On January 4, 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) became law. The acronym "GPRA" in the act's short title refers to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA 1993), a law that GPRAMA substantially modified. When GPRA 1993 was enacted, it was regarded as a watershed for the federal government. For the first time, Congress established requirements in statute for most agencies to set goals, measure performance, and report the information to Congress for potential use. Agencies submitted this information in three major products: multi-year strategic plans, annual plans, and annual reports. The law also required agencies to consult with Congress and non-federal stakeholders when developing some of these plans and goals. As a thread running through these requirements, the authors of GPRA 1993 said the law especially was intended to address the needs of Congress in its policy making, oversight, and budgeting work, and the needs of agency program managers. After a four-year phase-in period for GPRA 1993 and 13 years of the law's full implementation, GPRAMA makes substantial changes. Among other things, GPRAMA continues the three agency-level products from GPRA 1993, but with changes; establishes new products and processes that focus on goal-setting and performance measurement in policy areas that cut across agencies; brings attention to using goals and measures during policy implementation; increases reporting on the Internet; and requires individuals to be responsible for some goals and management tasks. In making these changes, GPRAMA aligns the timing of many products to coincide with presidential terms and budget proposals. The law also includes more central roles for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an entity that often seeks to advance the President's policy preferences. GPRAMA also contains more specific requirements for consultations with Congress. By design, many of GPRAMA's products are required to be submitted to Congress for scrutiny and potential use. The law also provides opportunities for Congress and non-federal stakeholders to influence how agencies and OMB set goals and assess performance. This report provides an overview of GPRAMA's products and processes. In addition, the report highlights potential issues for Congress. To provide context, the report first identifies potential congressional roles that relate to performance. Furthermore, because GPRAMA inserts an extensive vocabulary into law and practice, the report also includes a list of acronyms ( Appendix A ) and glossary ( Appendix B ). The roles that Congress may take regarding government performance are pervasive and difficult to overstate. In exercising its constitutional powers, Congress may by law establish agencies, their missions and goals, processes for how they operate, their priorities, and their resource levels. Congress also may influence the actions of agencies and OMB through non-statutory means, conduct oversight, and study policy problems. In any of these activities, Congress may cooperate or compete with the President to influence how agencies implement public policies. Like GPRA 1993, GPRAMA provides for goal-setting, measurement, and evaluation. These activities may not always be pursued in a neutral way, however. The choice of a policy goal or a trade-off among goals may be contested. It could be argued, therefore, that goals are inherently political in nature. Similarly, the definition of "success" that is to be used when assessing a program's performance also may be contested. In these situations, two tools of policy analysis often are used to help inform assessments of performance: program evaluation and performance measurement. Program evaluations use one or more methods to assess how, and the extent to which, programs or policies achieve intended objectives or cause unintended consequences (see box at right). By contrast, performance measurement is narrower in scope. It refers to periodic measurement of data that are related to programs. Used in isolation, performance measures do not necessarily reflect how well a program is working, because measurements may be driven by so-called "external factors" that are separate from the program, such as a natural disaster or downturn in the economy. In response, measurement and evaluation may be used together to help inform policy making. Policy making also may be informed by a variety of other analyses and considerations, such as forecasting, logic, risk assessment, and values. In this context, Congress may assume at least two roles. First, when Congress looks at a specific program or policy area, Congress may use performance information to help inform its thinking, oversight, and policy making. For example, an interest group or the President may cite goals, evaluations, and measures when justifying a proposal to Congress. Congress and other consumers of performance information may face challenges in these situations—such as when scrutinizing whether information has been presented without bias or is relevant to a policy problem. A large volume of incoming information also may strain time and staff resources. Challenges like these highlight another potential role. In this second role, Congress may establish federal policies and processes that relate to how the government's goal-setting, planning, and evaluation are to be conducted. Congress's passage of GPRA 1993 and GPRAMA are examples of this role. In addition, Congress may require agencies to involve non-federal stakeholders in processes like goal-setting or direct agencies to act transparently. In these ways, stakeholders may help Congress to identify performance-related issues that merit closer attention. Policies and processes like these typically are intended to generate useful information for multiple audiences—including Congress, agencies, the President, and the public—and, thereby, to help inform policy making, oversight, and faithful and effective implementation of laws. This CRS report focuses primarily on the first role, regarding the information and opportunities that GPRAMA may generate. Nevertheless, Congress