Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies
Published: 2001-05-25T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: For federal agencies to become high-performing organizations, top management needs to foster performance-based cultures, find ways to measure performance, and use performance information to make decisions. GAO's survey of federal managers found wide differences in how well individual agencies demonstrated a results-based climate. However, transforming organizational cultures is an arduous and long-term effort. Managers' responses suggest that although some agencies are clearly showing signs of becoming high-performing organizations, others are not. The survey provides important information that agency leadership can use to build higher-performing organizations throughout government. GAO will continue to work with senior leadership in the individual agencies to help address the issues raised by their managers in responding to the survey. Congress has a vital role to play as well. As part of its confirmation, oversight, authorization, and appropriation responsibilities, Congress could use the information from GAO's survey, as well as information from agencies' performance plans and reports and GAO's January 2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk Series, to emphasize performance-based management and to underscore Congress' commitment to addressing long-standing challenges.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: During the past decade, Congress has sought to encourage a greater focus  on results and improve federal management by enacting a results-oriented  statutory framework with the Government Performance and Results Act of  1993 (GPRA) as its centerpiece.  Performance-based management, as  envisioned by GPRA, requires transforming organizational cultures to  improve decisionmaking, maximize performance, and assure  accountability.  This transformation is not an easy one and requires  investments of time and resources as well as sustained leadership  commitment and attention.  In that regard, our January 2001 Performance  and Accountability Series and High-Risk Series described the major  management challenges and program risks at major agencies.  Addressing  these challenges is central to agencies’ effectively, efficiently, and  economically accomplishing their missions and achieving better results for  the benefit of the American people.
At your request, in calendar year 2000, we surveyed a statistically  representative sample of managers and supervisors across the federal  government on their experiences with and perceptions about performance  and management issues as a follow-up to a survey we did in 1996-97 (1997  survey), when governmentwide implementation of GPRA was about to  begin.  In October 2000, as one part of our response to your request, we  reported to you on selected governmentwide results of our 2000 survey with comparisons to governmentwide results of our 1997 survey.  On the  basis of those results, we reported that managers’ experiences and  perceptions as reflected in our 2000 survey indicated some positive  changes since our 1997 survey, but there were still many areas where such  changes had not occurred.
In contrast to the sample for our 1997 survey, the sample for the 2000  survey allowed for individual agency analyses.  Thus, as the next part of our  response to your request, the specific objective of this report is to provide  results from our 2000 survey of federal managers for each of the 28  agencies included in our survey for selected items regarding results- oriented agency climate, measurement of program performance, and use of  performance information to make decisions that our work looking at high- performing organizations has found to be relevant to the success of those  organizations.  In subsequent reports, we plan to continue to explore the  relationships among survey responses to identify areas where agencies can  take specific actions to foster a greater focus on results.
Our 2000 sample was a stratified random sample of 3,816 out of a  population of about 93,000 full-time, mid- and upper-level civilian managers  and supervisors in 28 executive branch departments and agencies.  We  drew the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM)  Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) using file designators indicating  performance of managerial and supervisory functions.  Our sample  included both Senior Executive Service (SES) and non-SES managers and  supervisors in General Schedule (GS), General Management (GM), or  equivalent schedules, at levels comparable to GS/GM-13 through career  SES.  Our overall response rate was about 70 percent of the resulting  eligible sample, ranging from 59 percent to 82 percent at the 28 agencies.
The survey results are generalizable to the 28 departments and agencies.   All reported percentages are estimates based on the sample and are subject  to some sampling error as well as nonsampling error.  Unless otherwise  noted, figures 1 through 14 and related discussions provide analyses of the  percentage of managers at each of the 28 agencies choosing “to a great  extent” or “to a very great extent” on a five-point response scale ranging  from “to no extent” to “to a very great extent.”  These figures do not show  when individual agencies are statistically significantly different from each  other.  However, we do note when differences between 1997 and 2000  governmentwide data are statistically significant.  Also, in our discussions  of agency-specific data in appendixes II through XXIX, we note when an  agency is statistically significantly different from the rest of the  government.  An expanded description of the scope and methodology for  our 2000 survey is included in appendix I.  We conducted our work between  January 1999 and March 2001 in accordance with generally accepted  government auditing standards.
It is important to keep in mind that the survey data included in this report  represent managers’ views at a certain point in time.  As such, the actions,  if any, that individual agencies may need to take in response to the survey  results need to be considered within the context of the challenges that  agency faces and ongoing and planned efforts to transform its culture.   Nevertheless, the survey results provide important data on the views of  agency managers that agency leaders, other executive branch officials, and  Congress can use to strengthen the performance of government, improve  the quality and timeliness of services to citizens, and address longstanding  management challenges and program risks.
subsections: section_title: Agencies Face Challenges in Instilling Aspects of Agency Climate That Contribute to Performance-Based Cultures
paragraphs: High-performing organizations reinforce a focus on results through  demonstrated top leadership commitment, through positive recognition to  employees for their contributions to organizational goals, and by holding  managers accountable for results while giving them the necessary  decisionmaking authority to achieve them.  Our survey data suggest that  across the 28 agencies there are ample opportunities to better instill these  key attributes of a performance-based culture.
subsections: section_title: Demonstrated Top Leadership Commitment to Achieving Results
paragraphs: Successfully addressing the challenges that federal agencies face in  becoming high-performing organizations requires agency leaders who are  fully committed to achieving results.  Top leadership’s commitment to  achieving results is essential in driving continuous improvement to achieve  excellence throughout an agency and inspiring employees to accomplish  challenging goals.  Without clear and demonstrated commitment of agency  leadership—both political and career—organizational cultures will not be  transformed, and new visions and ways of doing business will not take  root.
However, the responses of many managers in the 28 agencies did not  indicate a strong perception that their agencies’ top leadership  demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving results.  Managers’  positive responses across the 28 individual agencies varied widely from a  low at FAA (23 percent) to 3 times that percentage at NSF (69 percent), as  shown in figure 1.  Specifically, at only four agencies—NSF, the Social  Security Administration (SSA), NASA, and NRC—did more that two-thirds  of managers perceive such commitment to a great or very great extent.  At  11 agencies, less than half of the managers perceived that there was such a  degree of commitment.
The clear and demonstrated top leadership commitment needed to sustain  high levels of performance is not widely perceived among managers across  the government overall and progress in fostering such leadership has  remained stagnant.  Governmentwide, our survey results show that in 2000,  just over half of managers—53 percent—reported strong top leadership  commitment, while 57 percent had this perception in 1997—not a  statistically significant change.
section_title: Positive Recognition for Helping Accomplish Strategic Goals
paragraphs: Incentives are important in steering an agency’s workforce to high levels of  performance and they are critical to establishing a results-oriented  management environment.  A key element in agencies’ efforts to achieve  results is their ability to motivate and reward their employees for  supporting results through effective incentives, such as positive  recognition.
However, both our agency-specific and governmentwide survey results  suggest that positive recognition has not been an extensively used  technique for motivating employees.  On an individual agency basis, there  are no agencies that stand out as notable at the top of the range for  providing positive recognition to employees for helping the agency  accomplish its strategic goals.  The percentage of managers responding to a  great or very great extent at the 28 agencies ranged from 12 percent at FAA  to 52 percent at GSA.  Even at the top of the range, the percentage of  managers who reported that employees received such positive recognition  barely exceeded 50 percent at GSA and SBA.  At 14 of the 28 agencies  surveyed, less than one-third of managers perceived that employees in their  agencies were receiving positive recognition to at least a great extent for  contributing to the achievement of agency goals.  (See fig. 2.)
Governmentwide, few managers (31 percent) reported in 2000 that  employees in their agencies received positive recognition to a great or very  great extent for helping their agencies accomplish their strategic goals.   This was not a statistically significant change from the 26 percent reporting  this extent of positive recognition in 1997.  Because effective incentive  programs can help federal agencies maximize the results they achieve by  both reinforcing personal accountability for high performance and  motivating and rewarding employees, the results of our survey suggest that  in most cases agencies are missing opportunities to positively affect  program results through more widespread use of effective positive  recognition techniques.
section_title: Accountability for Results and Necessary Decisionmaking Authority to Achieve Them
paragraphs: Agencies need to create organizational cultures that involve employees and  empower them to improve operational and program performance while  ensuring accountability and fairness for those employees.  Devolving  decisionmaking authority to program managers in combination with  holding them accountable for results is one of the most powerful incentives  for encouraging results-based management.  Additionally, providing  managers with such authority gives those who know the most about an  agency’s programs the power to make those programs work.
The range of responses across individual agencies regarding managers  being held accountable for the results of their programs to a great or very  great extent ranged from a low of 40 percent at the Forest Service to 79  percent at HUD.  At 22 of the 28 agencies included in our survey, more than  50 percent of managers reported such accountability, with 66 percent or  more at 10 of these agencies reporting such accountability.  (See fig. 3.)
In comparison, for each of the individual agencies included in our survey,  the percentage of managers who reported that they had, to a great or very  great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help their  agencies accomplish their strategic goals ranged from 15 percent at IRS to  58 percent at OPM.  At only one agency—OPM—was the percentage of  managers reporting that they had the decisionmaking authority they  needed above 50 percent.  In fact, at 10 of the 28 agencies, only one-third or  less of managers responded that they had such decisionmaking authority.   (See fig. 4.)
The differences reflected in managers’ responses to our questions on  authority and accountability suggest that many agencies can better balance  accountability for results with the authority needed to help achieve agency  goals.  For managers at 27 agencies, the percentage reporting that they  were held accountable for results exceeded the percentage reporting that  they had the authority they needed.  At 16 of these 27 agencies, the  percentage by which being held accountable exceeded having the authority  needed was more than 20 percent.  At only one agency—the Forest  Service—were the percentages approximately equal.  However, they were  not very high, with the percentage of Forest Service managers responding  positively at 41 percent for authority and at 40 percent for accountability.
