Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century Challenges
Published: 2003-09-18T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Congress asked GAO to discuss the Government Performance and Results Act's (GPRA) success in shifting the focus of government operations from process to results and to evaluate the extent to which agency managers have embraced GPRA as a management tool. Further, Congress was interested in any recommendations GAO may have to improve the effectiveness of GPRA. GAO is conducting a comprehensive review of the effectiveness of GPRA since its enactment, including updating the results of our federal managers survey. The results of this review will be available next month.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GPRA, which was enacted in 1993, provides a foundation for examining agency missions, performance goals and objectives, and results. While this building effort is far from complete, it has helped create a government-wide focus on results by establishing a statutory framework for management and accountability. This framework can improve the performance and accountability of the executive branch and enhance executive branch and congressional decisionmaking. In view of the broad trends and long-term fiscal challenges facing the nation, there is a need to consider how the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget, and executive agencies can make better use of GPRA's planning and accountability framework to maximize the performance of not only individual programs and agencies, but also of the federal government as whole in addressing these challenges. The necessary infrastructure has been built to generate meaningful performance information. For example, through the strategic planning requirement, GPRA has required federal agencies to consult with the Congress and key stakeholders to reassess their missions and long-term goals as well as the strategies and resources they will need to achieve their goals. It also has required agencies to articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Finally, agencies are required to report annually on their progress in achieving their annual performance goals. Therefore, information is available about current missions, goals, and results. We are now moving to a more difficult but more important phase of GPRA implementation, that is, using results-oriented performance information as a part of agencies' day-to-day management, and congressional and executive branch decision-making. However, much work remains before this framework is effectively implemented across the government, including (1) transforming agencies' organizational cultures to improve decisionmaking and strengthen performance and accountability, (2) developing meaningful, outcome-oriented performance goals and measures and collecting useful performance data, and (3) addressing widespread mission fragmentation and overlap. Furthermore, linking planned performance with budget requests and financial reports is an essential step in building a culture of performance management. Such an alignment can help to infuse performance concerns into budgetary deliberations. However, credible outcome-based performance information is critical to foster the kind of debate that is needed.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Now that the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has  reached its 10th anniversary, I appreciate the opportunity to address the  progress made in creating a government-wide focus on results and how the  federal government could make better use of GPRA in meeting the  significant, emerging challenges we face as a nation while, at the same  time, becoming more economical, effective, and efficient in doing  government business.  We are currently performing a comprehensive  review of the effectiveness of GPRA since its enactment in 1993—including  updating the results of our federal managers survey—for this and other  congressional committees.  Those results will be available later next  month.  Therefore, my statement today draws primarily from our many  previous reports assessing GPRA’s implementation.
Over the last decade, the Congress, the Office of Management and Budget  (OMB), and other executive agencies have worked to implement a  statutory framework to improve the performance and accountability of the  executive branch and to enhance executive branch and congressional  decision making.  The core elements of this framework include financial  management and information technology reforms as well as results- oriented management legislation, particularly GPRA. As a result of this  framework, there has been substantial progress in the last few years in  establishing the basic infrastructure needed to create high-performing  federal organizations.
For example, in contrast to pre-GPRA planning and performance  measurement, agencies are now producing more results-oriented goals and  performance information.  They have also begun to identify their plans to  coordinate with other federal agencies on program areas that cut across  agency boundaries.  Finally, all of this information is much more  transparent to the Congress, OMB, and the public in the form of published  plans and reports, which were not generally available prior to GPRA.
However, moving beyond the realm of individual agency performance, we  now have both an opportunity and an obligation to take a look across the  federal government at what it should be doing and how it should go about  doing its work.  GPRA, with its focus on strategic planning, the  development of long-term goals, and accountability for results, provides a  framework the Congress and the executive branch can use to consider the  appropriate mix of long-term strategic goals and strategies needed to  address the challenges we face, given the significant resource constraints  that will exist long into the future.
As I discussed in my speech before the National Press Club on  September 17, 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.   A number of overarching trends, such as diffuse security threats and  homeland security needs, increasing global interdependency, the shift to a  knowledge-based economy, and the looming fiscal challenges facing our  nation drive the need to reconsider the role of the federal government in  the 21st century, how the government should do business (including how it  should be structured), and in some instances, who should do the  government’s business.