might also assume the second role if it were assessing GPRAMA's design and implementation or considering changes to the law. GPRAMA substantially modified and added to GPRA 1993's framework of products and processes. In making these changes, GPRAMA's design drew from multiple sources. These included the views of the law's authors, the Barack Obama Administration's approach to government performance, the George W. Bush Administration's approach to government performance, the work during the 111 th Congress of a Senate Budget Committee task force, and Government Accountability Office (GAO) views. Looking ahead, these influences and the federal government's experience with GPRA 1993 may provide insights into current issues of GPRAMA's design, implementation, and prospects. This CRS report, however, focuses more immediately on GPRAMA's statutory requirements and the information and opportunities that the law may generate for Congress. In that light, the following subsections discuss GPRAMA's major provisions in four categories: agency-level products and processes that GPRAMA continues from GPRA 1993, albeit with significant changes; new agency-level products and processes; new products and processes that are executive branch-wide in scope; and institutional changes. After reviewing these provisions, subsequent sections of this report discuss how the changes fit together, some of their potential implications, and potential issues for Congress. GPRAMA retains the three agency-level products that GPRA 1993 created. However, the law provides the products with new statutory names, inserts additional requirements, and makes several changes to their schedules and processes for being developed. Agency Strategic Plan (ASP; formerly Strategic Plan). GPRAMA requires an agency to post a four-year Agency Strategic Plan on its public website. Contents. Some provisions from GPRA 1993 remain unchanged. Like GPRA 1993, GPRAMA requires an Agency Strategic Plan to identify "general goals and objectives" for the major functions and operations of the agency and to describe the evaluations used in establishing goals and objectives. GPRAMA also adds new requirements. Among other things, an agency must describe how it is working with other agencies to achieve certain goals. Timing requirements . GPRAMA newly aligns the process of developing and updating an Agency Strategic Plan to coincide with presidential terms and budget proposals. An ASP must cover four fiscal years and must be updated every four years. An agency is required to submit the revised plan just after the first year of a President's term, by the first Monday in February—the same deadline as the President's annual budget proposal. In the transition from GPRA 1993, GPRAMA requires agencies to adjust the Strategic Plans that they developed under GPRA 1993 to conform to GPRAMA's requirements by the deadline for the President's FY2013 budget proposal, in February 2012. Thereafter, agencies are required to submit revised ASPs just after the first year of each presidential term (e.g., February 2014). Agency consultations with Congress and non-federal stakeholders. Like GPRA 1993, GPRAMA requires agencies to involve Congress and stakeholders in the development of Agency Strategic Plans. However, GPRAMA provides more specific requirements for how agencies are required to consult with Congress. When developing or adjusting an ASP, an agency is required to consult "periodically" with Congress, including majority and minority views from the "appropriate" authorizing, appropriations, and oversight committees. Agencies also are required to consult with "appropriate" committees of Congress every two years, regardless of whether an ASP is updated. When developing or adjusting an ASP, an agency also is required to solicit and consider the views and suggestions of stakeholders. Agency Performance Plan (APP; formerly Annual Performance Plan). GPRAMA requires an agency annually to post an Agency Performance Plan on its public website. The plan accompanies the agency's budget proposal, as submitted by the President or the agency. The APP is required to cover each "program activity" (portion of a budget account; see Appendix B ), as presented in the Appendix volume of the President's budget proposal to Congress. Contents. Like GPRA 1993, GPRAMA requires an Agency Performance Plan to establish one or more "performance goals." An APP is required to establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing progress toward these performance goals. Indicators may be of many types, including efficiency, outputs, and outcomes. Under GPRAMA, the APP has new requirements, as well. For example, the product must describe how an agency plans to address major management challenges. In addition, the APP must identify "low-priority program activities" and provide an "evidence-based justification" for the low-priority designation. The product also is required to identify agency officials, called "goal leaders," who are responsible for the achievement of each performance goal. Time coverage. GPRAMA continues the GPRA 1993 requirement for the Agency Performance Plan to cover the forthcoming fiscal year, to coincide with the agency's budget request. Newly, however, the law also requires the APP to cover the current year in which the plan is submitted. Consequently, the APP becomes a two-year goal-setting product, in which the plan covers the forthcoming year and also updates goals and other information for the current year that were included in the previous year's APP. Agency Performance Update (APU; formerly Program Performance Report). GPRAMA requires that an "update on agency performance" be made available each year on the agency's public website. Contents. Continuing from GPRA 1993, GPRAMA requires the Agency Performance Update to provide performance indicators from the relevant Agency Performance Plan and compare performance goals with actual results. If a past performance goal was not met, an agency's APU is required to explain why and to describe plans for achieving the goal or explain if the goal is infeasible. Under GPRAMA, the APU also