The Results Act requires that strategic plans include six broad elements—mission statements, general goals and objectives, strategies for achieving goals, a description of the relationship between general goals and annual performance goals, key external factors, and a description of the actual use and planned use of program evaluations. When we reviewed the draft plans that 27 agencies provided to Congress for consultation, we found that all but six of the plans were missing at least one required element and that about a third were missing two of the six required elements. In addition, just over a fourth of the plans failed to cover at least three of the required elements. Moreover, we found that many of the elements that the plans included contained weaknesses—some that were more significant than others. We noted in our September report that complete strategic plans were crucial if they were to serve as a basis for guiding agencies’ operations and help congressional and other policymakers make decisions about activities and programs. On the basis of our preliminary reviews of major agencies’ September plans, it appears that, on the whole, the agencies made a concerted effort during August and September to improve their plans. For example, all of the September plans we reviewed contained at least some discussion of each element required by the Act. And, in many cases, those elements that had been included in the draft plans for consultation were substantially improved. This improvement is in large part a reflection of the dialogue that occurred between the agencies and Congress and is therefore also a reflection of the value of the Results Act requirement for such consultations. These plans appear to provide a workable foundation for the next phase of the Results Act’s implementation—annual performance planning and measurement. As Congress and agencies build on the strategic planning and other Results Act efforts undertaken thus far, our work suggests that several critical issues will have to be addressed if the Results Act is to succeed in improving the management of federal agencies. Among these critical issues are the need to (1) clearly establish a strategic direction for agencies by improving goal-setting and performance measurement; (2) improve the management of crosscutting program efforts by ensuring that those programs are appropriately coordinated; and (3) ensure that agencies have the data systems and analytic capacity in place to better assess program results and costs, improve management and performance, and establish accountability. The forthcoming annual performance planning and measurement and performance-reporting phases of the Results Act provide important opportunities to address these long-standing management issues. It appears that agencies generally have taken the first steps toward establishing a strategic direction in their September plans, which should be useful to agencies as they move to the next phase of performance-based management—that is, performance planning and measurement. However, the strategic plans are still very much works in progress, and agencies will likely need to revisit their strategic planning efforts as they develop the forthcoming annual performance plans. As agencies develop those plans, they will need to ensure that goals and strategies are appropriate given the current fiscal environment and that goal-setting and performance measurement efforts form the basis for managing program products, services, and daily activities. We found that agencies need to continue to make progress in refining goals and objectives to better specify the results that they intend to achieve. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services has made progress over the last few months in developing objectives that, for the most part, are results-oriented and measurable. However, ensuring that goals are as results-oriented as they can be and are expressed in a manner that enables a subsequent assessment of whether the goals were achieved is a continuing challenge for agencies and Congress. As an agency develops its performance plan, which is to contain the annual goals it will use to track progress toward its longer term strategic goals, it likely will identify opportunities to revise and clarify those strategic goals in order to provide a better grounding for the direction of the agency. In addition, as an agency seeks to further refine its goals, it also will need to ensure that it can articulate linkages between strategies, programs, and initiatives to achieve those goals. We noted some improvements in the September plans; however, we found that those plans did not always establish clear linkages between goals, objectives, and strategies. The annual performance plans represent the next chance for agencies to establish such linkages so that agency managers and Congress will be better able to judge whether an agency is making annual progress toward achieving strategic goals. Thus, as agencies and Congress begin to implement annual performance planning, it will be particularly important to reinforce linkages among goals and activities. Specifically, our work has shown that the successful implementation of performance-based management as envisioned by the Results Act will require agencies to link the goals and performance measures of each organizational level to successive levels and ultimately to the strategic plan’s long-term goals so that the strategic goals and objectives drive the agencies’ day-to-day activities. Therefore, agencies’ annual performance plans will be most useful if the annual goals contained in those plans show clear and direct relationships in two directions—to the goals in the strategic plans and to operations and activities within the agency. Concerning the plans’ discussions of agencies’ operations and activities, in some cases, the September strategic plans improved on the draft plans and now provide a better basis for understanding how the agency plans to accomplish many of its goals. For example, the plan for the Department of Energy (DOE) contains a section on resource requirements that provides a helpful discussion of the money, staff, workforce skills, and facilities that the agency plans to employ to meet its goals. The plan explains that DOE’s strategies for its goal of supporting national security are to include changes in the skills of its workforce and in the construction of new experimental test facilities. On the whole, however, agencies’ consideration of the resources necessary to achieve goals is one particular area where continuing improvement efforts are needed. The annual performance planning process offers an opportunity for substantial progress in this area. While some of the plans we reviewed contain separate sections on resources, including financial and human resources, the sections sometimes lack a discussion of information, capital, and other resources that are critical to achieving goals. For example, few plans discuss physical capital resources, such as facilities and equipment. Although many agencies may not rely heavily on physical capital resources, some of those that do, such as the General Services Administration (GSA) and the National Park Service, a component of the Department of the Interior, appear to provide relatively little focused discussion on their capital needs and usage. Another area that is critical to agencies striving to improve operations is information technology. The government’s track record in employing information technology to improve operations and address mission-critical problems is poor, and the strategic plans we reviewed often contain only limited discussions of technology issues. For example, GSA’s plan does not explicitly discuss major management problems or identify which problems could have an adverse impact on the agency’s meeting its goals and objectives. The plan does not address, for instance, how GSA plans to ensure that its information systems meet computer security requirements. The lack of such a discussion in the GSA and other plans is of particular concern because without it agencies cannot be certain that they are (1) addressing the federal government’s information technology problems and (2) better ensuring that technology acquisition and use are targeted squarely on program results. Linking performance goals to the federal government’s budget and appropriations processes is another area where establishing clear linkages will be especially important as agencies and Congress move to implementation of the annual performance planning and measurement phase of the Results Act. Unlike previous federal initiatives, the Results Act requires agencies to plan and measure performance using the same structures that form the basis for their budget requests. This critical design element is meant to ensure a simple, straightforward link among plans, budgets, and performance information and the related congressional oversight and resource allocation processes. However, the extent to which existing budget structures are suitable for Results Act purposes will likely vary widely and therefore will require coordinated and recurring attention by Congress and the agencies. A focus on results, as envisioned by the Results Act, implies that federal programs that contribute to the same or similar results should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent and, as appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing. This suggests that federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned. We have found that uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. During the summer of 1996, in reviewing early strategic planning efforts, OMB alerted agencies that augmented interagency coordination was needed at that time to ensure consistency among goals in crosscutting programs areas. It appears that the agencies did not consistently follow OMB’s advice because the draft strategic plans we reviewed this summer often lacked evidence that agencies in crosscutting program areas had worked with other agencies to ensure goals were consistent, strategies coordinated, and, as appropriate, performance measures similar. Since then, however, the agencies appear to have begun the necessary coordination. Some September plans, for example, often contained references to other agencies that shared responsibilities in a crosscutting program area or discussed the need to coordinate their programs with other agencies. For example, the September plan of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) contains an appendix that lists the federal agencies with which EPA coordinated. This appendix describes the major steps in the coordination process and lists by strategic goal the agencies with which greater integration and review of efforts will be needed. Similarly, the Department of Transportation’s plan contains a table that shows the contributions of other federal agencies to each of its major mission areas. coordination to ensure that those responsibilities are being effectively managed. The next phases of the Results Act implementation continue to offer a structured framework to address crosscutting issues. For example, the Act’s emphasis on results-based performance measures as part of the annual performance planning process should lead to more explicit discussions concerning the contributions and accomplishments of crosscutting programs and encourage related programs to develop common performance measures.