Results-Oriented Cultures: Modern Performance Management Systems Are Needed to Effectively Support Pay for Performance
Published: 2003-04-01T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: There is widespread agreement that the basic approach to federal pay is broken and that it needs to be more market- and performance-based. Doing so will be essential if the federal government is to maximize its performance and assure accountability for the benefit of the American people. While there will be debate and disagreement about the merits of individual reform proposals, all should be able to agree that a performance management system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, must serve as the fundamental underpinning of any fair, effective, and appropriate pay reform. At the request of the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, House Committee on Government Reform, GAO discussed the key practices for effective performance management that federal agencies should consider as they develop and implement performance management systems as part of any pay reform.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The need for results-oriented pay reform is one of the most pressing human capital issues facing the federal government today. To implement results-oriented pay reform, commonly referred to as "pay for performance," agencies must have modern, effective, credible, and validated performance management systems that are capable of supporting pay and other personnel decisions. Pay for performance works only with adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, to ensure its fair, effective, and responsible implementation. Modern performance management systems are the centerpiece of those safeguards and accountability. Most federal agencies are a long way from meeting this test. All too often, agencies' performance management systems are based on episodic and paper intensive exercises that are not linked to the strategic plan of the organization and have only a modest impact on the pay, use, development, and promotion potential of federal workers. Leading organizations, on the other had, use their performance management systems to accelerate change, achieve desired organizational results, and facilitate two-way communication throughout the year so that discussions about individual and organizational performance are integrated and ongoing. Effective performance management systems are not merely used for once- or twice-yearly individual expectation setting and ratings processes, but are tools to help the organization manage on a day-to-day basis. GAO identified key practices leading public sector organizations both here in the United States and abroad have used in their performance management systems to link organizational goals to individual performance and create a "line of sight" between an individual's activities and organizational results. These practices can help agencies develop and implement performance management systems with the attributes necessary to effectively support pay for performance.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: I am pleased to be here today to discuss the need for results-oriented pay  reform, one of the most pressing human capital issues currently facing the  federal government. My major point today is that, as Comptroller General  Walker has said, in order to implement such reforms, commonly referred to  as “pay for performance,” agencies must have modern, effective, credible,  and validated performance management systems that are capable of  supporting pay and other personnel decisions. Quite simply, pay for  performance works only with adequate safeguards, including reasonable  transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, to  ensure its fair, effective, and responsible implementation. Modern  performance management systems are the centerpiece of those safeguards  and accountability.
Unfortunately, most federal agencies are a long way from meeting this test.  All too often, we find that agencies’ performance management systems are  based on episodic and paper-intensive exercises that are not linked to the  strategic plans of the organizations and have only a modest impact on the  pay, use, development, and promotion potential of federal workers.  Leading organizations, on the other hand, use their performance  management systems to accelerate change, achieve desired organizational  results, and facilitate two-way communication throughout the year so that  discussions about individual and organizational performance are integrated  and ongoing. Effective performance management systems are not merely  used for once- or twice-yearly individual expectation setting and ratings  processes, but are tools to help the organization manage on a day-to-day  basis. Chairwoman Davis, today you are releasing a report that we  prepared at your and Senator Voinovich’s request that shows specific  practices that leading public sector organizations here in the United States  and abroad have used in their performance management systems to create  clear linkages between individual performance and organizational  success.
There can be little question that modernizing agency performance  management systems and linking them to agency strategic plans and  desired outcomes should be a top priority. The Office of Personnel  Management’s (OPM) recently released 2002 Federal Human Capital  Survey found that better performance management systems are needed in  federal agencies. The results show that while 80 percent of federal  employees believe they are held accountable for results, most are not  satisfied with the recognition or the rewards they receive for a job well  done. Specifically, less than half of employees believe that the awards in  their work units depend on how well employees perform their jobs and less  than a third of employees believe that their organizations’ awards programs  provide them with an incentive to do their best. Also, less than a third of  employees agree that steps are taken to deal with poor performers.
