Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making
Published: 2012-06-15T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve, such as those related to protecting food and agriculture, providing homeland security, and ensuring a well-trained and educated workforce, require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency. As Congress creates, modifies, and funds federal programs and activities, it needs pertinent and reliable information to adequately assess agencies progress in meeting established performance goals, ensure accountability for results, and understand how individual programs and activities fit within a broader portfolio of federal efforts.
However, as our annual reports on duplication, overlap, and fragmentation in the federal government have recently highlighted, there are a number of crosscutting areas where performance information is limited or does not exist. Even in instances where agencies produce a great deal of performance information, our past work has shown that it does not always reach the interested parties in Congress, and when it does, the information may not be timely or presented in a manner that is useful for congressional decision making.
To help ensure that executive branch performance information is useful to Congress for its decision making, congressional involvement on what to measure and how to present this information is critical. Recognizing this, Congress updated the statutory framework for performance management in the federal government, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), which significantly enhances the requirements for agencies to consult with Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and agency goals. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) is required to consult with relevant committees with broad jurisdiction on crosscutting priority goals. Agencies are to consult with their relevant appropriations, authorization, and oversight committees when developing or making adjustments to their strategic plans and agency priority goals.
This guide, prepared at Congressional request, is intended to assist Members of Congress and their staffs in (1) ensuring the consultations required under GPRAMA are useful to the Congress and (2) using performance information produced by executive branch agencies in carrying out various congressional decision-making responsibilities, such as authorizing programs or provisions in the tax code, making appropriations, developing budgets, and providing oversight.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: GPRAMA requires OMB and agencies to consult with relevant committees, obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals at least once every 2 years. Specifically, OMB is required to consult with relevant committees with broad jurisdiction on crosscutting priority goals. Agencies are to consult with their relevant appropriations, authorization, and oversight committees when developing or making adjustments to their strategic plans and agency priority goals. The act also requires OMB, on a governmentwide website, and agencies, in their strategic plans, to describe how input provided during consultations was incorporated into the crosscutting priority goals and agency goals, respectively.
According to the Senate report accompanying the act, consultations are intended to strengthen collaboration between Congress and federal agencies to improve government performance. Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of key stakeholders, which can help build consensus. As the committee report notes, the consultation process was established so agencies could take congressional views into account as appropriate. If an agency waits to consult with relevant congressional stakeholders until a strategic plan has been substantially drafted and fully vetted within the executive branch, it foregoes important opportunities to learn about and address early on specific concerns that will be critical to successful implementation. The committee, therefore, emphasized that consultations should take place during the development of a strategic plan, not after. In addition, the requirement for consultations at least once every 2 years is intended to ensure that each Congress has input on agency goals, objectives, strategies, and performance measures. Consultations also provide agencies with opportunities to share information on their performance and confirm that various committees are getting the types of performance information they need.
Performance information can be used to inform congressional decisions about authorizing or reauthorizing federal programs, provisions in the tax code, and other activities; appropriating funds; and developing budget resolutions.
After identifying issues, Congress has established expectations for the level of performance to be achieved by federal agencies and programs, and regular reporting on results. As highlighted in our case study on efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, setting clear goalswith target levels of performance and timeframes for achieving themand expectations for periodic progress reports helped Congress sustain attention on improving results over the course of several years.
Finally, Members of Congress, congressional committees, and staff can assess whether existing strategies are the most efficient and effective means for agencies to meet their goals. Analyzing existing performance information can help identify new strategies that could lead to improved results. As the case study on addressing improper payments shows, when it is clear that agencies are not meeting performance expectations, Congress has provided agencies with additional authorities and required alternate approaches to achieve results.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to  achieve, such as those related to protecting food and agriculture,  providing homeland security, and ensuring a well-trained and educated  workforce, require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal  agency. As Congress creates, modifies, and funds federal programs and  activities, it needs pertinent and reliable information to adequately assess  agencies’ progress in meeting established performance goals, ensure  accountability for results, and understand how individual programs and  activities fit within a broader portfolio of federal efforts.