Governmentwide, the differences between the level of accountability and  the level of authority managers perceived was great in both our 1997 and  2000 surveys.  In 2000, 63 percent of federal managers overall reported that  they were held accountable for program results but only 36 percent  reported that they had the decisionmaking authority they needed to help  their agencies accomplish their strategic goals.  These percentages were  not statistically significantly different than those from our 1997 survey,  when 55 percent of managers reported such accountability for results while  31 percent reported such decisionmaking authority,  We recently reported that several agencies have begun to use results- oriented performance agreements for their senior political and career  executives to define accountability for specific goals, monitor progress  during the year, and then contribute to performance evaluations.  Although  each agency developed and implemented agreements that reflected its  specific organizational priorities, structure, and culture, we identified  common emerging benefits from each agency’s use of performance  agreements.  For example, the Veterans Health Administration (VHA)  decentralized its management structure from 4 regions to 22 Veterans  Integrated Service Networks (VISN).  VHA gave each VISN substantial  operational autonomy and established performance goals in the  agreements to hold network and medical center directors accountable for  achieving performance improvements.  Senior VHA officials we spoke to as  part of that review credit the use of performance agreements to  improvements in key organizational goals.
section_title: Survey Responses Indicate That the Types of Measures Managers Had To Gauge Program Performance Varied
paragraphs: A fundamental element in an organization’s efforts to manage for results is  its ability to set meaningful goals for performance and to measure  performance against those goals.  High-performing, results-oriented  organizations establish a set of measures to gauge progress over various  dimensions of performance.  As discussed in our January 2001  Performance and Accountability Series, a major challenge that agencies  face in implementing GPRA is articulating and reinforcing a results  orientation.  Encouragingly, more managers overall reported having  performance measures in 2000 than in 1997.  Specifically, 84 percent of  federal managers governmentwide said they had performance measures for  the programs they were involved with, a statistically significant increase  over the 76 percent of managers who responded that way in 1997.  The  degree to which managers reported having each of the five types of  performance measures we asked about—outcome, output, customer  service, quality, and efficiency—varied by agency.  However, managers’  responses at most federal agencies showed that they still may have room  for improvement in this regard.
subsections: section_title: Outcome and Output Measures
paragraphs: Output measures that tell how many things are produced or services  provided are an essential management tool in managing programs for  results, but they represent only one basic dimension in the measurement of  program performance.  Rather, it is outcome measures that demonstrate  whether or not program goals are being achieved and gauge the ultimate  success of government programs.  Collectively, managers’ responses across  the 28 agencies suggest a need for further emphasizing and developing both  outcome and output measures to address the multidimensional aspects of  performance.
For outcome measures specifically, the percentage of managers responding  that they had them to a great or very great extent ranged from 17 percent at  HCFA to 63 percent at NASA and HUD.  At only eight agencies did more  than 50 percent of managers report having outcome measures.  (See fig. 5.)
In comparison, at 17 of the 28 agencies, 50 percent or more of managers  reported that they had output measures to a great or very great extent.  The  percentage of managers responding that they had output measures to that  extent ranged from 19 percent at HCFA to 75 percent at SBA and HUD, as  shown in figure 6.
Governmentwide, 50 percent of managers reported in 2000 that they had  output measures to a great or very great extent for their programs, a  statistically significant increase over the 38 percent reporting having these  measures in 1997.  In comparison, 44 percent of managers governmentwide  reported in 2000 that they had outcome measures to a similar extent,  significantly more than the 32 percent reporting in this way in 1997.   Although more managers overall said they had output measures than  outcome measures in 2000, at 7 of the 28 agencies—the Federal Emergency  Management Agency, the Department of Health and Human Services, the  Department of Energy (Energy), the U.S. Agency for International  Development, NSF, NASA, and OPM—slightly more managers said they had  outcome measures than output measures.
section_title: Customer Service Measures
paragraphs: Among GPRA’s stated purposes is the improvement of federal program  effectiveness and public accountability by promoting a new focus on  customer satisfaction.  However, our survey results suggest that having the  measures to determine whether or not agencies are satisfying their  customers is still at an early stage in the federal government, and that, as  such, there is ample room for improvement.
Managers’ responses indicated that the presence of customer service  measures for programs in the 28 individual agencies was low.  For the 28  individual agencies, the percentage of managers responding to a great or  very great extent ranged from 14 percent at NRC to a high of 54 percent at  GSA and VA.  At only four agencies—GSA, VA, OPM, and NASA—did even  slightly over half of the managers report that they had customer service  measures to such an extent.  In 10 of the agencies, less than one-third of  managers reported positively on having these measures. (See fig. 7.)
Managers’ responses did not reflect any notable progress in further  expanding the presence of customer service measures since our previous  survey.  Specifically, in 2000, 38 percent of managers reported having  customer service measures for their programs to a great or very great  extent compared with 32 percent reporting that way in 1997, not a  statistically significant increase.
section_title: Quality and Efficiency Measures
paragraphs: In crafting GPRA, Congress expressed its interest in American taxpayers  getting quality results from the programs they pay for as well as its concern  about waste and inefficiency in federal programs.  However, managers’  responses indicate that the extent to which agencies have developed  measures of either quality or efficiency is not very high.
In only three agencies—NASA, VA, and OPM—did more that 50 percent of  managers report having quality measures to a great or very great extent.  In  14 of the agencies, less than one-third of managers reported having quality  measures to a comparable extent.  For the 28 individual agencies, this  response ranged from 14 percent at HCFA to 61 percent at NASA.   (See fig. 8.)
Similarly for efficiency measures, at only two agencies—GSA and Energy— did 50 percent or more of managers report having such measures to a great  or very great extent.  At almost half of the agencies, less than one-third of  managers reported having them to this extent.  For the 28 agencies  included in our survey, this percentage ranged from 9 percent at HCFA to  56 percent at GSA, as shown in figure 9.
Governmentwide, 39 percent of federal managers in 2000 reported having  quality measures for their programs, not a statistically significant increase  from the 31 percent in 1997.  In 2000, 35 percent of managers cited that they  had measures that gauged the efficiency of program operations, a  significant increase from the 26 percent reporting such measures in 1997.
section_title: Managers’ Responses Across Agencies on Using Performance Information Were Mixed
paragraphs: The fundamental reason for collecting information on a program’s  performance is to take action in managing the program on the basis of that  information.  For five of the management activities we asked about in 1997  and 2000—setting program priorities, allocating resources, adopting new  program approaches or changing work processes, coordinating program  efforts, and setting individual job expectations—the reported use to a great  or very great extent decreased to a statistically significant extent in 2000.
subsections: section_title: Setting Program Priorities, Allocating Resources, and Adopting New Program Approaches or Changing Work Processes
paragraphs: In setting program priorities, the information obtained from measuring a  program’s performance provides a basis for deciding whether parts of the  program or the entire program itself should be given a higher or lower  priority.  Across the 28 individual agencies, the percentage of managers  reporting this use to a great or very great extent ranged from 26 percent at  NSF to 64 percent at HUD.  At only seven agencies—HUD, SSA, SBA, VA,  GSA, OPM, and NASA—did more than 50 percent of managers respond  positively regarding this use.  (See fig. 10.)
When we examined the responses of only those managers who answered  on the extent scale, 56 percent of managers overall reported in 2000 that  they used performance information when setting program priorities.   Although this percentage decreased to a statistically significant extent from  66 percent in 1997, it was the activity for which the highest percentage of  managers governmentwide reported this use to a great or very great extent  in 2000.
In addition, performance information allows program managers to  compare their programs’ results with goals and thus determine where to  target program resources to improve performance.  When managers are  forced to reduce their resources, the same analysis can help them target  the reductions to minimize the impact on program results.  Across the 28  individual agencies, the percentage of managers reporting that they used  performance information to a great or very great extent when allocating  resources ranged from 24 percent at NSF to 66 percent at OPM, with 50  percent or more of managers reporting such use at only 7 agencies—OPM,  SBA, HUD, NASA, GSA, the Department of Treasury, and VA.  (See fig. 11.)
Governmentwide, 53 percent of those managers who expressed an opinion  on the extent scale reported in 2000 that they used performance  information to a great or very great extent when allocating resources, a  statistically significant decrease from the 62 percent responding in this way  in 1997.
Third, by using performance information to assess the way a program is  conducted, managers can consider alternative approaches and processes in  areas where goals are not being met and enhance the use of program  approaches and processes that are working well.  Across the 28 individual  agencies, the percentage of managers reporting such use to a great or very  great extent ranged from 25 percent at the Forest Service to 64 percent at  OPM.  At only seven of the agencies—OPM, SBA, VA, GSA, NASA, HUD,  and SSA—did 50 percent or more of managers report such use.  (See fig.  12.)
Governmentwide in 2000, 51 percent of those managers who expressed an  opinion on the extent scale reported that they used performance  information when adopting new program approaches or changing work  processes, statistically significantly lower than the 66 percent in 1997.
For these three key management activities—setting program priorities,  allocating resources, and adopting new program approaches or changing  work processes—the percentage of managers governmentwide that  reported using performance information to a great or very great extent  decreased significantly between 1997 and 2000.  Moreover, for each of  these activities, at only 7 of the 28 agencies did 50 percent or more of  managers report such use.  These data suggest that in the majority of  agencies, the number of managers highly engaged in the application of one  of the most fundamental and clear tenets of results-based management— using program performance information to make government programs  work better—is in the minority.
section_title: Coordinating Program Efforts
paragraphs: GPRA’s emphasis on results implies that federal programs contributing to  the same or similar outcomes should be closely coordinated to ensure that  goals are consistent and complementary and that program efforts are  mutually reinforcing.  For programs that are related, program managers  can use performance information to lay the foundation for improved  coordination.  The survey data show that such use may not be widespread.   At the 28 individual agencies, the percentage of managers reporting such  use to a great or very great extent ranged from 17 percent at FAA to 57  percent at HUD.  Moreover, one-third or less of managers at more than half  of the agencies reported using performance information when coordinating  program efforts.  At only three agencies—HUD, VA, and GSA—was the  percentage of managers reporting such use over 50 percent.  (See fig. 13.)
Overall, 43 percent of those managers who expressed an opinion on the  extent scale reported in 2000 that they used performance information when  coordinating program efforts with other internal or external  organizations—14 percent less than the 57 percent reporting this use in  1997, a statistically significant change.
section_title: Setting Individual Job Expectations
paragraphs: In high-performing organizations, employees’ performance expectations  are aligned with the competencies and performance levels needed to  support the organizations’ missions, goals and objectives, and strategies.