These results appear to reinforce the findings from OPM’s white paper on  modernizing federal pay issued in April 2002. The paper described the  need for the federal pay system to be more performance-oriented, flexible,  and market-sensitive as well as a better tool for improving strategic human  capital management. It amply demonstrated that the current federal pay  system was designed for the heavily clerical and low graded workforce of  the 1950s rather than today’s knowledge-based government. Similarly,  OPM’s survey results underscore the findings of the National Commission  on the Public Service’s recent report, Urgent Business for America:  Revitalizing the Federal Government for the 21st Century. The  commission observed that agencies need greater freedom to connect pay  both to the market and to performance. As the nature of the federal  workforce has changed, so too should its pay system if we are to effectively  compete for top talent and create incentives for both individual and  institutional success.
The Congress and the administration are working on initial steps to  implement result-oriented pay reform and modern performance  management systems across the executive branch.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002, passed by the Congress in  November, provides for the increase of the total annual compensation  limit for senior executives (from $171,900 to $198,600 for 2003) in those  agencies that OPM and the Office of Management and Budget certify as  having performance appraisal systems that, as designed and applied,  make meaningful distinctions based on relative performance.
The administration proposed for the fiscal year 2004 budget to allow  managers to increase pay beyond annual raises for high-performing  employees. OPM would administer a $500 million Human Capital  Performance Fund for the purpose of allowing agencies to deliver  additional pay to certain employees based on individual performance or  other human capital needs, in accordance with plans submitted to and  approved by OPM.
In addition, in the fiscal year 2004 budget proposal, the administration  proposed the creation of a wider, more open pay range for senior  executive compensation, thus allowing for pay to be more directly tied  to performance. This is consistent with the proposals you and Senator  Voinovich are considering.
Today, I will highlight the key practices for effective performance  management that federal agencies should consider as they revise their  performance management systems to be more results-oriented, customer- focused, and collaborative in nature. These practices are fully discussed in  the report that you are releasing today. Next, I will discuss what selected  federal agencies have done to implement results-oriented pay reforms,  including how we in GAO are implementing a broadbanded pay for  performance system as part of our performance management system. Last,  I will suggest next steps for results-oriented pay reform for all interested  parties as they work together to better link pay to performance.
subsections: section_title: Key Practices for Effective Performance Management
paragraphs: We identified specific practices that leading public sector organizations  both here in the United States and abroad have used in their performance  management systems to create a clear linkage—“line of sight”—between  individual performance and organizational success. Federal agencies  should consider these practices as they develop and implement the  modern, effective, and credible performance management systems with the  adequate safeguards, including reasonable transparency and appropriate  accountability mechanisms in place, needed to effectively link pay to  performance. The key practices include the following.  1. Align individual performance expectations with organizational  goals. An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader results helps  individuals see the connection between their daily activities and  organizational goals and encourages individuals to focus on their roles and  responsibilities to help achieve those goals. To this end, for example, the  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was able to show in fiscal year 2000  how the Department of Transportation’s strategic goal to promote public  health and safety was cascaded through the FAA Administrator’s  performance expectation to reduce the commercial air carrier fatal  accident rate to a program director’s performance expectation to develop  software to help aircraft maintain safe altitudes in their approach paths.   2. Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals. As  public sector organizations shift their focus of accountability from outputs  to results, they have recognized that the activities needed to achieve those  results often transcend specific organizational boundaries. High- performing organizations use their performance management systems to  strengthen accountability for results, specifically by placing greater  emphasis on fostering the necessary collaboration, interaction, and  teamwork across organizational boundaries to achieve these results. In this  regard, the Veterans Health Administration’s Veterans Integrated Service  Network (VISN) headquartered in Cincinnati implemented performance  agreements in 2000 for the “care line” directors, such as primary care or  mental health directors, that included improvement goals related to that  care line for the entire VISN. To make progress towards these goals, the  mental health care line director had to work collaboratively with the  corresponding mental health care line managers at each of the four medical  centers to establish consensus among VISN officials and external  stakeholders on the strategic direction for the services provided by the  mental health care line across the VISN, among other things.  3. Provide and routinely use performance information to track  organizational priorities. High-performing organizations provide  objective performance information to individuals to show progress in  achieving organizational results and other priorities and help them to  manage during the year, identify performance gaps, and pinpoint  improvement opportunities. Having this performance information in a  useful format also helps individuals track their performance against  organizational goals and compare their performance to that of other  individuals. For example, the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) Web- based data system, called the Director’s Tracking System, collects and  makes available on a real-time basis data on each senior executive’s  progress in his or her state office towards BLM’s organizational priorities,  such as the wild horse and burro program, and the resources expended on  each priority.  4. Require follow-up actions to address organizational priorities.  