However, as our annual reports on duplication, overlap, and  fragmentation in the federal government have recently highlighted, there  are a number of crosscutting areas where performance information is  limited or does not exist. Even in instances where agencies produce a  great deal of performance information, our past work has shown that it  does not always reach the interested parties in Congress, and when it  does, the information may not be timely or presented in a manner that is  useful for congressional decision making.
To help ensure that executive branch performance information is useful to  Congress for its decision making, congressional involvement on what to  measure and how to present this information is critical. Recognizing this,  Congress updated the statutory framework for performance management  in the federal government, the Government Performance and Results Act  of 1993 (GPRA), with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA),  which significantly enhances the requirements for agencies to consult  with Congress when establishing or adjusting governmentwide and  agency goals. Specifically, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  is required to consult with relevant committees with broad jurisdiction on  crosscutting priority goals. Agencies are to consult with their relevant  appropriations, authorization, and oversight committees when developing  or making adjustments to their strategic plans and agency priority goals.
This guide, prepared at your request, is intended to assist Members of  Congress and their staffs in (1) ensuring the consultations required under  GPRAMA are useful to the Congress and (2) using performance  information produced by executive branch agencies in carrying out  various congressional decision-making responsibilities, such as  authorizing programs or provisions in the tax code, making  appropriations, developing budgets, and providing oversight.
To develop the guide, we reviewed consultation requirements specified in  the act, as well as the related intent, and identified general approaches  for successful consultations by reviewing our prior reports, observing a  recent consultation between agency officials and congressional  committee staff, and interviewing officials from several selected agencies  about their past consultation experiences. To illustrate how Congress can  use performance information, we selected three case studies from our  prior work in which Congress played an active role in contributing to and  overseeing agency efforts to improve performance. The case studies  cover federal efforts to  transform the processing of immigration benefits;  coordinate U.S. efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; and  identify and address improper payments made by federal programs.
In addition, we recently provided briefings to various congressional staff  on several other case studies. In compiling these examples, we reviewed  legislation, related congressional documents, our related past work, as  well as that conducted by agency inspectors general.
We conducted our work from December 2010 to June 2012 in  accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that  are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and  perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to  meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We  believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis  conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in  this product.
We are sending copies of this guide to interested congressional  committees and the Director of OMB. In addition, the guide is available at  no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this guide, please contact  me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this guide  are listed in appendix II.
subsections: section_title: Introduction to the Guide
paragraphs: Performance information can cover a range of related topics, including  the results the federal government should seek to achieve, how those  results will be achieved, how progress will be measured, and how results  will be reported. To ensure that their performance information will be  both useful and used by decision makers, agencies need to consider the  differing information needs of various users—including those in Congress.  As we have previously reported, agency performance information must  meet Congress’s needs for completeness, accuracy, validity, timeliness,  and ease of use to be useful for congressional decision making. As  noted in our past work, several requirements put into place by GPRAMA  could help address those needs.
Completeness: Agencies often lack information on the effectiveness  of programs; such information could help decision makers prioritize  resources among programs. Our work on overlap and duplication has  found crosscutting areas where performance information is limited or  does not exist. The crosscutting planning and reporting requirements  could lead to the development of performance information in areas  that are currently incomplete.
Accuracy and validity: Agencies are required to disclose more  information about the accuracy and validity of their performance  information in their performance plans and reports, including the  sources for their data and actions to address limitations to the data.
Timeliness and ease of use: Quarterly reporting for cross-agency and  agency priority goals, along with posting much of the governmentwide  and agency performance information on a central, governmentwide  website, will provide more timely, accessible, and easy-to-use  information.
subsections: section_title: How to Use This Guide
paragraphs: Section I describes how Members of Congress and their staffs can  influence the development of performance information that meets  congressional needs through consultations with executive branch  agencies. This section identifies the requirements for these consultations,  as well as the related congressional intent. In appendix I, the guide  presents key questions that Members and congressional staff can ask as  part of the consultation to ensure that agency performance information  reflects congressional priorities. Finally, this section provides general  approaches for ensuring consultations are successful.