When federal managers use performance information to set individual job  expectations, they both emphasize the role their individual employees  should play in accomplishing program goals and reinforce the importance  of employee responsibility for achieving results.  However, the results of  our survey suggest that many managers are not consistently using  performance information in this important way.
At the 28 individual agencies, the percentage of managers reporting the use  of performance information to a great or very great extent when setting  individual job expectations ranged from 16 percent at HCFA to 66 percent  at SBA.  As indicated by managers’ responses to our survey, less than half  of managers in 21 of the 28 agencies are extensively engaged in taking this  important step in reinforcing the relationship between employees’ efforts  to implement their agencies’ programs and the results those programs  realize.  Only seven agencies—SBA, HUD, GSA, the Department of  Commerce, VA, OPM, and NASA—had 50 percent or more of managers  reporting such use.  (See fig. 14.)
When we examined the responses of only those managers who answered  on the extent scale, 51 percent of managers overall reported in 2000 that  they used performance information to a great or very great extent when  setting individual job expectations, a statistically significant difference  from the 61 percent responding in this way in 1997.
The executive branch has taken steps to reinforce the connection between  employee performance and agency goals.  For example, OMB’s latest  Circular No. A-11 guidance on preparing fiscal year 2002 annual  performance plans states that those plans should set goals to cover human  capital management in areas such as linking individual performance  appraisals to program performance.  Also, on October 13, 2000, OPM  published final regulations, effective November 13, 2000, that change the  way agencies are to evaluate the performance of members of the SES.   Specifically, agencies are to place increased emphasis on appraising  executive performance on results and using results as the basis for  performance awards and other personnel decisions.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: For agencies to successfully become high-performing organizations, their  leaders need to foster performance-based cultures, find ways to measure  performance, and use performance information to make decisions.  At a  fundamental level, results from our 2000 federal managers survey indicate  wide differences among individual agencies’ levels of success in  demonstrating a results-based climate.  However, transforming  organizational cultures is an arduous and long-term task.  In addition,  managers’ responses suggest that while some agencies are clearly showing  signs of becoming high-performing organizations, others are not.
The survey results provide important information that agency leadership  can use to help identify key opportunities to build higher-performing  organizations across the federal government.  We will continue to work  with senior leadership in the individual agencies to identify actions that can  be taken to address the issues raised by their managers’ survey responses.   Congress has a vital role to play as well.  As part of its confirmation,  oversight, authorization, and appropriation responsibilities, Congress also  has the opportunity to use the information from our 2000 managers survey,  as well as information from agencies’ performance plans and reports and  our January 2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High-Risk  Series, to emphasize performance-based management and to underscore  Congress’ commitment to addressing long-standing challenges.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: On April 9, 2001, we provided the Director, Office of Management and  Budget, with a draft of this report for his review and comment.  In his May  11, 2001 written response, included in appendix XXX, OMB’s Deputy  Director acknowledged the importance of the report providing a basis for  comparison to our 1997 survey results as well as allowing for individual  analysis of 28 agencies.  He said that the report’s findings appeared to be  consistent with OMB’s views regarding the extent of agencies’ progress in  implementing GPRA, stating that while all agencies are in full compliance  with the requirements of the law, most are not yet at a stage where they are  truly managing for results.  In addition, he outlined the new  administration’s planned initiatives to make the federal government more  results-oriented, including strengthening the linkage between budget  decisionmaking and program performance.
As agreed with your office, unless you announce the contents of this report  earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after its issue date.  At  that time, we will send copies of the report to Senator Richard J. Durbin,  Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government  Management, Restructuring, and the District of Columbia, Senate  Committee on Governmental Affairs; Senator Fred Thompson, Chairman,  and Senator Joseph Lieberman, Ranking Member, Senate Committee on  Governmental Affairs; and Representative Dan Burton, Chairman, and  Representative Henry A. Waxman, Ranking Minority Member, House  Committee on Government Reform.  We will also send copies to the  Honorable Mitchell E. Daniels, Jr., Director of the Office of Management  and Budget, and the heads of the 28 agencies included in our survey.  In  addition, we will make copies available to others upon request.
If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact J.  Christopher Mihm or Joyce Corry on (202) 512-6806.  Peter Del Toro and  Thomas Beall were key contributors to this report.
section_title: Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: A questionnaire on performance and management issues was sent to a  stratified random sample of 3,816 out of a population of about 93,000 full- time, mid- and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors working in the  24 executive branch agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of  1990 (CFO Act).  These agencies represent about 97 percent of the  executive branch full-time workforce, excluding the U.S. Postal Service.  In  reporting the questionnaire data, when we use the term “governmentwide”  and the phrase “across the federal government,” we are referring to these  24 CFO Act executive branch agencies, and when we use the terms “federal  managers” and “managers,” we are referring to both managers and  supervisors.  The sample was drawn from the March 1999 Office of  Personnel Management’s Central Personnel Data File (CPDF)—the most  recent version of the CPDF available when we began drawing our sample— using file designators indicating performance of managerial and  supervisory functions.
The questionnaire was designed to obtain the observations and perceptions  of respondents on such results-oriented management topics as the  presence, use, and usefulness of performance measures; hindrances to  measuring and using performance information; agency climate;  information technology; program evaluation; and various aspects of the  Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).  Most of the  items on the questionnaire were closed-ended—that is, depending on the  particular item, respondents could choose one of two or more response  categories or rating the strength of their perception on a 5-point extent  scale ranging from “to no extent” to “to a very great extent.”  In most cases,  respondents also had an option of choosing the response category “no  basis to judge/not applicable.”
About half of the items on the questionnaire were contained in a previous  survey that was conducted between November 1996 and January 1997 as  part of the work we did in response to a GPRA requirement that we report  on implementation of the act.  This previous survey, although done with a  smaller sample size of 1,300 managers, covered the same agencies as the  2000 survey, which was sent out between January and August, 2000.   Individuals who did not respond to the initial questionnaire were sent up to  two follow-up questionnaires.  In some cases, we contacted individuals by  telephone and faxed the questionnaire to them to expedite completion of  the survey.
The current survey was designed to update and further elaborate on the  results of the previous survey.  Similar to the previous survey, the sample  was stratified by whether the manager or supervisor was Senior Executive  Service (SES) or non-SES.  The management levels covered General  Schedule (GS), General Management (GM), or equivalent schedules at  levels comparable to GS/GM-13 through career SES or equivalent levels of  executive service.  Stratification was also done by the 24 CFO Act agencies,  with an additional breakout of 4 selected agencies from their  departments—Forest Service, Health Care Financing Administration,  Federal Aviation Administration, and Internal Revenue Service.  These four  agencies were selected on the basis of our previous work identifying them  as facing significant managerial challenges.
The sample was also stratified to include special pay plans at some  agencies to improve our coverage of managers and supervisors working at  those agencies.  For example, Senior Foreign Service executives from the  State Department and the Agency for International Development were  included in the sample.  We included these special pay plan strata to ensure  at least a 90-percent coverage of all managers and supervisors at or  comparable to the GS/GM-13 through career SES level at the 28  departments and agencies we surveyed.  Finally, we added additional strata  to include a group of respondents who answered the previous survey and  who still worked in the same agency at the same management level at the  time of the 2000 survey.
During the course of the survey, we deleted 212 persons from our sample  who had either retired, separated, died, or otherwise left the agency or had  some other reason that excluded them from the population of interest.  We  received useable questionnaires from 2,510 sample respondents, or about  70 percent of the remaining eligible sample.  The response rate across the  28 agencies ranged from 59 percent to 82 percent.
We took several steps to check the quality of our survey data.  We reviewed  and edited the completed questionnaires, made internal consistency  checks on selected items, and checked the accuracy of data entry on a  sample of surveys.  We also followed up on a sample of nonrespondents to  assess whether their views differed from the views of those who returned  the survey.  We randomly selected a subsample of 136 persons across all  strata from that group of individuals who had not returned a completed  questionnaire a month or more after the last of 3 attempts were made to  elicit their participation in our survey.  We received 67 useable surveys  from this group.  In addition, there were 41 individuals who, when  contacted by telephone, refused to participate in the survey but were  willing to answer 3 key questions from the survey.  We included their  answers to the three questions in our analysis of nonrespondents on those  three questions.  We analyzed the responses of these groups on selected  items compared with the responses received from all other respondents.   Our analyses of selected items did not show a sufficient or consistent  degree of difference between survey nonrespondents and respondents,  and, thus, we included the responses of our subsample with all other  responses.
Except where noted, percentages are based on all respondents returning  useable questionnaires.  The survey results are generalizable to the 28  departments and agencies we surveyed.  All reported percentages are  estimates that are based on the sample and are subject to some sampling  error as well as nonsampling error. In general, percentage estimates in this  report for the entire sample have confidence intervals ranging from about  ±2 to ±7 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval.  In other  words, if all CFO Act agency managers and supervisors in our population  had been surveyed, the chances are 95 out of 100 that the result obtained  would not differ from our sample estimate in the more extreme cases by  more than ±7 percent.  In the appendixes of this report comparing each  agency to the rest of government, confidence intervals for the reported  agency percentages and the rest of government percentages range from ±2  to ±16 percentage points.