High-performing organizations require individuals to take follow-up actions  based on performance information available to them. By requiring and  tracking such follow-up actions on performance gaps, these organizations  underscore the importance of holding individuals accountable for making  progress on their priorities. For example, the Federal Highway  Administration required senior executives to use 360-degree feedback  instruments to solicit employees’ views on their leadership skills in 2001.  The senior executives were to identify action items based on the feedback  and incorporate them into their individual performance plans for the next  fiscal year. While the 360-degree feedback instrument was intended for  developmental purposes to help senior executives identify areas for  improvement and is not included in the executives’ performance  evaluations, executives were held accountable for taking some action on  the 360-degree feedback results and responding to the concerns of their  peers, customers, and subordinates.  5. Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of performance.  High-performing organizations use competencies, which define the skills  and supporting behaviors that individuals need to effectively contribute to  organizational results, and are based on valid, reliable, and transparent  performance management systems. To this end, the Internal Revenue  Service (IRS) implemented a performance management system in fiscal  year 2000 that requires executives and managers to include critical job  responsibilities with supporting behaviors (broad actions and  competencies) in their performance agreements each year. The critical job  responsibilities and supporting behaviors are intended to provide  executives and managers with a consistent message about how their daily  activities are to reflect the organization’s core values.   6. Link pay to individual and organizational performance. High- performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward systems  that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to  organizational results. At the same time, these organizations recognize that  valid, reliable, and transparent performance management systems with  adequate safeguards for employees are the precondition to such an  approach. In the Canadian Province of Ontario, an individual executive’s  performance pay is based on the performance of the provincial government  as a whole, the executive’s home ministry, the ministry’s contribution to  governmentwide results, as well as the individual’s own performance. The  amount of the award can range up to 20 percent of base salary.  7. Make meaningful distinctions in performance. Effective  performance management systems seek to achieve three key objectives to  help make meaningful distinctions in performance: (1) they strive to  provide candid and constructive feedback to help individuals maximize  their contribution and potential in understanding and realizing the goals  and objectives of the organization, (2) they seek to provide management  with the objective and fact-based information it needs to reward top  performers, and (3) they provide the necessary information and  documentation to deal with poor performers. For example, IRS established  an executive compensation plan for determining base salary, performance  bonuses, and other awards for its senior executives that is intended to  explicitly link individual performance to organizational performance. As  part of this plan, IRS converts senior executive performance appraisal  ratings into points to help ensure realistic and consistent performance  ratings. Each IRS business unit has a “point budget” for assigning  performance ratings, which is the total of four points for each senior  executive in the unit. For fiscal year 2001, an “outstanding” rating  converted to six points; an “exceeded” rating to four points, which is the  baseline; a “met” rating to two points; and a “not met” rating to zero points.  If the business unit exceeded its point budget, it had the opportunity to  request additional points from the Deputy Commissioner. IRS officials  indicated that none of the business units requested additional points for the  fiscal year 2001 ratings.
The senior executive performance appraisal ratings and bonuses for fiscal  year 2001 show that IRS is beginning to make distinctions in pay related to  performance. For fiscal year 2001, 31 percent of the senior executives  received a rating of outstanding compared to 42 percent for fiscal year  2000, 49 percent received a rating of exceeded expectations compared to  55 percent, and 20 percent received a rating of met expectations compared  to 3 percent. In fiscal year 2001, 52 percent of senior executives received a  bonus, compared to 56 percent in fiscal year 2000. IRS officials said that  IRS is still gaining experience using the new compensation plan and will  wait to establish trend data before it evaluates the link between  performance and bonus decisions.  8. Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of  performance management systems. High-performing organizations have  found that actively involving employees and stakeholders in developing  performance management systems and providing ongoing training on the  systems helps increase their understanding and ownership of the  organizational goals and objectives. As one of the single most important  safeguards that they can put in place, these leading organizations consulted  a wide range of employees and stakeholders early in the process, obtained  direct feedback from them, and engaged employee unions or associations.  For example, in New Zealand, an agreement between government and the  primary public service union created a “Partnership for Quality” framework  that provides for ongoing, mutual consultation on issues such as  performance management. Specifically, the Department of Child, Youth,  and Family Services and the Public Service Association entered into a joint  partnership agreement that emphasizes the importance of mutual  consideration of each other’s organizational needs and constraints.  9. Maintain continuity during transitions. The experience of  successful cultural transformations and change management initiatives in  large public and private organizations suggests that it can often take 5 to 7  years until such initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are  transformed in a substantial manner. Because this time frame can easily  outlast the tenures of top political appointees, high-performing  organizations recognize that they need to reinforce accountability for  organizational goals during times of leadership transitions through the use  of performance agreements as part of their performance management  systems. For example, the Ontario Public Service institutionalized the use  of performance agreements in its performance management system to  withstand organizational changes and cascaded the performance  agreements from top leadership to front line employees.