Section II illustrates how Congress can use performance information in its  various legislative and oversight decision making activities to identify  issues to address, measure the federal government’s progress towards  addressing those issues, and when necessary, identify better strategies  to address those issues. In this section, three case studies demonstrate  how Congress has used performance information to inform its decision  making in these different ways.
section_title: How We Developed This Guide
paragraphs: This guide builds upon a large body of work we have conducted during  the past two decades related to performance management in the federal  government. This includes a number of products focused on enhancing  the usefulness and use of performance information in congressional  decision making, including our recent briefings to congressional staff on  opportunities for Congress to address government performance issues.
To identify how Congress can use the consultations required under  GPRAMA, we identified requirements specified in the act, as well as the  intent of these requirements as reported by the Senate Committee on   Additionally, we identified  Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. illustrative questions Congress can ask during consultations and general  approaches for successful consultations by reviewing our prior reports.  We determined whether the approaches identified in a past report have  remained relevant through several means. This included observing—at  the invitation of congressional committee staff—a recent consultation with  agency officials, and interviewing performance improvement and  legislative affairs officials from several selected agencies about their past  consultation experiences. We also gathered the views of current and  former congressional and agency staff who participated in a forum held  on July 5, 2011, by the National Academy of Public Administration on  structuring collaboration between Congress and the executive branch on  reporting, receiving, and using performance information. Our samples  are nongeneralizeable given the methods used to select the  congressional staff and agency officials involved in the consultation,  interviews, and forum.
To illustrate how Congress can use performance information produced by  agencies to carry out its responsibilities, we selected three case studies  from our prior work in which Congress played an active role in  contributing to and overseeing agency efforts to improve performance.  The case studies cover federal efforts to  transform the processing of immigration benefits;  coordinate U.S. efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; and  identify and address improper payments made by federal programs.
In compiling these examples, we reviewed legislation, related  congressional documents, and our related past work as well as that  conducted by agency inspectors general. The case studies are based on  publicly available information and are not intended to represent a  complete list of all legislative and oversight activities conducted by  Congress, but rather illustrate the types of activities that Congress has  engaged in when using performance information. Although they focus on  congressional activities, the progress and results achieved in these  examples are due in part to the sustained attention and oversight of both  the executive branch and Congress.
We conducted our work from December 2010 to June 2012 in  accordance with all sections of GAO’s Quality Assurance Framework that  are relevant to our objectives. The framework requires that we plan and  perform the engagement to obtain sufficient and appropriate evidence to  meet our stated objectives and to discuss any limitations in our work. We  believe that the information and data obtained, and the analysis  conducted, provide a reasonable basis for any findings and conclusions in  this product.
section_title: Section I: Consultations Provide Congress with Opportunities to Influence Development of Executive Branch Performance Information That Is Useful for Decision Making
subsections: section_title: Consultations Are Intended to Strengthen Collaboration between the Congress and Federal Agencies
paragraphs: GPRAMA requires OMB and agencies to consult with relevant  committees, obtaining majority and minority views, about proposed goals  at least once every 2 years. Specifically, OMB is required to consult with  relevant committees with broad jurisdiction on crosscutting priority goals.Agencies are to consult with their relevant appropriations, authorization,  and oversight committees when developing or making adjustments to  their strategic plans and agency priority goals. The act also requires  OMB, on a governmentwide website, and agencies, in their strategic  plans, to describe how input provided during consultations was  incorporated into the crosscutting priority goals and agency goals,  respectively. performance and confirm that various committees are getting the types of  performance information they need.
In appendix I, we provide an illustrative list of questions that Members of  Congress and their staffs can use during consultations to help ensure  they provide input on key aspects of an agency’s performance  information.
section_title: Creating Shared Expectations and Engaging the Right People at the Right Time Can Help Ensure Consultations Are Successful
paragraphs: Consultations provide an important opportunity for Congress and the  executive branch to work together to ensure that agency missions are  focused, goals are specific and results-oriented, and strategies and  funding expectations are appropriate and reasonable. Willingness on the  part of Congress and the administration to work together is a likely  precondition to successful consultations. Discussions between the  executive and legislative branches about performance are likely to  underscore the competing and conflicting goals of many federal  programs, as well as sometimes differing expectations between the  branches. In addition, the historical relationships between an agency and  Congress, the strategic issues facing the agency, and the degree of  policy agreement or disagreement within Congress and between  Congress and the administration on those issues will influence the way  consultations are carried out. Although constructive communication  across the branches of government can prove difficult, it is essential for  sustaining federal performance improvement efforts.
