  The strategies involved state-sponsored, high-visibility law  enforcement activities in conjunction with a NHTSA-designed media  campaign.  A NHTSA official said that the agency brought senior policy and  law enforcement officials from these states together and presented the  performance information and evaluations showing impaired driving rates  and the effectiveness of the high visibility law enforcement and media  campaign.   In order to receive funding, the targeted states had to agree to  implement the program that NHTSA had designed, including the media  campaign. After the publicized crackdown periods, NHTSA provided the  targeted states with additional evaluation resources.
The Small Business Administration (SBA) used performance and cost  information to reallocate resources to better meet priorities.  In the 1990s,  SBA created Business Information Centers (BIC), a community partnership  service to provide entrepreneurs with access to computers and the Internet  to help them access business information and develop business plans.   Officials said that, as a partnership using hardware and software and  library resources donated from private technology companies, the program  was designed to require minimal SBA employee support or capital costs.   However, after analyzing financial and human capital resources, including  the data collected through their annual survey of how much support SBA  employees provide for various programs, they found that substantial  employee resources were being devoted to the BICs, on the order of $11  million.  This cost information led SBA officials to reconsider the service.   Since computers had become more accessible to entrepreneurs than when  the BIC program was designed, and because assistance to entrepreneurs  could be provided more efficiently though other programs, SBA decided to  end its participation in the program and has phased out its role in the  community partnerships.
section_title: Performance Information Can Be Used to Recognize and Reward Performance
paragraphs: Agencies can use performance information to affect pay decisions and to  reward individuals, and in some cases, grantees. Using performance  information this way reinforces accountability and creates incentives for  achieving results.  We have previously reported that high-performing  public-sector organizations create a clear “line of sight” between individual  performance and organizational success showing how team, unit, and  individual performance can contribute to overall organizational results.   There is growing recognition that the government needs to transform how  it compensates its employees to achieve greater results.  To this end, some  agencies have implemented performance agreements as a vehicle for  bringing results-oriented performance information into evaluations of  performance.  A revised performance-based pay system for members of the  Senior Executive Service (SES) across the federal government has been in  effect since January 2004, as authorized by Congress and overseen by the  Office of Personnel Management (OPM), where pay adjustments for SES  members are to be based on the alignment of individual performance and  contributions to the agency’s mission and strategic goals, among other  things.  The human capital reforms under way at the Departments of  Defense and Homeland Security are intended to help them manage their  human capital to achieve results.  We found several examples where case  agencies used performance information to recognize and reward  performance, as described next.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) uses performance information  to affect pay decisions.  FAA has linked employee annual pay increases to  the achievement of agencywide goals through the performance-based pay  system.  At the end of fiscal year 2004, 78 percent of employees were  included in the agency’s performance-based pay system, which allocates  increases on the basis of individual and organizational performance.  At  the individual level, employees can receive two types of increases.   Employees earn the first increase for meeting individual goals and the  second increase for achieving outstanding individual performance.  At the  organizational level, employees are eligible for the organizational success  increase (OSI).  This is an agencywide pay increase based on the  performance of the agency as a whole on the 31 key performance measures  in the agency’s strategic plan, called the Flight Plan.  The OSI funding pool  consists of the amount of the general increase for General Schedule (GS)  employees in other federal agencies plus an additional 1 percent (which  reflects a portion of the funds previously spent on within-grade increases).  Receiving the full OSI depends on whether actual performance meets the  goals.  In calendar year 2004, FAA employees received an OSI increase of  2.13 percent. FAA also offers Short Term Incentives to FAA senior staff for  achieving key performance targets and specified accomplishments in  implementing Flight Plan initiatives.
VHA uses performance information to create incentives for network  directors.  We previously reported that the use of performance information  in performance agreements helped VHA define directors’ accountability for  specific goals and monitor progress during the year, and contributed to  their evaluations. VHA accomplishes this through the performance-based  review process, which links a director’s performance rating and  compensation to the performance of the network that he or she oversees.   Specifically, a director’s annual ratings and bonuses are based on how well  he or she meets the goals in the performance contract.  As detailed in the  contract, the network director’s compensation is affected by that network’s  scores on performance measures, which include clinical waiting times, the  percentage of patients receiving cancer screenings, and patient  satisfaction.  Half of the network director’s performance evaluation is  based upon the cumulative score on the network’s performance measures.
