GAO-04-38, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results

This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-38
entitled 'Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results' which was released on March
10, 2004.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting Office
(GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part of a
longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.

Report to Congressional Requesters:

March 2004:

RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT:

GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results:

GAO-04-38:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-38, a report to congressional requesters

Why GAO Did This Study:

Now that the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) has been in
effect for 10 years, GAO was asked to address (1) the effect of GPRA in
creating a governmentwide focus on results and the government’s ability
to deliver results to the American public, (2) the challenges agencies
face in measuring performance and using performance information in
management decisions, and (3) how the federal government can continue
to shift toward a more results-oriented focus.

What GAO Found:

GPRA’s requirements have established a solid foundation of results-
oriented performance planning, measurement, and reporting in the
federal government. Federal managers surveyed by GAO reported having
significantly more of the types of performance measures called for by
GPRA (see figure below). GPRA has also begun to facilitate the linking
of resources to results, although much remains to be done in this area
to increase the use of performance information to make decisions about
resources. We also found agency strategic and annual performance plans
and reports we reviewed have improved over initial efforts.

Although a foundation has been established, numerous significant
challenges to GPRA implementation still exist. Inconsistent top
leadership commitment to achieving results within agencies and OMB can
hinder the development of results-oriented cultures in agencies.
Furthermore, in certain areas, federal managers continue to have
difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful data on
results, and linking institutional, program, unit, and individual
performance measurement and reward systems. Finally, there is an
inadequate focus on addressing issues that cut across federal agencies.

OMB, as the focal point for management in the federal government, is
responsible for overall leadership and direction in addressing these
challenges. OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on management
issues during the past several years. However, it has showed less
commitment to GPRA implementation in its guidance to agencies and in
using the governmentwide performance plan requirement of GPRA to
develop an integrated approach to crosscutting issues. In our view,
governmentwide strategic planning could better facilitate the
integration of federal activities to achieve national goals.

What GAO Recommends:

GAO recommends that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) improve
its guidance and oversight of GPRA implementation, as well as develop a
governmentwide performance plan. GAO also believes Congress should
consider amending GPRA to require that (1) agencies update their
strategic plans at least once every four years, consult with
congressional stakeholders at least once every new Congress, and make
interim updates to strategic and performance plans as appropriate; and
(2) the President develop a governmentwide strategic plan. OMB
generally agreed with our recommendations, but stated that the
President’s Budget can serve as both a governmentwide strategic and
annual plan. However, we believe the budget provides neither a long-
term nor an integrated perspective on the federal government’s
performance.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at
(202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Transmittal Letter:

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

Background:

Results in Brief:

Principal Findings:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Matters for Congressional Consideration:

Agency Comments:

Chapter 1: Introduction:

Impact of Emerging Trends and Fiscal Challenges:

GPRA Background:

Scope and Methodology:

Chapter 2: GPRA Established the Foundation for a More Results-Oriented
Federal Government:

GPRA Statutory Requirements Laid a Foundation for Agencywide Results-
Oriented Management:

Chapter 3: Agencies Have Addressed Many Critical Performance Planning
and Reporting Challenges, but Weaknesses Persist:

Quality of Selected Strategic Plans Reflects Improvements over Initial
Drafts:

Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Performance Plans Addressed Some Weaknesses of
Earlier Plans, but Still Have Room for Significant Improvement:

Strengths and Weaknesses of Selected Agencies' Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance Reports:

Chapter 4: Challenges to GPRA Implementation Persist:

Top Leadership Does Not Consistently Show Commitment to Achieving
Results:

Managers Report Mixed Results in Use of Performance Information:

Managers Continue to Confront a Range of Human Capital Management
Challenges:

Persistent Challenges in Setting Outcome-Oriented Goals, Measuring
Performance, and Collecting Useful Data:

Crosscutting Issues Hinder Successful GPRA Implementation:

Managers View Congress' Use of Performance Information as Limited:

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations:

Agenda for Achieving a Sustainable, Governmentwide Focus on Results:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Matters for Congressional Consideration:

Agency Comments:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

Methodology for Governmentwide Survey:

Methodology for Focus Groups:

Methodology for Interviews with Political Appointees:

Methodology for Selecting Agencies to Review for Changes in the Quality
of Their Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual
Performance Reports:

Appendix II: Focus Group Participants Agreed GPRA Provides a Framework
for Federal Agencies to Become More Results Oriented:

GPRA Accomplishments:

Views on Delivering Results to the American Public Were Mixed:

Alternate Views on GPRA's Effect:

Challenges in Implementing and Overseeing GPRA Activities:

Suggestions to Address GPRA Challenges:

Appendix III: Observations on Agencies' Strategic Plans:

Required Elements of Agency Strategic Plans:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of Education's Strategic Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOE's Strategic Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of HUD's Strategic Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SBA's Strategic Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SSA's Strategic Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOT's Strategic Plan:

Appendix IV: Observations on Agencies' Annual Performance Plans:

Key Elements of Information for Annual Performance Plans:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of Education's Annual
Performance Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOE's Annual Performance
Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of HUD's Annual Performance
Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SBA's Annual Performance
Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SSA's Annual Performance
Plan:

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOT's Annual Performance
Plan:

Appendix V: Observations on Agencies' Annual Performance and
Accountability Reports:

Observations on the Quality of Education's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
and Accountability Report:

Observations on the Quality of DOE's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

Observations on the Quality of HUD's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

Observations on the Quality of SBA's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

Observations on the Quality of SSA's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

Observations on the Quality of DOT's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

Appendix VI: GAO Federal Managers' Survey Data:

Appendix VII: Agencies Subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act:

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Energy:

GAO Comments:

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:

GAO Comments:

Appendix XI: Comments from the Social Security Administration:

GAO Comments:

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

Acknowledgments:

Related GAO Products:

GPRA/Managing for Results:

Strategic Human Capital Management:

Linking Resources to Results:

Measuring Performance:

Data Credibility:

Using Performance Information:

Tables:

Table 1: Agencies' Progress in Addressing Required Elements of
Strategic Planning under GPRA:

Table 2: Characterizations of Agencies' Fiscal Year 1999 and 2004
Annual Performance Plans:

Table 3: Characterizations of Agencies' 2002 Annual Performance Reports:

Table 4: Summary of Characteristics of Agencies Selected for Review of
Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Performance
Reports:

Table 5: Agencies' Progress in Addressing Required Elements of
Strategic Planning under GPRA:

Table 6: Education's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of
Strategic Planning under GPRA:

Table 7: DOE's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Table 8: HUD's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Table 9: SBA's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Table 10: SSA's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Table 11: DOT's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Table 12: Characterizations of Agencies' Annual Performance Plans:

Table 13: Characterizations of Agencies' Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Reports:

Figures:

Figure 1: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming
Discretionary Spending Grows with GDP after 2003 and All Expiring Tax
Provisions Are Extended:

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That There Were
Performance Measures for the Programs with Which They Were Involved:

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures to a Great or Very Great Extent:

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Their Awareness
of GPRA:

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Hindrances to
Measuring Performance or Using the Performance Information to a Great
or Very Great Extent:

Figure 6: Percentage of Federal Managers and SES Managers Who Reported
That OMB Paid Attention to Their Agency's Efforts under GPRA to a Great
or Very Great Extent:

Figure 7: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported They Considered
Strategic Goals to a Great or Very Great Extent When Allocating
Resources:

Figure 8: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported They Considered
Performance Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Allocating
Resources:

Figure 9: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Funding
Decisions Were Based on Results or Outcome-Oriented Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent:

Figure 10: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported to a Great or
Very Great Extent Their Top Leadership Has a Strong Commitment to
Achieving Results:

Figure 11: Percentage of SES and Non-SES Managers Who Reported to a
Great or Very Great Extent Their Agency Top Leadership Demonstrated
Strong Commitment to Achieving Results:

Figure 12: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using
Information Obtained from Performance Measurement to a Great or Very
Great Extent for Various Management Activities:

Figure 13: Percentage of Federal Managers Responding "Yes" about Being
Involved in the Following Activities:

Figure 14: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting to a Great or Very
Great Extent That Managers/Supervisors at Their Levels Had the
Decision-Making Authority They Needed to Help the Agency Accomplish Its
Strategic Goals:

Figure 15: Percentage of Federal Managers, SES, and Non-SES in 2003
Reporting to a Great or Very Great Extent That They Were Held
Accountable for the Accomplishment of Agency Strategic Goals:

Figure 16: Percentage of Federal Managers in Each Survey Year Who
Reported That during the Past 3 Years Their Agencies Provided,
Arranged, or Paid for Training That Would Help Them Accomplish Specific
Tasks:

Figure 17: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported to a Great or
Very Great Extent That Employees in Their Agencies Received Positive
Recognition for Helping Their Agencies Accomplish Their Strategic
Goals:

Figure 18: Percentage of Federal Managers Reporting to a Great or Very
Great Extent That a Lack of Ongoing Congressional Commitment or Support
for Using Performance Information in Making Program/Funding Decisions
Is a Hindrance:

Figure 19: Summary of Education's Performance Indicators for Fiscal
Year 2002:

Figure 20: Inputs: Allocating Funds for Education's Objective to Ensure
That All Students Read on Grade Level by the Third Grade:

Figure 21: Summary of DOE's Performance Indicators for Fiscal Year
2002:

Figure 22: Summary of HUD's Performance Indicators for Fiscal Year
2002:

Figure 23: Summary of SBA's Performance Goals for Fiscal Year 2002:

Figure 24: Summary of SSA's Performance Goals for Fiscal Year 2002:

Figure 25: Summary of DOT's Performance Indicators for Fiscal Year
2002:

Abbreviations:

AP: advanced placement:
CDBG: Community Development Block Grants:
CFO: Chief Financial Officer:
CRS: Congressional Research Service:
DOE: Department of Energy:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EPA: Environmental Protection Agency:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FSA: Federal Student Assistance:
FTE: full-time employee:
GM: general management:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
GS: general schedule:
HHS: Department of Health and Human Services:
HOME: Home Investment Partnership Program:
HUD: Department of Housing and Urban Development:
ICH: Interagency Council on the Homeless:
IG: Inspector General:
IT: information technology:
IRS: Internal Revenue Service:
JARC: Job Access and Reverse Commute:
NAEP: National Assessment for Educational Progress:
NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
OASI: Old Age and Survivors Insurance:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool:
PMA: President’s Management Agenda:
SBA: Small Business Administration:
SBDC: Small Business Development Centers:
SES: Senior Executive Service:
SSA: Social Security Administration:
SSI: Supplemental Security Income:
SSN: Social Security number:
VA: Department of Veterans Affairs:

Transmittal Letter March 10, 2004:

Congressional Requesters:

As you requested, we have assessed the effectiveness of the Government
Performance and Results Act (GPRA), in light of its 10-year anniversary
in 2003. Our review focused on GPRA's accomplishments, challenges to
its continued implementation, and an agenda for achieving a
sustainable, governmentwide focus on results.