subsections: section_title: Create Shared Expectations
subsections: section_title: Tailor Consultations and Information Provided to Meet Participants’ Needs
paragraphs: however, shared a view that consultations were to focus on strategic  plans, not issues related to specific programs. As a result, these agency  officials said they wanted discussions kept at a higher level—for example,  on the agency’s mission and strategic goals. While neither of these views  is necessarily right or wrong, these expressed differences highlight the  need to create shared expectations about what will be covered during  consultation sessions.
Committee staff also told us that they encouraged agencies to provide  them with relevant documents, including drafts of strategic plans, before  the meetings. This enabled them to prepare questions and suggestions in  advance. It also helped them focus on presentations and discussions  taking place during the meetings by eliminating the need to read and  respond to the documents at the same time. Another committee staff  member stressed the importance of limiting the materials provided to  those most critical, because congressional staff workloads constrain the  time available to read such documents. Agency officials we spoke with  echoed these views and stated that they provided congressional staff with  draft materials in advance. For example, an official from one agency told  us that he provided the agency’s strategic plan framework—its mission  and goals—in lieu of the entire draft plan, which helped focus the  consultation on overarching policy issues and the agency’s long-term  goals.
Successful consultations can create a basic understanding among  stakeholders of the competing demands that confront most agencies and  congressional staff, the limited resources available to them, and how  those demands and resources require careful and continuous balancing.  The requirement under GPRAMA for agencies to consult with Congress  on the identification of priority goals presents an opportunity to develop  such an understanding, especially given Congress’s constitutional role in  setting national priorities and allocating the resources to achieve them.  Several agency officials told us that feedback provided by Members and  congressional staff on their agencies’ overarching goals and strategies  helped them understand congressional priorities.
section_title: Engage the Right People at the Right Time
subsections: section_title: Be Open to an Iterative Process, Engaging Congress at the Appropriate Times
paragraphs: us that consultations were most useful if they began early, during the  drafting of the strategic plan. Congress also emphasized this point in the  report accompanying GPRAMA. One agency official stated that getting  congressional input at the beginning of the process gave the agency time  to reconcile any differences in opinion on the agency’s direction. Agency  officials also cautioned against waiting too long to consult with Congress.  Officials from two agencies shared similar past experiences in which they  provided a full draft strategic plan for congressional review, which was the  extent of their consultation process. In both cases, the agencies received  little or no feedback. As a result, both now consult earlier in the process.  However, officials told us it was still important to share the draft plan for  comment later in the process.
Congressional staff and agency officials agreed that consultations should  begin at the staff level—that is, without Members of Congress and agency  top leadership—and involve agency officials with varying responsibilities.  Both congressional committee staff and agency officials stressed the  importance of having agency officials who can answer specific program- related questions attend, as well as those with authority to revise the  agency’s plans. Examples include the performance improvement officer,  staff from policy and program areas, and representatives from the  legislative affairs office. According to committee staff members, the  involvement of program officials is more likely to ensure that consultations  are informative for both Congress and the agency.
As the consultations proceed, the involvement of Members of Congress  and agency leadership is important because they are ultimately  responsible for making decisions about the agency’s strategic direction  and funding. Officials from one agency told us that they thought the  involvement of their top leaders in consultations with Members of  Congress and their staff has helped their agency receive attention from  Congress. For example, they shared that it has helped raise awareness  and a better understanding in Congress of the challenges the agency  faces. In addition to participating in consultations, congressional staff  suggested several ways in which Members could be involved in agency  performance management efforts. For example, Members could send  letters to agencies posing questions on strategic plans and formally  documenting their views on key issues. Another staff member said that  hearings are important because not only do they result in Member  involvement, but they also require the participation of senior agency  leaders. Holding hearings following consultation sessions can create a  public record of agreements reached during those sessions and provide  oversight on agency performance planning efforts.
section_title: To the Extent Practicable, Conduct Bipartisan Consultations and Coordinate across Committees and Chambers
paragraphs: Congressional staff and agency officials generally agreed that  consultations ideally should be bipartisan and bicameral to help ensure  involvement from all relevant parties. Although it may not always be  possible, agency officials told us that they attempted to arrange such  sessions, as appropriate. When these agencies were successful in doing  so—as was the case with two agencies, according to officials with whom  we spoke—it was with majority and minority staff from corresponding  committees across the chambers (e.g., appropriations subcommittees).
