The Results Act is the centerpiece of a statutory framework to improve federal agencies’ management activities. The Results Act was designed to focus federal agencies’ attention from the amounts of money they spend or the size of their workloads to the results of their programs. Agencies are expected to base goals on their results-oriented missions, develop strategies for achieving their goals, and measure actual performance against the goals. The Results Act requires agencies to consult with the Congress in developing their strategic plans. This gives the Congress the opportunity to help ensure that their missions and goals are focused on results, are consistent with programs’ authorizing laws, and are reasonable in light of fiscal constraints. The products of this consultation should be clearer guidance to agencies on their missions and goals and better information to help the Congress choose among programs, consider alternative ways to achieve results, and assess how well agencies are achieving them. fiscal year 1999 budget submissions, which were due to OMB by September 8, 1997. OMB, in turn, is required to include a governmentwide performance plan in the President’s fiscal year 1999 budget submission to the Congress. As required by the Results Act, GAO reviewed agencies’ progress in implementing the act, including the prospects for agency compliance. VA’s August 15, 1997, draft strategic plan represents a significant improvement over the June 1997 draft. The latest version is clearer and easier to follow, more complete, and better organized to focus more on results and less on process. At the same time, VA has still not fully addressed some of the key elements required by the Results Act; the draft plan has a lack of goals focused on the results of VA programs for veterans and their families, such as assisting veterans in readjusting to civilian life; limited discussions of external factors beyond VA’s control that could affect its achievement of goals; a lack of program evaluations to support the development of results-oriented goals; and insufficient plans to identify and meet needs to coordinate VA programs with those of other federal agencies. The draft strategic plan, acknowledging that three of these four elements (results-oriented goals, program evaluations, and agency coordination) have not been fully addressed, does plan to address them. VA has indicated that it views strategic planning as a long-term process and intends to continue refining its strategic plan in consultation with the Congress, veterans service organizations, and other stakeholders. Another challenge for VA is to improve its financial and information technology management, so that the agency’s ongoing planning efforts under the Results Act will be based on the best possible information. VA’s draft strategic plan addresses several financial and information technology issues, such as the need for cost accounting systems for VA programs and the need to improve VA’s capital asset planning. results. VA officials indicated that, based on consultations with staff from the House and Senate Veterans’ Affairs committees, which included input from GAO, the draft strategic plan would be revised to make it clearer, more complete, and more results-oriented. The August 15, 1997, version reflects significant progress in these areas. Instead of presenting four overall goals, three of which were process-oriented, VA has reorganized its draft strategic plan into two sections. The first section, entitled “Honor, Care, and Compensate Veterans in Recognition of Their Sacrifices for America,” is intended to incorporate VA’s results-oriented strategic goals. The second section, entitled “Management Strategies,” incorporates the three other general goals, related to customer service, workforce development, and taxpayer return on investment. In addition, VA has filled significant gaps in the discussions of program goals. The largest gap in the June 1997 draft was the lack of goals for four of the five major veterans benefit programs. The current plan includes goals for each of these programs, stating them in terms of ensuring that VA benefit programs meet veterans’ needs. Finally, the reorganized draft plan increases the emphasis on results. The June 1997 draft appeared to make such process-oriented goals as improving customer service and speeding claims processing equivalent to more results-oriented goals such as improving veterans’ health care. In the August 1997 version, the process-oriented goals remain but have been placed in their own process-oriented section supplementing the plan’s results orientation. At the same time, VA believes that the process-oriented portions of the plan are important as a guide to VA’s management. It considers customer service very important because VA’s focus is on providing services to veterans and their families. The Assistant Secretary for Policy and Planning, in written comments on a draft of our July 1997 letter, stated that VA continues to believe “that processes and operations are important to serving veterans and [VA] will continue to place appropriate emphasis on the areas of customer service, workforce development, and management issues.” VA also contends that the Results Act does not preclude process-oriented goals from its strategic plan. We agree that many of the process issues VA raises are important to its efficient and effective operation and can be included in VA’s strategic plan as long as they are integrated with the plan’s primary