GAO has sought to assist the Congress and the executive branch in  considering the actions needed to support the transition to a more high  performing, results-oriented, and accountable federal government.  We  believe that it is crucial for both the Congress and the executive branch to  work together constructively and on a bipartisan basis in addressing a  range of “good government” issues.
My statement today will focus on four points:  the impact of current trends and increasing fiscal challenges;  the foundation for results-oriented management created in response to   the need to make better use of GPRA as a tool to address the trends and   options for strengthening congressional oversight.
My statement is based on our large body of work in recent years assessing  GPRA implementation as well as other management and budget issues.  We  conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Impact of Emerging Trends and Fiscal Challenges
paragraphs: With the 21st century challenges we are facing, it is more vital than ever to  maximize the performance of federal agencies in achieving their long-term  goals.  The federal government must address and adapt to major trends in  our country and around the world.  At the same time, our nation faces  serious long-term fiscal challenges.  Increased pressure also comes from  world events:  both from the recognition that we cannot consider ourselves  “safe” between two oceans—which has increased demands for spending on  homeland security—and from the U.S. role in combating terrorism in an  increasingly interdependent world.  To be able to assess federal agency  performance and hold agency managers accountable for achieving their  long-term goals, we need to know what the level of performance is.  GPRA  planning and reporting requirements can provide this essential  information.
Our country’s transition into the 21st century is characterized by a number  of key trends, including  the national and global response to terrorism and other threats to our  personal and national security;  the increasing interdependence of enterprises, economies, markets, civil  societies, and national governments, commonly referred to as  globalization;  the shift to market-oriented, knowledge-based economies;  an aging and more diverse U.S. population;  rapid advances in science and technology and the opportunities and  challenges created by these changes;  challenges and opportunities to maintain and improve the quality of life  for the nation, communities, families, and individuals; and  the changing and increasingly diverse nature of governance structures  and tools.
As the nation and government policymakers grapple with the challenges  presented by these evolving trends, they do so in the context of rapidly  building fiscal pressures.  GAO’s long-range budget simulations show that  this nation faces a large and growing structural deficit due primarily to  known demographic trends and rising health care costs.  The fiscal  pressures created by the retirement of the baby boom generation and rising  health costs threaten to overwhelm the nation’s fiscal future.  As figure 1  shows, by 2040, absent reform or other major tax or spending policy  changes, projected federal revenues will likely be insufficient to pay much  beyond interest on publicly held debt.  Further, our recent shift from  surpluses to deficits means the nation is moving into the future in a weaker  fiscal position.
The United States has had a long-range budget deficit problem for a  number of years, even during recent years when we had significant annual  budget surpluses.  Unfortunately, the days of surpluses are gone, and our  current and projected budget situation has worsened significantly.  The  bottom line is that our projected budget deficits are not manageable  without significant changes in “status quo” programs, policies, processes,  and operations.
Doing nothing is simply not an option, nor will marginal efforts be enough.   Difficult choices will have to be made.   Clearly, the federal government  must start to exercise more fiscal discipline on both the spending side and  the tax side.  While many spending increases and tax cuts may be popular,  they may not all be prudent.  However, there is not a single solution to the  problems we face; a number of solutions are needed.  It will take the  combined efforts of many parties over an extended period for these efforts  to succeed.
section_title: GPRA Provides a Foundation for Results-Oriented Management
paragraphs: GPRA, which was enacted 10 years ago, provides a foundation for  examining agency missions, performance goals and objectives, and results.   While this building effort is far from complete, it has helped create a  governmentwide focus on results by establishing a statutory framework for  performance management and accountability.  The necessary  infrastructure has been built to generate meaningful performance  information.
For example, through the strategic planning requirement, GPRA has  required federal agencies to consult with the Congress and key  stakeholders to reassess their missions and long-term goals as well as the  strategies and resources they will need to achieve their goals.   It also has  required agencies to articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are  aligned with their long-term strategic goals.  Finally, agencies are required  to report annually on their progress in achieving their annual performance  goals.  Therefore, information is available about current missions, goals,  and results.