In addition, to the extent feasible, consultations should be held jointly with  relevant authorizing, appropriations, budget, and oversight committees.  Committee staff recognized that, due to sometimes overlapping  jurisdictions, obtaining the involvement of all interested congressional  committees in a coordinated approach can be challenging. However, the  often overlapping or fragmented nature of federal programs—a problem  that has been extensively documented in our work—underscores the  importance of a coordinated consultation process. For example, in an  attempt to address this issue during initial implementation of GPRA in  1997, the House leadership formed teams of congressional staff from  different committees to have a direct role in the consultation process.
section_title: Section II: Case Studies Illustrate How Congress Uses Performance Information to Inform Its Decision Making
paragraphs: Performance information can be used to inform congressional decisions  about authorizing or reauthorizing federal programs, provisions in the tax  code, and other activities; appropriating funds; and developing budget  resolutions. In this section, three case studies demonstrate how Congress  has used performance information to inform its decision making  1.  to identify issues that the federal government should address;  2.  to measure the federal government’s progress toward addressing  3.  when necessary, to identify better strategies to address the issues.
The case studies cover efforts to  transform the processing of immigration benefits;  coordinate U.S. efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic; and  identify and address improper payments made by federal programs.
These case studies—as well as those included in our recent briefingsalso demonstrate how Congress can assist agencies in developing and  achieving performance goals. For example, in many of these examples,  Congress set clear expectations for agency performance, required routine  reporting on progress, and provided consistent oversight over a sustained  period of time. When an agency fell short of meeting established goals,  Congress examined whether additional authority would help the agency  meet the goal and, when needed, provided such authority. In one case  study, Congress required an agency to develop and submit a strategic  plan prior to receiving a portion of its appropriations.
subsections: section_title: Performance Information Can Help Congress Identify Issues to Address
paragraphs: Members of Congress, congressional committees and staff can use  performance information about the outcomes of federal programs to  identify pressing issues for the federal government to address. The  transformation of the United States Citizenship and Immigration  Services’s (USCIS) benefits processing illustrates how information on an  agency’s performance helped Congress identify issues to address and  act upon.
subsections: section_title: Case Illustration: Transforming USCIS’s Processing of Benefits
paragraphs: USCIS, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),  adjudicates benefits requests and petitions for individuals seeking to  become citizens of the United States or to study, live, or work in this  country. Our past work, and that of the DHS Office of Inspector General  (OIG), has identified performance challenges USCIS faces in processing  benefits. For example, a 2005 DHS OIG report found that USCIS’s ability  to annually process more than 7 million benefit applications has been  hindered by inefficient, paper-based processes, resulting in a backlog that  peaked in 2004 at more than 3.8 million cases. Recognizing that  dependence on paper files makes it difficult to process immigration  benefits efficiently, USCIS began a transformation initiative in 2005 to  transition to electronic processing to enhance customer service, improve  efficiency, and prevent future backlogs of immigration benefit  applications.
Recognizing the importance of this transformation initiative, Congress  provided USCIS with $181,990,000 in appropriations in fiscal year 2007, which included, according to the Conference Committee report, $47  million to upgrade its information technology and business systems.  However, before USCIS could obligate this funding, Congress directed  the agency to submit a strategic transformation plan and expenditure plan  with details on expected performance and deliverables. Congress also  directed us to review and report to the appropriations committees on the  plans. According to a House Committee on Appropriations report that  accompanied the act, the committee wanted to ensure that USCIS’s  transformation efforts were consistent with best practices. In May 2007,  USCIS submitted its Transformation Program Strategic Plan and  Expenditure Plan to the appropriations committees. We briefed the  committees in June and July 2007 on our review, which found that  USCIS’s plans had mixed success in addressing key practices for  organizational transformations. As illustrated in table 1, more than half of  the key practices (five out of nine) were either partially or not addressed.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120  Stat. 1355, 1374 (2006).
