GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking, management, and accountability from activities and processes to the 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 soon 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 report on the degree to which performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies’ performance reports, due by March 31, 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 role of the Department of Labor is to promote the welfare and economic security of the nation’s workforce and ensure that workplaces are safe. To carry out its mission, the agency oversees a broad array of programs, from those that help students’ transition into the workforce to those that inspect the workplace or ensure the integrity of pension plans for retirees. These activities affect more than 100 million workers and more than 10 million employers. This section discusses our analysis of Labor’s performance in achieving its key selected outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place, relating to human capital and information technology, for achieving these outcomes. Labor reported making progress toward its outcome of reducing injuries, illnesses, and fatalities in the workplace. Labor reported that it met four of the six goals we reviewed under this outcome and substantially achieved another goal. In several cases, Labor exceeded the goal. For example, since fiscal year 1995, injury and illness rates declined by 20 percent in almost 68,000 workplaces where Labor intervened through efforts such as inspections, exceeding the target goal of 50,000 workplaces. In addition, for many of the goals, Labor presented data showing performance trends over a number of years. However, assessing progress for some goals was difficult because it was not always clear which fiscal year goal and target level was being assessed. Like last year, Labor did not meet its fiscal year 2000 goal to reduce fatalities in the construction industry. However, Labor provides a plausible explanation for why external factors may have contributed to this shortfall—demand for more construction workers in a booming economy that likely resulted in a workforce with less experience combined with an increased pace and volume of work. Labor also provides clear strategies that appear likely to achieve the goal in the coming year, such as providing grants to develop, conduct, and expand safety and health training and partnering with local contractor organizations to raise safety awareness and bring training to Spanish-speaking contractors. Another goal under this outcome was reported by Labor as “substantially achieved,” a new category used in the fiscal year 2000 report when at least 80 percent of the goal is attained. The goal is in two parts: to reduce nonfatal mining injuries and to reduce mining fatalities. Labor met the first part of the goal but did not meet the second part of the goal to reduce fatalities below the targeted 5-year average of 89 fatalities. There were 89 fatalities, bringing Labor very close to achieving the goal. Labor fully described actual progress toward the goal and identified the probable cause of the shortfall. Assessing progress on three of the goals under this outcome was complicated because complete fiscal year 2000 data were unavailable. For these goals, Labor reported progress using fiscal year 1999 data and targets instead of fiscal year 2000 data and targets. For example, Labor’s fiscal year 2000 report stated that the fiscal year 1999 goal to reduce injuries and illnesses by 3 percent in industries characterized by high hazards was exceeded based on calendar year 1999 data. Labor could not assess achievement of its fiscal year 2000 goal with a target level of 7 percent because the necessary data would not be available until December 2001. Where complete data were not available, Labor followed OMB guidance calling for agencies to indicate when the data will be available, include performance information from the preceding year, and include the actual information in the subsequent report. However, tracking progress can be confusing because the fiscal year 2000 report lists only the fiscal year 1999 target level and omits the fiscal year 2000 target level. Strategies to achieve goals under this outcome appear to be clear and reasonable and often used information technology, coordination with other federal agencies, and program evaluation to achieve the goals. None of the goals involved human capital strategies. Labor addressed strategic human capital management through agency-wide management goals rather than linking such strategies to specific programmatic goals or outcomes. Labor reported that it will use information technology, including Web-based courses, to provide safety and health training and interactive computer systems to help employers improve hazardous conditions in the workplace. In addition, Labor has been evaluating the effectiveness of the various interventions— such as inspections—it uses to reduce injuries and illnesses. Labor’s fiscal year 2002 plan calls for more program evaluations of its safety and health programs, policies, and specific standards to assess how effectively they reduce workplace injuries and illnesses. Other strategies mentioned in the fiscal year 2002 plan include coordination with other federal agencies, such as the Small Business Administration, to improve workplace safety and health. The importance of coordinating with other federal agencies is highlighted in our previous work on safety at hazardous material facilities. In October 2000, we reported that Labor and at least three other federal agencies were not coordinating requirements, such as training for hazardous material workers. We recommended various ways to improve coordination, such as determining whether agency agreements were effective and consolidating training requirements. Labor acknowledged points of overlap regarding worker training and did not object to the recommendations. Some of the strategies described in Labor’s fiscal year 2002 plan were more clearly linked to achieving goals than in the 2001 fiscal year plan. For example, in our prior review of Labor’s fiscal year 2001 plan, we found that Labor did not sufficiently explain how certain programs, such as the “Consultation” and “Voluntary Protection Programs,” would reduce injury and illness rates. The fiscal year 2002 plan now explains how these strategies will be effective. Labor’s 2002 performance plan retained many of the same performance goals from the fiscal year 2001 plan, and for 2002, Labor added a new goal measuring the effectiveness of voluntary, cooperative efforts between employers and Labor in reducing injuries, illnesses, and fatalities. For several of the goals it retained, Labor raised the target levels, allowing the agency to demonstrate progress toward achieving its overall strategic goals. This includes increasing the target level for its unmet goal to reduce construction industry fatalities from 11 percent in 2001 to 15 percent in 2002, even though Labor did not meet its previous target of 3 percent in fiscal year 1999 and 7 percent in 2000. Labor acknowledges that this is an ambitious target but indicates that recent program initiatives are expected to yield positive results in fiscal year 2001. Labor reported making progress in achieving its outcome to ensure that job training participants get and keep jobs, with performance meeting many of the goals and often exceeding them. For example, Labor’s Women’s Bureau, in collaboration with other organizations, prepared 31,588 women for the workforce, exceeding the target level of 25,000. Labor presented data showing performance trends over a number of years for some of the goals. Table 1 shows the goals we considered under this outcome. Labor reported meeting six goals and substantially achieving two goals. These two goals focused on worker retraining—one related to the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) dislocated worker program and another related to the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) and North American Free Trade Agreement-Transitional Adjustment Assistance (NAFTA-TAA) program. For both goals, the target level for the average wage replacement rate was exceeded, but the portion of the goal addressing employment rates fell short. The target level to employ JTPA dislocated workers was 74 percent, but actual performance was 71 percent; the employment target level one quarter after JTPA program exit was 76 percent, but actual performance was slightly lower at 75 percent. Labor notes that it did not fully meet the goal because several states that were high performers under JTPA could not be included in the calculation for fiscal year 2000. These states no longer collect data under JTPA; they collect data under the newly implemented Workforce Investment Act (WIA). For the goal related to the TAA and NAFTA-TAA programs, Labor reported that the target level to employ NAFTA-TAA program participants was 72 percent, but actual performance was about 65 percent. Labor attributes the shortfall to continued difficulties in getting complete and accurate data. The report discusses efforts to improve reporting and explains how the revised reporting system for fiscal year 2001 should help states provide more complete and accurate information. Our ongoing work on NAFTA- TAA may help shed light on the need for comprehensive performance data to determine the efficacy of training and job placement approaches. In our prior work, we recommended that Labor establish: (1) an effective performance measurement system for these programs, (2) procedures to allow Labor to certify workers within required time frames, and (3) more effective internal controls and oversight procedures to decrease the likelihood that ineligible workers are given benefits. Labor appears to be making significant efforts to respond to these recommendations. Labor is redesigning its data reporting system to match the system used in WIA and is developing a detailed manual on data reporting for states and localities. Labor has also established processing procedures to improve the time frame within which petitions are reviewed.