Our prior assessments of the quality of agency planning and reporting  documents indicate that significant progress has been made in meeting the  basic requirements of GPRA.  For example, we found improvements in  agencies’ strategic plans, such as clearer mission statements and long-term goals.  Also, after we found many weaknesses in agencies’ first annual  performance plans, subsequent plans showed improvements, such as the  frequent use of results-oriented goals and quantifiable measures to address  performance.
Finally, a high and increasing percentage of federal managers we surveyed  in 1997 and 2000 reported that there were performance measures for the  programs with which they were involved.  Those managers who reported  having performance measures also increasingly reported having outcome,  output, and efficiency measures.  We will be updating our analysis of the  quality of agency planning and reporting efforts and our survey of federal  managers as part of our 10-year retrospective review of GPRA.  The report  will be available next month.
section_title: Using GPRA as a Tool to Address 21st Century Trends and Challenges
paragraphs: As we move further into the 21st century, it becomes increasingly important  for the Congress, OMB, and other executive agencies to consider how the  federal government can maximize performance and results, given the  significant fiscal limitations I have described.  GPRA can help address this  question by linking the results that the federal government seeks to achieve  to the program approaches and resources that are necessary to achieve  those results. The performance information produced by GPRA’s planning  and reporting infrastructure can help build a government that is better  equipped to deliver economical, efficient, and effective programs that can  help address the challenges facing the federal government.
Clearly, federal agencies have made strides in laying the foundation of  planning and performance information that will be needed to address our  21st century challenges.  We are now moving to a more difficult but more  important phase of GPRA implementation, that is, using results-oriented  performance information as a routine part of agencies’ day-to-day  management, and congressional and executive branch decision making.
To achieve a greater focus on results and maximize performance, federal  agencies will need to make greater use of GPRA documents, such as  strategic plans, to guide how they do business every day—both internally,  in terms of guiding individual employee efforts, as well as externally, in  terms of coordinating activities and interacting with key stakeholders.
However, much work remains before this framework is effectively  implemented across the government, including (1) transforming agencies’  organizational cultures to improve decision making and strengthen  performance and accountability, (2) developing meaningful, outcome- oriented performance goals and measures and collecting useful  performance data, (3) addressing widespread mission fragmentation and  overlap, and (4) using performance information in allocating resources.
subsections: section_title: Uneven Progress in Building Results-Oriented Organizational Cultures
paragraphs: The cornerstone of federal efforts to successfully meet current and  emerging public demands is to adopt a results orientation, that is, to  develop a clear sense of the results an agency wants to achieve as opposed  to the products and services (outputs) an agency produces and the  processes used to produce them. Adopting a results orientation requires  transforming organizational cultures to improve decision making,  maximize performance, and ensure accountability—it entails new ways of  thinking and doing business. This transformation is not an easy one and  requires investments of time and resources as well as sustained leadership  commitment and attention.
Our prior work on GPRA implementation has found that many agencies  face significant challenges in establishing an agency-wide results- orientation. Federal managers we surveyed have reported that agency  leaders do not consistently demonstrate a strong commitment to achieving  results.  Furthermore, these managers believed that agencies do not always  positively recognize employees for helping the agency accomplish its  strategic goals.
In addition, we have reported that high-performing organizations seek to  shift the focus of management and accountability from activities and  processes to contributions and achieving results.  However, although many  federal managers in our survey reported that they were held accountable  for the results of their programs, only a few reported that they had the  decision making authority they needed to help the agencies accomplish  their strategic goals.
Finally, although managers we surveyed increasingly reported having  results-oriented performance measures for their programs, the extent to  which these managers reported using performance information for any of  the key management activities we asked about mostly declined from earlier  survey levels.
To be positioned to address the array of challenges we face, federal  agencies will need to transform their organizational cultures so that they  are more results-oriented, customer-focused, and collaborative.  Leading  public organizations here in the United States and abroad have found that  strategic human capital management must be the centerpiece of any  serious change management initiative and efforts to transform the cultures  of government agencies.  Performance management systems are integral to  strategic human capital management.  Such systems can be key tools to  maximizing performance by aligning institutional performance measures  with individual performance and creating a “line of sight” between  individual and organizational goals.  Leading organizations use their  performance management systems as a key tool for aligning institutional,  unit, and employee performance; achieving results; accelerating change;  managing the organization day to day; and facilitating communication  throughout the year so that discussions about individual and organizational  performance are integrated and ongoing.