Our report noted that more attention was needed in a number of  management-related activities, including performance measurement.
USCIS took several actions to ensure top  leadership drove the transformation, such as  establishing a Transformation Program Office that  directly reports to the USCIS Deputy Director.
USCIS established a mission, vision, and strategic  goals in its Strategic Plan that could have been  used to guide the transformation.
USCIS identified priorities and a succinct set of  core values with which to guide the transformation  and help build a new agencywide culture.
USCIS established high-level implementation  goals and a timeline for the transformation, but  had not shared them with all employees and  stakeholders, a step that would have helped build  momentum and illustrate progress.
USCIS dedicated an implementation team to  manage the transformation and involved  stakeholders on an as-needed basis; however, its  Federal Stakeholder Advisory Board had not yet  convened.
USCIS was not using its performance  management system to define expectations and  hold employees accountable for the  transformation.
USCIS completed an initial communication  strategy and began exchanging information with  employees and stakeholders. However, the  strategy for 2008 and beyond was not clearly  defined, and lacked an effective approach for  communicating with stakeholders.
USCIS took several steps to involve employees in  the transformation, and was planning for  additional involvement as the transformation  progressed.
USCIS was conducting benchmarking research to  identify leading business processes, but its plans  did not adequately consider information  technology management controls, strategic  human capital management, and performance  measurement to build a world-class organization.
Since then, Congress has continued to provide oversight on, and raise  concerns about the performance of, USCIS’s transformation initiative,  which is ongoing. For example, several committees held at least six  hearings related to USCIS’s transformation plan from 2007 to 2011,  including appropriations hearings in 2008 and 2010 during which  committee members expressed concerns about USCIS not meeting its  goals for timely processing of applications and implementing its  transformation plan. In February 2011, the Ranking Member of the  Senate Committee on the Judiciary—which has jurisdiction over  immigration issues—wrote a letter to the Director of USCIS expressing  concern over reported delays and cost increases for completing the  transformation and requested a briefing on the effort. In addition, in  response to congressional requests, we have reviewed aspects of  USCIS’s implementation of its transformation plan. For example, in  September 2011 we reported that while USCIS had improved the quality  and efficiency of the immigration benefit administration process and  strengthened its immigration fraud detection and deterrence efforts, the  agency’s efforts to modernize its benefit processing infrastructure and  business practices missed planned milestones by more than two years.  In November 2011, we reported that a lack of defined requirements, an  acquisition strategy, and associated cost parameters contributed to the  delays and noted that consistent adherence to DHS’s acquisition policy  could help improve USCIS’ transformation program outcomes. In  particular, we reported that USCIS was managing the program without  specific acquisition management controls, such as reliable schedules,  which detail work to be performed by both the government and its  contractor over the expected life of the program. As a result, we found  that USCIS does not have reasonable assurance that it can meet its  future milestones. We made three recommendations aimed at ensuring  that USCIS takes a comprehensive and cost-effective approach to the  development and deployment of transformation efforts to meet the  agency’s goals of improved adjudications and customer services  processes. In its comments on our report, DHS reported that USCIS is  taking action to address each recommendation.
section_title: Performance Information Can Be Used to Measure the Federal Government’s Progress toward Addressing Issues
paragraphs: After identifying issues, Congress has established expectations for the  level of performance to be achieved by federal agencies and programs,  and regular reporting on results. As highlighted in our case study on  efforts to address the global HIV/AIDS pandemic, setting clear goals— with target levels of performance and timeframes for achieving them— and expectations for periodic progress reports helped Congress sustain  attention on improving results over the course of several years.