The Employment and Training Administration (ETA) uses performance  information to provide incentives for and apply sanctions to state programs  that receive grants under Title I of the Workforce Investment Act.  The  authority to hold grantees accountable for performance in this manner is  provided for in the WIA legislation.  Each state negotiates performance  goals with DOL prior to the beginning of the program year for the 17 WIA  indicators measuring employment, retention, earnings, attainment of  credentials, attainment of skills, and customer satisfaction.  States are  eligible for incentive awards if they have exceeded performance goals set  for programs funded under 3 separate programs, one of which is WIA.  In  general, financial sanctions may be levied if performance is less than 80  percent of the negotiated performance levels for 2 consecutive years or if  the state fails to submit an accurate and complete annual performance  report.  Specific mitigating factors may be considered, such as  performance relative to other states, improvement efforts, and economic  conditions, among others.
section_title: Performance Information Can Be Used to Identify and Share More Effective Processes and Approaches to Program Implementation
paragraphs: We have reported that high-performing organizations continuously assess  and benchmark performance and efforts to improve performance.  They  evaluate their efforts using fact-based understandings of how their  activities contribute to accomplishing the mission and broader results, and  optimize their efforts through continuous improvement.  Managers can use  performance information to identify and increase the use of program  approaches that are working well, and consider alternative processes in  areas where goals are not being met.  Pilots and demonstration projects  can be used to identify innovative ways to improve performance—by  allowing for experiences to be rigorously evaluated, and shared  systematically with others, and by allowing for new procedures to be  adjusted as appropriate—before receiving wider application.   Organizations can also use the process improvement technique of  benchmarking—comparing their processes with those of private and public  organizations that are thought to be the best in their fields.  By  benchmarking its own processes against those of leading business and  government entities, an organization can learn how much change it needs  to make and what changes might be the right ones.  We found examples of  these types of uses of performance information in the case agencies, as  described next.
On the basis of performance information from a pilot test, the National  Weather Service (NWS) adopted a more effective flash flood monitoring  and prediction tool on a national basis.  NWS provides flash flood warning  services and verifies the timeliness and accuracy of its warnings.  It aims to  improve its performance in this area through the flash flood performance  goals entitled, flash flood warning lead time and flash flood warning  accuracy, as outlined in its strategic plan. A prototype flash flood  monitoring application was developed and first tested at the Pittsburgh  Weather Forecast Office (WFO) beginning in 1995.  On the basis of  improved performance data achieved with the prototype and case studies  of several flash flood events in the Pittsburgh area, NWS decided to  develop and test an enhanced version of the pilot system.  The enhanced  version, called the Flash Flood Monitoring and Prediction (FFMP)  Program, continuously monitors rainfall rates and hydrologic conditions to  provide automated alerts when a dangerous flood situation may be  developing on a given stream or catchment.  In 2002 NWS began  implementing FFMP nationwide, with the aim of improving flash flood  services and helping NWS to meet its flash flood performance goals.  Initial  training on how to use the FFMP system was provided for all WFOs and  additional training is provided at routinely offered courses.  According to a  recent survey, nearly all of the WFOs were using the system.  It is expected  that implementing the system will facilitate improvements in the accuracy  and timeliness of official NWS flash flood warnings, and enable forecasters  to provide more specific location information within a flash flood warning.
ETA has used performance information on state and local workforce  investment areas to identify and nominate participants for the National  Business Learning Partnership’s (NBLP) peer-to-peer, mentoring initiative.   The NBLP, which started in October of 2003, links local workforce areas  that want to improve their services (protégés) with workforce areas that  have exceeded performance standards (mentors).  The program focuses on  the delivery of workforce services tailored to the needs of business and  industry in that specific workforce area.  Overall, 19 mentor sites and 25  protégé sites have participated.  Examples of the types of performance and  related information considered by ETA in selecting workforce areas to  nominate as mentors include the following: successful engagement with  businesses to meet the workforce needs of local industry; high  performance on the 17 legislated WIA performance indicators measuring  employment, retention, earnings, attainment of credentials, attainment of  skills, and customer satisfaction; and the transferability of mentor  practices to other areas.  Protégés were selected on the basis of their desire  to improve their performance and services to businesses, and also on the  basis of whether they had problems meeting the WIA performance  measures.  Each protégé site was matched with a mentor site to help it  develop a work plan.  The protégés and mentors conducted at least two site  visits to each other’s respective areas to study the local workforce  investment operations and share information.  In addition to peer-to-peer  consultation, NBLP case studies have been developed to provide a wider  audience with access to participants’ experiences and learning.  Each case  study includes practices and principles to improve performance outcomes  by addressing the workforce needs of businesses and industries, as well as  a guide to facilitate shared learning and promote action.  To assess the  success of these partnerships, each protégé’s performance on selected WIA  measures will be compared from performance year 2003 through  performance year 2005.  Additional measures of success will include such  considerations as contacts with businesses, resources leveraged, and  workers trained and placed in high-growth careers.