section_title: Creating a Results- Oriented Approach to Federal Pay
paragraphs: With the performance management practices of leading organizations in  mind, we need to fundamentally rethink our approach to federal pay and  develop an approach that places a greater emphasis on a person’s  knowledge, skills, position, and performance rather than the passage of  time, the rate of inflation, and geographic location. Under the current  federal pay system, the overwhelming majority of each year’s increase in  federal employee pay is largely unrelated to an employee’s knowledge,  skills, position, or performance. In fact, over 80 percent of the cost  associated with the annual increases in federal salaries is due to longevity  and the annual pay increase. In addition, current federal pay gaps vary by  the nature of the person’s position; yet the current method for addressing  the pay gap assumes that it is the same throughout government. We must  move beyond this outdated, “one size fits all approach” to paying federal  employees. Under authorities granted by the Congress, a number of  agencies are at various stages in using approaches in their pay and award  systems that are designed to be more flexible and results-oriented.
U.S. General Accounting Office. We at GAO believe it is our  responsibility to lead by example. Our people are our most valuable asset,  and it is only through their combined efforts that we can effectively serve  our clients and country. By managing our workforce strategically and  focusing on results, we are helping to maximize our own performance and  ensure our own accountability. By doing so, we also hope to demonstrate  to other federal agencies that they can make similar improvements in the  way they manage their people.
We have identified and made use of a variety of tools and flexibilities, some  of which were made available to us through the GAO Personnel Act of 1980  and our human capital legislation enacted in 2000, but most of which are  available to federal agencies. The most prominent change in human capital  management that we implemented as a result of the GAO Personnel Act of  1980 was a broadbanded pay-for-performance system. The primary goal of  this system is to base employee compensation primarily on the knowledge,  skills, and performance of individual employees. It provides managers  flexibility to assign and use employees in a manner that is more suitable to  multi-tasking and the full use of staff. Importantly, careful design and  effective implementation is crucial to obtaining the benefits of  broadbanding in an equitable and cost-effective manner. Under our current  broadbanded system, analyst and analyst-related staff in grades 7 through  15 were placed in three bands. High-performing organizations continually  review and revise their performance management systems to support their  strategic goals. In that spirit, we expect to modify our banded system in the  future based on our experience to date.
In January 2002, we implemented a new competency-based performance  management system that is intended to create a clear linkage between  employee performance and our strategic plan and core values. It includes  12 competencies that our employees overwhelmingly validated as the keys  to meaningful performance at GAO. The competencies are  maintaining client and customer focus,  presenting information in writing,  facilitating and implementing change,  leading others.
These competencies are the centerpiece of our other human capital  programs, such as promotions, pay decisions, and recognition and rewards.
Under our revised system, pay-banded employees are placed in one of five  pay categories based on their demonstrated competencies, performance,  and contributions to organizational goals. Merit pay increases across these  five categories range from up to about $5,700 for some of those in the top  pay category to no merit increases for those in the lowest category. In  addition, those in the top two categories receive bonuses, referred to as  “Dividend Performance Awards,” of $1,000 and $500, respectively.