Upon issuance, we will send copies to the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget and executive branch agencies (see appendix VII
for a list). We will also make copies available to others upon request.
In addition, this report will be available at no charge on the GAO web
site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you have any questions concerning this report, please contact
Patricia A. Dalton at (202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov. The major
contributors to this report are listed in appendix XII.

Signed by:

David M. Walker:
Comptroller General of the United States:

List of Requesters:

The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Chairman:
The Honorable Joe Lieberman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:

The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Chairman:
The Honorable Richard Durbin:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal
Workforce, and the District of Columbia:
Committee on Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:

The Honorable Peter G. Fitzgerald:
Chairman:
The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Financial Management, the Budget, and International
Security:
Committee on Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate:

The Honorable Tom Davis:
Chairman:
The Honorable Henry A. Waxman:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:

The Honorable Todd Russel Platts:
Chairman:
The Honorable Edolphus Towns:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:

[End of section]

Executive Summary:

Purpose:

From defending the homeland against terrorists, to preventing the
spread of infectious diseases, to providing a reliable stream of social
security income to retirees and supporting the transition from welfare
to work, the federal government provides funding and services to the
American public that can affect their lives in critical ways every day.
However, the federal government is in a period of profound transition
and faces an array of challenges and opportunities to enhance
performance, ensure accountability, and position the nation for the
future. A number of overarching trends, such as diffuse security
threats and homeland security needs, increasing global interdependency,
the shift to knowledge-based economies, and the looming fiscal
challenges facing our nation drive the need to reconsider the proper
role for the federal government in the 21st century, how the government
should do business (including how it should be structured), and in some
instances, who should do the government's business.

Without effective short-and long-term planning, which takes into
account the changing environment and needs of the American public and
the challenges they face and establishes goals to be achieved, federal
agencies risk delivering programs and services that may or may not meet
society's most critical needs. At a cost to taxpayers of over $2
trillion annually, the federal government should be able to demonstrate
to the American public that it can anticipate emerging issues, develop
sound strategies and plans to address them, and be accountable for the
results that have been achieved.

Concerned that the federal government was more focused on program
activities and processes than the results to be achieved, Congress
passed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA).[Footnote 1] The act required federal agencies to develop
strategic plans with long-term, outcome-oriented goals and objectives,
annual goals linked to achieving the long-term goals, and annual
reports on the results achieved. Now that GPRA has been in effect for
10 years, you asked us to assess the effectiveness of GPRA in creating
a focus on results in the federal government. Specifically, this report
discusses (1) the effect of GPRA over the last 10 years in creating a
governmentwide focus on results and the government's ability to deliver
results to the American public, including an assessment of the changes
in the overall quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and annual performance reports; (2) the challenges agencies face
in measuring performance and using performance information in
management decisions; and (3) how the federal government can continue
to shift toward a more results-oriented focus.

To meet our objectives, we reviewed our extensive prior work on GPRA
best practices and implementation and collected governmentwide data to
assess the government's overall focus on results. We conducted a
random, stratified, governmentwide survey of federal managers
comparable to surveys we conducted in 1997 and 2000. We also held eight
in-depth focus groups--seven comprised of federal managers from 23
federal agencies and one with GPRA experts. We also interviewed top
appointed officials from the current and previous administrations.
Finally, we judgmentally selected a sample of six agencies to review
for changes in the quality of their strategic plans, performance plans,
and performance reports since their initial efforts. The agencies we
selected included the Departments of Education (Education), Energy
(DOE), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation (DOT)
and the Small Business (SBA) and Social Security Administrations (SSA).
In making this selection, we chose agencies that collectively
represented the full range of characteristics in the following four
areas: (1) agency size (small, medium, large); (2) primary program type
(direct service, research, regulatory, transfer payments, and contracts
or grants); (3) quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans based on
our previous review;[Footnote 2] and (4) type of agency (cabinet
department and independent agency). Appendix I contains a more detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology. We performed our work in
Washington, D.C., from January through November 2003 in accordance with
generally accepted government auditing standards.

Background:

GPRA requires executive agencies to complete strategic plans in which
they define their missions, establish results-oriented goals, and
identify the strategies that will be needed to achieve those goals.
GPRA requires agencies to consult with Congress and solicit the input
of others as they develop these plans. Through this strategic planning
requirement, GPRA has required federal agencies to reassess their
missions and long-term goals as well as the strategies and resources
they will need to achieve their goals. Agencies developed their first
strategic plans in fiscal year 1997, and are required to update the
plans every 3 years since then.

GPRA also requires executive agencies to prepare annual performance
plans that articulate goals for the upcoming fiscal year that are
aligned with their long-term strategic goals. These performance plans
are to include results-oriented annual goals linked to the program
activities displayed in budget presentations as well as the indicators
the agency will use to measure performance against the results-oriented
goals. Agencies developed their first annual performance plans in
fiscal year 1999 and are required to issue plans annually thereafter to
correspond with budget submissions to Congress.

Finally, GPRA requires agencies to measure performance toward the
achievement of the goals in the annual performance plan and report
annually on their progress in program performance reports. If a goal
was not met, the report is to provide an explanation and present the
actions needed to meet any unmet goals in the future. These reports are
intended to provide important information to agency managers,
policymakers, and the public on what each agency accomplished with the
resources it was given. Agencies issued their first annual performance
reports on their fiscal year 1999 performance in fiscal year 2000 and
are required to issue a report on each subsequent performance plan.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays an important role in
the management of federal government performance and specifically GPRA
implementation. Part of OMB's overall mission is to ensure that agency
plans and reports are consistent with the President's budget and
administration policies. OMB is responsible for receiving and reviewing
agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. To improve the quality and consistency of these
documents, OMB issues annual guidance to agencies for their
preparation, including guidelines on format, required elements, and
submission deadlines. GPRA requires OMB to prepare a governmentwide
performance plan, based on agencies' annual performance plan
submissions. OMB also played an important role in the pilot phase of
GPRA implementation by designating agencies for pilot projects in
performance measurement, managerial accountability and flexibility,
and performance budgeting, and assessing the results of the pilots.
Finally, GPRA provides OMB with authority to grant agencies waivers to
certain administrative procedures and controls.

Recent OMB guidance--OMB Circular A-11, July 2003--requires agencies to
submit "performance budgets" in lieu of annual performance plans for
their fiscal year 2005 budget submission to OMB and Congress. According
to OMB, performance budgets should satisfy all the statutory
requirements of GPRA for annual performance plans. In addition,
agencies are to include all performance goals used in the assessment of
program performance done under OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool
(PART) process.[Footnote 3] Moreover, the guidance states that until
all programs have been assessed by PART, the performance budget will
also for a time include performance goals for agency programs that have
not yet been assessed using PART. The expectation is that agencies are
to substitute new or revised performance goals resulting from OMB's
review for goals it deemed unacceptable.

Results in Brief:

Among the purposes of GPRA cited by Congress was to improve federal
program effectiveness and service delivery by promoting a new focus on
results, service quality, and customer satisfaction by setting program
goals measuring performance against goals, and reporting publicly on
progress. Furthermore, GPRA was to improve congressional decision
making by providing more objective information on achieving objectives,
and on the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs
and spending. Ten years after enactment, GPRA's requirements have laid
a solid foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement,
and reporting that have begun to address these purposes. Focus group
participants and high-level political appointees, as well as OMB
officials we interviewed, cited positive effects of GPRA that they
generally attributed to GPRA's statutory requirements for planning and
reporting. Performance planning and measurement have slowly yet
increasingly become a part of agencies' cultures. The results of our
stratified, random sample survey of federal managers indicate that
since GPRA went into effect governmentwide in 1997, federal managers
reported having significantly more of the types of performance measures
called for by GPRA--particularly outcome-oriented performance
measures. Survey data also suggested that more federal managers,
especially at the Senior Executive Service (SES) level, believed that
OMB was paying attention to their agencies' efforts under GPRA. GPRA
has also begun to facilitate the linking of resources to results,
although much remains to be done in this area.

Beginning with agencies' initial efforts to develop effective strategic
plans in 1997 and annual performance plans and reports for fiscal year
1999, Congress, GAO, and others have commented on the quality of those
efforts and provided constructive feedback on how agency plans and
reports could be improved. According to our current review of the
strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance
reports of six selected agencies, these documents reflect much of the
feedback that was provided. For example, goals are more quantifiable
and results oriented, and agencies are providing more information about
goals and strategies to address performance and accountability
challenges and the limitations to their performance data. However,
certain serious weaknesses persist, such as lack of detail on how
annual performance goals relate to strategic goals and how agencies are
coordinating with other entities to address common challenges and
achieve common objectives.

While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies
more results oriented, numerous challenges still exist. As we have
noted before, top leadership commitment and sustained attention to
achieving results, both within the agencies and at OMB, is essential to
GPRA implementation. While one might expect an increase in agency
leadership commitment since GPRA was implemented governmentwide
beginning in fiscal year 1997, federal managers reported that such
commitment has not significantly increased. Furthermore, although OMB
has recently demonstrated leadership in its review of performance
information from a budgetary perspective using the PART tool, it is
unclear whether the results of those reviews, such as changes in
program performance measures, will complement and be integrated with
the long-term, strategic focus of GPRA. OMB provided significantly less
guidance on GPRA implementation for the fiscal year 2005 budget,
compared to the very detailed guidance provided in prior years. Without
consistent guidance from OMB on meeting GPRA requirements and following
best practices, it may be difficult to maintain the improvements in
agency performance plans and reports or bring about improvements in
areas where weaknesses remain. The commitment of top leadership within
agencies, OMB, and Congress is critical to the success of strategic
planning efforts. However, GPRA specifies time frames for updating
strategic plans that do not correspond to presidential or congressional
terms. As a result, an agency may be required to update its strategic
plan a year before a presidential election and without input from a new
Congress. A strategic plan should reflect the policy priorities of an
organization's leaders and the input of key stakeholders if it is to be
an effective management tool.

Managers reported they had more performance measures, but indications
that managers are making greater use of this information to improve
performance are mixed. Additionally, managers reported several human
capital-related challenges that impede results-oriented management,
including a lack of authority and training to carry out GPRA
requirements, as well as a lack of recognition for completing these
tasks. Unfortunately, most existing federal performance appraisal
systems are not designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay
system in that they fail to link institutional, program, unit, and
individual performance measurement and reward systems. Fewer than half
of federal managers reported receiving relevant training in critical
results-oriented management-related tasks. Managers also reported
significant challenges persist in setting outcome-oriented goals,
measuring performance, and collecting useful data. In some agencies,
particularly those that have a research and development component,
managers reported difficulties in establishing meaningful outcome
measures. Managers also identified difficulties in distinguishing
between the results produced by the federal program and results caused
by external factors or nonfederal actors, such as with grant programs.
Timely and useful performance information is not always available to
federal agencies, making it more difficult to assess and report on
progress achieved. Finally, agency officials believe that Congress
could make greater use of performance information to conduct oversight
and to inform appropriations decisions. GPRA provides a vehicle for
Congress to explicitly state its performance expectations in outcome-
oriented terms when establishing new programs or in exercising
oversight of existing programs that are not achieving desired results.