section_title: Developing Meaningful, Outcome-Oriented Performance Goals and Collecting Useful Performance Data
paragraphs: Another key challenge to achieving a governmentwide focus on results is  that of developing meaningful, outcome-oriented performance goals and  collecting performance data that can be used to assess results.   Performance measurement under GPRA is the ongoing monitoring and  reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward  preestablished goals.  It tends to focus on regularly collected data on the  level and type of program activities, the direct products and services  delivered by the program, and the results of those activities.  For programs  that have readily observable results or outcomes, performance  measurement may provide sufficient information to demonstrate program  results.  In some programs, however, outcomes are not quickly achieved or  readily observed, or their relationship to the program is uncertain.  In such  cases, more in-depth program evaluations may be needed, in addition to  performance measurement, to examine the extent to which a program is  achieving its objectives.
However, our work has raised concerns about the capacity of federal  agencies to produce evaluations of program effectiveness.  Few of the  agencies we reviewed deployed the rigorous research methods required to  attribute changes underlying outcomes to program activities.  Yet we have  also seen how some agencies have profitably drawn on systematic program  evaluations to improve their measurement of program performance or  understanding of performance and how it might be improved.  For  example, to improve performance measurement, two agencies we  reviewed used the findings of effectiveness evaluations to provide data on  program results that were otherwise unavailable.
Our work has also identified substantial, long-standing limitations in  agencies’ abilities to produce credible data and identify performance  improvement opportunities that will not be quickly or easily resolved.   For example, policy decisions made when designing federal programs,  particularly intergovernmental programs, may make it difficult to collect  timely and consistent national data. In administering programs that are the  joint responsibility of state and local governments, the Congress and the  executive branch continually balance the competing objectives of  collecting uniform program information to assess performance with giving  states and localities the flexibility needed to effectively implement  intergovernmental programs.
section_title: Using GPRA to Address Mission Fragmentation and Overlap
paragraphs: While progress has been made by federal agencies in laying a foundation of  performance information for existing program activities and structures, the  federal government has not realized the full potential of GPRA to address  program areas that cut across federal agency boundaries.  The government  has made strides in this area in recent years.  For example, in reviewing  agencies’ crosscutting plans in the area of wildland fire management, we  found that both the Department of the Interior and the Forest Service,  within the Department of Agriculture, discussed their joint participation in  developing plans and strategies to address the growing threats to our  forests and nearby communities from catastrophic wild fires.  The  Congress could make greater use of agency performance information to  identify potential fragmentation, overlap, and duplication among federal  programs.
Virtually all of the results that the federal government strives to achieve  require the concerted and coordinated efforts of two or more agencies.   Our work has shown that mission fragmentation and program overlap are  widespread, and that crosscutting federal program efforts are not well  coordinated.  For example, we have reported that seven federal agencies  administer 16 programs that serve the homeless population, with the  Department of Housing and Urban Development responsible for most of  the funds.  We have also frequently commented on the fragmented nature  of our food safety system, with responsibility split between the Food Safety  and Inspection Service within the Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration within the Department of Health and Human Services,  and 10 other federal agencies.
Crosscutting program areas that are not effectively coordinated waste  scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and undercut the  overall effectiveness of the federal effort. GPRA offers a structured and  governmentwide means for rationalizing these crosscutting efforts. The  strategic, annual, and governmentwide performance planning processes  under GPRA provide opportunities for each agency to ensure that its goals  for crosscutting programs complement those of other agencies; program  strategies are mutually reinforcing; and, as appropriate, common  performance measures are used. If GPRA is effectively implemented, the  governmentwide performance plan and the agencies’ annual performance  plans and reports should provide the Congress with information on  agencies and programs addressing similar results.  Once these programs  are identified, the Congress can consider the associated policy,  management, and performance implications of crosscutting programs as  part of its oversight of the executive branch.
section_title: Using Performance Information to Inform the Allocation of Resources
paragraphs: A key objective of GPRA is to help the Congress, OMB, and other executive  agencies develop a clearer understanding of what is being achieved in  relation to what is being spent. Linking planned performance with budget  requests and financial reports is an essential step in building a culture of  performance management. Such an alignment infuses performance  concerns into budgetary deliberations, prompting agencies to reassess  their performance goals and strategies and to more clearly understand the  cost of performance.  For the fiscal year 2005 budget process, OMB called  for agencies to prepare a performance budget that can be used for the  annual performance plan required by GPRA.