section_title: Management Practices Can Enhance the Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Agencies can adopt or apply a number of practices that can enhance the  use of performance information for policy and program decisions aimed at  improving results.    The concept of practices as used in this report includes  administrative or management tools, systems, or processes that agencies  can implement. From our interviews with experts and agency officials and  our review of related literature and agency documents, we identified five  types of practices that can facilitate greater use of performance  information.  As illustrated in figure 5, the five types of practices are  demonstrating management commitment; aligning agency goals, objectives  and measures; improving the usefulness of performance information to  better meet management’s needs; developing agency capacity to effectively  use performance information; and frequently and effectively  communicating performance information within the agency.  We discuss  the 5 practices in detail following the figure.
subsections: section_title: Demonstrating Management Commitment
paragraphs: The commitment of agency managers to results-oriented management is  critical to increased use of performance information for policy and  program decisions.  As we previously reported, demonstrating the  willingness and ability to make decisions and manage programs on the  basis of results, and inspiring others to embrace such a model, are  important indicators of management’s commitment.  Agency officials from  our case illustration programs also identified management commitment as  central to encouraging the use of performance information in decisions.  Officials from these agencies described how management showed this type  of commitment by leading frequent, regular performance review meetings  to discuss progress made toward the achievement of results, and by  involving staff from different organizational levels in performance review  meetings.   These methods assisted agencies in identifying performance  problems and in developing performance improvement plans based on  collected performance information.
SBA conducts monthly meetings with the associate administrator of each  mission and functional office to review that office’s performance.  The  administrator, deputy administrator, and chief operating officer (COO)  participate.  Each SBA office has performance measures organized along  three components of performance—office strategic goals, production  goals, and project goals—on a scorecard. Prior to meeting, the COO’s staff  review the monthly and cumulative performance information for each  office and ask each office to respond in writing to questions or concerns  based on the data. This analysis is the basis for the regular performance  review meetings. Officials said management’s commitment to regularly  reviewing performance increases performance ownership among staff and  competition among the offices to meet performance targets.
Similarly, FAA management demonstrates commitment through monthly,  day-long, agencywide performance review meetings that are led by the  Administrator and key associate administrators who serve as goal leads for  each FAA Flight Plan goal area: Increased Safety, Greater Capacity,  International Leadership, and Organizational Excellence.  At these  meetings, officials said that they discuss performance for the agency’s 31  key performance metrics and the strategic initiatives supporting each.   When a business line is not meeting the performance targets for specific  metrics, officials report on efforts planned or under way to improve  performance.  For metrics where performance targets have been met,  officials discuss the actions that were taken to achieve the targets. Officials  said that during this performance review, the Administrator identifies IOUs,  outlining agreed-upon actions to be implemented. Officials said that they  provide updates on the status of these IOUs at the following performance  review meeting.
At the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), managers are involved in  reviewing performance at different levels of the organization.  Senior  management hold monthly departmentwide meetings to review  performance. According to officials, the meetings are chaired by the  Deputy Secretary and are attended by the heads of the three  administrations: VHA, the Veterans Benefit Administration, and the  National Cemetery Administration, as well as all of the staff offices within  VA. Each administration reports financial status, workload, and key  performance measures.   The Deputy Secretary has recently implemented  reporting by exception at the monthly performance review. Reporting by  exception requires that administration and staff offices offer an  explanation for less-than-desired performance, describe plans or ongoing  efforts to improve performance and discuss when results were expected.   At the following month’s performance review, status information is  presented to demonstrate progress.  In addition, success stories and the  activities used to achieve them are also reported.  According to officials,  within VHA, mid- and lower-level managers are also involved in regular  performance review meetings, including meetings involving the Deputy  Under Secretary and the directors of the regional networks, meetings of  network directors and their facility directors, and meetings between  facility directors and their staff.  In addition, according to officials, each of  the facilities in one of the networks we visited, which includes VA facilities  in California, Nevada, Hawaii and the Philippines, assigns a “champion”  who is responsible for monitoring and presenting results for a specific  performance measure at weekly facility management meetings.
section_title: Aligning Agencywide Goals, Objectives and Measures
paragraphs: Agencies can encourage greater use of performance information by  aligning agencywide goals and objectives, and by aligning program  performance measures at each operating level with those goals and  objectives.  GPRA requires that agencies use performance measurement to  reinforce the connection between their long-term strategic goals and the  day-to-day activities of their managers and staff.  As we reported  previously, in order to meet the GPRA requirements, an agency should  cascade its goals and objectives throughout the organization and should  align performance measures to the objectives from the executive level  down to the operational levels.  This forms hierarchies of goals and  objectives and performance information that are appropriate to the  managerial responsibilities and controls at each level of the organization.   This alignment increases the usefulness of the performance information  collected to decision makers at each level, and reinforces the connection  between strategic goals and the day-to-day activities of managers and staff.   We have also reported that a greater focus on results can be created by  cascading organizational goals and objectives down to the individual  performance level.  Earlier in this report, we described how agencies can  use performance information to recognize and reward performance and  encourage the achievement of results.  Alignment facilitates the linking of  individual performance to organizational performance.