As a result of GAO's implementation of its new competency-based  performance management system and other changes to key human capital  programs, GAO has been able to achieve greater dispersion in its  performance appraisals and merit pay decisions. For example, for fiscal  year 2002, the GAO-wide average performance appraisal rating was 2.19  (out of 5) compared with 4.26 (out of 5) for fiscal year 2001. Similarly,  under the new system, no employees received a score of 4.7 or higher,  while 19 percent of employees received a score of 4.7 or higher for fiscal  year 2001.
Federal Aviation Administration. The Congress granted FAA wide- ranging personnel authorities in 1996 by exempting the agency from key  parts of Title 5. Among the initiatives FAA subsequently introduced were a  pay system in which compensation levels are set within pay bands and a  performance management system intended to improve employees’  performance through more frequent feedback with no summary rating.
The pay band system includes plans tailored to specific employee  segments: a core compensation plan for the majority of nonunion  employees and negotiated versions of the core compensation plan for  employees represented by unions; a unique pay plan for air traffic  controllers and air traffic managers; and an executive pay plan for  nonpolitical executives, managers, and some senior professionals.
Under its core compensation plan, all eligible employees can receive  permanent pay increases, called organizational success increases, based on  the FAA Administrator’s assessment of the extent to which the entire  agency has achieved its annual goals. In addition, notably high-performing  individuals may receive additional permanent pay increases, called  superior contribution increases, based on supervisory recommendation.  The criteria for awarding a superior contribution increase include  collaboration, customer service, and impact on organizational success.
At the end of the performance evaluation cycle, employees receive a  narrative performance summary instead of a year end rating that defines  employees’ performance in specific categories. That is, FAA's performance  management system does not use a multi-tiered rating system to rate  individual employee performance. We have previously raised concerns that  such approaches may not provide enough meaningful information and  dispersion in ratings to recognize and reward top performers, help  everyone attain their maximum potential, and deal with poor performers.  Moreover, FAA employee performance summaries reflect an assessment of  achievements based on outcomes and expectations, while professional  competencies such as collaboration and customer service are elements of  the compensation system. As a result, the performance management  system is not directly linked to pay elements in FAA’s compensation  systems.
In February 2003, we reported that FAA’s human capital reform efforts  were still in progress. While FAA has established preliminary linkages  between its reform goals and the agency’s program goals, we found that the  lack of explicit linkage will make it difficult to assess the effects of the  reform initiatives on the program goals of the organization even after data,  measurable goals, and performance measures for human capital  management efforts are established. FAA has acknowledged the  importance of establishing these elements and has repeatedly said that it is  working to collect and analyze data and develop performance goals and  measures. However, it has not completed these critical tasks, nor has it  established specific steps and time frames by which it will do so.
Internal Revenue Service. IRS was granted broad authority related to its  human capital management through the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act  of 1998. The Restructuring and Reform Act gave the Secretary of the  Treasury various pay and hiring flexibilities not otherwise available under  Title 5, such as the authority to establish new systems for hiring and  staffing, compensation, and performance management. Some of these  flexibilities are intended to allow IRS managers more discretion in  rewarding good performers and in making employees accountable for their  performance.
IRS implemented new performance management systems for executives  and managers for fiscal year 2000 and for the front line employees for fiscal  year 2001. As an initial step, IRS implemented a pay for performance  system for senior executives beginning in fiscal year 2001, which  emphasizes performance in determining compensation and makes  meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance. In July 2002, we  reported that IRS had not completed all the elements of the redesign that it  envisioned. IRS said that it expects to integrate the new systems with its  overall human resources systems linking evaluations to decisions about  developmental needs, rewards and recognition, and compensation. IRS  anticipates that the complete redesign and implementation of the  performance management systems will take about 5 years.
OPM Personnel Demonstration Projects. Personnel demonstration  projects, authorized by OPM under the authority provided by the Civil  Service Reform Act of 1978, provide a means for testing and introducing  beneficial change in governmentwide human resources management  systems.  Over the past 25 years, 17 demonstration projects have been  implemented across the federal government. Twelve of these  demonstration projects have implemented some form of pay for  performance compensation system. OPM reports that demonstration  projects that have implemented pay for performance have shown increased  retention of high performers.