subsections: section_title: Case Illustration: Coordinating U.S. Efforts to Address the Global HIV/AIDS Pandemic
paragraphs: In 2003, Congress found that HIV/AIDS had reached pandemic  proportions during the previous 20 years, and that by the end of 2002, an  estimated 42 million individuals were infected with HIV or living with  AIDS. In addition, Congress found that the U.S. government had the  capacity to lead and enhance the effectiveness of the international  community’s response, but it required strong coordination among various  agencies to ensure the effective and efficient use of financial and  technical resources to provide international HIV/AIDS assistance.  However, at that time, the U.S. government funded separate HIV/AIDS  foreign assistance programs in several agencies as well as directly to the  Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. To address these  issues, Congress authorized a 5-year initiative—also known as the  President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR—to establish a  comprehensive, integrated 5-year strategy to fight global HIV/AIDS.  Congress authorized up to $15 billion in funding and created a  streamlined U.S. approach to global HIV/AIDS treatment by coordinating  and deploying federal agencies and resources through a single entity: the  Office of the U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) within the  Department of State. “So far we can say that this critically important legislation is working. It has supplied  lifesaving antiretroviral therapy to more than 800,000 adults and children, provided  invaluable testing and counseling for 19 million, supported essential services to prevent  mother-to-child transmission to more than 6 million women and served 4.5 million people  with desperately needed care and support. These numbers represent solid progress  toward the program’s stated 5-year goal of 5 million treated with antiretrovirals, 7 million  infections averted and care provided to 10 million patients.”
PEPFAR: An Assessment of Progress and Challenges, Hearing before the H. Comm. on  Foreign Affairs, 110th Cong. 2 (2007) (statement by Chairman Tom Lantos).
Pub. L. No. 110-293, 122 Stat. 2918 (2008). support care for 12 million people infected with or affected by  HIV/AIDS, including 5 million orphans and vulnerable children affected  by HIV/AIDS.
Since then, Congress has continued to monitor progress towards the  updated goals. For example, in September 2010, the House Committee  on Foreign Affairs held another hearing assessing PEPFAR’s progress  and challenges in addressing the global HIV/AIDS pandemic. In addition,   reviewing various aspects of PEPFAR— we have issued several reports such as the selection and oversight of organizations implementing  PEPFAR activities and global HIV/AIDS program monitoring—in response  to directives contained in the 2008 Leadership Act and the Consolidated  Appropriations Act of 2008.
section_title: Performance Information Can Help Identify Better Strategies to Address Issues
paragraphs: Finally, Members of Congress, congressional committees, and staff can  assess whether existing strategies are the most efficient and effective  means for agencies to meet their goals. Analyzing existing performance  information can help identify new strategies that could lead to improved  results. As the case study on addressing improper payments shows,  when it is clear that agencies are not meeting performance expectations,  Congress has provided agencies with additional authorities and required  alternate approaches to achieve results.
subsections: section_title: Case Illustration: Identifying and Addressing Improper Payments
paragraphs: occur. Since fiscal year 2000, we have issued a number of reports and  testimonies, at the request of Congress, aimed at raising the level of  attention and corrective actions surrounding improper payments. Our  work has highlighted long-standing, widespread, and significant problems  with improper payments across the federal government. For example, we  reported in 2000 that the full extent of improper payments  governmentwide remained largely unknown, hampering efforts to reduce  such payments since many agencies did not attempt to identify or  estimate improper payments while others only did so for certain  programs. To help address these issues, Congress passed the  Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 (IPIA), which requires  executive branch agencies to (1) identify programs and activities  susceptible to significant improper payments, (2) estimate the amount of  improper payments for those programs and activities, and (3) report these  estimates along with actions taken to reduce improper payments for  programs with estimates that exceed $10 million. implementation to date.rose substantially from 2004 to 2008, the first 5 fiscal years of IPIA  implementation, we reported that this was a positive step in improving  transparency over the full magnitude of the federal government’s  improper payments as more agencies and more programs reported  estimates over time (see figure 1). In addition, of the 35 agency programs  that reported estimates in each of the 5 fiscal years, 24 of them (or about  69 percent) reported reduced error rates when comparing 2008 rates to  those in 2004. However, we identified several major challenges that  remained in meeting the goals of IPIA, including that   Although reported improper payment estimates  the total estimates reported in fiscal year 2008 did not reflect the full  scope of improper payments across federal agencies; noncompliance issues with IPIA implementation existed; and agencies continued to face challenges in the design or  implementation of internal controls to identify and prevent improper  payments.