Mission fragmentation and overlap contribute to difficulties in
addressing crosscutting issues, particularly when those issues require
a national focus, such as homeland security, drug control, and the
environment. GPRA requires a governmentwide performance plan, where
these issues could be addressed in a centralized fashion, but OMB has
not issued a distinct plan since 1999. Most recently, the President's
fiscal year 2004 budget focused on describing agencies' progress in
addressing the President's Management Agenda (PMA) and the results of
PART reviews of agency programs. Such information is important and
useful, but is not adequate alone to provide a broader and more
integrated perspective of planned performance on governmentwide
outcomes. GAO has previously reported on a variety of barriers to
interagency cooperation, such as conflicting agency missions,
jurisdiction issues, and incompatible procedures, data, and processes.
A strategic plan for the federal government, supported by a set of key
national indicators to assess the government's performance, position,
and progress, could provide an additional tool for governmentwide
reexamination of existing programs, as well as proposals for new
programs. Such a plan could be of particular value in linking agencies'
long-term performance goals and objectives horizontally across the
government. In addition, it could provide a basis for integrating,
rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal activities.

To address these challenges, continued and sustained commitment and
leadership are needed. OMB, as the primary focal point for overall
management in the federal government, can provide this leadership and
direction working with the various management councils and work groups
of the government. Also, governmentwide planning could better
facilitate the integration of federal activities to achieve national
goals.

GAO recommends that the Director of OMB (1) fully implement GPRA's
requirement to develop a governmentwide performance plan; (2)
articulate and implement an integrated, complementary relationship
between GPRA and PART; (3) provide clearer and consistent guidance to
executive branch agencies on how to implement GPRA; (4) continue to
maintain a dialogue with agencies about their performance measurement
practices with a particular focus on grant-making, research and
development, and regulatory functions to identify and replicate
successful approaches agencies are using to measure and report on their
outcomes, including the use of program evaluation tools; and, work with
executive branch agencies to identify the barriers to obtaining timely
data to show progress against performance goals and the best ways to
report information when there are unavoidable lags in data
availability; and (5) work with agencies to ensure they are making
adequate investments in training on performance planning and
measurement, with a particular emphasis on how to use performance
information to improve program performance.

We also suggest that Congress consider amending GPRA to require that
updates to agency strategic plans be submitted at least once every 4
years, 12-18 months after a new administration begins its term.
Additionally, consultations with congressional stakeholders on
existing strategic plans should be held at least once every new
Congress and revisions should be made as needed. Further, we suggest
Congress use these consultations and its oversight role to clarify its
performance expectations for agencies. Congress should also consider
amending GPRA to require the President to develop a governmentwide
strategic plan.

In commenting on a draft of this report, OMB generally agreed with our
findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our
recommendations, but stated that the President's Budget represents the
executive branch's governmentwide performance plan and could also serve
as a governmentwide strategic plan. However, because of the budget's
focus on agency-level expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year, we
believe that the President's Budget provides neither a long-term nor an
integrated perspective on the federal government's performance. OMB's
comments appear in appendix VIII. Our response appears in chapter 5. We
also provided relevant sections of the draft to the six agencies whose
plans and reports we reviewed. DOE, HUD, and SSA disagreed with some of
our observations, and we changed or clarified relevant sections of the
report, as appropriate. Written comments from DOE, HUD, and SSA are
reprinted in appendixes IX, X, and XI, respectively, along with our
responses.

Principal Findings:

GPRA Laid the Foundation for a More Results-Oriented Federal
Government:

Prior to enactment of GPRA, our 1992 review of the collection and use
of performance data by federal agencies revealed that, although many
agencies collected performance information at the program level, few
agencies had results-oriented performance information to manage or
make strategic policy decisions for the agency as a whole.[Footnote 4]
GPRA addressed agencies' shortcomings by creating a comprehensive and
consistent statutory foundation of required agencywide strategic plans,
annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. Participants
in eight focus groups comprised of experts on GPRA and federal managers
from 23 agencies cited the creation of this statutory foundation as one
of the key accomplishments of GPRA. One of the premises of GPRA is that
both congressional and executive branch oversight of federal agency
performance were seriously hampered by a lack of adequate results-
oriented goals and performance information. As noted above, prior to
the enactment of GPRA few agencies reported their performance
information externally. OMB officials we interviewed as part of our
current review suggested that OMB has been a key consumer of the
performance information produced under GPRA and that it has provided a
foundation for their efforts to oversee agency performance.

Federal managers' views of GPRA's effect on the federal government's
ability to deliver results to the American public were mixed. When
asked about the direct effects of GPRA on the public, 23 percent of the
federal managers surveyed agreed to a moderate or greater extent that
GPRA improved their agency's ability to deliver results to the American
public. High-level political appointees we interviewed cited a number
of examples of how the structure of GPRA created a greater focus on
results in their agencies. Participants in our focus groups had mixed
perceptions of GPRA's effect on their agency's ability to deliver
results to the American public. Participants indicated GPRA has had a
positive effect by shifting the focus of federal management from
program activities and processes to achieving the intended results of
those programs. Another major accomplishment of GPRA cited by focus
group participants is that GPRA improved the transparency of government
results to the American public. Other focus group participants had
difficulty attributing the results their agencies achieved directly to
GPRA's requirements.

Focus group and survey results suggest that performance planning and
measurement have slowly, but increasingly, become a part of agencies'
cultures. Compared to the results of our 1997 governmentwide survey of
federal managers, in our 2003 governmentwide survey more managers
reported having performance measures for their programs. When we asked
managers who said they had performance measures which of the five types
of measures they had to a great or very great extent, they reported
increases in all five types of measures between 1997 and 2003,[Footnote
5] all of which were statistically significant.

Similarly, focus group participants commented on certain cultural
changes that had taken place within their agencies since the passage of
GPRA in which the "vocabulary" of performance planning and measurement-
-e.g., a greater focus on performance measurement, orientation toward
outcomes over inputs and outputs, and an increased focus on program
evaluation--had become more pervasive. This perception is partly born
out by our survey results. Consistent with our survey results
indicating increases in results-oriented performance measures, we also
observed a significant decline in the percentage of federal managers
who agreed that certain factors hindered measuring performance or using
the performance information. Finally, our survey data suggested that
more federal managers, especially at the SES level, believed that OMB
was paying attention to their agencies' efforts under GPRA, but with no
corresponding increase in their concern that OMB would micromanage the
programs in their agencies.

Agencies have begun to establish a link between results and resources.
Our 1998 assessment of fiscal year 1999 performance plans found that
agencies generally covered the program activities in their budgets, but
most plans did not identify how the funding for those program
activities would be allocated to performance goals.[Footnote 6]
However, our subsequent reviews of performance plans indicate that
agencies have made progress in demonstrating how their performance
goals and objectives relate to program activities in the budget.

We reviewed a sample of six agencies' strategic plans (Education, DOE,
HUD, DOT, SBA, and SSA) and found the quality of the selected plans
reflected improvements over these agencies' initial strategic plans.
Our 1997 review of agencies' draft strategic plans found that a
significant amount of work remained to be done by executive branch
agencies if their strategic plans were to fulfill the requirements of
GPRA, serve as a basis for guiding agencies, and help congressional and
other policymakers make decisions about agency activities and
programs.[Footnote 7] The six strategic plans we looked at for this
2003 review reflected many new and continuing strengths as well as
improvements over the 1997 initial draft plans, but we continued to
find certain persistent weaknesses. Of the six elements required by
GPRA, the plans generally discussed all but one--program evaluation, an
area in which we have found agencies often lack capacity. Although the
strategic plans listed the program evaluations agencies intended to
complete over the planning period, they generally did not address how
the agencies planned to use their evaluations to establish new or
revise existing strategic goals, as envisioned by GPRA. Finally,
although not required by GPRA, the strategic plans would have benefited
from more complete discussions of how agencies planned to coordinate
and collaborate with other entities to address common challenges and
achieve common or complementary goals and objectives.

The six selected agencies' fiscal year 2004 annual performance plans
addressed some weaknesses of earlier plans, but there is still
significant room for improvement. During our review of agencies' first
annual performance plans, which presented agencies' annual performance
goals for fiscal year 1999,[Footnote 8] we found that substantial
further development was needed for these plans to be useful in a
significant way to congressional and other decision makers. Most of the
2004 plans that we reviewed showed meaningful improvements over the
fiscal year 1999 plans by showing a clearer picture of intended
performance, providing strategies and resources that were more
specifically related to achieving agency goals, and providing a greater
level of confidence that performance data would be credible. But these
plans also contained a number of serious weaknesses, such as inadequate
discussion of coordination and collaboration and inconsistent or
limited discussions of procedures used to verify and validate
performance data, which limited their quality and undermined their
usefulness.

Our review of the six agencies' fiscal year 2002 performance reports
showed a number of strengths and improvements over their fiscal year
1999 performance reports, as well as areas that needed improvement. As
we found in our earlier reviews, the six agencies' fiscal year 2002
reports generally allowed for an assessment of progress made in
achieving agency goals. In addition, the majority of agencies discussed
the progress achieved in addressing performance and accountability
challenges identified by agency inspectors general and GAO. However, as
with the fiscal year 1999 reports, many of the weaknesses we identified
in the agencies' fiscal year 2002 reports were related to the
significant number of performance goals not achieved or for which
performance data were unavailable. In addition, the majority of the
reports we reviewed did not include other GPRA requirements, such as a
summary of the findings from program evaluations. Finally, only one of
the six agencies clearly linked its costs to the achievement of
performance goals or objectives.

Challenges to GPRA Implementation Exist:

While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies
more results oriented, numerous challenges still exist to effective
implementation of GPRA. We observed in our 1997 report that we would
expect to see managers' positive perceptions on items, such as the
extent to which top leadership is committed to achieving results,
become more prevalent and the gap between SES and non-SES managers
begin to narrow as GPRA and related reforms are implemented. However,
these changes do not appear to be happening to the extent anticipated.
The need for strong, committed, and sustained leadership extends to OMB
as well. OMB has shown a commitment to improving the management of
federal programs, both through its leadership in reviewing agency
program performance using the PART tool as well as through the PMA. As
part of the President's budget preparation, PART clearly must serve the
President's interests. However, it is not well suited to addressing
crosscutting (or horizontal) issues or to looking at broad program
areas in which several programs address a common goal. GPRA was
designed to address the needs of many users of performance information,
including (1) Congress to provide oversight and inform funding
decisions, (2) agency managers to manage programs and make internal
resource decisions, and (3) the public to provide greater
accountability. It is not yet clear the extent to which PART
performance goals and measures will compete with agencies' long-term,
strategic GPRA goals and objectives that were established in
consultation with Congress and other stakeholders.