is newly required to provide data of significant value more frequently than annually if this can be done at a "reasonable" level of administrative burden. Timing requirements. The authors of GPRAMA probably intended for the Agency Performance Update to be made available no later than 150 days after the end of the fiscal year. In practice, agencies probably will comply with the APU's requirements sooner than the 150-day deadline. Depending on how an agency wishes to comply with current law and OMB direction, the APU may be completed (1) in November, several weeks after the end of a fiscal year, or (2) in February of the next calendar year, accompanying the agency's budget request and Agency Performance Plan. At the agency level, GPRAMA adds new requirements for goal-setting, implementation reviews, and plans and reports. Agency priority goals (APGs). Every two years, GPRAMA requires the heads of certain executive agencies—the so-called CFO Act agencies plus any additional agencies designated by OMB—to identify a small subset of the performance goals from their Agency Performance Plans. These goals are to be identified as "agency priority goals" (APGs). Agencies are required to identify an agency official, called a goal leader, who is responsible for achieving each APG. Process , timing, and role of OMB. GPRAMA requires agency priority goals to be identified beginning with each agency's FY2013 Agency Performance Plan. Apart from this requirement, GPRAMA establishes a potentially central role for OMB in structuring the APG process. The law provides that OMB determines the total number of agency priority goals and the number of goals to be developed by each agency. The law also appears to allow OMB to choose APGs and to determine the schedule for identifying them. Determining priorities. GPRAMA requires these goals to "reflect the highest priorities of the agency," as determined by the head of the agency and informed by two sources: OMB-developed "federal government priority goals" (see next section, under " New Executive Branch-Wide Products and Processes ") and an agency's consultations regarding its Agency Strategic Plan. However, the law does not require agencies or OMB to consult with Congress or stakeholders when they identify agency priority goals. Quarterly reviews for agency priority goals. During each fiscal year, GPRAMA requires an agency head and deputy head to conduct a "quarterly priority progress review." The quarterly review is required to focus on progress toward achieving each agency priority goal. GPRAMA's provisions appear to be modeled on the Obama Administration's "high-priority performance goal" (HPPG) initiative, where reviews were conducted as in-person meetings. Timing requirements . The reviews were required to begin for the third quarter of FY2011 based on HPPGs from the President's FY2011 budget proposal. After agencies made available their FY2013 Agency Performance Plans, GPRAMA required the reviews to be based on agency priority goals. Transparency. GPRAMA does not require the reviews themselves to be transparent to Congress or the public. Some information about APGs is required to be included on an OMB-developed website (see next section, under " New Executive Branch-Wide Products and Processes "). "Unmet goal" reports and plans. GPRAMA requires OMB to annually determine whether an agency meets the performance goals in its Agency Performance Plan, or whether any goals are "unmet." Using these determinations, agencies and OMB are required to generate several kinds of reports and plans to address unmet goals. Under GPRAMA, agency priority goals are subject to these requirements, because they are performance goals that are required to be included in an agency's APP. Lists of plans and reports produced for Congress. GPRAMA requires an agency to annually list all plans and reports it produces for Congress that are required by statute or directed in congressional reports. From this list, the agency is required to identify a minimum percentage of the products as "outdated" or "duplicative." GPRAMA provides that the minimum percentage is to be determined annually by OMB but must be at least 10% in the first year of GPRAMA's implementation. The agency is required to submit this second list to OMB. Next, GPRAMA requires the agency to consult with congressional committees that receive the documents to determine whether the products are no longer useful to them and could be eliminated or consolidated. At the executive branch-wide level, GPRAMA adds new requirements for goal-setting, plans, implementation reviews, and reports. Federal government priority goals (FGPGs). OMB is required to work with agencies to develop long-term "federal government priority goals" (FGPGs). Contents. Federal government priority goals are required to be developed in two categories: (1) outcome-oriented goals in a limited number of policy areas that cut across agency boundaries, and (2) goals for management improvements across the federal government. In the second category, goals may relate to improvements in financial management, human capital management, information technology management, procurement and acquisition management, and real property management. Timing requirements. GPRAMA aligns the process of developing federal government priority goals to coincide with the deadline for submitting the President's budget proposal just after the first year of his or her term. The goals are required to be updated or revised every four years according to this schedule. In the transition from GPRA 1993, GPRAMA requires interim FGPGs to be submitted with the President's FY2013 budget proposal. OMB consultations with Congress. When OMB develops or adjusts FGPGs, GPRAMA requires OMB to consult "periodically" with the majorities and minorities of several specific committees (see Appendix B ) and any other "appropriate" committees. OMB also is required to consult at least once every two years with "appropriate committees," presumably about FGPGs. Federal Government Performance Plan (FGPP). GPRAMA requires OMB to coordinate with agencies to develop an annual Federal