Because a complex sample design was used and different types of  statistical analyses are being done, the magnitude of sampling error will  vary across the particular groups or items being compared due to  differences in the underlying sample sizes and associated variances.   Consequently, in some instances, a difference of a certain magnitude may  be statistically significant.  In other instances, depending on the nature of  the comparison being made, a difference of equal or even greater  magnitude may not achieve statistical significance.  We note when  differences are significant at the .05 probability level between 1997 and  2000 governmentwide data throughout the report and between an agency’s  data and data for the rest of government in appendices II through XXIX.   Figures 1 through 14 in the letter report do not show when individual  agencies are statistically significantly different from each other.
section_title: Department of Agriculture: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: Of all the agencies surveyed, the responses from managers at the  Department of Agriculture most closely paralleled those of other managers  governmentwide in the aspects of agency climate, performance  measurement, and using performance information.  That is, Agriculture  was not significantly different from the rest of the government for any of  the survey questions we examine in this appendix.  Agriculture is the only  agency of the 28 we surveyed for which this is true.  Survey results for one  component of Agriculture, the Forest Service, are not included here but are  reported in a separate appendix.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than half (47 percent) of Agriculture’s managers expressed the view  that their agency’s top leadership was strongly committed to achieving  results to a great or very great extent, as shown below.  For the rest of the  government, 53 percent of managers indicated a similar level of  commitment by top leadership to achieving results.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Less than a quarter (24 percent) of managers at Agriculture reported that  employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for  helping their agencies accomplish their strategic goals, as shown below.   Agriculture ranked in the lowest quarter of the 28 agencies surveyed.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-eight percent of managers at Agriculture reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 59 percent  indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as  shown below.  For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36  and 63 respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures they had for their  programs, output measures and customer service measures had,  respectively, the highest and lowest percentage of managers at Agriculture  (51 and 34 percent) responding positively.
section_title: Using Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of managers at  Agriculture reported that they used performance information for each of  the management activities shown below.
section_title: Agency for International Development: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: Overall, the Agency for International Development (AID) was largely  similar to the rest of government except for being lower in aspects of  agency climate.  AID was statistically significantly lower than the rest of  the government in the percentage of managers who reported the following  to at least a great extent: top leadership demonstrated a strong  commitment to achieving results; managers were held accountable for  results; and employees who helped the agency achieve its strategic goals  were positively recognized.  In addition, the percentage of managers  responding to at least a great extent on positive recognition was the second  lowest, after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), of the 28 agencies  surveyed.  In all other areas, AID was not statistically significantly different  from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Thirty-nine percent of AID managers expressed the view that their top  leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or very  great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is 14 points lower than  that of the rest of the government (53 percent).  This difference is  statistically significant.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Fourteen percent of AID managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is 17  points lower than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (31 percent).  This difference is statistically significant.   AID was the second lowest ranking agency in this regard, after FAA, of the  28 agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Twenty-five percent of AID managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 43 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
AID managers’ response concerning the extent to which managers were  held accountable for results (43 percent) was statistically significantly  lower than the 63 percent reported for the rest of the government.  AID was  one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers  reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great extent.  (The  others were the Department of Energy, Department of State, Forest  Service, General Services Administration, and Health Care Financing  Administration.)
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of AID managers (56 percent) reported having  outcome measures and the lowest (28 percent) cited efficiency measures,  as shown below.  AID was one of only seven agencies where outcome  measures were cited more frequently than output measures. (The others  were the Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management Agency,  Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and  Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and Office of  Personnel Management.)
In addition, the percentages of AID managers who reported having quality  measures (48 percent) and outcome measures (56 percent) to a great or  very great extent were both in the highest quarter of the 28 agencies  surveyed.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of AID managers  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.  AID ranked in the lowest quarter of  the agencies for the percentage of managers who reported that they used  performance information when allocating resources (32 percent).
section_title: Department of Commerce: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: Overall, the Department of Commerce was largely similar to the rest of the  government except on two aspects of agency climate and using  performance information.  Commerce was statistically significantly higher  than the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who  reported that their agency’s top leadership was strongly committed to  achieving results to at least a great extent, and the percentage of managers  who indicated that they used performance information when setting  individual job expectations for staff to a similar extent.  In all other areas,  Commerce was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the  government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Almost two-thirds (65 percent) of managers at Commerce expressed the  view that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results  to a great or very great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is 12  points higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent).  This  difference is statistically significant.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-nine percent of Commerce managers reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, whereas 30  percent of managers responded this way for the rest of the government.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-six percent of managers at Commerce reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 57 percent  indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as  shown below.  For the rest of the government, these percentages were 35  and 63 respectively.
Commerce managers’ responses concerning the extent of their  decisionmaking authority placed the agency in the highest quarter of the  agencies surveyed, although the difference between Commerce and the  rest of the government was not statistically significant.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of Commerce managers (50 percent) reported  having output measures and the lowest (30 percent) cited efficiency  measures, as shown below.  Forty-seven percent of managers reported  having outcome measures to at least a great extent.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Commerce ranked statistically significantly higher (55 percent) than the  rest of the government (41 percent) in the percentage of managers who  indicated that they used performance information when setting individual  job expectations for staff, as shown below.
section_title: Department of Defense: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: Overall, the Department of Defense (DOD) was largely similar to the rest of  government, except in aspects of agency climate and performance  measurement.  DOD was statistically significantly higher than the rest of  the government for survey items concerning the percentage of managers  who reported that their agency's top leadership was strongly committed to  achieving results to at least a great extent, and the percentage of managers  who reported having customer service and quality measures to at least a  great extent.  In all other areas, DOD was not statistically significantly  different from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Fifty-nine percent of DOD managers expressed the view that their top  leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or very  great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is 9 points higher than  that of the rest of the government (50 percent).  This difference is  statistically significant.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-one percent of DOD managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is  about the same as managers who responded this way for the rest of the  government (30 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty percent of managers at DOD reported that they had, to a great or very  great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the agency  accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 66 percent indicated that they were  held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.  For the  rest of the government, these percentages were 34 and 61 respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of DOD managers (49 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (36 percent) cited efficiency measures, as  shown below.  Forty-six percent of managers reported having outcome  measures to at least a great extent.
In addition, the percentages of DOD managers who reported having  customer service and quality measures to a great or very great extent (both  45 percent) were significantly higher than the percentages of managers  who responded in this way for the rest of the government (35 and 36  percent, respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of DOD managers  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.
section_title: Department of Education: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Education was statistically significantly lower than the  rest of the government on one aspect of using performance information:  the percentage of managers who reported using performance information  when setting individual job expectations for staff.  Education had the third  lowest percentage of managers, after the Health Care Financing  Administration and the National Science Foundation, among the 28  agencies surveyed who reported using performance information in this way  to a great or very great extent.  In all other areas, Education was not  significantly different from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Sixty-two percent of managers at Education expressed the view that their  top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or  very great extent, compared with 53 percent for the rest of the government,  as shown below.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twenty-three percent of managers at Education reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, compared with  31 percent for the rest of the government.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Twenty-five percent of managers at Education reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 51 percent  indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as  shown below.  For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36  and 63 respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of Education managers (52 percent) reported  having output measures and the lowest (31 percent) cited quality measures,  as shown below.  Forty-eight percent of managers reported having outcome  measures to at least a great extent.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of managers at  Education reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.  In addition, Education was  significantly lower (28 percent) than the rest of the government (41  percent) in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information when setting individual job expectations for staff.   Education was the third lowest agency surveyed, after the Health Care  Financing Administration and the National Science Foundation, in the  percentage of managers who reported using performance information in  this way to a great or very great extent.
section_title: Department of Energy: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Energy was largely similar to the rest of the government  except for aspects of performance measurement and agency climate.  It  was statistically significantly higher than the rest of government in the  percentage of managers who reported having outcome and efficiency  measures to a great or very great extent. Energy was significantly below  the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who reported  that managers were held accountable for results to at least a great extent.   In all other areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different  from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Exactly half (50 percent) of managers at Energy expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent for the rest  of government.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-three percent of managers at Energy reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, which was  about the same as managers who responded this way for the rest of the  government (31 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-three percent of managers at Energy reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 49 percent  indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as  shown below.
Energy managers' response concerning the extent to which managers were  held accountable for results (49 percent) was statistically significantly  lower than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government.  Energy  was one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers  reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great extent.  (The  others were the Agency for International Development, Department of  State, Forest Service, General Services Administration, and Health Care  Financing Administration.)
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of managers at Energy (55 percent) reported having  outcome measures and the lowest percentage (45 percent) cited quality  measures, as shown below.  Energy was one of only seven agencies where  outcome measures were cited more frequently than output measures.  (The  others were the Agency for International Development, Federal Emergency  Management Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, National  Aeronautics and Space Administration, National Science Foundation, and  Office of Personnel Management.)
In addition, the percentages of managers at Energy who reported having  efficiency (50 percent) and outcome measures (55 percent) to a great or  very great extent were significantly higher than the percentages of  managers who responded in this way for the rest of the government (35 and  44 percent, respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of managers at Energy  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.
section_title: Environmental Protection Agency: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: In general, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was largely similar  to the rest of the government except for two aspects of performance  measurement.  The agency was statistically significantly lower than the rest  of the government in the percentage of managers who reported having  efficiency and customer service measures to at least a great extent.  In all  other areas, EPA was not statistically significantly different from the rest of  the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Slightly more than half (52 percent) of EPA managers expressed the view  that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a  great or very great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is about the  same as reported by managers in the rest of the government (53 percent).
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twenty-nine percent of EPA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is  about the same as that reported by managers in the rest of the government  (31 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-one percent of EPA managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 53 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of EPA managers reported having output measures  (54 percent) and the lowest percentage (21 percent) cited efficiency  measures, as shown below.  Thirty-nine percent of managers reported  having outcome measures to at least a great extent.
In addition, the percentages of EPA managers who reported having  efficiency measures (21 percent) and customer service measures (28  percent) to a great or very great extent were significantly below the  percentages of managers who responded in this way for the rest of the  government (36 and 39 percent, respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of EPA managers  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.
section_title: Federal Aviation Administration: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: In general, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) was worse than the  rest of the government on multiple aspects of agency climate, performance  measurement, and the use of performance information.  The agency was  statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who reported that top agency leadership  demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving results; that employees  who helped the agency achieve its strategic goals received positive  recognition; managers had the decisionmaking authority they needed; that  they had outcome, customer service, or quality performance measures; and  that they used performance information for all five management activities  discussed in this appendix.  For other survey items—being held  accountable for results and having output and efficiency measures—FAA  was not significantly different from the rest of the government.  Of the 28  agencies surveyed, FAA rated significantly lower than the rest of the  government on more of the survey items discussed in this appendix than  any other agency.