We also noted that separate assessments by agency auditors, such as  GAO or inspectors general, would help to reliably determine the scope of  any deficiencies in, and provide a valuable independent validation of,  agencies’ efforts to implement IPIA. million in annual program outlays. In the first year of IPERA  implementation, fiscal year 2011, 17 agencies reported an estimated  $115 billion in improper payments for 79 programs—a decrease of about  $5 billion from revised fiscal year 2010 estimates. In addition, OMB  reported that agencies recaptured about $1.25 billion in improper  payments to contractors, vendors, and health care providers in fiscal year  2011. As we recently reported, OMB also identified improper payments as  an area covered by one of 14 interim crosscutting priority goals in the  President’s Budget for fiscal year 2013. The particular goal is to reduce  the governmentwide improper payment rate by at least 2 percentage  points by fiscal year 2014, from 5.42 percent in 2009, and applies to all  federal programs that annually report improper payment estimates.
section_title: Appendix I: Illustrative Questions to Assist Congress in Focusing Consultations on Key Issues
paragraphs: We have previously reported that consultations provide an opportunity for  Congress to influence  1.  what results agencies should seek to achieve (long-term and annual  2.  how those results will be achieved, including how an agency’s efforts  are aligned and coordinated with other related efforts (strategies and  resources);  3.  how to measure progress given the complexity of federal programs  and activities (performance measures); and  4.  how to report on results (reporting).
Table 2 presents examples of questions that Members of Congress and  their staffs can ask on strategic plans and related performance issues— during consultations with agencies or in other venues such as hearings— to help ensure that the associated performance information meets their  needs and expectations.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above contact, Elizabeth Curda, Assistant Director;  Benjamin T. Licht; and Megan M. Taylor made significant contributions to  this guide. Todd M. Anderson, Kathryn Bernet, Carla Brown, Gerard  Burke, Virginia A. Chanley, Beryl H. Davis, Rebecca Gambler, David  Gootnick, Nancy Kingsbury, Susan Offutt, James Michels, Stephanie  Shipman, Katherine Siggerud, Bernice Steinhardt, Andrew J. Stephens,  Jack Warner, and Dan Webb also made key contributions.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to Address  Government Performance Issues. GAO-12-215R. Washington, D.C.:  December 9, 2011.
Managing for Results: GPRA Modernization Act Implementation Provides  Important Opportunities to Address Government Challenges.  GAO-11-617T. Washington, D.C.: May 10, 2011.
Government Performance: GPRA Modernization Act Provides  Opportunities to Help Address Fiscal, Performance, and Management  Challenges. GAO-11-466T. Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2011.
Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and  Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government. GAO-09-1011T.  Washington, D.C.: September 24, 2009.
Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration  on Using Performance Information to Improve Results. GAO-08-1026T.  Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008.
Congressional Oversight: FAA Case Study Shows How Agency  Performance, Budgeting, and Financial Information Could Enhance  Oversight. GAO-06-378. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 2006.
Performance Budgeting: PART Focuses Attention on Program  Performance, but More Can Be Done to Engage Congress. GAO-06-28.  Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.
Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance  Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927. Washington,  D.C.: September 9, 2005.
Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid  Foundation for Achieving Greater Results. GAO-04-38. Washington, D.C.:  March 10, 2004.
Managing for Results: Views on Ensuring the Usefulness of Agency  Performance Information to Congress. GAO/GGD-00-35. Washington,  D.C.: January 26, 2000.
Managing for Results: Enhancing the Usefulness of GPRA Consultations  Between the Executive Branch and Congress. GAO/T-GGD-97-56.  Washington, D.C.: March 10, 1997.
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and  Executive Branch Decisionmaking. GAO/T-GGD-97-43. Washington,  D.C.: February 12, 1997.
Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong  Congressional Role. GAO/T-GGD-96-79. Washington, D.C.: March 6,  1996.
Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress.  GAO/PEMD-95-1. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1995.