Government Performance Plan (FGPP). OMB is required to submit the plan to Congress with the President's budget proposals for FY2013 and each subsequent year. Contents. Among other things, the Federal Government Performance Plan is required to establish one or more "federal government performance goals" for each federal government priority goal. The plan also is required to identify a "lead Government official" to be responsible for coordinating efforts to achieve each federal government priority goal. Time c overage. Like the Agency Performance Plan, the FGPP is a two-year plan that covers the forthcoming year and the year in which the plan is submitted. Quarterly reviews for FGPGs. During each fiscal year, GPRAMA requires OMB to conduct a "quarterly priority progress review" of the progress toward achieving each federal government priority goal. Timing requirements. The quarterly reviews are required to begin for the quarter ending June 30, 2012 (i.e., third quarter of FY2012). Transparency. The law does not require the reviews themselves to be transparent to Congress or the public. Some information about federal government priority goals is required to be included on an OMB-developed website (see next bullet, below). OMB performance website. GPRAMA requires OMB to establish a single, performance-related website by October 1, 2012. The website is required to be accessible to Congress and the public in a searchable, machine-readable format. With respect to content, GPRAMA requires the website to make available information about the two kinds of "priority" goals that GPRAMA establishes—agency priority goals and federal government priority goals—including how both kinds of priority goals incorporate views and suggestions obtained through congressional consultations; all information required for the Federal Government Performance Plan, posted concurrently with submission of the President's budget proposal; agency-level Agency Strategic Plans, Agency Performance Plans, and Agency Performance Updates; and detailed information about each "program" identified by agencies, including in each case an explanation of how the agency defines the term "program." GPRAMA requires the OMB performance website to be updated quarterly. It remains to be seen, however, which categories of data on the website will be updated on that schedule. GPRAMA does not require the website to provide transparency into the quarterly reviews that OMB and agencies conduct for the two kinds of priority goals. Therefore, information from the reviews may or may not be posted online. Presidential list of plans and reports for Congress. GPRAMA requires the President's budget proposal to include an executive branch-wide list of certain plans and reports that agencies produce for Congress. Contents. The President's list is required to include products "that agencies identified for elimination or consolidation because the plans and reports are determined outdated or duplicative of other required plans and reports." GPRAMA further says OMB may concurrently submit draft legislation to eliminate or consolidate these products. Process. As noted earlier, each agency is separately required to identify an OMB-determined percentage of reports and plans as outdated or duplicative, send this list to OMB, and consult with congressional recipients about which products could be eliminated or consolidated. The agency-level requirement does not specify that agencies go beyond identifying reports and plans as outdated or duplicative to also identify them for elimination or consolidation. If agencies operate according to the sequence in the separate requirement, the President's list may not reflect agencies' consultations about whether any of the products are considered by recipients to be outdated or duplicative. GPRAMA's provisions that relate to products and processes are accompanied by several institutional changes that involve officials and organizations. GPRAMA provides that the officials and organizations have specific duties in relation to many of the products and processes. Chief Operating Officers (COOs). GPRAMA establishes an additional title for the deputy head or equivalent position of each agency: Chief Operating Officer (COO). GPRAMA says the agency's COO is "responsible for improving the management and performance of the agency" and specifies several corresponding functions. These include responsibility for assisting the agency head in implementing GPRAMA, conducting quarterly reviews for agency priority goals, and overseeing efforts to improve mission-support functions (e.g., procurement). Performance Improvement Officers (PIOs). GPRAMA requires each agency head to designate a senior executive as Performance Improvement Officer (PIO). Qualification requirements and reporting relationship. An agency's Performance Improvement Officer may be a career civil servant or a political appointee. GPRAMA does not identify specific qualification requirements. A PIO is required to report directly to the agency Chief Operating Officer. Duties. The primary duties of a Performance Improvement Officer under GPRAMA are to advise and assist the head and deputy head of an agency in areas like goal-setting, planning, and performance measurement. A PIO also is required to assist with quarterly reviews of progress toward APGs and the "development and use ... of performance measures in personnel performance appraisals." GPRAMA does not explicitly provide for transparency outside the executive branch into the activities and agendas of individual PIOs. Performance Improvement Council (PIC). GPRAMA establishes in law a Performance Improvement Council (PIC). Membership. The Performance Improvement Council's membership includes OMB's Deputy Director for Management (DDM) as chairperson, Performance Improvement Officers from the 24 CFO Act agencies, and other PIOs and individuals as determined by OMB's DDM. Duties. The Performance Improvement Council's primary duties include assisting OMB with topics related to GPRAMA and serving at the direction of OMB's Deputy Director for Management, who determines the council's agenda and directs