FAA promotes alignment by requiring that all organizations use the same  alignment framework and approach in preparing their annual business  plans.   Goals cascade throughout each of FAA’s 16 organizations to each  individual employee.  The agency goals detailed in FAA’s strategic plan (or  Flight Plan) drive new strategic initiatives and the ongoing, day-to-day  operations of FAA, referred to as their core business functions.  Key  elements required in the business plans for each of FAA’s four lines of  business and 12 offices are developed using a systematic alignment  approach that guides the organizations through the step-by-step process of  defining and developing performance elements that support the Flight Plan  goals.  Organizations align themselves with the Flight Plan through this  process, and targets cascade down through the organization into employee  performance plans.  These plans identify specific work expectations and  outcomes, and are required for every FAA employee.  This alignment  facilitates FAA recognizing and rewarding performance by using  performance information to affect pay decisions, as described earlier in  this report.
VHA’s performance measures are aligned through different levels of the  organization.   The same performance measures are used to assess VHA’s  performance from the VHA-wide level down through the network levels to  the individual facilities.  For example, the performance measure of the  percentage of patients receiving breast cancer screening is used at all three  levels.  As mentioned earlier in this report, the performance score of a  facility can have an effect upon the entire network to which it belongs.  As  an illustration of how performance is “rolled up,” officials stated that in  order to get a fully satisfactory rating at the network level, 80 percent of the  hospitals in that network must have met their goals.  Officials stated that if  any facility is at the failing level for a performance measure, the entire  network will also be rated as failing the measure.  In addition, alignment  contributes to VHA’s ability to use performance information to provide  incentives for network directors, through the performance-based review  process described earlier.
section_title: Improving the Usefulness of Performance Information to Better Meet Management’s Decision-Making Needs
paragraphs: To ensure that performance information will be both useful and used in  decision making throughout the organization, agencies need to consider  users’ differing policy and management information needs.  Practices that  improve the usefulness of performance information can help to meet those  needs.  We reported previously that to be useful, performance information  must meet users’ needs for completeness, accuracy, consistency,  timeliness, validity, and ease of use. Other attributes that affect the  usefulness of information include, but are not limited to, relevance,  credibility, and accessibility.  We have reported previously on a number of  practices that improve the usefulness of performance information to  different users.  Measures should be selected specifically on the basis of  their ability to inform the decisions made at each organizational level, and  should be appropriate to the responsibilities and control at each level.  In  that regard, involving managers in the development of performance goals  and measures is critical to increasing the relevance and therefore the  usefulness of performance information to their day-to-day activities.   Agency officials in our case illustrations identified a number of practices  that increased the usefulness of performance information, including its  relevance, ease of use, timeliness, and accessibility.
As discussed earlier, EBSA contracted with an outside organization to  collect more useful customer satisfaction information.  By increasing the  scope and depth of customer satisfaction data, the information has been  made more relevant, and therefore, more useful to management’s day-to- day activities.   Prior to this contract, EBSA used another contractor that  provided a general high-level index of customer satisfaction that provided  comparability to other organizations.  However, in order to provide this  comparability, the survey questions had to be standardized in a manner that  was not as relevant for EBSA as for other organizations.  In addition, the  first customer satisfaction survey did not provide a means for EBSA to  disaggregate data to identify specific aspects of its performance.   Recognizing that the information did not fully meet their needs, EBSA staff  identified a new contractor to create and conduct a specialized customer  satisfaction survey of clients that will provide comparability from year to  year even if it does not provide comparability among other organizations.   Survey questions are now tailored to EBSA’s needs.  Specific questions can  be added and data disaggregated and analyzed as needed to focus in on  potential problem areas.  For example, data can be broken down by  categories such as regional office, benefit advisor, and type of inquiry.