FAA had the lowest percentage of managers who reported to at least a  great extent that their agency’s top leadership was strongly committed to  achieving results, that employees received positive recognition for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, and using performance  information when coordinating program efforts with other internal or  external organizations.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than a quarter (22 percent) of FAA managers expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is 33 points lower  than that of the rest of the government (55 percent), and this difference is  statistically significant.  For this item, FAA ranked last of the 28 agencies  included in the survey.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twelve percent of FAA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 20  points lower than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (32 percent), and is statistically significant.  For this item,  FAA was the lowest ranking agency of the 28 agencies included in the  survey.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Sixteen percent of FAA managers reported that they had, to a great or very  great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the agency  accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 59 percent indicated that they were  held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.  FAA was  among five agencies surveyed where the gap between accountability and  authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points. (The others were  the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Social Security Administration, Small  Business Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban  Development.)
FAA managers’ response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking  authority was the second lowest, after IRS, among the 28 agencies  surveyed.  FAA’s 16 percent is significantly lower than the 37 percent  reported by the rest of the government.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  output measures were reported by the highest percentage of FAA managers  (46 percent) and customer service measures were cited by the lowest  percentage (27 percent), as shown below.
In addition, the percentages of FAA managers who reported having  customer service measures (27 percent), quality measures (29 percent),  and outcome measures (34 percent) to a great or very great extent were all  significantly below the percentages of managers who responded in this way  for the rest of the government (39, 40, and 44 percent, respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: FAA ranked significantly lower than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for each of the management activities shown below.  In  addition, the agency ranked lowest (17 percent) among the 28 agencies  surveyed concerning the use of such information when coordinating  program efforts with internal or external organizations.
section_title: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was generally  similar to the rest of the government except for being lower on two aspects  of performance measurement and one aspect of how managers use  performance information.  The agency was statistically significantly lower  than the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who  reported having output and outcome measures and who reported using  performance information when adopting new program approaches or  changing work processes to at least a great extent.  In all other areas,  FEMA was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the  government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Forty-two percent of FEMA managers expressed the view that their top  leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or very  great extent, compared with 53 percent for the rest of the government, as  shown below.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Slightly more than a quarter (26 percent) of FEMA managers reported that  employees received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for  helping their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below,  compared with 31 percent for the rest of the government.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-two percent of FEMA managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 69 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of FEMA managers (42 percent) reported having  customer service measures and the lowest percentage (27 percent) cited  output measures, as shown below.  FEMA was the only agency of the 28 we  surveyed where managers identified customer service measures as the  most prevalent of the 5 performance measures asked about.
In addition, the percentages of FEMA managers who reported having  output measures (27 percent) and outcome measures (28 percent) to a  great or very great extent were significantly below the percentages of  managers who responded in this way for the rest of the government (50 and  44 percent respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of FEMA managers  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.  In addition, the percentage of  managers who indicated that they used performance information when  adopting new program approaches or changing work processes at FEMA  was significantly lower (29 percent) than that in the rest of the government  (42 percent).
section_title: Forest Service: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: Overall, the Forest Service was below the rest of the government in aspects  of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of performance  information.  It was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who reported that top agency  leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving results;  managers were held accountable for results; they had outcome, quality, or  efficiency performance measures; and they used performance information  to set priorities, adopt new program approaches, or coordinate program  efforts.  Of the 28 agencies surveyed, Forest Service rated significantly  lower than the rest of the government on more of the survey items  discussed in this appendix than any other agency except for the Federal  Aviation Administration (FAA) and Health Care Financing Administration.
Forest Service was the lowest among the agencies we surveyed in the  percentage of managers who reported that they were held accountable for  achieving results to at least a great extent.  In addition, the agency ranked  the lowest among the 28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers  who reported using performance information when adopting new  approaches or changing work processes and the second lowest, next to  FAA, in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information when coordinating efforts with internal or  external organizations.  In all other areas, the agency was not statistically  significantly different from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Slightly more than a quarter (26 percent) of managers at the Forest Service  expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to  achieving results to a great or very great extent, as shown below.  This  percentage is 28 points lower than that of the rest of the government (54  percent), and this difference is statistically significant.  Forest Service  ranked second from last, just ahead of FAA, of the 28 agencies included in  the survey.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twenty-seven percent of Forest Service managers reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, compared with  31 percent of managers that responded this way for the rest of the  government.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-one percent of Forest Service managers reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas almost the same  percentage of managers—40 percent—indicated that they were held  accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
Forest Service managers’ response concerning the extent to which  managers were held accountable for results (40 percent) was the lowest  among the 28 agencies surveyed and is statistically significantly lower than  the 63 percent reported by managers in the rest of the government.  Forest  Service was one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its  managers reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great  extent.  (The others were the Agency for International Development,  Department of Energy, Department of State, General Services  Administration, and Health Care Financing Administration.)
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of Forest Service managers (56 percent) reported  having output measures and the lowest (24 percent) cited efficiency  measures, as shown below.  In addition, the percentages of Forest Service  managers who reported having outcome measures (29 percent), efficiency  measures (24 percent), or quality measures (25 percent) to a great or very  great extent were all significantly below the percentages of managers who  responded in this way for the rest of the government (44, 36, and 39  percent, respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Forest Service was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information when setting program priorities (34 percent),  adopting new program approaches or changing work processes (25  percent), and coordinating program efforts with internal or external  organizations (21 percent).
section_title: General Services Administration: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The General Services Administration (GSA) was above the rest of the  government in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and  the use of performance information.  The agency was statistically  significantly higher than the rest of the government in the percentage of  managers who reported that employees who helped the agency achieve its  strategic goals received positive recognition; they had outcome, customer  service, or efficiency performance measures; and they used performance  information for four different management tasks.  For the survey items  discussed in this appendix, GSA and the Small Business Administration had  the greatest number of items for which they were statistically significantly  higher than the rest of the government.  GSA was also significantly lower  than the rest of the government concerning the percentage of managers  who reported that they were held accountable for results.  In all other  areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the rest  of the government.
GSA ranked first among the 28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of  managers reporting that employees received positive recognition for  helping the agency accomplish its strategic goals to at least a great extent.   The agency also had the highest percentage of managers who indicated that  they had efficiency measures for their programs to at least a great extent  and, along with the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), GSA had the  highest percentage of managers who reported having customer service  measures to a similar extent.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of GSA managers expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent for the rest  of the government.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Fifty-two percent of GSA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 22  points higher than that of managers who responded in this way for the rest  of the government (30 percent) and the difference is statistically  significant.  GSA was the highest-ranking agency of the 28 agencies  included in the survey for this item.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-six percent of GSA managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 49 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
GSA managers’ response concerning the extent to which managers were  held accountable for results (49 percent) was statistically significantly  lower than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government.  GSA was  one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers  reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great extent.  (The  others were the Agency for International Development, Department of  Energy, Department of State, Forest Service, and Health Care Financing  Administration.)
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of GSA managers (58 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (42 percent) cited quality measures, as  shown below.
In addition, the percentages of GSA managers who reported having  efficiency measures (56 percent), customer service measures (54 percent),  and outcome measures (56 percent) to a great or very great extent were  significantly above the percentages of managers who responded in this way  for the rest of the government.  GSA ranked first among the 28 agencies  surveyed in the percentage of managers who reported that they had  efficiency measures for their programs to at least a great extent and also  ranked first, along with VA, for the percentage reporting customer service  measures to a similar extent.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: GSA was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government in  the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for the management activities shown below, except for the  allocation of resources.
section_title: Health Care Financing Administration: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: Overall, the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) was below the  rest of the government in aspects of agency climate, the use of  performance information, and especially, performance measurement.  The  agency was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government  for survey items concerning the percentages of managers who reported  that managers were held accountable for results; reported having five  different types of performance measures; and indicated that they used  performance information for four management tasks. In all other areas,  HCFA was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the  government. Of the 28 agencies surveyed, HCFA rated significantly lower  than the rest of the government on more of the survey items discussed in  this appendix than any other agency except for the Federal Aviation  Administration.
HCFA had the lowest percentage of managers who reported having four of  the five types of performance measures we asked about: output, efficiency,  quality, and outcome measures.  For the fifth type—customer service  measures—the agency ranked second lowest ahead of the Nuclear  Regulatory Commission (NRC).  In addition, the agency had the lowest  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information when setting individual job expectations for staff.  HCFA was  also second lowest among the agencies we surveyed in the percentage of  managers who reported that they were held accountable for results to at  least a great extent.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than half (46 percent) of HCFA managers expressed the view that their  top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or  very great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent for the rest of  the government.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty percent of HCFA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is  almost the same as that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (31 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Twenty-eight percent of HCFA managers reported that they had, to a great  or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 42 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
HCFA managers’ response concerning the extent to which managers were  held accountable for results (42 percent) was significantly lower than the  63 percent reported by the rest of the government.  HCFA was second  lowest of the agencies we surveyed, after Forest Service, in the percentage  of managers who reported that they were held accountable to at least a  great extent.  The agency was also one of six agencies surveyed that had  less than half of its managers reporting that they were held accountable to  at least a great extent.  (The others were the Agency for International  Development, Department of Energy, Department of State, Forest Service,  and General Services Administration.)
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of HCFA managers (19 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (9 percent) cited efficiency measures, as  shown below.  Seventeen percent of managers reported having outcome  measures to at least a great extent.
The percentages of HCFA managers who reported having each of the five  types of performance measures shown below were all statistically  significantly below the percentages of managers who responded in this way  for the rest of the government.  In addition, HCFA was the lowest ranking  agency of the 28 agencies surveyed for each type of performance measure  shown below—except for customer service measures, where it ranked  second lowest next to NRC.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: HCFA was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government  in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for all of the management activities shown below, except for  adopting new program approaches and changing work processes.  In  addition, the agency ranked lowest among the 28 agencies surveyed  concerning the use of such information when setting individual job  expectations for staff (16 percent), and second lowest ahead of the  National Science Foundation, when using performance information to set  program priorities (27 percent).
section_title: Department of Health and Human Services: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) was largely similar  to the rest of the government, except for one aspect of agency climate.   HHS was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government in  the percentage of managers who reported that employees received positive  recognition to at least a great extent for helping the agency achieve its  strategic goals.  In all other areas, the agency was not significantly different  from the rest of the government.  Survey results for one component of HHS,  the Health Care Financing Administration, are not included here but are  reported in a separate appendix.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Sixty percent of HHS managers expressed the view that their top  leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or very  great extent, as shown below, compared with 53 percent for the rest of the  government.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Forty-six percent of HHS managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 16  points higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (30 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-three percent of HHS managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 68 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 35 and 62  respectively.
