GPRA was enacted in August 1993 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs by establishing a system to set goals for program performance and to measure results. Congress passed GPRA because a lack of precise goals and performance information on the results of federal programs had hindered federal managers from improving the effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs. The same lack of clear goals and information on results had hindered congressional policymaking, spending decisions, and oversight. For a more detailed description of GPRA’s requirements, see appendix I. In recent years, the states we selected confronted similar challenges and, in response, implemented reforms similar to those required by GPRA. However, the implementation of their reforms varied. For example, in some states, management reforms took a broad, statewide focus, while in others, reforms were primarily implemented at the agency level. The length of time that the states were involved in management reforms also varied. For example, experience among the states with strategic planning had ranged from 2 to 9 years at the time of our review. Table 1 provides an overview of the results-oriented management reforms implemented or being considered by the six states we visited. Our objective was to identify some of the experiences state governments had in implementing management reforms that were reported as successful and thus, may assist federal agencies in implementing GPRA. In particular, we examined management reforms that are similar to those required by GPRA, such as strategic planning and performance measurement, and the alignment of management systems. We examined those reforms that had been reported as being successful. We reviewed current literature on public management and interviewed state management authorities at the Government Accounting Standards Board, the National Governors’ Association, the National Academy of Public Administration, and the National Conference of State Legislatures. To obtain further information on states for inclusion in this report, we reviewed the annual “The State of the States” report issued by Financial World magazine, a number of state strategic plans, state planning and budgeting documents, and our prior report summarizing selected states’ experiences with performance budgeting. We looked for states that had sought to increase their focus on program results through initiatives similar to the key components of GPRA, such as strategic planning, performance measurement and reporting, and performance budgeting. We selected Florida, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oregon, Texas, and Virginia for our review because they were implementing some or all of these reforms. To identify state governments’ experiences, we asked state officials to guide us to agencies and programs that had begun to implement management reforms. To identify successes that may be applicable for federal agencies’ GPRA implementation, we looked for reforms similar to the key components of GPRA that were reported to result in improvements for the agencies or programs so that we could focus on what aspects of management reforms were successful and why. We interviewed state executive and legislative branch officials, agency administrators and managers, and service delivery and audit staff. We also interviewed public interest group officials and private industry leaders to obtain an external perspective on selected state reforms. We reviewed state and agency documents, such as state and agency strategic plans, human resource management plans, and information management plans. We also reviewed pertinent state legislation, budget documents, performance reports, audit reports, customer surveys, and training materials. Because our objective was to identify the relevant experiences of the state governments we selected, we relied on the states’ own evaluations and assessment of their reforms. We did not independently verify the accuracy of the information provided by the states. As shown in table 1, each of the six states generally implemented some form of strategic planning, performance measurement, or management systems alignment. However, we discussed a limited number of examples in this report that represented the most complete or illustrative experiences the states had at the time of our visit in implementing those management reforms. We did our work from April 1993 to April 1994 in Washington, D.C., and the six states in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We focused on identifying successful management reforms implemented in the six states we selected that may help federal agencies in their efforts to implement GPRA and become more results oriented. We did not obtain comments from the states on a draft of this report. However, in October and November 1994, we asked officials in each of the states to verify the accuracy of the information presented on their respective states. These officials said that the report accurately characterized the experiences of their respective states at the time of our review. Oregon officials said that the strategic planning process was used as a means for state executive and legislative branch officials, agencies, and other stakeholders, such as citizens’ groups, to reach consensus on the priority issues for the state. They also said that obtaining statewide consensus on goals helped state agencies work together across agency boundaries to address common goals. Officials from the Virginia Department of Mines, Minerals, and Energy said that their department used strategic planning to focus their staffs’ efforts on achieving common organization goals. They said that involving staff at all levels in the strategic planning process helped to communicate to staff the organization’s mission, values, and