The Enforcement Office of the Department of Labor’s EBSA Office  implemented a new Enforcement Management System (EMS) that officials  say improved the usefulness of performance information, making it more  timely, accessible, and easy to use.  The system, implemented in 1999,  manages information related to investigations into the potential violation of  benefits laws.  These investigations are conducted by 385 investigators  located at EBSA field offices across the country.  Prior to the development  of the EMS, officials said that the Enforcement Office had a simple  database system located at headquarters and that field offices used a  separate case management system.   The EMS was custommade for the  Enforcement Office.  It tracks information about every investigation  nationwide throughout its lifecycle, providing both field and headquarters  staff access to real-time information.  According to officials, not only does  the system make information more timely and accessible, it has increased  the ease of use and relevance of performance information by incorporating  user-friendly windows technology and allowing users to define their own  information needs with customized queries and reports.  In addition, over  30 standardized statistical and case reports are available.  Standardized  statistical reports allow managers to view, by selected geographic area,  summaries of such information as  the different investigation types (e.g.,  fiduciary and criminal), the cases referred for litigation, and closed cases  along with the associated results.  Headquarters provides additional  analysis of the information regarding overall progress toward policy goals,  allowing adjustments to be made in the field offices.
SBA has involved its program managers in the development of the agency’s  performance measurement system, allowing offices to determine their own  goals and measures.   This practice increases the usefulness of  performance information to the activities of offices and programs, and SBA  officials credit it with creating buy-in and ownership of the performance  measurement system.  Measures and targets must meet certain  requirements as overseen by the chief operating officer.  For example,  measures should support the strategic goals; measures should be valid,  measurable, and verifiable; and the set of measures as a whole should  contain both qualitative and quantitative measures.  At the beginning of  each year when the measures and targets are being selected, assistance is  provided for any program upon request to help with selecting appropriate  measures.
SBA has also initiated a practice aimed at documenting and improving the  overall usefulness of performance information and increasing its use.   Programs are required to identify the intended use of each measure in  decisions related to policy and to provide an assessment of how fit the  information is for this use.  The importance of this practice is that it  promotes the selection of performance measures that better meet  managements’ needs, providing information that is relevant, and  sufficiently complete, accurate, consistent, and timely for management’s  decision-making needs.  To facilitate and document the practice, SBA’s  Office of Analysis, Planning and Accountability developed an assessment  tool for its indicators in the form of the Data Validation Table,” shown in  figure 6.  These tables are updated annually for every indicator published in  the SBA Performance and Accountability Report.  In addition to  documenting the intended use, the office must provide an assessment of  the information’s completeness, accuracy, consistency, and timeliness.   Validation Tables also document the associated office and program; what  outcomes are being assessed; how each outcome is aligned with agency  goals; the system in which the data are kept; and any limitations to the use  of the information in the intended manner and associated remedies, among  other items.
section_title: Developing Agency Capacity
paragraphs: The practice of building analytical capacity to use performance  information—both in terms of staff trained to do analysis and availability of  research and evaluation resources—is critical to using performance  information in a meaningful fashion.   Our 2003 GPRA survey found that  there was a positive relationship between agencies providing training and  development on setting program performance goals and the use of  performance information when setting or revising performance goals.  We  have previously reported on the need for agencies to expend resources on  effective training and professional development to equip federal employees  to work effectively.  Specifically, managers and staff need competencies  and skills to plan strategically, develop robust measures of performance,  and analyze what the performance data mean.  Performance management  literature also states that training is a key factor in improving employees’  capabilities and enabling employee involvement in achieving performance  improvements.  We found examples where our case illustration agencies  built capacity through providing staff with training in the performance  management system and by providing access to technical assistance, such  as having designated evaluation support staff or performance measurement  experts available.
The VHA network that includes health care facilities located in California,  Nevada, Hawaii, and the Philippines builds agency capacity by providing  annual training on performance measures for facility managers.  The  training is coordinated by a performance measurement committee  composed of clinical leadership and quality management staff from each of  the facilities.  The committee’s mission includes providing education on the  performance measures beyond the annual training, as well as sharing and  implementing strategies to facilitate meeting the performance  measurement targets.  At the annual training conference, all of the  performance measures are discussed, including existing measures as well  as any new measures.  The training lasts for a day or two, and facility  managers can participate in person, on the telephone, or by  videoconference.  In addition, the performance measurement committee is  also a resource throughout the year for questions on the performance  measures.
NHTSA has established capacity to use performance information through  its research and evaluation office.  According to one official, NHTSA has  had internal analytic capacity through a research office for more than 25  years.  The evaluation office provides the capacity to conduct research and  evaluations on the effectiveness of NHTSA’s Traffic Injury Control Office  programs and initiatives, which address issues such as safety related to  alcohol- and drug-impaired driving, pedestrians, bicycles, motorcycles,  school buses, emergency medical services, older drivers, and driver fatigue  and inattention.  We previously reported that NHTSA’s evaluation office  provides the capacity for a three-phase evaluation process.  First, studies  identify the nature of the problem and possible solutions.  Second, cost- benefit analyses identify the expected consequences or alternative  approaches.  Third, follow-up studies assess the consequences of policy or  regulatory changes, since effects of some changes may not be apparent  until 5 or more years after the introduction of changes.  According to a  NHTSA official, it is important to have this capacity because the Traffic  Injury Control Office does not have any regulatory authority, and needs the  analysis and evaluations to demonstrate that the proposed programs are  effective in order to persuade states to implement them.  In addition, we  have previously reported that evaluations can improve agency use of  performance information by providing performance information that may  otherwise be unavailable; by validating the accuracy of performance data;  by explaining the reasons for observed performance; or, finally, by  identifying ways to improve performance.