HHS managers ranked in the top quarter of the 28 agencies surveyed for  managers' perceptions concerning both the extent of decisionmaking  authority and the degree to which managers were held accountable for  results, although the differences between HHS and the rest of the  government on these two items were not statistically significant.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of HHS managers (46 percent) reported having  outcome measures and the lowest (37 percent) cited efficiency measures,  as shown below.  HHS was one of only seven agencies where outcome  measures were cited more frequently than output measures.  (The others  were the Agency for International Development, Department of Energy,  Federal Emergency Management Agency, National Aeronautics and Space  Administration, National Science Foundation, and Office of Personnel  Management.)  The agency ranked in the lowest quarter of the agencies  surveyed for the percentage of managers reporting that their programs had  output measures (44 percent), although the difference between HHS and  the rest of the government was not statistically significant.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of HHS managers  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.
section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was above the  rest of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance  measurement, and particularly, in the use of performance information.  The  agency was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government  in the percentages of managers who reported that employees received  positive recognition for helping the agency achieve its strategic goals;  managers are held accountable for results; they have output and outcome  measures; and they use performance information to set program priorities,  allocate resources, coordinate program efforts, and set job expectations.   Of the 28 agencies surveyed, HUD had the second greatest number of total  items for which the agency was significantly higher than the rest of the  government after the General Services Administration and the Small  Business Administration (SBA), both of which had 1 more.  In all other  areas, HUD was not significantly different from the rest of the agencies we  surveyed.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of HUD managers expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, whereas 53 percent of managers responded this way  for the rest of the government, as shown below.  HUD managers were in the  top quarter of agencies surveyed for this item.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Forty-seven percent of HUD managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 17  points higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (30 percent) and is a statistically significant difference.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-six percent of HUD managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help their  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 79 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.  HUD was among five agencies surveyed where the gap between  accountability and authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points.  (The others were the Federal Aviation Administration, Internal Revenue  Service, SBA, and Social Security Administration.)
HUD managers’ response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking  authority (36 percent) was identical to that of the rest of the government.   Their response concerning the extent to which managers were held  accountable for results (79 percent) was statistically significantly higher  than the 63 percent reported by managers in the rest of the government.   HUD ranked highest in its response concerning accountability among the  28 agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of HUD managers reported having output measures  (75 percent) which was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government (50 percent).  In addition, HUD and SBA were first among the  28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers reporting this type of  performance measure.  HUD was also significantly higher than the rest of  the government in the percentage of its managers who reported having  outcome measures.  HUD and the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration were first among the agencies surveyed in the percentage of  managers reporting outcome measures (63 percent).  Of the five measures  we asked about, HUD managers cited customer services measures least  frequently (36 percent), as shown below.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: HUD ranked statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information for each of the management activities shown  below, except for adopting new program approaches or changing work  processes.  In addition, the agency ranked first among the 28 agencies we  surveyed concerning the use of performance information when setting  program priorities (64 percent) and coordinating program efforts with  internal or external organizations (57 percent).  HUD also ranked second to  SBA in the percentage of managers who reported using performance  information when setting individual job expectations for staff (59 percent).
section_title: Department of the Interior: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of the Interior was below the rest of the government in  aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of  performance information.  The agency was statistically significantly lower  than the rest of the government in the percentages of managers who  expressed the view that the agency's top leadership was strongly  committed to achieving results to at least a great extent; reported having  efficiency and quality measures; and indicated that they used performance  information for setting program priorities, allocating resources, and  coordinating program efforts.  In all other areas, the agency was not  statistically significantly different from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than half (44 percent) of managers at Interior expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is 10 points lower  than that of the rest of the government (54 percent) and this difference is  statistically significant.  Interior ranks in the bottom quarter of the 28  agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-three percent of Interior's managers reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this is  about the same as the percentage of managers who responded this way for  the rest of the government (30 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-three percent of managers at Interior reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 60 percent  indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as  shown below.  For the rest of the government, these percentages were 35  and 63, respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of Interior managers (48 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (24 percent) cited efficiency measures, as  shown below.  Thirty-nine percent of managers reported having outcome  measures.
In addition, the percentages of Interior managers who reported having  efficiency measures (24 percent) and quality measures (30 percent) to a  great or very great extent were statistically significantly below the  percentages of managers reporting these results for the rest of the  government.  Interior also ranked in the lowest quarter of the agencies  surveyed for efficiency measures.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Interior was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government  in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for all of the management activities shown below, except for  adopting new program approaches/changing work processes and setting  individual job expectations for staff.
section_title: Internal Revenue Service: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) was below the rest of the government  in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of  performance information.  The agency was significantly lower than the rest  of government in the percentage of managers who reported that top  leadership at their agency demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving  results; that managers had the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help their agency accomplish its strategic goals; that their programs had  output and outcome performance measures; and that they used  performance information when setting program priorities, adopting new  program approaches or changing work processes, and coordinating  program efforts.  In all other areas, the agency was not statistically  significantly different from the rest of the government.
IRS had the lowest percentage of managers who reported that they had the  decisionmaking authority they needed to help their agency accomplish its  strategic goals to at least a great extent.  The agency also ranked second to  last, next to the Health Care Financing Administration, among the agencies  surveyed in the percentage of managers who indicated that they had  outcome measures for their programs.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Forty-two percent of managers at IRS expressed the view that their top  leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or very  great extent, as shown below.  This result is 12 percentage points lower  than the rest of government (54 percent) and this difference is statistically  significant.  IRS ranked in the lowest quarter of the agencies surveyed.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twenty-seven percent of IRS managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, not significantly different  from the percentage of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (31 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Fifteen percent of IRS managers reported that they had, to a great or very  great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the agency  accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 60 percent indicated that they were  held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.  IRS was  among five agencies surveyed where the gap between accountability and  authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points. (The others were  the Federal Aviation Administration, Social Security Administration, Small  Business Administration, and Department of Housing and Urban  Development.)
IRS managers' response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking  authority was the lowest among the 28 agencies surveyed.  The IRS' 15  percent is statistically significantly lower than 37 percent reported by the  rest of the government.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of IRS managers (37 percent) reported having  quality measures and the lowest (28 percent) cited outcome measures, as  shown below.
In addition, the percentages of IRS managers who reported having output  measures (32 percent) and outcome measures (28 percent) to a great or  very great extent were significantly below the percentages of managers  reporting these results for the rest of the government.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: IRS ranked statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government  in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for setting program priorities (36 percent), adopting new  program approaches or changing work processes (29 percent), and  coordinating program efforts (27 percent), as shown below.
section_title: Department of Justice: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Justice was largely similar to the rest of the  government, except for two aspects of performance measurement.  It was  statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the  percentages of managers who reported having customer service and quality  performance measures.  In all other areas, Justice was not statistically  significantly different from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than half (49 percent) of managers at Justice expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below, compared with 54 percent for the rest  of the government.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twenty-six percent of managers at Justice reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This  percentage is not significantly different from that of managers who  responded this way in the rest of the government (31 percent).
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-three percent of managers at Justice reported that they had, to a  great or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to  help the agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 60 percent  indicated that they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as  shown below.  For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36  and 63, respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of managers at Justice (44 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (20 percent) cited customer service  measures, as shown below.  Thirty-eight percent of managers reported  having outcome measures.
In addition, percentages of managers at Justice who reported having  customer service measures (20 percent) and quality measures (25 percent)  to a great or very great extent were significantly below that of the rest of  the government.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of managers at Justice  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.  In addition, Justice ranked in the  second lowest quarter of the agencies surveyed for the percentage of  managers who reported using performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.
section_title: Department of Labor: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Labor was largely similar to the rest of the government,  except in one aspect of agency climate and one aspect of performance  measurement.  The agency was statistically significantly lower than the rest  of the government in the percentage of managers who reported that  employees received positive recognition for helping their agency achieve  its strategic goals to at least a great extent and the percentage of managers  reporting that they had customer service measures for their programs.  In  all other areas, Labor was not statistically significantly different from the  rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Over half (56 percent) of managers at Labor expressed the view that their  top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or  very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is about the same as  that of the rest of the government (53 percent).
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Eighteen percent of managers at Labor reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 13  points lower than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (31 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.   For this survey item, Labor was the third lowest ranking agency, after the  Federal Aviation Administration and the Agency for International  Development, of the 28 agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty percent of managers at Labor reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 62 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of managers at Labor (55 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (28 percent) cited customer service  measures, as shown below.  In addition, the percentage of managers at  Labor who reported having customer service measures to a great or very  great extent was significantly below the percentage of managers for the  rest of the government (39 percent).  Forty percent of managers at Labor  reported having outcome measures.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of managers at Labor  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.  In addition, the agency ranked in the  lowest quarter of agencies we surveyed concerning the use of such  information when coordinating program efforts with internal or external  organizations (27 percent).
section_title: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was above the  rest of the government in aspects of agency climate, performance  measurement, and the use of performance information.  It was statistically  significantly higher than the rest of the government in the percentages of  managers who reported that the agency’s top leadership demonstrated a  strong commitment to achieving results; that the agency provided positive  recognition of employees who helped the agency achieve its strategic  goals; that they had outcome, quality, and customer service measures; and  that they used performance information to allocate resources.  In all other  areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the rest  of the government.  For the items discussed in this appendix, NASA was in  the top quarter of the 28 agencies we surveyed when ranked by the total  number of items they had that were statistically significantly higher than  the rest of the government.
The percentage of NASA managers reporting that the agency’s leadership  demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving results to at least a great  extent was second highest, along with the Social Security Administration  (SSA), and just behind the National Science Foundation (NSF), among the  agencies we surveyed.  The agency also had the highest percentage of  managers reporting that their programs had quality measures and was tied  for second highest with the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), after  the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and the General Services  Administration (GSA), in the percentage of managers reporting that they  had customer service measures.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Over two-thirds (68 percent) of NASA managers expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is 15 points higher  than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and this difference is  statistically significant.  NASA ranked second highest, along with SSA and  after NSF, of the 28 agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Forty-seven percent of NASA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 17  points higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (30 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-one percent of NASA managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 68 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of NASA managers (63 percent) reported having  outcome measures and the lowest (43 percent) cited efficiency measures,  as shown below.  NASA was one of only seven agencies where outcome  measures were cited more frequently than output measures. (The others  were the Agency for International Development, Department of Energy,  Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and  Human Services, National Science Foundation, and Office of Personnel  Management.)