its work. The PIC also is tasked with developing related recommendations for the Director of OMB or the President, as specified by the DDM, and working to resolve crosscutting performance issues. GPRAMA does not explicitly provide for transparency outside the executive branch into the PIC's activities and agenda. OMB-directed staff of agency personnel for the Performance Improvement Council. GPRAMA requires each of the 24 CFO Act agencies, plus any other agencies with Performance Improvement Officers who serve as members of the Performance Improvement Council, to provide up to two "personnel authorizations" to serve at the direction of OMB's Deputy Director for Management upon his or her request. If the reference to "personnel authorizations" were interpreted as requiring an agency to provide detailees, OMB could use this authority to direct 48 or more agency staff in support of the PIC's duties and the President's performance-related agenda. Officials responsible for certain goals and topics. As noted earlier, GPRAMA requires individual officials to be identified as responsible for certain topics. A consolidated listing of these topics and officials follows: Agency-level performance goals . An Agency Performance Plan is required to identify the agency officials, called goal leaders, who are responsible for the achievement of each performance goal. Agency priority goals . Agencies and the OMB performance website are required to identify an agency official, also called a goal leader, who is responsible for achieving each agency priority goal. Federal government priority goals . The Federal Government Performance Plan and the OMB performance website are required to identify a lead government official to be responsible for coordinating efforts to achieve each federal government priority goal. Resolution of major management challenges . An Agency Performance Plan is required to identify the agency official who is responsible for resolving major management challenges that the agency faces. Improvement strategies for unmet goals . When OMB determines that an agency has not met one or more performance goals from its Agency Performance Plan for one year, the agency is required to designate a "senior official" to oversee "performance improvement strategies" for each goal. GPRAMA provides for many products and processes that will be presented to Congress. Each may be viewed in isolation. Several patterns emerge, however, when they are viewed together. Figure 1 provides a timeline for GPRAMA's implementation. On the left side, the figure lists some of GPRAMA's requirements for products and processes. Items that are associated with GPRAMA appear as rectangles with light grey background and black print. For reference, the figure also includes the statutory requirement for the President's budget proposal (black background, white print), because GPRAMA aligns the schedules of several products to coincide with the President's budget proposal. At the bottom, timelines show fiscal and calendar years. Moving from left to right, when the figure shows a vertical line that intersects with a product or process, GPRAMA requires the product or process to be submitted or initiated by that time. Figure 1 illustrates several of GPRAMA's changes from prior practice and some patterns from GPRAMA's requirements. As noted earlier, three products associated with GPRA 1993 have new names, modified contents, and different years of coverage. For example, Agency Performance Plans are required to cover two fiscal years instead of only one. The figure shows these revised requirements for successive APPs. The figure also shows how Agency Strategic Plans are required to be adjusted with the FY2013 President's budget proposal and then submitted on a regular, four-year schedule beginning with the FY2015 President's budget proposal. Separately, GPRAMA required agencies to commence with quarterly reviews of previously established high-priority performance goals based on performance during the third quarter of FY2011. GPRAMA requires agency priority goals to be included in FY2013 Agency Performance Plans and subject to quarterly reviews thereafter. Subsequently, the schedule for establishing and revising agency priority goals may be determined by OMB. Consequently, the schedule for release of new or revised APGs may vary over time and differ among Presidents. With respect to deadlines, GPRAMA aligns the timing for many of its products with submission of the President's budget proposal, as shown by the vertical lines. Initially, the law requires the President, OMB, and agencies to produce several products to accompany the President's FY2013 budget proposal. However, GPRAMA provides that a one-year transition from GPRA 1993 take place. Consequently, the law characterizes some of these goals and plans as "interim" or "adjusted." After the FY2013 transition, full implementation begins with the President's budget proposals for FY2014 and FY2015. The FY2015 submission will occur just after the first year of the presidential term that begins in January 2013. The products that are due in February 2014 also illustrate how GPRAMA aligns Agency Strategic Plans and federal government priority goals with presidential terms. By design, many of GPRAMA's products are required to be submitted to Congress as potential inputs for its work. The law directs, for example, that an Agency Performance Plan shall provide detailed information to Congress about the agency's goals, operations, and results. In considering the representations that these products make, Congress may examine each product in isolation. However, additional perspective may be gained by viewing how the contents of the products and processes relate each other. Figure 2 illustrates some of these interrelationships. In the figure, several products and processes are illustrated by graphics that contain small subsets of GPRAMA's detailed requirements. Agency-level products and processes are shown in the bottom row, and executive branch-wide products and processes are shown in the top row. Notably, while GPRA 1993 focused on agency-level products and