section_title: Communicating Performance Information Frequently and Effectively
paragraphs: Improving the communication of performance information among staff and  stakeholders can facilitate the use of performance information by agency  managers.  Improvements can be achieved through frequent and routine  communication, and the use of effective communication tools, such as  visual aids.  We previously reported that frequent, regular communication  is key for managers to inform staff and other stakeholders of their  commitment to achieve the agency’s goals and to keep these goals in mind  as they pursue their day-to-day activities.  Frequently reporting  performance information also allows managers to review the information  in time to take action to make improvements.  Program managers can also  communicate performance information upward through the management  hierarchy, and across operating units.  We found a number of vehicles  through which agencies communicated performance information  effectively. For example, agencies maintained frequent, routine  communication among managers and staff through visual tools such as  poster displays, performance scorecards, and intranet sites. Some agencies  provided performance updates through regular e-mail or the distribution of  monthly performance review meeting minutes.  In addition, officials said  publicizing performance information can inspire ownership of a unit’s  performance, as well as competition between units.  For example,  scorecards or other visual presentations of performance information  enable staff to compare and analyze performance, resulting in a  competitive interest in improving performance.  We found examples in  selected agencies of the practice of frequent and routine communication  and using visual tools to communicate performance information.
NWS uses a number of display tools to convey performance information to  staff and management at different levels of the organization.  Quad charts  and display boards are two examples.  Quad charts arose out of the  National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) efforts to  improve budgeting and planning systems, and have also been used at the  NWS.  They are one-page summaries that provide pertinent information for  decision-making purposes.  One particular type of quad chart is prepared to  inform agency executives about program performance.  These quad charts  are prepared by each major program and presented during NOAA’s  quarterly executive panels.  These panels are composed of the Deputy  Under Secretary of NOAA and the deputies of the line offices. A one-page  chart is divided into four quadrants containing the following four areas:  Performance Parameters (metrics and threshold values for selected  performance indicators); Schedule of Activities (including schedule  status); Key Issues and Risks; and Funding (budgetary issues).  For each of  these topics, status is also color-coded in green, yellow, or red.   An  example of this type of quad chart is shown in figure 7.  Similar types of  quad charts are prepared by managers requesting program adjustments  (such as changes in funding) and for selected NWS and NOAA programs.  Some quad charts also include GPRA performance measures when  applicable to a NOAA or NWS program.
NWS also uses display boards at all of its field and regional offices to  communicate information to all staff.  As shown in figure 8, display boards  convey national, regional, and site performance information on GPRA  measures relevant to specific site activities.  These charts allow site  personnel to compare the site’s performance with performance measured  at the regional and national levels.  Sites can update their own performance  measures as often as monthly, while national data are updated annually.   Comparable site-level information is available for all sites on the NOAA  Intranet.
FAA communicates performance information to all staff through a monthly  performance scorecard.  The scorecard is organized into a table, and  includes the actual and targeted performance levels for the agency’s 31 key  metrics, as identified in FAA’s strategic plan, or Flight Plan. Each metric is  color coded, using the stoplight system of red, yellow, or green, according  to how closely actual performance met the targeted performance for each  month.  The scorecard is posted on FAA’s Intranet and is updated monthly.   The same information is reported in more detail on a quarterly basis on  FAA’s external Web site. An example of one of the metrics in the quarterly  report, Runway Incursions, is shown in figure 9.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Our 2003 survey of federal managers found that, despite the fact that  managers reported having more performance measures, the use of  performance information for program management activities did not  increase significantly from 1997 levels when GPRA was first implemented  governmentwide.  Creating results-oriented cultures in which performance  information is routinely used to make key management decisions will  require the sustained attention and commitment of top agency leadership  and more widespread adoption of the practices identified in this report.   The five federal agencies that we examined for this report provide  examples of how agencies can use performance information for key  management decisions and practices that can facilitate such use.  The  specific ways in which the case agencies used performance information or  implemented the practices may not be appropriate for wholesale adoption  throughout the federal government because agencies face different  management conditions and challenges, and operate under different  authorities.  Nevertheless, the general uses and practices highlighted in this  report are universal and could be adapted by each agency. Helpful next  steps would be for the relevant experiences of agencies in using  performance information and adopting practices that facilitate use of  performance information to be more widely shared, and for agencies to be  encouraged to adapt practices to their unique situations.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: The Departments of Commerce, Labor, Transportation, and Veterans  Affairs, and the Small Business Administration provided technical  comments that were incorporated where appropriate throughout the  report.