We also found that, while the quality of agency plans and reports have
improved overall since their initial efforts, they continue to suffer
from certain persistent weaknesses as noted above. However, OMB's July
2003 guidance for preparation and submission of annual performance
plans is significantly shorter and less detailed than its 2002
guidance. Consistent, more explicit OMB guidance on preparing GPRA
documents can help ensure that gains in the quality of GPRA documents
are maintained and provide a resource for agency managers to make
further improvements in those documents.

We also found that timing issues may affect the development of agency
strategic plans that are meaningful and useful to top leadership. The
commitment and sustained attention of top leadership within agencies,
OMB, and Congress is critical to the success of strategic planning
efforts. A strategic plan should reflect the policy priorities of an
organization's leaders and the input of key stakeholders if it is to be
an effective management tool. However, GPRA specifies time frames for
updating strategic plans that do not correspond to presidential or
congressional terms. As a result, an agency may be required to update
its strategic plan a year before a presidential election and without
input from a new Congress. If a new president is elected, the updated
plan is essentially moot and agencies must spend additional time and
effort revising it to reflect new priorities. Our focus group
participants, including GPRA experts, strongly agreed that this timing
issue should be addressed by adjusting time frames to correspond better
with presidential and congressional terms.

The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully
realized when this information is actually used by managers to bring
about desired results. However, federal managers reported mixed results
in the use of performance information. Focus group participants and
survey respondents noted that although many federal managers understand
and use results-oriented management concepts in their day-to-day
activities, such as strategic planning and performance measurement,
they do not always connect these concepts to the requirements of GPRA.
According to our 2003 survey results, the reported use of performance
information to a great or very great extent for nine management
activities, such as setting program priorities or setting individual
job expectations for staff, ranging from 41 to 66 percent, has not
changed significantly since our first survey in 1997. One exception was
the reported use to a great or very great extent of performance
information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes,
which was significantly lower than the 1997 results. GPRA's usefulness
to agency leaders and managers as a tool for management and
accountability was cited as a key accomplishment numerous times by
focus group participants. However, a number of alternative views
indicated that the usefulness of GPRA as a management tool has been
limited. Our survey data also indicate that managers' perceive their
participation in activities related to the development and use of
performance information has been limited.

Federal managers continue to confront a range of important human
capital management challenges. These managers report that they are held
accountable for program results, but may not have the decision-making
authority they need to accomplish agency goals. Moreover, fewer than
half of managers reported receiving relevant training. Managers also
perceive a lack of positive recognition for helping agencies achieve
results. Unfortunately, most existing federal performance appraisal
systems are not designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay
system in that they fail to link institutional, program, unit, and
individual performance measurement and reward systems. In our view, one
key need is to modernize performance management systems in executive
agencies so that they link to the agency's strategic plan, related
goals, and desired outcomes and are therefore capable of adequately
supporting more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions.

Managers reported persistent challenges in setting outcome-oriented
goals, measuring performance, and collecting useful data. Focus group
participants and survey respondents noted that outcome-oriented
performance measures were especially difficult to establish when the
program or line of effort was not easily quantifiable. In some
agencies, particularly those that have a research and development
component, managers reported difficulties in establishing meaningful
outcome measures. Managers also identified difficulties in
distinguishing between the results produced by the federal program and
results caused by external factors or nonfederal actors, such as with
grant programs. Finally, managers reported that timely and useful
performance information is not always available.

Crosscutting issues continue to be a challenge to GPRA implementation.
Our review of six agencies' strategic and annual performance plans
showed some improvement in addressing their crosscutting program
efforts, but a great deal of improvement is still necessary. We have
previously reported and testified that GPRA could provide OMB,
agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing
crosscutting policy initiatives and program efforts. OMB could use the
provision of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide
performance plan to integrate expected agency-level performance. It
could also be used to more clearly relate and address the contributions
of alternative federal strategies. Unfortunately, this provision has
not been fully implemented. Instead, OMB has used the President's
Budget to present high-level information about agencies and certain
program performance issues. The current agency-by-agency focus of the
budget does not provide the integrated perspective of government
performance envisioned by GPRA. For example, the fiscal year 2004
budget identified budget requests and performance objectives by agency,
such as the U.S. Department of Defense, as opposed to crosscutting
governmentwide themes. From this presentation, one could assume that
the only activities the U.S. government planned to carry out in support
of national defense were those listed under the chapter "Department of
Defense." However, the chapter on the fiscal year 2004 budget
discussing "the Department of State and International Assistance
Programs," contains a heading titled, "Countering the Threat from
Weapons of Mass Destruction." And while OMB may have a technical reason
for not classifying this task as being related to national defense or
homeland security, it is unclear that a lay reader could make that
distinction. The fiscal year 2005 budget also identified budget
requests and performance objectives by agency, not by crosscutting
theme.

A strategic plan for the federal government could provide an additional
tool for governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as well as
proposals for new programs. If fully developed, a governmentwide
strategic plan could potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the
long-term goals of the federal government and provide a much needed
basis for fully integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide
array of federal activities. Successful strategic planning requires the
involvement of key stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism
for building consensus. Further, it could provide a vehicle for the
President to articulate long-term goals and a road map for achieving
them. In addition, a strategic plan could provide a more comprehensive
framework for considering organizational changes and making resource
decisions. The development of a set of key national indicators could be
used as a basis to inform the development of governmentwide strategic
and annual performance plans. The indicators could also link to and
provide information to support outcome-oriented goals and objectives in
agency-level strategic and annual performance plans.

Focus group members believed that one of the main challenges to GPRA
implementation was the reluctance of Congress to use performance
information when making decisions, especially appropriations
decisions. However, less than one quarter of federal managers in the
2003 survey shared that concern. Further, a recent Congressional
Research Service review suggests that Congress uses performance
information to some extent, as evidenced by citations in legislation
and committee reports. While there is concern regarding Congress' use
of performance information, it is important to make sure that this
information is useful. In other words, the information presented and
its presentation must meet the needs of the user. Regular consultation
with Congress about both the content and format of performance plans
and reports is critical.

As a key user of performance information, Congress also needs to be
considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRA
provides a vehicle for Congress to explicitly state its performance
expectations in outcome-oriented terms when consulting with agencies on
their strategic plans or when establishing new programs or exercising
oversight of existing programs that are not achieving desired results.
This would provide important guidance to agencies that could then be
incorporated in agency strategic and annual performance plans.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

GAO recommends that the Director of OMB implement five suggestions to
improve its guidance and oversight of GPRA implementation.

To provide a broader perspective and more cohesive picture of the
federal government's goals and strategies to address issues that cut
across executive branch agencies, we recommend that the Director of OMB
fully implement GPRA's requirement to develop a governmentwide
performance plan.

To achieve the greatest benefit from both GPRA and PART, we recommend
that the Director of OMB articulate and implement an integrated and
complementary relationship between the two. GPRA is a broad legislative
framework that was designed to be consultative with Congress and other
stakeholders, and allows for varying uses of performance information.
PART looks through a particular lens for a particular use--the
executive budget formulation process.

To improve the quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and performance reports and help agencies meet the requirements
of GPRA, we recommend that the Director of OMB provide clearer and
consistent guidance to executive branch agencies on how to implement
GPRA. Such guidance should include standards for communicating key
performance information in concise as well as longer formats to better
meet the needs of external users who lack the time or expertise to
analyze lengthy, detailed documents.

To help address agencies' performance measurement challenges, we
recommend the Director of OMB engage in a continuing dialogue with
agencies about their performance measurement practices with a
particular focus on grant-making, research and development, and
regulatory functions to identify and replicate successful approaches
agencies are using to measure and report on their outcomes, including
the use of program evaluation tools. Additionally, we recommend that
the Director of OMB work with executive branch agencies to identify the
barriers to obtaining timely data to show progress against performance
goals and the best ways to report information where there are
unavoidable lags in data availability. Governmentwide councils, such as
the President's Management Council and the Chief Financial Officers
Council, may be effective vehicles for working on these issues.

To facilitate the transformation of agencies' management cultures to be
more results oriented, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with
agencies to ensure they are making adequate investments in training on
performance planning and measurement, with a particular emphasis on how
to use performance information to improve program performance.

Matters for Congressional Consideration:

GAO also identified two matters for congressional consideration to
improve the governmentwide focus on results.

To ensure that agency strategic plans more closely align with changes
in the federal government leadership, Congress should consider amending
GPRA to require that updates to agency strategic plans be submitted at
least once every 4 years, 12-18 months after a new administration
begins its term. Additionally, consultations with congressional
stakeholders should be held at least once every new Congress and
interim updates made to strategic and performance plans as warranted.
Congress should consider using these consultations along with its
traditional oversight role and legislation as opportunities to clarify
its performance expectations for agencies. This process may provide an
opportunity for Congress to develop a more structured oversight agenda.

To provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to
address issues that cut across federal agencies, Congress should
consider amending GPRA to require the President to develop a
governmentwide strategic plan.

Agency Comments:

We provided a copy of the draft report to OMB for comment. OMB's
written comments are reprinted in appendix VIII. In general, OMB agreed
with our findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our
recommendations, noting that these recommendations will enhance their
efforts to make the government more results oriented. OMB agreed to (1)
work with agencies to ensure they are provided adequate training in
performance management, (2) revise its guidance to clarify the
integrated and complementary relationship between GPRA and PART, and
(3) continue to use PART to improve agency performance measurement
practices and share those practices across government.

In response to our matter for congressional consideration that Congress
should consider amending GPRA to require the President to develop a
governmentwide strategic plan, OMB noted that the budget serves as the
governmentwide strategic plan. However, the President's Budget focuses
on establishing agency budgets for the upcoming fiscal year. Unlike a
strategic plan, it provides neither a long-term nor an integrated
perspective on the federal government's activities. A governmentwide
strategic plan should provide a cohesive perspective on the long-term
goals of the federal government and provide a basis for fully
integrating, rather than primarily coordinating, a wide array of
existing and relatively short-term federal activities.

We provided relevant sections of the draft report to Education, DOE,
HUD, SBA, SSA, and DOT. Education and SBA did not provide any comments,
while DOT provided minor technical comments. DOE, HUD, and SSA
disagreed with some of our observations on their strategic plans,
performance plans, and performance reports; we changed or clarified
relevant sections of the report, as appropriate. Written comments from
DOE, HUD, and SSA are reprinted in appendixes IX, X, and XI,
respectively, along with our responses.