processes, GPRAMA added several items at the executive branch-wide level. Moving from left to right across columns, Figure 2 shows how GPRAMA's products and processes reflect four-year goal-setting at both the executive branch-wide level and the agency level (second column), annual submission of two-year goal-setting (third column), quarterly reviews of priority goals (fourth column), and inclusion of information on the OMB website (fifth column). The OMB website is required to provide both agency-level and executive branch-wide information. The figure illustrates how GPRAMA requires some of the contents of products and processes to relate to each other. For example, GPRAMA requires OMB to establish federal government priority goals. Inside the small graphic for FGPGs (upper left), Figure 2 circles a hypothetical federal government priority goal for a crosscutting policy area, labeled as "FGPG 2." This might be a goal related to food safety, for example, where multiple agencies and programs work to promote a safe national food supply. The figure then uses arrows to trace how other products and processes at the executive branch-wide and agency levels are required to relate to that goal. Moving to the right, the Federal Government Performance Plan is required to have one or more performance goals for each FGPG. Continuing to toward the right, OMB is required to conduct a review of progress with the federal government priority goal's lead official each quarter. Finally, OMB is required to post the most recent quarterly results that were achieved for FGPG 2. At the agency level, Figure 2 illustrates that each Agency Strategic Plan (graphic at lower left) is required to describe how any of the agency's general goals or objectives may contribute to federal government priority goals. In turn, an Agency Performance Plan is required to describe how the agency's own performance goals, such as the circled "Performance Goal 2," contribute to the agency's general goals in the Agency Strategic Plan. The APP also is required to describe how agency-level performance goals contribute to the executive branch-level federal government performance goals in the Federal Government Performance Plan. If an agency has a performance goal that also is designated as an agency priority goal (e.g., "APG 2"), GPRAMA requires the agency to review quarterly progress with the relevant goal leader. Finally, the law requires OMB and agencies to post online the most recent quarterly results for each agency priority goal. The ways in which OMB and agencies present information to Congress in these products and processes may vary over time. GPRAMA establishes minimum expectations in law, however. Depending on how GPRAMA's changes are implemented, the law may have significant implications. To highlight a few, GPRAMA brings additional attention to policy implementation and oversight in several ways. For example, GPRA 1993 focused on annual plans that were used to support the President's budget proposal. These plans were not required to be revised to reflect congressional action. By contrast, GPRAMA adds a requirement that effectively requires the Agency Performance Plans to be updated to reflect this policy making. In quarterly reviews, the law may bring focus to achieving goals during policy implementation, and the performance-related website may facilitate congressional oversight. GPRAMA's requirements for individual officials to be responsible for various management- and performance-related tasks also may provide a convenient means for Congress to interact with agencies about discrete topics. GPRAMA continues with GPRA 1993's emphasis on goal-setting and performance measurement, with little explicit emphasis on producing or presenting program evaluations. Under GPRA 1993, this sometimes could leave unclear how well programs themselves were performing, why, and what might be done in response. For example, achievement or non-achievement of a goal might be driven by "external" factors other than the program, and measurement of goal achievement may reveal little information that is actionable for an agency, Congress, or the President. At the same time, GPRAMA also brings more attention to goal-setting and performance in areas that cut across federal programs and agencies. As shown in Figure 2 , the law established a new set of executive branch-wide products and processes. In addition, nearly 20 provisions in GPRAMA relate to the concept of crosscutting policy areas, where multiple agencies, programs, regulations, delivery partners, and other policy tools may "contribute" to the accomplishment of a goal or desired outcome. Several provisions require assessments of whether activities that cut across these boundaries are contributing toward achievement of the same goal. GPRAMA does not specify how such assessments are to be made or presented to Congress. Nevertheless, agencies and OMB might use program evaluations or "logic modeling" (see Appendix B ) to portray and demonstrate these relationships. In several ways, GPRAMA establishes more specific requirements for agency and OMB interactions with Congress. For example, agency consultations with Congress about Agency Strategic Plans are required to include both majority and minority views from authorizing, appropriations, and oversight committees. In this context, another GPRAMA provision requires consultations with "appropriate" committees to occur every two years. Similarly, when OMB coordinates development of long-term federal government priority goals, GPRAMA requires OMB to consult "periodically" with the majorities and minorities of several specific committees. To provide some accountability with regard to consultations, GPRAMA requires reporting in Agency Strategic Plans and on the OMB website regarding how (or whether) congressional views and suggestions were incorporated into certain kinds of goals. At the same time, it remains to be seen if GPRAMA could have any implications for the working relationships and the power relationships among Congress, agencies, OMB, the President, and the public. To illustrate, the OMB website has stated that [t]he