To become a demonstration project, a federal agency obtains authority  from OPM to waive existing federal human resources management law and  regulations in Title 5 and propose, develop, test, and evaluate interventions  for its own human resources management system that shape the future of  federal human resource management. Under the demonstration project  authority, OPM approves project plans and regulations, approves project  evaluation plans, provides technical assistance to agencies, publishes  plans, and disseminates results. The agencies are responsible for designing  and implementing project plans and regulations; consulting with unions  and employees about project design; and designing, conducting, and  funding evaluations.
For example, the Department of Defense (DOD) implemented a personnel  demonstration project covering members of its civilian acquisition,  technology, and logistics workforce in 1999. Recognizing the need to  reform and modernize its acquisition performance management system in  order to perform efficiently and effectively, DOD designed the project to  provide incentives and rewards to multi-skilled personnel, allow managers  to compete with the private sector for the best talent and make timely job  offers, and provide an environment that promotes employee growth and  improves local managers’ ability and authority to manage their workforces.
The project replaced 22 occupational families with 3 career paths; reduced  the 15 General Schedule grades to 3 to 5 pay bands; and implemented a  contribution-based compensation and appraisal system, which measures  an employee’s contribution to the mission and goals of the organization.  This compensation system is designed to enable the organization to  motivate and equitably compensate employees based on their contribution  to the mission. Salary adjustments and contribution awards are to be based  on an individual’s overall annual contribution when compared to all other  employees and their current level of compensation. Contribution is to be  measured using a standard set of competencies that apply to all career  paths. These competencies are (1) problem solving, (2) teamwork/  cooperation, (3) customer relations, (4) leadership/supervision,   (5) communication, and (6) resource management.
A detailed evaluation of project results is due to OPM in May of this year  that is to assess such fundamental issues as the extent to which the  demonstration project improved the link between pay and contribution to  organizational goals and objectives. Preliminary data indicate that the  attrition rate for high contributors is declining while the attrition rate for  low contributors is increasing. DOD officials we spoke with told us that  increased pay setting flexibility has allowed organizations to offer more  competitive salaries, which in turn has improved recruiting.
section_title: Next Steps for Results- Oriented Pay Reform
paragraphs: We believe that as part of the exploration now under way of using more  market- and performance-based approaches to federal pay, we need to  continue to experiment with providing agencies with the flexibility to pilot  alternative approaches to setting pay and linking pay to performance.
In the short term, the Congress may wish to explore the benefits of  broadbanding by (1) giving OPM additional flexibility that would enable it  to grant governmentwide authority for all agencies (i.e., class exemptions)  to use broadbanding for certain critical occupations and/or (2) allowing  agencies to apply to OPM (i.e., case exemptions) for broadbanding  authority for their specific entities or occupations. However, agencies  should be required to demonstrate to OPM’s satisfaction that they have  modern, effective, credible, and validated performance management  systems in place before they are allowed to use broadbanding or related  pay for performance initiatives. This is consistent with the approach that  the Congress took with raising the increase of the total annual  compensation limit for senior executives as part of the Homeland Security  Act. The Congress may also want to consider providing guidance on the  criteria that OPM should use in making judgments about individual  agencies’ performance management systems. We believe that the practices  we described today could serve as a starting point for that consideration.
In summary, there is widespread agreement that the basic approach to  federal pay is broken and we need to move to a more market- and  performance-based approach. Doing so will be essential if we expect to  maximize the performance and assure the accountability of the federal  government for the benefit of the American people. Reasonable people can  and will debate and disagree about the merits of individual reform  proposals. However, all should be able to agree that a performance  management system with adequate safeguards, including reasonable  transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms in place, must  serve as the fundamental underpinning of any fair, effective, and  appropriate results-oriented pay reform. The practices that have been used  by leading organizations in developing and using their performance  management systems to link organizational goals to individual  performance and create a line of sight between an individual’s activities  and organizational results show the way in how to implement performance  management systems with the necessary attributes.
Chairwoman Davis and Members of the Subcommittee, this concludes my  statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions that you may  have.
section_title: Contact and Acknowledgments
paragraphs: For further information regarding this statement, please contact   J. Christopher Mihm, Director, Strategic Issues, on (202) 512-6806 or at  mihmj@gao.gov. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony  included Anne Kidd, Janice Lichty, Lisa Shames, Marti Tracy, and Andrew  White.