As agreed with your office, we will send copies of this report to the  Director of the Office of Management and Budget and other interested  parties.  We will also make copies available to others upon request.  In  addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at  http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me on (202) 512-6543 if you or your staff have any questions  about this report.  Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations  and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report.  Other  contacts and staff acknowledgments are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: To identify uses of performance information and practices that encourage  the use of performance information, we reviewed our prior reports and  other relevant literature and interviewed agency officials.  In addition, we  interviewed experts in using performance information from the following  organizations: the School of Public Policy at the University of Maryland; the  School of Policy, Planning and Development at the University of Southern  California; the Institute for the Study of Public Policy Implementation at  American University; the School of Public Policy and Public Administration  at George Washington University; the Urban Institute; the IBM Center for  the Business of Government; and the Mercatus Center.
To identify examples of ways in which managers use performance  information and practices that enhance their use of that information, we  selected five federal agencies that were identified as having a greater  likelihood of using performance information: the Departments of  Commerce (DOC), Labor (DOL), Transportation (DOT), and Veterans  Affairs (VA); and the Small Business Administration (SBA).  Among the  factors that we considered in guiding our selection processs were that the  agencies received relatively high scores on the 2000 GAO Government  Performance and Results Act survey results regarding the extent to which  managers reported using performance information, relatively good marks  on the September 2004 Executive Branch Management Scorecard  (President’s Management Agenda), and/or recommendations from  interviews with experts.  We also considered diversity in terms of program  type and size.
Table 1 contains brief background information on the agencies within the  selected departments that are highlighted in our case examples.
Within each of the five selected agencies, we conducted interviews with  program/policy management and staff to obtain their suggestions regarding  specific programs in which performance information has been used for  management.  We then interviewed staff involved with those programs in  more detail and reviewed related documents to obtain further information  about how those programs have used performance information and any  associated practices that have contributed to those uses.  We selected  specific examples to highlight each use and practice and to illustrate  particular aspects of how that use or practice was implemented within  specific agency program contexts and across various program types.  We  did not attempt to identify all agencies and programs that could have  illustrated these uses and practices.  In addition, while we did review  existing relevant information regarding performance data quality where  available, we did not systematically assess the quality of the performance  information used in the examples we cite.  Finally, for most of the  examples, we describe how performance information was used to make  decisions, but we did not attempt to verify that the use ultimately resulted  in improved outcomes.
From our review of the literature and interviews with experts and staff  from the five agencies, we developed a conceptual framework identifying  four categories of uses of performance information and five categories of  practices that contribute to using performance information.  The  framework and categories of uses and practices are consistent with the  themes identified in our March 2003 report on results-oriented cultures and  effective performance management, and are consistent with additional  GAO reports on GPRA and results-oriented government.  The four use  categories in our framework that we identified through our independent  analysis are similar to the four types of uses identified in How Federal  Programs Use Outcome Information: Opportunities for Federal  Managers, by Harry Hatry, Elaine Morley, Shelli Rossman, and Joseph  Wholey, published by the IBM Endowment for The Business of Government  in May 2003.  We recognize that alternative categories of uses and practices  could have been developed and that there may be additional uses and  practices that we did not identify.
To provide additional support and further illustrate the uses and practices,  we conducted two discussion groups.  The first discussion group included  about 15 agency officials from the 5 selected case agencies and was  intended to gain further perspective on those agencies’ uses and practices.   To broaden the range of experiences we could draw upon, we also  conducted a second discussion group consisting of about 15  representatives from 5 different agencies that were not in the pool of  selected case agencies: the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human  Services, Housing and Urban Development, the Interior, and Justice.  For  each discussion group, we asked agencies to nominate potential  participants who had hands-on experience with using performance  information, at least 3 years of management experience, and were at a GS- 13 level or higher.  We selected participants on the basis of their self- described experience using performance information and selected them to  reflect a range of programs within agencies.
We conducted our review from September 2004 through August 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
paragraphs: Bernice Steinhardt (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov.
section_title: Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact name above, Elizabeth Curda, Assistant Director;  Maya Chakko; Chelsa Gurkin; Anne Inserra; Anne Marie Morillon; and  Susan Wilschke made significant contributions to this report.  In addition,  Tom Beall provided key assistance.
section_title: Bibliography
paragraphs: Ammons, David N. Municipal Benchmarks: Assessing Local Performance and Establishing Community Standards.  Thousand  Oaks, California: Sage Publications, 1996.