core mission of OMB is to serve the President of the United States in implementing his vision across the Executive Branch.... As the implementation and enforcement arm of Presidential policy government-wide, OMB carries out its mission through five critical processes that are essential to the President's ability to plan and implement his priorities across the Executive Branch. GPRAMA gives OMB specific statutory authorities that it could attempt to use to influence several products, processes, and institutions. In any of these situations, if a GPRAMA product or process were perceived as reflecting primarily the President's policy preferences or assessing performance in a way that does not reflect underlying statute or congressional intent, some observers might view the product or process as less credible or useful. Similarly, GPRAMA aligns or re-aligns numerous products and processes according to presidential terms and budget proposals. As a consequence, it arguably remains to be seen whether GPRAMA's authorities could be used to alter the responsiveness of agencies to Congress and congressional intent. For example, in spite of more specific consultation requirements, it might become more difficult for Congress to influence agencies' goal-setting in Agency Strategic Plans. Under GPRAMA, all agencies probably will submit draft ASPs to OMB for clearance at the same time, in the first year of a new President's term. This is a time when the President traditionally attempts to influence agencies to adopt and implement his or her policy agenda. As a consequence, OMB's ability to influence or direct the choices of agencies and the information that they present may be enhanced in comparison with GPRA 1993. GPRAMA's more specific requirements for congressional consultations about ASPs and priority goals, along with transparency from the OMB performance website, also could affect working and power relationships. For example, it remains to be seen whether congressional consultations might mitigate any of the possibilities discussed above, create enhanced opportunities for Congress to influence the choices of agencies, or foster congressional-executive collaboration and compromise. With these and other potential implications in mind, the bullets below highlight more specific issues for Congress that might arise during implementation of GPRAMA. Each bullet also includes questions that might be considered. Congressional consultations and defining "success." GPRAMA requires agencies and OMB to consult with Congress regarding Agency Strategic Plans, federal government priority goals, and agency submissions of plans and reports to Congress. Committees also might consider asserting broader prerogatives to interact with or direct agencies. In these contexts, have meaningful consultations occurred with relevant committees and Members? Did the consultations occur during formulation of the plans, goals, and proposals, or only after the fact? Are agencies being responsive to committees of jurisdiction? Do committees and Members agree with the way in which agencies or OMB are defining what constitutes a "program," as this is required to be portrayed on the OMB performance website by October 2012? How might committees and Members engage on these topics effectively? Do goals and objectives reflect current law and congressional intent? Does Congress agree with the designation of certain goals as being priority goals? Are plans and goals well formulated and coordinated? Agency and OMB representations about performance. By design, GPRAMA requires many products to be submitted to Congress to inform its policy deliberations. If the products are to be considered useful to Congress and the public, one input to perceptions of usefulness may be whether the products are perceived as making credible, unbiased representations about how well agencies and programs are performing. How credible are these representations? For a program or agency, is "success" being defined appropriately? Are credible and appropriate methods of policy analysis, measurement, and evaluation being used? What resources and tools might Congress draw upon, including from its support agencies and the public, to scrutinize any "evidence" that is presented? What are the policy implications of available evidence and analyses? Oversight, transparency, and public participation. Congress oftentimes relies on transparency and public participation to help it conduct oversight of policy development and implementation within agencies and OMB. Oversight findings may generate interest in subsequent lawmaking or other legislative activity. What have been the recent activities of Performance Improvement Officers and the Performance Improvement Council? Are they functioning effectively? What is happening during quarterly reviews? Are agencies and OMB focusing on learning and improvement in addition to goal achievement? Is the OMB performance website providing the required information? If a goal is removed from the website, or if a goal's target is revised, will the website retain any record of the previous goal or target? Might it be worthwhile to communicate informally with a goal leader or other official who is responsible for a topic under GPRAMA, or more formally invite the official to testify at a hearing? Are non-federal stakeholders being consulted by agencies in the development of Agency Strategic Plans? What are stakeholders' views about agencies' goals? Are OMB and agencies consulting effectively with Congress about the potential elimination of requirements to submit plans and reports to Congress? Is GPRAMA being implemented in a way that helps agency program managers and front-line staff without creating perverse incentives for organizations and individuals? Crosscutting policy areas. Congress and observers have expressed interest in policy areas that cut across agency and programmatic boundaries. In these areas, more than one agency or program may collaborate and contribute toward desired policy outcomes or, conversely, duplicate effort. For example, GPRAMA requires OMB to include information on its performance website