The Results Act is intended to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by establishing a process to set goals for program performance and to measure results. As a starting point, the Act requires virtually every executive agency to develop a strategic plan covering at least 5 years. It also requires that an agency’s strategic plan contain the following six critical elements: a mission statement; agencywide goals and objectives; the strategies and resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives; the relationship between the long-term goals and objectives and the annual performance goals; the key external factors that could affect the achievement of goals; and a description of how program evaluations were and will be used to establish or revise strategic goals. When developing a strategic plan, the Results Act requires that the agency shall consult with the Congress and shall solicit and consider the views and suggestions of those entities potentially affected by or interested in such a plan. Furthermore, guidance from OMB states that when general goals and objectives have crosscutting functions, programs, or activities, agencies may have a shared responsibility for defining and achieving them. Thus, agencies should ensure that appropriate and timely consultation occurs with other agencies during the development of strategic plans with crosscutting goals and objectives. Though the Act does not include a requirement that the draft strategic plans should contain a description of how the activities of an agency relate and will be coordinated with the activities of other agencies with similar programs, OMB guidance does provide that the letter transmitting the strategic plan include a summary of the general scope and nature of the consultation and the types of entities consulted. In addition, OMB guidance on preparation of annual performance plans beginning in fiscal year 1999, states that agencies should indicate those goals and indicators that are being mutually undertaken in support of programs or activities of an interagency, crosscutting nature. It is important to recognize that the final strategic plans are not due to the Congress and OMB until September 1997. Furthermore, the Results Act anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to perfect the process and that the final plans would be continually refined as future planning cycles occur. Thus, our comments reflect a snapshot of the plans when they were submitted to the Congress, between May and July, and are intended to provide insights that may help this Committee and the agencies work together to successfully implement the Results Act. We also recognize that the agencies are continuing to revise their strategic plans with input from OMB, congressional staff, and other stakeholders. While NSF addresses five of the six required elements of the Results Act, at least four of them need further development, and the sixth element—key external factors—is not included in its draft strategic plan. Although NSF defines goals and objectives in the draft plan, many of these goals are not expressed in a measurable form, making it unclear whether the Foundation and the Congress will be able to assess whether the goals are achieved. NSF’s draft plan also does not discuss how the agency used specific program evaluations to develop its strategic goals or the other components of the plan. Further details are needed on a schedule for future evaluations, the scope of and methodology for future evaluations, and how the findings could be useful in assessing NSF’s goals and performance plans. The draft plan acknowledges the crosscutting nature of NSF’s work but does not show evidence of interagency coordination. It emphasizes the importance of NSF’s many partners in the research and education enterprise but does not identify these partners or provide sufficient information to determine the extent to which NSF and its partners’ functions are duplicative or overlapping. However, we identified similarities of mission in the draft plans developed by NSF, Energy, and Commerce. For example, the Foundation’s mission includes promoting the progress of science, and one of its overarching goals is to enable the United States to uphold a position of world leadership in all aspects of science, mathematics, and engineering. Similarly, Energy’s science mission is to ensure that the United States retains its leadership in science and technology. Also comparable is Commerce’s mission, which includes keeping America competitive with cutting-edge science and technology. Although not identified in NSF’s draft plan, agency officials cite efforts to coordinate the crosscutting areas. For example, NSF has shared its draft plan on the Internet. Furthermore, according to NSF’s Assistant to the Director for Science Policy and Planning, the Foundation participates in a number of groups such as the National Science and Technology Council, the Committee on Fundamental Science, and the Research Roundtable. While one purpose of these groups is to coordinate, NSF’s draft plan does not mention these groups or the frequency of their discussions. We have found that although these agency forums have provided an important opportunity for agencies to work together to address common concerns in goal setting and performance measurement, they have not generally attempted to coordinate crosscutting program efforts. Energy’s draft plan fully addresses only two of the six required elements—the mission statement and the goals and objectives—and partially addresses a third—the strategies element. We found that the goals and objectives cover the