focus on results. Perhaps the most significant deficiency in VA’s draft strategic plan, in both the June 1997 and current versions, is the lack of results-oriented goals for major VA programs, particularly for benefit programs. While discussions of goals for benefit programs have been added to the current version, they are placeholders for results-oriented goals that have not yet been developed. The general goals for 4 of the 5 the major benefit program areas—compensation and pensions, education, vocational rehabilitation, and housing credit assistance—are stated in terms of ensuring that VA is meeting the needs of veterans and their families. The objectives supporting VA’s general goal for its compensation and pension area are to (1) evaluate compensation and pension programs to determine their effectiveness in meeting the needs of veterans and their beneficiaries; and (2) modify these programs, as appropriate. For the three other major benefit program areas, the objectives suggest possible results-oriented goals and are supported by strategies aimed at evaluating and improving programs. For example, the objectives under vocational rehabilitation include increasing the number of disabled veterans who acquire and maintain suitable employment and are considered to be rehabilitated. The strategies under this objective include evaluating the vocational rehabilitation needs of eligible veterans and evaluating the effect of VA’s vocational rehabilitation program on the quality of participants’ lives. VA has noted that developing results-oriented goals will be difficult until program evaluations have been completed. Given the program evaluation time periods stated in the draft strategic plan, which calls for evaluations to continue through fiscal year 2002, results-oriented goals may not be developed for some programs for several years. Another difficulty VA has cited is that, for many VA programs, congressional statements of the program purposes and expected results are vague or nonexistent. VA officials cited VA’s medical research and insurance programs as examples of programs with unclear purposes. This is an area where VA and the Congress can make progress in further consultations. individual goals generally did not link demographic changes in the veteran population to VA’s goals. VA’s current draft has added discussions of the implications of demographic changes on VA programs. For example, VA notes that the death rate for veterans is increasing, which will lead VA to explore various options for meeting increased demands for burials in VA and state veterans’ cemeteries. Meanwhile, the goal to ensure that VA’s burial programs meet the needs of veterans and their families is accompanied by a detailed list of specific cemetery construction and land acquisition projects and by a specific target for expanding burials in state veterans’ cemeteries. The discussion of external factors related to this goal focuses on the Congress’ willingness to fund VA’s proposed projects and the cooperation of the states in participating in the State Cemetery Grants Program. What is missing in the draft is a link between the projected increase in veteran deaths and the proposed schedule of specific cemetery projects. Similarly, we recently reported that National Cemetery System strategic planning does not tie goals for expanding cemetery capacity to veterans’ mortality rates and their preferences for specific burial options. We noted that the goals in VA’s June 1997 draft strategic plan were not supported by formal program evaluations. Evaluations can be an important source of information for helping the Congress and others ensure that agency goals are valid and reasonable, providing baselines for agencies to use in developing performance measures and performance goals, and identifying factors likely to affect agency performance. As noted above, VA cites the lack of completed evaluations as a reason for not providing results-oriented goals for many of its programs. The first general goal of VA’s plan is to conduct program evaluations over a period of several years. VA plans to identify distinct programs in each of its 10 major program areas and then prioritize evaluations of these programs in consultation with the Congress, veterans’ service organizations, and other stakeholders. VA expects to complete this prioritization sometime in fiscal year 1998, complete the highest-priority evaluations by the end of fiscal year 2000, and complete at least one evaluation in each of the 10 major program areas by fiscal year 2003. In our comments on the June 1997 draft strategic plan, we noted that VA has not clearly identified the areas where its programs overlap with those of other federal agencies, nor has it coordinated its strategic planning efforts with those of other agencies. Three areas where such coordination is needed (and the relevant key federal agencies) are employment training (Department of Labor), substance abuse (departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and Housing and Urban Development), and telemedicine (Department of Defense). In addition, we noted that VA relies on other federal agencies for information; for example, VA needs service records from the Department of Defense to help determine whether veterans have service-connected disabilities and to help establish their eligibility for Montgomery G.I. Bill benefits. VA’s current draft strategic plan addresses the need to improve coordination with other federal agencies and state governments.