[End of section]

Chapter 1: Introduction:

From defending the homeland against terrorists, to preventing the
spread of infectious diseases, to providing a reliable stream of social
security income to retirees and supporting the transition from welfare
to work, the federal government provides funding and services to the
American public that can affect their lives in critical ways every day.
However, the federal government is in a period of profound transition
and faces an array of challenges and opportunities to enhance
performance, ensure accountability, and position the nation for the
future. A number of overarching trends, such as diffuse security
threats and homeland security needs, increasing global interdependency,
the shift to knowledge-based economies, and the looming fiscal
challenges facing our nation, drive the need to reconsider the proper
role for the federal government in the 21st century, how the government
should do business (including how it should be structured), and in some
instances, who should do the government's business.

Concerned that the federal government was more focused on program
activities and processes than the results to be achieved, Congress
passed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA).[Footnote 9] The act required federal agencies to develop
strategic plans with long-term strategic goals, annual goals linked to
achieving the long-term goals, and annual reports on the results
achieved. Now that GPRA has been in effect for 10 years, you asked us
to assess the effectiveness of GPRA in creating a focus on results in
the federal government. Specifically, this report discusses (1) the
effect of GPRA over the last 10 years in creating a governmentwide
focus on results and the government's ability to deliver results to the
American public, including an assessment of the changes in the overall
quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and
annual performance reports; (2) the challenges agencies face in
measuring performance and using performance information in management
decisions; and (3) how the federal government can continue to shift
toward a more results-oriented focus.

Impact of Emerging Trends and Fiscal Challenges:

With the 21st century challenges we are facing, it is more vital than
ever to maximize the performance of federal agencies in achieving their
long-term goals. The federal government must address and adapt to major
trends in our country and around the world. At the same time, our
nation faces serious long-term fiscal challenges. Increased pressure
also comes from world events: both from the recognition that we cannot
consider ourselves "safe" between two oceans--which has increased
demands for spending on homeland security--and from the United States
(U.S.) role in combating terrorism in an increasingly interdependent
world. To be able to assess federal agency performance and hold agency
managers accountable for achieving their long-term goals, we need to
know what the level of performance is. GPRA planning and reporting
requirements can provide this essential information.

Our country's transition into the 21st century is characterized by a
number of key trends, including:

* the national and global response to terrorism and other threats to
our personal and national security;

* the increasing interdependence of enterprises, economies, markets,
civil societies, and national governments, commonly referred to as
globalization;

* the shift to market-oriented, knowledge-based economies;

* an aging and more diverse U.S. population;

* rapid advances in science and technology and the opportunities and
challenges created by these changes;

* challenges and opportunities to maintain and improve the quality of
life for the nation, communities, families, and individuals; and:

* the changing and increasingly diverse nature of governance structures
and tools.

As the nation and government policymakers grapple with the challenges
presented by these evolving trends, they do so in the context of
rapidly building fiscal pressures. GAO's long-range budget simulations
show that this nation faces a large and growing structural deficit due
primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. The
fiscal pressures created by the retirement of the baby boom generation
and rising health costs threaten to overwhelm the nation's fiscal
future. As figure 1 shows, by 2040, absent reform or other major tax or
spending policy changes, projected federal revenues will likely be
insufficient to pay more than interest on publicly held debt. Further,
our recent shift from surpluses to deficits means the nation is moving
into the future in a more constrained fiscal position.

Figure 1: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming
Discretionary Spending Grows with GDP after 2003 and All Expiring Tax
Provisions Are Extended:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Although all expiring tax cuts are extended, revenue as a share
of gross domestic product (GDP) increases through 2013 due to (1) real
bracket creep, (2) more taxpayers becoming subject to the Alternative
Minimum Tax, and (3) increased revenue from tax-deferred retirement
accounts. After 2013, revenue as a share of GDP is held constant. This
simulation assumes that currently scheduled Social Security benefits
are paid in full throughout the simulation period.

[End of figure]

The United States has had a long-range budget deficit problem for a
number of years, even during recent years in which we had significant
annual budget surpluses. Unfortunately, the days of surpluses are gone,
and our current and projected budget situation has worsened
significantly. The bottom line is that our projected budget deficits
are not manageable without significant changes in "status quo"
programs, policies, processes, and operations.

GPRA Background:

GPRA is the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in
place during the 1990s to help resolve the long-standing management
problems that have undermined the federal government's efficiency and
effectiveness and to provide greater accountability for results. In
addition to GPRA, the framework comprises the Chief Financial Officers
Act of 1990, as amended by the Government Management Reform Act of
1994, and information technology reform legislation, including the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996.
Together, these laws provide a powerful framework for developing and
integrating information about agencies' missions and strategic
priorities, the results-oriented performance goals that flow from those
priorities, performance data to show the level of achievement of those
goals, and the relationship of reliable and audited financial
information and information technology investments to the achievement
of those goals.

GPRA was intended to address several broad purposes, including
strengthening the confidence of the American people in their
government; improving federal program effectiveness, accountability,
and service delivery; and enhancing congressional decision making by
providing more objective information on program performance.

The basic requirements of GPRA for the preparation of strategic plans,
annual performance plans, and annual program performance reports by
executive branch agencies are the following:

1. The agency’s strategic plan must contain these six key elements:

* a comprehensive agency mission statement;
* agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major functions and
operations;
* approaches (or strategies) and the various resources needed to
achieve the goals and objectives;
* a description of the relationship between the long-term goals and
objectives and the annual performance goals;
* an identification of key factors, external to the agency and beyond
its control, that could significantly affect the achievement of the
strategic goals; and
* a description of how program evaluations were used to establish or
revise strategic goals and a schedule for future program evaluations.

2. The agency must develop annual performance plans covering each
program activity set forth in the agencies’ budgets:*

Building on the decisions made as part of the strategic planning
process, GPRA requires executive agencies to develop annual performance
plans covering each program activity set forth in the agencies’
budgets. Annual performance plans, covering the upcoming fiscal year,
are to be submitted to Congress after the President’s Budget is
submitted, which generally occurs in February. Each plan is to contain
an agency’s annual performance goals and associated measures, which the
agency is to use in order to gauge its progress toward accomplishing
its strategic goals. OMB is to use the agencies’ performance plans to
develop an overall federal government performance plan that is to be
submitted with the President’s Budget. The performance plan for the
federal government is to present to Congress a single cohesive picture
of the federal government’s annual performance goals for a given fiscal
year.

3. The agency must prepare annual reports on program performance for
the previous fiscal year, to be issued by March 31 each year:

GPRA requires executive agencies to prepare annual reports on program
performance for the previous fiscal year, to be issued by March 31 each
year. In each report, an agency is to compare its performance against
its goals, summarize the findings of program evaluations completed
during the year, and describe the actions needed to address any unmet
goals. Recent OMB guidance states that executive agencies must combine
their program performance report with their accountability report and
transmit the combined report for fiscal year 2003 by January 30, 2004,
and the combined report for fiscal year 2004 by November 15, 2004.

*Program activity refers to the lists of projects and activities in the
appendix portion of the Budget of the United States Government. Program
activity structures are intended to provide a meaningful representation
of the operations financed by a specific budget account.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) plays an important role in
the management of the federal government's performance, and
specifically GPRA implementation. Part of OMB's overall mission is to
ensure that agency plans and reports are consistent with the
President's Budget and administration policies. OMB is responsible for
receiving and reviewing agencies' strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and annual performance reports. To improve the quality and
consistency of these documents, OMB issues annual guidance to agencies
for their preparation, including guidelines on format, required
elements, and submission deadlines.[Footnote 10] GPRA requires OMB to
prepare the overall governmentwide performance plan, based on agencies'
annual performance plan submissions. OMB also played an important role
in the pilot phase of GPRA implementation by designating agencies for
pilot projects in performance measurement, managerial accountability
and flexibility, and performance budgeting, and assessing the results
of the pilots. Finally, GPRA provides OMB with authority to grant
agencies waivers to certain administrative procedures and controls.

Recent OMB guidance[Footnote 11] requires agencies to submit
"performance budgets" in lieu of annual performance plans for their
budget submission to OMB and Congress. Performance budgets are to meet
all the statutory requirements of GPRA for annual performance plans. In
addition, agencies are to include all performance goals used in the
assessment of program performance done under OMB's Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) process.[Footnote 12] Moreover, the guidance states
that until all programs have been assessed by PART, the performance
budget will also for a time include performance goals for agency
programs that have not yet been assessed using PART. The expectation is
that agencies are to substitute new or revised performance goals
resulting from OMB's review for goals it deemed unacceptable.

In crafting GPRA, Congress recognized that managerial accountability
for results is linked to managers having sufficient flexibility,
discretion, and authority to accomplish desired results. GPRA
authorizes agencies to apply for managerial flexibility waivers in
their annual performance plans beginning with fiscal year 1999. The
authority of agencies to request waivers of administrative procedural
requirements and controls is intended to provide federal managers with
more flexibility to structure agency systems to better support program
goals. The nonstatutory requirements that OMB can waive under GPRA
generally involve the allocation and use of resources, such as
restrictions on shifting funds among items within a budget account.
Agencies must report in their annual performance reports on the use and
effectiveness of any GPRA managerial flexibility waivers that they
receive.

OMB was to designate at least five agencies from the first set of pilot
projects to test managerial accountability and flexibility during
fiscal years 1995 and 1996. We previously reported on the results of
the pilot project to implement managerial flexibility waivers and found
that the pilot did not work as intended.[Footnote 13] OMB did not
designate any of the seven departments and one independent agency that
submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as GPRA managerial
accountability and flexibility pilots. For about three-quarters of the
waiver proposals, OMB or other central management agencies determined
that the waivers were not allowable for statutory or other reasons or
that the requirement for which the waivers were proposed no longer
existed. For the remaining proposals, OMB or other central management
agencies approved waivers or developed compromises by using authorities
that were already available independent of GPRA.

Under GPRA, another set of pilot projects, which were scheduled for
fiscal years 1998 and 1999, were to test performance budgeting--i.e.,
the presentation of the varying levels of performance that would result
from different budget levels. We previously reported that OMB initially
deferred these pilots--originally to be designated in fiscal years 1998
and 1999--to give federal agencies time to develop the capability of
calculating the effects of marginal changes in cost or funding on
performance.[Footnote 14] When the pilots began in August 1999, OMB
designed them as case studies prepared by OMB staff to demonstrate how
performance information could be used to compare alternatives and to
develop funding recommendations for incorporation into the President's
fiscal year 2001 budget submission.

