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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.) 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). 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. 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. 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). 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). 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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.) 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.) 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. 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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). 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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). 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. Web site: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm e-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 1-800-424-5454 (automated answering system)

Summary: 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.