In addition, the percentages of NASA managers who reported having  outcome measures (63 percent), quality measures (61 percent), or  customer service measures (52 percent) to a great or very great extent  were all significantly above the percentages of managers reporting these  results for the rest of the government.  NASA ranked highest of 28 agencies  in the percentage of managers reporting that their programs had quality  measures and second highest, along with OPM and after VA and GSA, in the  percentage citing customer service measures.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: NASA ranked statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information when allocating resources (54 and 43 percent,  respectively), as shown below.
section_title: National Science Foundation: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The National Science Foundation (NSF) was above the rest of the  government in one aspect of agency climate, and the agency was below the  rest of the government in aspects of the use of performance information.  It  was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government and  ranked first of the 28 agencies included in the survey in the percentage of  managers who reported that their agency’s top leadership was strongly  committed to achieving results to at least a great extent.
NSF was significantly lower than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information when carrying out three management tasks: setting program  priorities, allocating resources, and setting individual job expectations.   For all three of these items, NSF ranked among the lowest of the agencies  we surveyed.  The agency had the lowest percentage of managers reporting  that they used performance information when setting program priorities  and when allocating resources.  NSF had the second lowest percentage,  next to the Health Care Financing Administration, for managers reporting  that they used this information when setting individual job expectations for  staff.  In all other areas, NSF was not statistically significantly different  from the rest of the government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: More than two-thirds (69 percent) of NSF managers expressed the view  that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a  great or very great extent, as shown below. This percentage is 16 points  higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and this  difference is statistically significant.  For this survey item, NSF ranks first  of the 28 agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-seven percent of NSF managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, compared with 31 percent  for the rest of the government.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-four percent of NSF managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 62 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
NSF managers’ response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking  authority ranked third highest among the 28 agencies surveyed (after the  Office of Personnel Management and the Department of Commerce),  although the difference from the rest of the government was not  statistically significant.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of NSF managers reported having outcome  measures (55 percent) and the agency ranked in the top quarter of the  agencies surveyed for the percentage of managers citing this type of  measure.  The lowest percentage of NSF managers responding on this topic  were those who reported having efficiency measures to at least a great  extent in their programs (35 percent), as shown below.  NSF was one of  only seven agencies where outcome measures were cited more frequently  than output measures. (The others were the Agency for International  Development, Department of Energy, Federal Emergency Management  Agency, Department of Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics  and Space Administration, and Office of Personnel Management.)
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: NSF was significantly lower than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for each of the management activities shown below, except for  adopting new program approaches or changing work processes and  coordinating program efforts with internal or external organizations.
In addition, the agency ranked last among the 28 agencies we surveyed  concerning the use of performance information when setting program  priorities (26 percent) and allocating resources (24 percent) and second  from last, ahead of HCFA, when setting individual job expectations for staff  (22 percent).
section_title: Nuclear Regulatory Commission: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) was above the rest of the  government for aspects of agency climate, and the agency was both above  and below the rest of the government for different aspects of performance  measurement.  It was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government in the percentages of managers who reported that their  agency’s top leadership demonstrated a strong commitment to achieving  results; that the agency provided positive recognition of employees who  helped the agency achieve its strategic goals; and that they used output  measures.  In addition, NRC was significantly lower in the percentage of  managers who reported having customer service, quality, and outcome  measures.  In all other areas, the agency was not statistically significantly  different from the rest of the government.
NRC ranked fourth, after the National Science Foundation, Social Security  Administration, and National Aeronautics and Space Administration, in the  percentage of managers who reported that their agency’s top leadership  was strongly committed to achieving results to at least a great extent and  ranked last among the agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers  who reported having customer service measures.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: More than two-thirds (67 percent) of NRC managers expressed the view  that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a  great or very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is 14 points  higher than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and this  difference is statistically significant.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Forty-five percent of NRC managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 14  points higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (31 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-two percent of NRC managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 69 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of NRC managers (68 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (14 percent) cited customer service  measures, as shown below.
NRC was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government in  the percentage of its managers who identified having output measures to a  great or very great extent (68 percent).  The percentages of NRC managers  who reported having customer service measures (14 percent), quality  measures (27 percent), or outcome measures (30 percent) were all  statistically significantly below the percentages of managers for the rest of  the federal government.  In addition, NRC ranked last of the 28 agencies  included in the survey for the percentage of managers who reported that  they had customer service measures.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of NRC managers  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below.
section_title: Office of Personnel Management: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) was higher than the rest of the  government in aspects of agency climate and the use of performance  information.  The agency was statistically significantly higher than the rest  of the government in the percentages of managers who reported that their  agency provided positive recognition of employees who helped the agency  achieve its strategic goals; that managers had the decisionmaking authority  they needed to help their agency accomplish its strategic goals; and that  they used performance information when allocating resources and  adopting new program approaches or changing work processes.  In all  other areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the  rest of the government.
Of the 28 agencies surveyed, OPM had the highest percentage of managers  who reported that they had the decisionmaking authority they needed to  achieve results to at least a great extent. The agency ranked third, after the  General Services Administration (GSA) and the Small Business  Administration (SBA), in the percentage of managers who indicated that  employees received positive recognition for achieving results to a great or  very great extent.  OPM managers again ranked first among the agencies  surveyed in their use of performance information when allocating  resources and when adopting new or different program approaches.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Almost two-thirds (63 percent) of OPM managers expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below, which is not a statistically significant  difference from managers in the rest of government (53 percent).
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Forty-nine percent of OPM managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 18  points higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (31 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.   OPM was the third highest-ranking agency, behind GSA and SBA, of the 28  agencies included in the survey.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Fifty-eight percent of OPM managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 76 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
OPM managers’ response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking  authority was the highest among the 28 agencies surveyed.  OPM’s 58  percent is statistically significantly higher than the 36 percent reported by  the rest of the government.  OPM managers’ response concerning the  extent to which managers were held accountable for results (76 percent)  was the second highest of all agencies surveyed (after HUD), although  OPM was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the  government (63 percent).
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of OPM managers (58 percent) reported having  outcome measures and the lowest (43 percent) cited efficiency measures,  as shown below.  OPM was one of only seven agencies where outcome  measures were cited more frequently than output measures. (The others  were the Agency for International Development, Department of Energy,  Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Health and  Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and  National Science Foundation.)
In addition, OPM, along with the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration (NASA) and behind the Department of Veterans Affairs  (VA) and GSA, had the second highest percentage of managers who  reported that their programs had customer service measures (52 percent)  and third highest after NASA and VA for quality measures (54 percent) and,  after NASA and HUD, for outcome measures (58 percent).  OPM was not  statistically significantly different from the rest of the government on these  items.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: OPM ranked statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information when allocating resources (66 percent) and when  adopting new program approaches or changing work processes (64  percent), as shown below.  The agency ranked first among the 28 agencies  surveyed for both of these items.  In addition, the agency was among the  top quarter of agencies concerning the use of performance information  when setting program priorities (56 percent) or setting individual job  expectations for staff (50 percent).  However, OPM was not statistically  significantly different from the rest of the government on either of these  two items.
section_title: Small Business Administration: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Small Business Administration (SBA) was higher than the rest of the  government in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and,  particularly, the use of performance information.  The agency was lower  than the rest of the government in one aspect of performance  measurement.  It was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government for survey items concerning the percentage of employees  receiving positive recognition, accountability for results, having output  measures, and using performance information for all five key activities  discussed in this appendix.  SBA was significantly below the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who reported having quality  measures.  Of the survey items discussed in this appendix, SBA and the  General Services Administration (GSA) had the greatest number of items  for which they were significantly higher than the rest of the government.  In  all other areas, SBA was not statistically significantly different from the  rest of the government.
The agency ranked second after GSA among the 28 agencies surveyed in  the percentage of managers reporting that employees received positive  recognition for helping the agency accomplish its strategic goals to at least  a great extent. While generally comparable to the rest of the government  for the other types of performance measures we asked about, SBA was  ranked first among the agencies surveyed—along with the Department of  Housing and Urban Development (HUD)—in the percentage of managers  who reported that they had output measures.  SBA also ranked first in the  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information when setting individual job expectations.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Slightly more than half (54 percent) of SBA managers expressed the view  that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a  great or very great extent, as shown below, and this percentage is about the  same as managers who responded this way for the rest of the government  (53 percent).
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Fifty-one percent of SBA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below.  This percentage is 21  points higher than that of managers who responded this way for the rest of  the government (30 percent) and this difference is statistically significant.   SBA ranked second highest, after GSA, of the 28 agencies included in the  survey.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Twenty-seven percent of SBA managers reported that they had, to a great  or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 75 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   SBA was among five agencies surveyed where the gap between  accountability and authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points.  (The others were the Federal Aviation Administration, Internal Revenue  Service, Social Security Administration, and Department of Housing and  Urban Development.)
SBA managers’ response concerning the extent to which managers are held  accountable for results (75 percent) was statistically significantly higher  than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government.  SBA managers’  response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking authority placed  the agency in the bottom quarter of agencies surveyed, although the  difference between SBA (27 percent) and the rest of the government  (36 percent) was not statistically significant.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of SBA managers (75 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (24 percent) cited quality measures, as  shown below.  Forty-four percent of managers reported having outcome  measures.
