GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to results and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of (1) the annual performance goals for agencies’ major programs and activities, (2) the measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) the strategies and resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) the procedures that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These annual plans, issued after transmittal of the President’s budget, provide a direct linkage between an agency’s longer-term goals and mission and day-to-day activities. Annual performance reports are to subsequently describe the degree to which performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance reports, due by March 31 of each year, represents a new and potentially more substantive phase in the implementation of GPRA—the opportunity to assess federal agencies’ actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs in the future. The Department of State is the lead government agency representing U.S. interests overseas. As such, it is vested with a wide range of responsibilities, including formulating U.S. policy on diverse international issues, coordinating and implementing U.S. government programs and activities overseas, and influencing other countries to adopt policies and practices consistent with U.S. interests. The department, among other things, monitors and reports political, economic, and other developments in foreign countries; assists U.S. business overseas; provides services to U.S. citizens abroad; issues passports and visas; participates in international drug control programs; and manages facilities and provides security for U.S. personnel stationed at embassies and consulates. This section discusses our analysis of State’s performance in achieving its selected key outcomes and the strategies the department has in place, particularly regarding human capital and information technology, for accomplishing these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes, we have also provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to which State verified and validated its performance data. It is difficult to determine the level of progress toward achieving the five key outcomes that are discussed in the performance report for fiscal year 2000. For some key outcomes, it is unclear what State was trying to accomplish, due to a lack of linkages between activity-based performance measures and outcomes and a failure to report on many of the performance indicators outlined in the plan for 2000. The department provided little discussion on why progress in meeting certain performance targets was not reported, why other performance targets were not met, and what strategies would be used to achieve the unmet (and unreported) performance targets. State’s performance plan for 2002 discusses strategies to meet performance goals and more clearly links the key outcomes to strategies and performance indicators. In addition, the department developed new performance indicators for some key outcomes. However, as we reported in June 2000, many indicators continue to be output rather than outcome oriented, and some indicators are not readily measurable. The performance report for 2000 and the performance plan for 2002 discussed issues of data verification and validation for four of the five outcomes. In the performance report, State discussed data sources and the unit responsible for verifying data quality for four outcomes, but it did not discuss the frequency of data collection and the efforts taken to validate the data for three of those four outcomes (weapons of mass destruction, Americans traveling and living abroad, and counterterrorism). The 2002 plan discussed (1) the sources and management of performance data for four outcomes (weapons of mass destruction, Americans traveling and living abroad, international crime, and counterterrorism); (2) the frequency of data collection for two outcomes (international crime and counterterrorism); and (3) the validation of data for two outcomes (weapons of mass destruction and Americans traveling and living abroad). The department did not discuss how it will collect and validate performance data for the outcome of expanding foreign markets for U.S. goods and services. The performance report and performance plan provided detailed discussions of departmentwide strategic human capital and information technology efforts under the Diplomatic Readiness initiatives. However, other than for a few instances—such as State’s efforts to use the Internet for disseminating information on consular services and travel safety—the report generally did not discuss these issues within the context of achieving the key outcomes. The performance plan for 2002 listed the number of staff positions the department requested for all five key outcomes, but it did not explain how changes in the number of these positions would affect the achievement of the outcomes. The performance plan included a detailed discussion of information technology issues related to providing services to American citizens traveling and living abroad, but it did not do so for the remaining four outcomes. State reported it achieved one of its four planned performance targets for this outcome, made progress toward achieving a second, did not achieve a third target, and made no progress toward its fourth target. However, for the two indicators for which State reported progress, one performance target was not achieved and progress toward the other was unclear because State did not provide a full description of its actual accomplishment. State’s strategic goal for this key outcome was to eliminate the threat to the United States and its allies from weapons of mass destruction and destabilizing conventional arms. State’s fiscal year 2000 performance plan identified one performance goal regarding the negotiation and implementation of nonproliferation treaties, agreements, and controls with Russia and the other Newly Independent States. To measure achievement of this goal, State focused on four performance indicators: (1) establishment of nonproliferation export controls in Russia and the other Newly Independent States, (2) progress on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty III (START III) with Russia, (3) accession of Newly Independent States to the Chemical Weapons Convention, and (4) agreement between the United States and Russia on antiballistic missile defense and theater missile defense demarcation. Under nonproliferation activities, State’s target was to have export controls in place in all 12 Newly Independent States, with a majority of these countries enforcing them. Actual performance showed that five countries (Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine) have the controls in place, and one (Ukraine) enforces them. State did not explain why the targets under this outcome were not met. For the second performance indicator, State reported that the United States and Russia held preliminary discussions about arms reductions under START III during 2000. While important, the result does not meet the target for 2000 of having a treaty signed by the United States and Russia. Under the third indicator, the department stated that 12 additional countries ratified or acceded to the Chemical Weapons Convention, but it is unclear whether this achievement meets the planned target of 2 additional Newly Independent States joining the convention because the department did not report the countries that joined. Finally, State reported it made no progress related to antiballistic missile defense and theater missile defense demarcation because Russia was not willing to engage in formal discussions. The performance report discussed strategies to achieve the unmet performance goal of having all 12 Newly Independent States institute nonproliferation export controls and having the majority enforce them. The department stated that it has expanded into two distinct export control offices—one focused on policy and the other on sanctions and assistance. However, State did not report why the performance targets were not met; thus it is difficult to determine how this strategy will help the department achieve the unmet target in the future. The report did not discuss why the START III negotiations were delayed or a likely time frame for when the negotiations would be completed and the treaty signed, nor did the report discuss the actions State will take to meet its targets for theater and antiballistic missile defense demarcation. Overall, the fiscal year 2002 plan provides a more clear definition of State’s intended strategies and performance regarding weapons of mass destruction by organizing the performance goals and indicators in a more logical fashion. State’s unified approach eliminated many goals and indicators that resulted from State’s prior year approach that was devolved to the regional level. By focusing on agencywide, rather than regional, objectives and limiting its planning to nonmandated activities, State reduced the number of performance goals for this key outcome from 75 for fiscal year 2001 to 7 for 2002 and the number of performance indicators from 64 to 15. In addition, State will continue to use two categories for judging 2002 performance for this outcome—successful and minimally successful—each of which has specific associated levels of performance. However, some of the performance indicators and targets identified continue to lack valid measures of progress. For example, one new indicator measuring performance toward missile defense defines “successful” performance as “undertak appropriate actions to implement U.S. Government decisions on missile defense.” As in prior plans, State identified the agencies with which coordination is needed for each performance goal, yet failed to discuss the nature and extent of the coordination necessary or the new strategies that may be needed. In the performance report, State addressed data verification by stating the sources of data. The performance plan for 2002 provided the same information on data verification, in addition to the units responsible for data collection and management. However, the department did not indicate how it would verify the data. In the 2002 plan, State requested an increase of 20 full-time staff for this outcome, but it did not say how the additional positions would be allocated. State reported it achieved performance targets for all seven indicators outlined in the performance plan for 2000. However, for three indicators that State reported as having been achieved, we found the department only partially met its targets. Finally, the linkage between one of the performance indicators and the outcome was unclear. State has deleted that indicator from its subsequent performance plan.