On January 18, 2001, OMB reported the results of five performance
budgeting pilots that explored agencies' capabilities of more formally
assessing the effects of different funding levels on performance goals.
OMB selected the pilots to reflect a cross section of federal functions
and capabilities so that a representative range of measurement and
reporting issues could be explored. In its report, OMB concluded that
legislative changes were not needed. OMB reported that the pilots
demonstrated that assuring further performance measurement
improvements and steadily expanding the scope and quality of
performance measures is paramount, and that the existing statute
provides sufficient latitude for such improvement.

Overall, OMB concluded that the pilots raised several key challenges
about performance budgeting at the federal level including, for
example, the following:

* In many instances, measuring the effects of marginal, annual budget
changes on performance is not precise or meaningful.

* While continuing to change from an almost total reliance on output
measures to outcome measures, it will be much more difficult to
associate specific resource levels with those outcomes, particularly
over short periods of time.

* Establishing clear linkages between funding and outcomes will vary by
the nature of the program and the number of external factors.

* Delays in the availability of performance data, sometimes caused by
agencies' reliance on nonfederal program partners for data collection,
will continue to present synchronization problems during budget
formulation.

Scope and Methodology:

To meet the three objectives stated earlier, we reviewed our extensive
prior work on GPRA best practices and implementation and collected
governmentwide data to assess the government's overall focus on
results. We conducted a random, stratified, governmentwide survey of
federal managers comparable to surveys we conducted in 1997 and 2000.
We also held eight in-depth focus groups--seven comprised of federal
managers from 23 federal agencies and one with GPRA experts. We also
interviewed top appointed officials from the current and previous
administrations. Finally, we judgmentally selected a sample of six
agencies to review for changes in the quality of their strategic plans,
performance plans, and performance reports since their initial efforts.
The agencies we selected were the Departments of Education (Education),
Energy (DOE), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and Transportation
(DOT) and the Small Business (SBA) and Social Security Administrations
(SSA). In making this selection, we chose agencies that collectively
represented the full range of characteristics in the following four
areas: (1) agency size (small, medium, large); (2) primary program
types (direct service, research, regulatory, transfer payments, and
contracts or grants); (3) quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plan
based on our previous review (low, medium, high);[Footnote 15] and (4)
type of agency (cabinet department and independent agency). Appendix I
contains a more detailed discussion of our scope and methodology.

We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from January through
November 2003 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix
XII.

[End of section]

Chapter 2: GPRA Established the Foundation for a More Results-Oriented
Federal Government:

Among the purposes of GPRA cited by Congress was to improve federal
program effectiveness and service delivery by promoting a new focus on
results, service quality, and customer satisfaction by setting program
goals, measuring performance against goals, and reporting publicly on
progress. Furthermore, GPRA was to improve congressional decision
making by providing better information on achieving objectives, and on
the relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and
spending. Ten years after enactment, GPRA's requirements have laid a
foundation of results-oriented agency planning, measurement, and
reporting that have begun to address these purposes. Focus group
participants, high-level political appointees, and OMB officials we
interviewed cited positive effects of GPRA that they generally
attributed to GPRA's statutory requirements for planning and reporting.
Our survey results indicate that since GPRA went into effect
governmentwide in 1997, federal managers reported having significantly
more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA--
particularly outcome-oriented performance measures. GPRA has also begun
to facilitate the linking of resources to results, although much
remains to be done in this area.

GPRA Statutory Requirements Laid a Foundation for Agencywide Results-
Oriented Management:

Prior to enactment of GPRA, our 1992 review of the collection and use
of performance data by federal agencies revealed that, although many
agencies collected performance information at the program level, few
agencies had results-oriented performance information to manage or make
strategic policy decisions for the agency as a whole.[Footnote 16]
Federal agencies surveyed indicated that many had a single, long-term
plan that contained goals, standards, or objectives for the entire
agency or program. Many of these agencies also reported they collected
a wide variety of performance measures. However, in validating the
survey responses with a sample of agencies, we found that measures were
typically generated and used by program-level units within an agency
and focused on measuring work activity levels and outputs or compliance
with statutes. Little of this performance information was transparent
to Congress, OMB, or the public and few of the agencies we visited used
performance measures to manage toward long-term objectives. Few of the
agencies surveyed had the infrastructure in place, such as a unified
strategic plan with measurable goals, an office that collected
performance measures, and regular consolidated reports, to tie plans
and measures.

GPRA addressed these shortcomings by creating a comprehensive and
consistent statutory foundation of required agencywide strategic plans,
annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. In contrast
to prior federal government efforts to measure performance, GPRA
explicitly emphasized that, in addition to performance indicators that
agencies may need to manage programs on a day-to-day basis, such as
quantity, quality, timeliness, and cost, agencies also needed outcome-
oriented goals and measures that assess the actual results, effects, or
impact of a program or activity compared to its intended purpose.

Expert and agency focus group participants cited the creation of this
statutory foundation as one of the key accomplishments of GPRA.
Participants agreed that GPRA created a framework in statute for
federal agencies to plan their activities in order to become more
results oriented and provided a managerial tool for program
accountability. Using this framework, agencies could develop and focus
on strategies to carry out the programs they administer; set goals and
identify performance indicators that will inform them whether or not
they achieved the performance they expected; and determine what impact,
if any, their programs have had on the American public. According to
the experts in one of our focus groups, comparing federal agencies'
current mission statements contained in their strategic plans to what
they were in the past demonstrates that the agencies have done some
"soul searching" to get a better sense of what their role is (or should
be) and how they can achieve it. Given that GPRA is in statute,
participants indicated that the use of this planning framework is
likely to be sustained within agencies.

One of the premises of GPRA is that both congressional and executive
branch oversight of federal agency performance were seriously hampered
by a lack of adequate results-oriented goals and performance
information. As noted above, prior to the enactment of GPRA few
agencies reported their performance information externally. OMB
officials we interviewed as part of our current review suggested that
OMB has been a key consumer of the performance information produced
under GPRA and that it has provided a foundation for their efforts to
oversee agency performance.

For example, during the development of the fiscal year 2004 budget, OMB
used PART to review and rate 234 federal programs. We recently reported
that one of PART's major impacts was its ability to highlight OMB's
recommended changes in program management and design.[Footnote 17] PART
reviews look at four elements--program purpose and design, strategic
planning, program management, and program results/accountability--and
rate the program on how well each of these elements is executed.
However, without the foundation of missions, goals, strategies,
performance measures, and performance information generated under GPRA,
such oversight would be difficult to carry out.

Participants in most of our focus groups also agreed that GPRA has been
a driving force behind many cultural changes that have occurred within
federal agencies. Highlighting the focus on results, participants
stated that GPRA had stimulated a problem-solving approach within
federal agencies and encouraged agency managers to think creatively
when developing performance indicators for their programs. GPRA has
also changed the dialogue within federal agencies; front-line managers
and staff at lower levels of the organization now discuss budget issues
in connection with performance. Similarly, experts noted that
information about performance management and resource investments are
more frequently communicated between agency officials and Congress than
in the past. Within agencies, GPRA documents can provide a context of
missions, goals, and strategies that political appointees can use to
articulate agencies' priorities.

Views on GPRA's Effect on the Federal Government's Ability to Deliver
Results to the American Public Were Mixed:

A key purpose of GPRA was "to improve the confidence of the American
people in the capability of the Federal Government, by systematically
holding Federal agencies accountable for achieving program results."
When asked about the direct effects of GPRA on the public in our 2003
survey, an estimated 23 percent of federal managers agreed to a
moderate or greater extent that GPRA improved their agency's ability to
deliver results to the American public; a larger percentage--38
percent--chose a "no basis to judge/not applicable" category.

When a similar question was posed in our focus groups with experts and
federal managers, participants' views were generally mixed. Some
federal managers in our focus groups agreed that GPRA has had a
positive effect on raising awareness on many performance issues, and
that in and of itself is a way of delivering results. The information
gathered and reported for GPRA allows agencies to make better-informed
decisions, which improves their ability to achieve results. Other
participants stated that while certain aspects of GPRA-related work
have been positive, agencies' ability to deliver results and public
awareness of their activities cannot always be exclusively attributed
to GPRA. For example, some participants stated that many agencies rely
on grant recipients to carry out their work, and delivering results to
the American public depends, to a large extent, on the diligence of
these organizations to implement their programs; such results would not
change dramatically if GPRA were no longer a requirement.

A number of the political appointees we interviewed cited examples of
outcomes they believe would not have occurred without the structure of
GPRA. For example, a former deputy secretary of the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) stated that "the Results Act brought about a
fundamental rethinking of how we managed our programs and processes. .
. . We developed a strategic plan that was veteran-focused. . . . We
made every effort to define program successes from the veteran's
perspective." A former Chief Financial Officer (CFO) cited Customs
Service goals to reduce the quantity of illegal drugs flowing into the
United States and the Food and Drug Administration's focus on speeding
up the approval of new drugs as examples of outcomes that can make a
big difference in people's lives.

Another major accomplishment of GPRA cited by our focus group
participants is that GPRA improved the transparency of government
results to the American public. As noted above, prior to GPRA, few
agencies reported performance results outside of their agencies. Focus
group participants indicated a key accomplishment of GPRA was its value
as a communication tool by increasing the transparency to the public of
what their agencies did in terms the public could understand. For
example, information on agencies' strategic plans, performance goals,
measures, and results are easily obtainable from agency Web sites. One
focus group participant commented that GPRA helps bureaucrats explain
to nonbureaucrats what the federal government does in terms they can
better understand. Other comments indicated that because of GPRA
agencies could now tell Congress and the American public what they are
getting for their money.

More Managers Reported Having Performance Measures:

A fundamental element in an organization's efforts to manage for
results is its ability to set meaningful goals for performance and to
measure performance against those goals. From our 2003 survey we
estimate that 89 percent of federal managers overall said there were
performance measures for the programs they were involved with. This is
a statistically significantly higher percentage than the 76 percent of
managers who answered yes to this item on our 1997 survey. (See fig.
2.):

Figure 2: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That There Were
Performance Measures for the Programs with Which They Were Involved:

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between 1997 and
2003 surveys.

[End of figure]

Moreover, when we asked managers who said they had performance measures
which of five types of measures they had to a great or very great
extent, they reported increases in all five types of measures between
1997 and 2003,[Footnote 18] all of which were statistically
significant. (See fig. 3.) Notably, managers indicated the existence of
outcome measures, defined as "performance measures that demonstrate to
someone outside the organization whether or not intended results are
being achieved," grew from a low of 32 percent in 1997 to the current
estimate of 55 percent, a level that is on par with output measures for
the first time since we began our survey.

Figure 3: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Having Specific
Types of Performance Measures to a Great or Very Great Extent:

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between 1997 and
2003 surveys.