Fountain, James, Wilson Campbell, Terry Patton, Paul Epstein, Mandi Cohn, Mark Abrahams and Jonathan Walters. Reporting Performance  Information: Suggested Criteria for Effective Communication.  Governmental Accounting Standards Board: Norwalk, Connecticut,  2003.
Hatry, Harry P., Performance Measurement: Getting Results. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1999. ------“Public and Private Agencies Need to Manage for Results, Not Just Measure Them.” Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, August 31,  2004. http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=900731 Hatry, Harry P., Elaine Morley, Shelli B. Rossman and Joseph S. Wholey.
How Federal Programs Use Outcome Information: Opportunities for  Federal Managers. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of  Government, 2003.
Morley, Elaine, Harry P. Hatry and Jake Cowan. Making Use of Outcome Information for Improving Services: Recommendations for Nonprofit  Organizations.  Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute, 2002.
Newcomer, Kathryn, Edward T. Jennings, Jr., Cheryle Broom and Allen Lomax. Meeting the Challenges of Performance-Oriented Government.   Washington, D.C.: American Society for Public Administration, 2002.
Osborne, David and Peter Hutchinson. The Price of Government: Getting the Results We Need in an Age of Permanent Fiscal Crisis. New York:  Basic Books, 2004.
Wholey, Joseph S. Overcoming the Challenges in Managing for Results. Washington, D.C.: IBM Center for the Business of Government, 2004.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Workforce Investment Act: States and Local Areas Have Developed  Strategies to Assess Performance, but Labor Could Do More to Help. GAO- 04-651. Washington, D.C.: June 1, 2004.
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation  for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-38. Washington, D.C.: March 10,  2004.
Highlights of a GAO Forum: High Performing Organizations: Metrics,  Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 21st  Century Public Management Environment. GAO-04-343SP. Washington,  D.C.: February 13, 2004.
Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce  Planning. GAO-04-39. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 2003.
Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century  Challenges. GAO-03-1166T. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2003.
Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative  Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington, D.C.:  May 2, 2003.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual  Performance and Organizational Success. GAO-03-488. Washington, D.C.:  March 14, 2003.
Human Capital Management: FAA’s Reform Effort Requires a More  Strategic Approach. GAO-03-156. Washington, D.C.: February 3, 2003.
Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration: Opportunities Exist for  Improving Management of the Enforcement Program. GAO-02-232.  Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2002.
Results-Oriented Budget Practices in Federal Agencies. GAO-01-1084SP.  Washington, D.C.: August 2001.
Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management  Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies. GAO-01-592. Washington, D.C.: May  25, 2001.
Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring  Top Leadership Skills. GAO-01-127. Washington, D.C.: October 20, 2000.
Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation  of Agency Performance Information. GAO/GGD-99-139. Washington, D.C.:  July 30, 1999.
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance  and Results Act. GAO/GGD-96-118. Washington, D.C.: June 1996.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other  Countries’ Performance Management Initiatives. GAO-02-862.  Washington, D.C.: August 2, 2002.
Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources  and Results at the Veterans Health Administration. GAO-03-10.  Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2002.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and  Organizational Transformations. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: July 2,  2003.
Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be  Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results. GAO-04-614. Washington,  D.C.: May 26, 2004.
Workforce Investment Act: Labor Should Consider Alternative Approaches  to Implement New Performance and Reporting Requirements. GAO-05- 539. Washington, D.C.: May 27, 2005.
The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide  Implementation Will Be Uneven. GAO/GGD-97-109. Washington, D.C.:  June 2, 1997.
Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season  Performance Measures. GAO-03-143. Washington, D.C.: November 22, 2002.
Architect of The Capitol: Midyear Status Report on Implementation of  Management Review Recommendations. GAO-04-966. Washington, D.C.:  August 31, 2004.
Managing For Results: Emerging Benefits From Selected Agencies’ Use of  Performance Agreements. GAO-01-115. Washington, D.C.: October 30,  2000.
Human Capital: Observations on Final DHS Human Capital  Regulations. GAO-05-391T. Washington, D.C.: March 2, 2005.
Managing For Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies’ Performance  Management Practices. GAO/GGD-00-10. Washington, D.C.: October 28,  1999.
Human Capital: A Self-Assessment Checklist for Agency Leaders.  GAO/OCG-00-14G. Washington, D.C.: September 2000.
Managing For Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible  Performance Information. GAO/GGD-00-52. Washington, D.C.: February 4,  2000.
Human Capital: Preliminary Observations on Proposed DOD National  Security Personnel System Regulations. GAO-05-432T. Washington, D.C.:  March 15, 2005.