goals. According to those officials, participating in the strategic planning process helped staff to learn how their work contributed to achieving the department’s goals. According to state officials, Oregon used strategic planning as a means to get diverse stakeholders, including legislators, agencies, county and local governments, and other community groups, to reach consensus on statewide goals. Oregon’s statewide strategic plan, known as Oregon Benchmarks, was crafted with widespread public input and adopted by the state legislature in 1991, according to Oregon officials. Oregon business, city, county, community, state, and legislative leaders met in 12 regional meetings over 6 months to develop the plan. Oregon officials said that this statewide participation in the strategic planning process contributed to benchmarks—or goals—that accurately reflected statewide values and priorities. State and legislative officials told us that to solidify support, the Oregon Progress Board worked extensively to introduce the benchmarks to legislators in both parties and both houses of the state legislature. In 1991, the Oregon legislature unanimously passed legislation adopting the benchmarks and directed the Oregon Progress Board to update the benchmarks every 2 years. As a result of the strategic planning process, Oregon agencies, legislators, city and county governments, and nonstate organizations could share a common focus on specific statewide goals that they did not have before, according to state officials and a 1992 Progress Board report on the benchmarks. According to Oregon officials, consensus on priority goals was achieved in diverse areas, such as those concerning children and families, education and workforce preparation, workforce training, health and health care, and economic improvement. For example, one statewide priority goal for children and families was to increase the percentage of infants whose mothers did not use alcohol during pregnancy. The baseline of this measure was 93 percent in 1990; this measure increased to 95 percent in 1992. The goal was to achieve 97 percent for 1995 and to achieve even higher goals for the years 2000 and 2010. Oregon state officials told us that strong statewide consensus on goals established during the strategic planning process encouraged state employees to work across agency and program boundaries to accomplish common objectives. Department of Human Resources officials told us agencies were required to identify the statewide goals to which they could make a contribution and develop measures that demonstrated their progress in achieving the goals. In doing so, human resources officials said that agencies found they sometimes needed to change their approaches. For example, before beginning the statewide strategic planning process, the department’s Adult and Family Services Division worked to ensure compliance with the state’s regulations on welfare eligibility. Under Oregon’s strategic plan, the division’s mission shifted from processing welfare clients to helping clients achieve self-sufficiency through a variety of means, such as obtaining child support and education. To demonstrate the progress it made in helping clients meet its self-sufficiency goals, the division measured the average number of months for which clients received welfare and sought to reduce this number from the average of 20 to 17. Human resources officials also said that the statewide program goals sometimes required agencies to work across agency and program boundaries to achieve program outcomes that, individually, they could only partially influence. For example, child support recovery staff in the Adult and Family Services Division of the Department of Human Resources said they had now recognized that their services significantly contributed to the division’s overall ability to help achieve Oregon’s self-sufficiency goals. However, child support collections from noncustodial parents were based on the identification of paternity, which fell under the responsibility of the Support Enforcement Division of the attorney general’s office. To increase collections, support recovery staff worked with support enforcement staff. They said that they found that single mothers were missing appointments with support enforcement staff that were intended to identify paternity. To simplify paternity declaration, child support recovery staff and support enforcement staff established a procedure that involved mothers signing affidavits declaring paternity with Adult and Family Services Division social workers. Oregon officials said that the state benchmarks also have helped agencies and nonstate organizations, such as private businesses, work as partners to achieve common statewide goals. According to the Oregon Progress Board director, nonstate organizations had a great capacity to help the state achieve the benchmarks. For example, according to a 1992 Progress Board report on the benchmarks, to achieve Oregon’s goal of diversifying its economy, the state established benchmarks to increase the share of employment in businesses that added value to the state’s natural resources, such as wood products and agriculture, before they were exported. However, the Progress Board director said that state government had only a marginal ability to achieve those benchmarks on its own. Therefore, the Progress Board encouraged the industries Oregon had targeted for growth to develop and track their own performance measures, such as increased sales and employment, that would demonstrate growth in those industries. After we completed our review, a report was issued by independent reviewers chartered by the Oregon Progress Board that gave an assessment of the Oregon Benchmarks as a mechanism for guiding the state’s strategic plan and as a framework for developing performance measurements.