Credible outcome-based performance information is absolutely critical to  fostering the kind of debate that is needed. Linking performance  information to budgeting carries great potential to improve the budget  debate by changing the kinds of questions and information available to  decision makers. However, performance information will not provide  mechanistic answers for budget decisions, nor can performance data  eliminate the need for considered judgment and political choice. If budget  decisions are to be based in part on performance data, the integrity,  credibility, and quality of these data and related analyses become more  important.  Moreover, in seeking to link resources to results, it will be  necessary to improve the government’s capacity to account for and  measure the total costs of federal programs and activities.
GPRA expanded the supply of performance information generated by  federal agencies. OMB’s Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) proposes  to build on GPRA by improving the demand for results-oriented  information in the budget. It has the potential to promote a more explicit  discussion and debate between OMB, the agencies, and the Congress about  the performance of selected programs.  Presumably, PART will identify  expectation gaps, questions, and areas where further inquiry and analysis  would be most useful.
section_title: Oversight Is Critical to Achieving Results
paragraphs: Fifty years of past efforts to link resources with results has shown that any  successful effort must involve the Congress as a partner. In fact, the  administration acknowledged that performance and accountability are  shared responsibilities that must involve the Congress. It will only be  through the continued attention of the Congress, the administration, and  federal agencies that progress can be sustained and, more important,  accelerated.  Ultimately, the success of GPRA will be reflected in whether  and how the Congress uses agency performance information in the  congressional budget, appropriations, authorization, and oversight  processes. As a key user of performance information, the Congress also  needs to be considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset.
More generally, effective congressional oversight can help improve federal  performance by examining the program structures agencies use to deliver  products and services to ensure that the best, most cost-effective mix of  strategies is in place to meet agency and national goals. As part of this  oversight, the Congress should consider the associated policy,  management, and policy implications of crosscutting programs.
section_title: Options for Strengthening GPRA
paragraphs: Information produced in response to GPRA can be useful for congressional  oversight as well as program management.  As I have testified before, there  are several ways that GPRA could be enhanced to provide better  governmentwide information.
First, there are many users of agencies’ performance information—the  Congress, the public, and the agency itself.  One size does not fit all.  To  improve the prospect that agency performance information will be useful  to and used by these different users, agencies need to consider the different  information needs and how to best tailor their performance information to  meet those needs.  This might entail the preparation of simplified and  streamlined plans and reports for the Congress and other external users.
Second, we have previously reported that GPRA could provide a tool to  reexamine federal government roles and structures governmentwide.   GPRA requires the President to include in his annual budget submission a  federal government performance plan.  The Congress intended that this  plan provide a “single cohesive picture of the annual performance goals for  the fiscal year.”  The governmentwide performance plan could help the  Congress and the executive branch address critical federal performance  and management issues, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in  how we do business.  It could also provide a framework for any  restructuring efforts.  Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully  implemented.
If the governmentwide performance plan were fully implemented, it could  also provide a framework for congressional oversight.  For example, in  recent years, OMB has begun to develop common measures for similar  programs, such as job training.  By focusing on broad goals and objectives,  oversight could more effectively cut across organization, program, and  other traditional boundaries.   Such oversight might also cut across existing  committee boundaries, which suggests that the Congress may benefit from  using specialized mechanisms to perform oversight (i.e., joint hearings and  special committees).
Third, a strategic plan for the federal government, along with key national  indicators to assess the government’s performance, could provide an  additional tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as  well as proposals for new programs.  If fully developed, a governmentwide  strategic plan can potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the long- term goals of the federal government and provide a much needed basis for  fully integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal  activities.  Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of key  stakeholders.  Thus, it could serve as a mechanism for building consensus.   Further, it could provide a vehicle for the President to articulate long-term  goals and a road map for achieving them.  In addition, a strategic plan can  provide a more comprehensive framework for considering organizational  changes and making resource decisions.  In addition to the annual budget  resolution on funds, the Congress could also have a performance  resolution that specifies performance expectations.