agency’s major functions and operations, and that the goals are generally results-oriented. However, in reviewing the multiple objectives for each goal, we identified several objectives that were stated in ways that will make it difficult to measure whether they are being achieved. Furthermore, Energy did not complete the element related to the impact of program evaluations on the development of strategic goals. The Department is finalizing these elements and expects to include them in the final plan. Although Energy does not mention crosscutting programs or coordination efforts in its draft plan, the Department is sharing its draft plan with other federal agencies. Energy’s draft plan does not identify programs and activities that are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies, primarily because the Department believes its functions are unique. On the basis of our work, however, we believe that Energy’s broad missions do involve or overlap those of other agencies. As previously discussed, we have identified the potentially overlapping missions of Energy, Commerce, and NSF. Another example of potential overlap is in science education. Energy’s draft strategic plan states that it will use its laboratories and the nation’s universities to contribute to the nation’s science and mathematics education. Similarly, NSF’s authorizing legislation directs it to initiate and support science and engineering education programs at all levels and in all fields of science and engineering. Environmental quality is another area of potential overlap. The science and technology portion of Energy’s draft plan contains a strategy to conduct high-quality research on environmental quality. Similarly, one of EPA’s goals is to develop and apply the best available science for addressing current and future environmental hazards as well as new approaches toward improving environmental protection. Commerce’s draft strategic plan contains four of the six critical elements, but each of the four, including the goals and objectives element, has weaknesses. While there are linkages among themes, goals, objectives, and responsible components, the goals and objectives are not as results-oriented as they could be. For example, the goal to support restructuring export controls for the 21st century could be made more results-oriented by identifying the purpose of the restructuring. Moreover, the draft plan does not explicitly discuss the program evaluations used to establish general goals and objectives and has no schedule for future program evaluations. Commerce’s draft plan also does not identify crosscutting programs and activities or whether such shared responsibilities were coordinated in the development of the draft plan. The draft plan does describe, in very general terms, some of the existing partnerships between Commerce agencies and various public and private entities. However, as stated earlier, we identified mission overlap between NSF, Energy, and Commerce. Another example of potential overlap occurs in Commerce’s grant program to promote the use of advanced telecommunications in the public and nonprofit sectors. A number of other federal agencies, including NSF, also support telecommunications projects for similar constituencies. Of the six elements required by the Results Act, NASA includes four in its draft strategic plan. The two that are not explained in enough detail are the relationship between NASA’s long-term goals and annual performance goals and a description of program evaluations. While the goals outlined by NASA appear to meet the Results Act’s requirements, progress toward some of the goals, such as the goal to acquire and encourage knowledge and technologies that promote our quality of life, may prove difficult to assess. As we recently reported, it is inherently difficult to measure the performance of research and development programs because the results are typically not apparent until many years later. The draft does not explicitly discuss or demonstrate how program evaluations were used in establishing or revising agency goals and objectives, nor does it provide a schedule for future evaluations. NASA’s draft plan also does not identify specific programs and activities that are crosscutting or similar to those of other federal agencies, and the plan does not address interagency coordination. Many of NASA’s objectives, however, are shared with other agencies. For example, one of NASA’s objectives related to long-term climate and ozone research involves NSF, the Department of Energy, and Commerce’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Moreover, like NSF’s mission of advancing scientific knowledge, one of NASA’s missions is to advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the Earth, the solar system, and the environment of space for research. The draft plan does not address what interagency coordination occurred to address the shared responsibilities. However, the draft plan does note the importance of working with other agencies in achieving its objectives, and NASA officials stated that coordination has occurred at the program level. NASA officials stated that each strategic enterprise coordinated its objectives with the relevant agencies at the program level. They noted that NASA officials participate in many crosscutting groups, like the Research Roundtable, where programmatic objectives are discussed. They also noted that for the last few years, the agency has shared its strategic plan with other federal agencies. EPA’s draft plan contains four of the six elements required by the Results Act, certain aspects of which could be improved.