about each agency program and how the program contributes to one or more of the agency's goals. GAO is separately required to report annually on programs, agencies, and initiatives with "duplicative goals and activities." Most of GAO's March 2011 findings cited "potential" fragmentation, overlap, or duplication, and GAO oftentimes recommended further analysis or enhanced coordination. Are agencies and OMB using their scarce analytical resources effectively to coordinate efforts and identify and exploit potential efficiencies? Are agencies and OMB using appropriate tools to conduct these analyses, potentially including evaluations and logic modeling? Are there implications for coordination across congressional committees? GPRAMA 's design and implementation. Compared to the four-year phase-in period for GPRA 1993, the phase-in period for GPRAMA before full implementation is fairly short. Answers to specific questions posed above about the implementation of GPRAMA may raise broader questions about how well the law is designed and how well it is being implemented by OMB or specific agencies. In that light, how well is GPRAMA serving Congress's needs? How well is it serving the needs of agency personnel, the President, and the public? Are agencies and OMB adequately complying with the act? Are agencies and OMB using the act in way that promotes improvement and learning in addition to accountability? Do agencies have the necessary capacity—including staff, skills, technology, and funding—to implement the law's numerous and detailed requirements? In response to any of these topics, and if a problem were perceived, what options might be considered to enhance the law's design or implementation? Appendix A. Acronyms This table lists acronyms that are used in this CRS report. For some entries, text that is located inside parentheses indicates when an acronym is associated with implementation of GPRAMA, GPRA 1993, another law, or a presidential initiative. For acronyms associated with a particular President, the table indicates the relevant administration. In practice, some terms and corresponding acronyms have been used that do not mirror the precise language from underlying statutes. In Appendix B , a glossary provides more information about these cases. Appendix B. Glossary of Terms Government processes oftentimes involve specialized terms. The federal budget process, for example, has evolved to a level of complexity where participants in the process often perceive a need for glossaries and guides. GPRAMA similarly establishes an elaborate framework of products and processes that focus on government performance. In doing so, the law uses terms that are interrelated and sometimes technical in nature. Notably, the designs and legislative histories of GPRA 1993 and GPRAMA indicate Congress's intention for Congress itself, along with agencies, the President, non-federal stakeholders, and the broader public, to be consumers of the laws' products and to actively participate in the laws' processes for managing performance of the government. To assist with navigating through GPRAMA's varied products and processes, this glossary provides capsule summaries and statutory citations for related terms. In each entry, when a term is included that also is listed elsewhere in the glossary, the term is written in italics the first time it is used.

Summary: On January 4, 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) became law. The acronym "GPRA" in the act's short title refers to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA 1993), a law that GPRAMA substantially modified. When GPRA 1993 was enacted, it was regarded as a watershed for the federal government. For the first time, Congress established statutory requirements for most agencies to set goals, measure performance, and submit related plans and reports (hereafter, "products") to Congress for its potential use. After a four-year phase-in period for GPRA 1993 and 13 years of the law's full implementation, GPRAMA makes substantial changes. Among other things, GPRAMA continues three agency-level products from GPRA 1993, but with changes; establishes new products and processes that focus on goal-setting and performance measurement in policy areas that cut across agencies; brings attention to using goals and measures during policy implementation; increases reporting on the Internet; and requires individuals to be responsible for some goals and management tasks. In making these changes, GPRAMA aligns the timing of many products to coincide with presidential terms and budget proposals. The law also includes more central roles for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an entity that often seeks to advance the President's policy preferences. GPRAMA also contains more specific requirements for consultations with Congress. By design, many of GPRAMA's products are required to be submitted to Congress for scrutiny and potential use. The law also provides opportunities for Congress and non-federal stakeholders to influence how agencies and OMB set goals and assess performance. This report provides an overview of GPRAMA's products and processes. In addition, the report highlights potential issues for Congress. Related questions that Congress might consider include the following: Are agencies' and OMB's consultations with Congress working well? Are agencies and OMB defining goals and assessing performance in ways that reflect underlying statutes and congressional intent? Are the representations that agencies and OMB make about government performance perceived by Congress, federal personnel, and the public as credible and useful? What are the implications of evidence that is presented? Are agencies and OMB implementing GPRAMA with desired levels of transparency and public participation? Are agencies, OMB, and Congress focusing effectively on crosscutting policy areas to better coordinate efforts and reduce any unnecessary duplication? Are agencies and OMB implementing GPRAMA in a responsive, effective manner? Is GPRAMA working well? If not, what might be done? This report will be updated as events warrant.