Developing a strategic plan for the federal government would be an  important first step in articulating the role, goals, and objectives of the  federal government.  It could help provide critical horizontal and vertical  linkages.  Horizontally, it could integrate and foster synergies among  components of the federal government as well as help to clarify the role of  the federal government vis-a-vis other sectors of our society.  Vertically, it  could provide a framework of federal missions and goals within which  individual federal agencies could align their own missions and goals that  would cascade down to individual employees. It also could link to a set of  key national performance indicators.
A set of key national indicators could also help to assess the overall  position and progress of our nation in key areas, frame strategic issues,  support public choices, and enhance accountability.  Developing a key  national indicator system goes beyond any one sector (e.g., public, private,  or nonprofit).  It requires designing and executing a process whereby  diverse elements of society can participate in formulating key questions  and choosing indicators in a way that increases consensus over time.  Such  a system will take time to develop.  The federal government is an important  and vital player in establishing such indicators.
Fourth, the traditional oversight that the Congress provides to individual  organizations, programs, and activities has an important role in eliminating  redundancy and inefficiencies.   Important benefits can be achieved  through focused oversight if the right questions are asked about  performance and management.  Six key questions for program oversight  are as follows:  Does the program make sense given 21st century trends and challenges,  including whether it is appropriate as an initiative of the federal  government?
Are there clear performance goals, measures, and data with which to  track progress?  Is the program achieving its goals?  If not, why not?
Does the program duplicate or even work at cross purposes with related  programs and tools?
Is the program targeted properly?
Is the program financially sustainable and are there opportunities for  instituting appropriate cost-sharing and recovery mechanisms?
Can the program be made more efficient through reengineering or  streamlining processes or restructuring organizational roles and  responsibilities?
Fifth, creating the results-oriented cultures needed to make GPRA a useful  management tool depends on committed, top-level leadership and  sustained attention to management issues. A chief operating officer (COO)  could provide the sustained management attention essential for addressing  key infrastructure and stewardship issues and could facilitate the  transformation process. Establishing a COO position in selected federal  agencies could provide a number of benefits. A COO would be the focal  point for elevating attention on management issues and transformational  change, integrating various key management and transformation efforts,  and instituting accountability for addressing management issues and  leading transformational change. A COO would provide a single  organizational position for key management functions, such as human  capital, financial management, information technology, acquisition  management, and performance management as well as for  transformational change initiatives. To be successful, in many cases, a COO  will need to be among an agency’s top leadership (e.g., deputy secretary or  under secretary). However, consistent with the desire to integrate  responsibilities, the creation of a senior management position needs to be  considered with careful regard to existing positions and responsibilities so  that it does not result in unnecessary “layering” at an agency. Consideration  also should be given to providing a term appointment, such as a 5—7 year  term. A term appointment would provide sustained leadership. No matter  how the positions are structured, it is critical that the people appointed to  these positions have proven track records in similar positions and be  vested with sufficient authority to achieve results. To further clarify  expectations and responsibilities, the COO should be subject to a clearly  defined, results-oriented performance contract with appropriate  incentives, rewards, and accountability mechanisms. For selected  agencies, a COO should be subject to a Senate confirmation. In creating  such a position, the Congress might consider making certain subordinate  positions, such as the chief financial officer, not subject to Senate  confirmation.
section_title: Concluding Remarks
paragraphs: In view of the broad trends and long-term fiscal challenges facing the  nation, there is a need to consider how the Congress, OMB, and executive  agencies can make better use of GPRA’s planning and accountability  framework to maximize the performance of not only individual programs  and agencies but also the federal government as whole in addressing these  challenges.  The Congress can play a vital role in increasing the demand for  such performance information by monitoring agencies’ performance  results, asking critical questions about goals not achieved, and considering  whether adjustments are needed to maximize performance in the future.   The large and growing fiscal gap means that tough, difficult choices will  have to be made.  Doing nothing is not an option.  The Congress and the  administration will need to use every tool at their disposal to address these  challenges.  In addressing these challenges, it will be important to set clear  goals, involve all key players, and establish viable processes that will lead  to positive results.  Credible, timely, results-oriented performance  information will be vital to this decisionmaking.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement.  We in GAO take our  responsibility to assist in these crucial efforts very seriously.  I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you or other Members of the  Committee may have.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further  permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or  other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to  reproduce this material separately.