[End of figure]

Similarly, focus group participants commented on certain cultural
changes that had taken place within their agencies since the passage of
GPRA in which the "vocabulary" of performance planning and measurement-
-e.g., a greater focus on performance management; orientation toward
outcomes over inputs and outputs; and an increased focus on program
evaluation--had become more pervasive. This perception is partly born
out by our survey results. Since 1997 those reporting a moderate to
extensive knowledge of GPRA and its requirements shifted significantly
from 26 percent to 41 percent in 2003, while those reporting no
knowledge of GPRA declined significantly from 27 percent to 20 percent.
(See fig. 4.):

Figure 4: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Their Awareness
of GPRA:

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between 1997 and
2003 surveys.

[End of figure]

Consistent with our survey results indicating increases in results-
oriented performance measures and increasing GPRA knowledge, we also
observed a significant decline in the percentage of federal managers
who agreed that certain factors hindered measuring performance or using
the performance information. For example, as shown in figure 5, of
those who expressed an opinion, the percentage of managers who noted
that determining meaningful measures was a hindrance to a great or very
great extent was down significantly from 47 percent in 1997 to 36
percent in 2003. Likewise, the percentage that agreed to a great or
very great extent that different parties are using different
definitions to measure performance was a hindrance also declined
significantly from 49 percent in 1997 to 36 percent in 2003.

Figure 5: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Hindrances to
Measuring Performance or Using the Performance Information to a Great
or Very Great Extent:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the
extent scale.

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between 1997 and
2003.

[End of figure]

Finally, our survey data suggested that more federal managers,
especially at the Senior Executive Service (SES) level, believed that
OMB was paying attention to their agencies' efforts under GPRA.
Moreover, there was no corresponding increase in their concern that OMB
would micromanage the programs in their agencies. In our survey, we
asked respondents to assess the extent to which OMB pays attention to
their agencies' efforts under GPRA. As seen in figure 6, in 2003, the
percentage of respondents who responded "Great" or "Very Great" to this
question (31 percent) was significantly higher than in 2000 (22
percent). Of those, SES respondents showed an even more dramatic
increase, from 33 to 51 percent. We also asked respondents the extent
to which their concern that OMB would micromanage programs in their
agencies was a hindrance to measuring performance or using performance
information. The percentage among those expressing an opinion that it
was a hindrance to a great or very great extent was low--around 24
percent in 2003--with no significant difference between 2000 and 2003.

Figure 6: Percentage of Federal Managers and SES Managers Who Reported
That OMB Paid Attention to Their Agency's Efforts under GPRA to a Great
or Very Great Extent:

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between 2000 and
2003 surveys.

[End of figure]

GPRA Has Begun to Establish a Link between Resources and Results:

Among its major purposes, GPRA aims for a closer and clearer linkage
between requested resources and expected results. The general concept
of linking performance information with budget requests is commonly
known as performance budgeting. Budgeting is and will remain an
exercise in political choice, in which performance can be one, but not
necessarily the only, factor underlying decisions. However, efforts to
infuse performance information into resource allocation decisions can
more explicitly inform budget discussions and focus them--both in
Congress and in agencies--on expected results, rather than on inputs.

GPRA established a basic foundation for performance budgeting by
requiring that an agency's annual performance plan cover each program
activity in the President's budget request for that agency. GPRA does
not specify any level of detail or required components needed to
achieve this coverage. Further, GPRA recognizes that agencies' program
activity structures are often inconsistent across budget accounts and
thus gives agencies the flexibility to consolidate, aggregate, or
disaggregate program activities, so long as no major function or
operation of the agency is omitted or minimized. In addition, OMB
guidance has traditionally required agencies to display, by budget
program activity, the funding level being applied to achieve
performance goals. OMB's guidance on developing fiscal year 2005
performance budgets also encourages a greater link between performance
and funding levels, however, it places greater emphasis on linking
agencies' long-term and annual performance goals to individual
programs. At a minimum, agencies are to align resources at the program
level, but they are encouraged to align resources at the performance
goal level. Resources requested for each program are to be the amounts
needed to achieve program performance goal targets.

Our 1998 assessment of fiscal year 1999 performance plans found that
agencies generally covered the program activities in their budgets, but
most plans did not identify how the funding for those program
activities would be allocated to performance goals.[Footnote 19]
However, our subsequent reviews of performance plans indicate that
agencies have made progress in demonstrating how their performance
goals and objectives relate to program activities in the budget.

Over the first 4 years of agency efforts to implement GPRA, we observed
that agencies continued to tighten the required link between their
performance plans and budget requests.[Footnote 20] Of the agencies we
reviewed over this period, all but three met the basic requirement of
GPRA to define a link between their performance plans and the program
activities in their budget requests, and most of the agencies in our
review had moved beyond this basic requirement to indicate some level
of funding associated with expected performance described in the plan.
Most importantly, more of the agencies we reviewed each year--almost 75
percent in fiscal year 2002 compared to 40 percent in fiscal year 1999-
-were able to show a direct link between expected performance and
requested program activity funding levels--the first step in defining
the performance consequences of budgetary decisions. However, we have
also observed that the nature of these linkages varied considerably.
Most of the agencies in our review of fiscal year 2002 performance
plans associated funding requests with higher, more general levels of
expected performance, rather than the more detailed "performance goals
or sets of performance goals" suggested in OMB guidance.

Although not cited by our group of experts, participants at six of our
seven focus groups with federal managers cited progress in this area as
a key accomplishment of GPRA. However, the participants also commented
that much remains to be done in this area. The comments ranged from the
general--GPRA provides a framework for planning and budgeting, to the
more specific--GPRA created a definition of programs and how they will
help the agency achieve its goals/objectives and the amount of money
that will be required to achieve said goals/objectives. One of the
comments implied that GPRA has helped to prioritize agency efforts by
helping agencies align their efforts with programs or activities that
make a difference. A political appointee we interviewed echoed this
comment, stating that GPRA was pushing the department to think about
what it gets out of the budget, not just what it puts into it--12 to 15
years ago the "so what" was missing from the budget process. Another
political appointee we interviewed stated that the department was in
the process of tying its goals to its budget formulation and execution
processes and linking program costs to departmental goals. A former
political appointee discussed how his department used program
performance information to inform a major information systems
investment decision.

Furthermore, GAO case studies on the integration of performance
information in budget decision making found that performance
information has been used to inform the allocation of resources and for
other management purposes at selected agencies. For example, the
Veterans Health Administration provides its health care networks with
performance information on patterns of patient care and patient health
outcomes, which can be used to analyze resource allocation and costs
and reallocate resources as appropriate.[Footnote 21] Officials at the
Administration for Children and Families said that training and
technical assistance and salaries and expense funds are often allocated
based on program and performance needs.[Footnote 22] The Nuclear
Regulatory Commission monitors performance against targets and makes
resource adjustments, if needed, to achieve those targets.[Footnote 23]

Although there has been progress in formally establishing the linkages
between budgets and plans, our survey results are somewhat conflicting
and have not reflected any notable changes either in managers'
perceptions governmentwide as to their personal use of plans or
performance information when allocating resources, or in their
perceptions about the use of performance information when funding
decisions are made about their programs. Our 2003 survey data show that
a large majority of federal managers reported that they consider their
agency's strategic goals when they are allocating resources. As shown
in figure 7, on our 2003 survey, an estimated 70 percent of all federal
managers agreed to a great or very great extent that they considered
their agency's strategic goals when allocating resources. However,
using our 1997 survey responses as a baseline, it was not a
statistically significant increase over 64 percent of the managers who
responded comparably then. As shown in figure 8, a similar, but
somewhat smaller, majority (60 percent) of managers who expressed an
opinion on our 2003 survey agreed to a great or very great extent that
they used information from performance measurement when they were
involved in allocating resources. In 1997, the comparable response was
about the same at 62 percent. When we asked managers on another item,
however, about the extent to which they perceived funding decisions for
their programs being based on results or outcome-oriented performance
information, only 25 percent of federal managers in 2003 endorsed this
view to a great or very great extent. In 1997, 20 percent of managers
expressed a comparable view, again not a significant increase. (See
fig. 9.):

Figure 7: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported They Considered
Strategic Goals to a Great or Very Great Extent When Allocating
Resources:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Figure 8: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported They Considered
Performance Information to a Great or Very Great Extent When Allocating
Resources:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the
extent scale.

[End of figure]

Figure 9: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported That Funding
Decisions Were Based on Results or Outcome-Oriented Performance
Information to a Great or Very Great Extent:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

[End of section]

Chapter 3: Agencies Have Addressed Many Critical Performance Planning
and Reporting Challenges, but Weaknesses Persist:

[End of section]

Beginning with federal agencies' initial efforts to develop effective
strategic plans in 1997 and annual performance plans and reports for
fiscal year 1999, Congress, GAO, and others have commented on the
quality of those efforts and provided constructive feedback on how
agency plans and reports could be improved. On the basis of our current
review of the strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports of six selected agencies--Education, DOE, HUD, DOT,
SBA, and SSA--we found that these documents reflect much of the
feedback that was provided. For example, goals were more quantifiable
and results oriented, and agencies were providing more information
about goals and strategies to address performance and accountability
challenges and the limitations to their performance data. However,
certain weaknesses, such as lack of detail on how annual performance
goals relate to strategic goals and how agencies are coordinating with
other entities to achieve common objectives, persist. A detailed
discussion of our scope and methodology and the results of our reviews
of the six agencies' most recent strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and annual performance reports compared to initial efforts are
contained in appendixes III, IV, and V, respectively.

Quality of Selected Strategic Plans Reflects Improvements over Initial
Drafts:

Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting point and basic
underpinning for results-oriented management. GPRA requires that an
agency's strategic plan contain six key elements: (1) a comprehensive
agency mission statement; (2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives
for all major functions and operations; (3) approaches (or strategies)
and the various resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives;
(4) a description of the relationship between the long-term goals and
objectives and the annual performance goals; (5) an identification of
key factors, external to the agency and beyond its control, that could
significantly affect the achievement of the strategic goals; and (6) a
description of how program evaluations were used to establish or revise
strategic goals and a schedule for future program evaluations.

Our 1997 review of agencies' draft strategic plans found that a
significant amount of work remained to be done by executive branch
agencies if their strategic plans were to fulfill the requirements of
GPRA, serve as a basis for guiding agencies, and help congressional and
other policymakers make decisions about activities and
programs.[Footnote 24] Our assessment of 27 agencies' initial draft
strategic plans revealed several critical strategic planning issues
that needed to be addressed. These planning issues were as follows:

* Most of the draft plans did not adequately link required elements in
the plans, such as strategic goals to annual performance goals.

* Long-term strategic goals often tended to have weaknesses.

* Many agencies did not fully develop strategies explaining how their
long-term strategic goals would be achieved.

* Most agencies did not reflect in their draft plans the identification
and planned coordination of activities and programs that cut across
multiple agencies.