SBA was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government in  the percentage of its managers who identified having output measures to a  great or very great extent (75 percent).  However, the percentage of SBA  managers who reported having quality measures (24 percent) was  significantly below the percentage for the rest of the government (39 percent).  In addition, SBA was tied for first with HUD among the  28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of managers who reported that they  had output measures.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: SBA was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government in  the percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information for all five management activities shown below.  In addition,  the agency ranked first among the 28 agencies we surveyed concerning the  use of performance information when setting individual job expectations  for staff (66 percent).  SBA was second from the top in the percentage of  managers reporting that they used such information when allocating  resources (61 percent), after the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).   SBA also ranked second to OPM in the percentage of managers who cited  using this information when adopting new program approaches or  changing work processes (61 percent).  Finally, it was third, after HUD and  the Social Security Administration, in the percentage of managers reporting  that they used such information when setting program priorities (61  percent).
section_title: Social Security Administration: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Social Security Administration (SSA) was above the rest of the  government in aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and  the use of performance information, and it was below the rest of the  government in other aspects of agency climate and performance  measurement.  The agency was statistically significantly higher than the  rest of the government in the percentage of managers reporting that their  agency’s top leadership had a strong commitment to achieving results; that  they used output measures, and that they used performance information to  set program priorities.  SSA was significantly lower in the percentage of  managers reporting that they had the decisionmaking authority they  needed, and that they had quality performance measures.  In all other  areas, the agency was not statistically significantly different from the rest  of the government.
SSA and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) were  second highest among the 28 agencies, after the National Science  Foundation (NSF), in the percentage of managers who reported that their  agency’s top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to at  least a great extent.  Yet, SSA was the third lowest agency, before the  Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Internal Revenue Service  (IRS), in the percentage of managers who believed that they had the  decisionmaking authority they needed to achieve results to a similar  extent.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Over two-thirds (68 percent) of managers at SSA expressed the view that  their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great  or very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is 15 points higher  than that of the rest of the government (53 percent), and this difference is  statistically significant.  SSA and NASA were second to NSF for the 28  agencies included in the survey on this item.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-six percent of SSA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals compared with 30 percent for the rest of the  government, as shown below.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Twenty-three percent of SSA managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 68 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   SSA was among five agencies surveyed where the gap between  accountability and authority was wide and exceeded 40 percentage points.  (The others were the Internal Revenue Service, Federal Aviation  Administration, Small Business Administration, and Department of  Housing and Urban Development.)
SSA managers’ response concerning the extent of their decisionmaking  authority (23 percent) was the third lowest, ahead of FAA and IRS, among  the 28 agencies surveyed and is statistically significantly lower than the  36 percent reported by the rest of the government.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of SSA managers (73 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (29 percent) cited quality measures, as  shown below.  Forty-eight percent of managers reported having outcome  measures.
SSA was statistically significantly higher than the rest of the government in  the percentage of its managers who identified having output measures to a  great or very great extent.  The percentage of SSA managers who reported  having quality measures (29 percent) was significantly below the  percentages of managers for the rest of the government.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: In contrast to the rest of the federal government, 62 percent of managers at  SSA reported that they used performance information to a great or very  great extent when setting program priorities.  This is a statistically  significant difference when compared to the 44 percent of managers who  responded in this way across the rest of the government, as shown below.
section_title: Department of State: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of State was below the rest of the government in aspects  of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of performance  information.  It was statistically significantly lower than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who reported that managers  were held accountable by their agency for results.  State also ranked  significantly lower in the percentage of managers who reported having  customer service and quality measures and using performance information  when coordinating program efforts with other organizations.  In all other  areas, State was not statistically significantly different from the rest of the  government.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than half (46 percent) of managers at the Department of State  expressed the view that their top leadership was strongly committed to  achieving results to a great or very great extent, compared with 53 percent  for the rest of the government, as shown below.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-six percent of State managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, compared with 30 percent  for the rest of the government, as shown below.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-five percent of managers at State reported that they had, to a great  or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 49 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.
State managers' response concerning the extent to which managers were  held accountable for results (49 percent) was statistically significantly  lower than the 63 percent reported by the rest of the government.  State  was one of six agencies surveyed that had less than half of its managers  reporting that they were held accountable to at least a great extent. (The  others were the Agency for International Development, Department of  Energy, Forest Service, General Services Administration, and Health Care  Financing Administration.)
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of managers at State (43 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (21 percent) cited customer service  measures, as shown below.  Thirty-seven percent of managers reported  having outcome measures.
In addition, the percentages of State managers who reported having  customer service measures (21 percent) and quality measures (25 percent)  to a great or very great extent were statistically significantly below the  percentages of managers reporting these results for the rest of the  government.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: State ranked statistically significantly lower than the rest of the  government in the percentage of managers who indicated that they used  performance information when coordinating program efforts with internal  or external organizations (21 percent).
section_title: Department of Transportation: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Transportation (DOT) was below the rest of the  government in one aspect of performance measurement.  It was  statistically significantly lower than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who reported having outcome measures for their  programs.  In all other areas, DOT was not significantly different from the  rest of the government.  Survey results for one component of DOT, the  Federal Aviation Administration, are not included here but are reported in a  separate appendix.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Fifty-nine percent of managers at DOT expressed the view that their top  leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or very  great extent, compared with 53 percent of managers in the rest of the  government, as shown below.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-one percent of DOT managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, as shown below, and this percentage is equal  to that of managers in the rest of the government.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Forty-three percent of DOT managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 55 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of DOT managers (42 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (27 percent) cited efficiency measures, as  shown below.  In addition, the percentage of DOT managers who reported  having outcome measures to a great or very great extent (32 percent) was  statistically significantly below the percentage of managers reporting these  results for the rest of the government (44 percent).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Similar to the rest of the government, less than half of managers at DOT  reported that they used performance information for each of the  management activities shown below. In addition, DOT ranked in the lowest  quarter of the agencies surveyed for the percentage of managers who  reported using performance information when allocating resources (34  percent) and when setting individual job expectations with staff (31  percent).
section_title: Department of the Treasury: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of the Treasury was above the rest of the government in  aspects of agency climate, performance measurement, and the use of  performance information.  The agency was statistically significantly higher  than the rest of the government in the percentage of managers who  expressed the view that their agency’s top leadership was strongly  committed to achieving results to at least a great extent; who reported that  they had both output and outcome measures for their programs; and who  indicated that they used performance information when coordinating  program efforts.  For the items discussed in this appendix, Treasury was in  the top quarter of the 28 agencies we surveyed when ranked by the total  number of items they had that were statistically significantly higher than  the rest of the government.  In all other areas, Treasury was not statistically  significantly different from the rest of the government.  Survey results for  one component of Treasury, the Internal Revenue Service, are not included  here but are reported in a separate appendix.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Almost two-thirds (64 percent) of managers at Treasury expressed the view  that their top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a  great or very great extent, as shown below.  This percentage is 11 points  higher than the rest of the government (53 percent) and is statistically  significantly different.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Thirty-nine percent of Treasury managers reported that employees  received positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping  their agency accomplish its strategic goals, compared with 30 percent for  the rest of the government, as shown below.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-nine percent of Treasury managers reported that they had, to a great  or very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 65 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 63,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of Treasury managers (66 percent) reported having  output measures and the lowest (37 percent) cited customer service  measures, as shown below.
In addition, the percentages of Treasury managers who reported having  output measures (66 percent) and outcome measures (56 percent) to a  great or very great extent were significantly above the percentages of  managers reporting these results for the rest of the government (50 and 43  percent, respectively).
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: Treasury was significantly higher than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information when coordinating program efforts with internal or external  organizations (49 percent).
section_title: Department of Veterans Affairs: Selected Survey Results
paragraphs: The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) was above the rest of the  government in aspects of performance measurement and the use of  performance information.  It was statistically significantly higher than the  rest of the government in the percentage of managers who reported having  output, customer service, and quality measures and those who reported  using performance information to set program priorities, adopt new  program approaches or change work processes, and coordinate program  efforts with other organizations.  In all other areas, the agency was not  statistically significantly different from the rest of the government.
For the items discussed in this appendix, VA was in the top quarter of the  28 agencies we surveyed when ranked by the total number of items they  had that were statistically significantly higher than the rest of the  government.   In addition, VA and the General Services Administration  (GSA) ranked highest among the 28 agencies surveyed in the percentage of  managers who reported having customer service measures for their  programs.
subsections: section_title: Top Leadership
paragraphs: Less than half (47 percent) of managers at VA expressed the view that their  top leadership was strongly committed to achieving results to a great or  very great extent, compared with 54 percent for the rest of the government,  as shown below.
section_title: Positive Recognition
paragraphs: Twenty-three percent of VA managers reported that employees received  positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping their agency  accomplish its strategic goals, compared with 31 percent for the rest of the  government, as shown below.
section_title: Authority and Accountability
paragraphs: Thirty-seven percent of VA managers reported that they had, to a great or  very great extent, the decisionmaking authority they needed to help the  agency accomplish its strategic goals, whereas 67 percent indicated that  they were held accountable for results to a similar extent, as shown below.   For the rest of the government, these percentages were 36 and 62,  respectively.
section_title: Types of Performance Measures
paragraphs: When asked about the types of performance measures in their programs,  the highest percentage of VA managers (62 percent) reported having output  measures and the lowest (44 percent) cited efficiency measures, as shown  below.  Forty-nine percent of managers reported having outcome  measures.
In addition, the percentages of VA managers who reported having customer  service measures (54 percent), quality measures (57 percent), and output  measures (62 percent) to a great or very great extent were significantly  above the percentages of managers reporting these results for the rest of  the government.  VA and GSA were the highest among the agencies  surveyed for the percentage of managers who reported having customer  service measures for their programs.
section_title: Use of Performance Information
paragraphs: VA was significantly higher than the rest of the government in the  percentage of managers who indicated that they used performance  information when setting program priorities (60 percent), adopting new  program approaches or changing work processes (56 percent), and  coordinating program efforts with internal or external organizations (53  percent).
section_title: Comments From the Office of Management and Budget
subsections: section_title: Ordering Information
paragraphs: The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of  reports are $2 each. A check or money order should be made out to  the Superintendent of Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit  cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are  discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail: U.S. General Accounting Office P.O. Box 37050 Washington, DC  20013 Orders by visiting: Room 1100 700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) U.S. General Accounting Office Washington, DC Orders by phone: (202) 512-6000 fax: (202) 512-6061 TDD (202) 512-2537 Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and  testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list  from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a touchtone  phone. A recorded menu will provide information on how to obtain  these lists.
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, or Abuse in Federal Programs
paragraphs: Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm  e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov  1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)