* The draft strategic plans did not adequately address program
evaluations.

We noted that Congress anticipated that it may take several planning
cycles to perfect the process and that strategic plans would be
continually refined as various planning cycles occur. We also
recognized that developing a strategic plan is a dynamic process and
that agencies, with input from OMB and Congress, were continuing to
improve their plans.

Agencies have now had 6 years to refine their strategic planning
processes. Although the six strategic plans we looked at for this
review reflected many new and continuing strengths as well as
improvements over the 1997 initial drafts, we continued to find certain
persistent weaknesses. As depicted in table 1, of the six elements
required by GPRA, the plans generally discussed all but one--program
evaluation, an area in which we have found capacity is often lacking in
federal agencies.[Footnote 25] Although the strategic plans generally
listed the program evaluations agencies planned to complete over the
planning period, they generally did not address how the agencies
planned to use their evaluations to establish new or revise existing
strategic goals, as envisioned by GPRA. Finally, although not required
by GPRA, the strategic plans would have benefited from more complete
discussions of how agencies planned to coordinate with other entities
to address common challenges or achieve common or complementary goals.
Appendix III provides a more detailed discussion of (1) the required
and other useful elements we reviewed to assess strategic plan
strengths and weaknesses and (2) changes in the quality of the six
agencies' strategic plans we reviewed.

Table 1: Agencies' Progress in Addressing Required Elements of
Strategic Planning under GPRA:

Agency strategic plans: Department of Education;
Plan year: 1997;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: Yes.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Education;
Plan year: 2002;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Energy;
Plan year: 1997;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Energy;
Plan year: 2003[A];
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Plan year: 1997;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long- term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Plan year: 2003;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship between long-
term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Small Business Administration;
Plan year: 1997;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Small Business Administration;
Plan year: 2001[B];
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long- term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship between long-
term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Social Security Administration;
Plan year: 1997;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: Yes.

Agency strategic plans: Social Security Administration;
Plan year: 2003;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long- term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: Yes.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Transportation;
Plan year: 1997;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: No;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: Yes.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Transportation;
Plan year: Plan year: 2003[A];
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Sources: GAO analysis of agencies' strategic plans in effect at the time of our review. See also,

U.S. General Accounting Office, The Results Act: Observations on the
Department of Education's June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-176R]
(Washington, D.C.: July 18, 1997);

Results Act: Observations on DOE's Draft Strategic Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-199R]
(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1997);

The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation's
Draft Strategic Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-208R]
(Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1997);

The Results Act: Observations on the Social Security Administration's
June 1997 Draft Strategic Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-179R]
(Washington, D.C.: July 22, 1997);

The Results Act: Observations on the Small Business Administration's
Draft Strategic Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-205R]
(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 1997);

The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Draft Strategic Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-224R]
(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 1997).

[A] The 2003 plans for DOE and DOT were in draft form during the time
of our review.

[B] At the time of our review, the most recent SBA strategic plan was
for fiscal years 2001-2008. SBA released a new strategic plan for
fiscal years 2003-2008 in October 2003.

[End of table]

Strategic Planning Strengths and Improvements from Initial Draft Plans:

Consistent with our review of agencies' 1997 strategic plans, the
recent strategic plans we reviewed generally contained mission
statements that were results oriented, distinct from other agencies,
and covered the agencies' major activities. DOT's mission statement had
improved by reflecting additional language from its enabling
legislation that we recommended adding during our 1997 review. Still
improvement could be made in this area as is shown by DOE's mission
statement. DOE's mission was results oriented but did not address the
department's activities related to energy supply and conservation.

Our review of the current strategic plans also revealed improvements in
the development of agencies' long-term, strategic goals--essential for
results-oriented management. Although GPRA does not require that all of
an agency's long-term, strategic goals be results oriented, the intent
of GPRA is to have agencies focus their strategic goals on results to
the extent feasible. In addition, as required by GPRA, the goals should
be expressed in a manner that could be used to gauge success in the
future and should cover an agency's major functions or activities. All
of the strategic plans we reviewed contained long-term, strategic goals
that demonstrated improvements in the quality of their 1997 goals.
Agencies' long-term strategic goals generally covered their missions,
were results oriented, and were expressed in a manner that could be
used to gauge future success. For example, SBA improved the quality of
its long-term goals by focusing more on key outcomes to be achieved and
less on process improvements, as was the case in its 1997 plan. In some
cases, we observed strategic goals that addressed the agency's
organizational capacity to achieve results, such as SSA's long-term
goal to strategically manage and align staff to support its mission.

We also found improvements in how agencies' current plans addressed
performance and accountability challenges we had identified, a key
weakness we identified in our earlier review. Each of the agency plans
we reviewed discussed the long-term goals and strategies to address the
challenges that we had identified. For example, Education's strategic
plan contained a long-term strategic goal to modernize the Federal
Student Assistance programs and address identified problems in this
area, which we have designated as high risk since 1990.[Footnote 26]
SSA noted that it considered GAO-identified performance and
accountability challenges when it determined its strategic goals and
objectives, however not all of the challenges are clearly addressed in
the plan.

A third area of improvement we observed was in the description of the
strategies agencies planned to use to achieve their long-term strategic
goals. In our review of agencies' 1997 draft strategic plans, we found
that many agencies did not fully develop strategies explaining how
their long-term strategic goals would be achieved. In contrast, all six
of the current strategic plans we reviewed contained strategies that
appeared logically linked to achieving the agencies' long-term goals.

Other strengths and improvements we observed in meeting GPRA's basic
requirements involved the reporting of external factors that could
affect the achievement of the long-term goals and the identification of
crosscutting activities, although as indicated below these discussions
could be improved. The six agencies reviewed for this report each
reported on external factors in current strategic plans. For example,
for each of the strategic objectives in DOT's strategic plan, DOT lists
factors external to its control and how those factors could affect the
achievement of its objectives. Although not a requirement, some of the
better plans we reviewed discussed strategies to ameliorate the effect
of external factors. For example, for an external factor on teacher
certification under a goal on reading, Education's plan states that the
agency "will work with the states and national accreditation bodies to
encourage the incorporation of research-based reading instruction into
teacher certification requirements.":

We have frequently reported that a focus on results, as envisioned by
GPRA, implies that federal programs contributing 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 means that federal agencies are to look beyond their
organizational boundaries and coordinate with other agencies to ensure
that their efforts are aligned. During our 1997 review, we found that
most agencies did not reflect in their draft plans the identification
and planned coordination of activities and programs that cut across
multiple agencies. In contrast, each of the six current agency
strategic plans that we reviewed identified at least some activities
and programs that cut across multiple agencies. For example, SBA's 1997
plan contained no evidence of how the agency coordinated with other
agencies, but the current plan contained a separate section describing
crosscutting issues in the areas of innovation and research assistance,
international trade assistance, business development assistance,
veterans affairs, and disaster assistance.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

First, consistent with our 1997 review, the strategic plans we reviewed
did not adequately link required elements in the plans. Although all of
the agencies we reviewed provided some information on the relationship
between their long-term and annual goals, the extent of information
provided on how annual goals would be used to measure progress in
achieving the long-term goals varied greatly. In the case of DOE, the
plan provides a very brief description of the overall relationship
between its long-term and annual goals with examples, but does not
demonstrate how it will assess progress for each of its long-term goals
and objectives. Another plan, DOT's, refers the reader to the annual
performance plan for information about annual goals. We have reported
that this linkage is critical for determining whether an agency has a
clear sense of how it will assess progress toward achieving its
intended results.

Second, although the agencies' descriptions of their strategies had
improved since our initial reviews, with few exceptions, their
strategies generally did not include information on how the agencies
plan to align their activities, core processes, human capital, and
other resources to support their mission-critical outcomes and whether
they have the right mix of activities, skills, and resources to achieve
their goals. Such information is critical to understanding the
viability of the strategies. Furthermore, none of the agencies
discussed alternative strategies they had considered in developing
their plans. Without such discussions, it is unclear whether agency
planning processes were truly strategic or simply a recasting of
existing activities, processes, etc.

HUD was the only agency that provided any details of how it intended to
coordinate with other agencies to achieve common or complementary goals
for its crosscutting programs or activities. For example, to support
its goal of "Equal Opportunity in Housing," HUD's plan states that HUD
and the Department of Justice continue to coordinate their fair housing
enforcement activities, especially with respect to responding quickly
and effectively to Fair Housing Act complaints that involve criminal
activity (e.g., hate crimes), a pattern and practice of housing
discrimination, or the legality of state and local zoning or other land
use laws or ordinances. We have reported that mission fragmentation and
program overlap are widespread throughout the federal
government.[Footnote 27] As such, interagency coordination is important
for ensuring that crosscutting programs are mutually reinforcing and
efficiently implemented.

Finally, the draft strategic plans did not adequately address program
evaluations. In combination with an agency's performance measurement
system, program evaluations can provide feedback to the agency on how
well its activities and programs contributed to achieving strategic
goals. For example, evaluations can be a potentially critical source of
information for Congress and others in assessing (1) the
appropriateness and reasonableness of goals; (2) the effectiveness of
strategies by supplementing performance measurement data with impact
evaluation studies; and (3) the implementation of programs, such as
identifying the need for corrective action. Evaluations are important
because they potentially can be critical sources of information for
ensuring that goals are reasonable, strategies for achieving goals are
effective, and that corrective actions are taken in program
implementation. Five out of the six current plans that we reviewed
included a discussion of program evaluations, however for most of these
plans the discussions lacked critical information required by GPRA,
such as a discussion of how evaluations were used to establish
strategic goals or a schedule of future evaluations. For example, DOE's
plan stated that internal, GAO, and Inspector General (IG) evaluations
were used as resources to develop its draft strategic plan, but
specific program evaluations were not identified.

Fiscal Year 2004 Annual Performance Plans Addressed Some Weaknesses of
Earlier Plans, but Still Have Room for Significant Improvement:

According to our review of agencies' first annual performance plans,
which presented agencies' annual performance goals for fiscal year
1999,[Footnote 28] we found that substantial further development was
needed for these plans to be useful in a significant way to
congressional and other decision makers. Most of the fiscal year 1999
plans that we reviewed contained major weaknesses that undermined their
usefulness in that they (1) did not consistently provide clear pictures
of agencies' intended performance, (2) generally did not relate
strategies and resources to performance, and (3) provided limited
confidence that agencies' performance data will be sufficiently
credible. Although all of the fiscal year 1999 plans contained valuable
information for decision makers, their weaknesses caused their
usefulness to vary considerably within and among plans.

As shown in table 2, our current review of agencies' fiscal year 2004
performance plans found that five agencies--Education, HUD, SBA, SSA,
and DOT--improved their efforts to provide a clear picture of intended
performance, with SSA and DOT being the clearest. Furthermore, the same
five agencies improved the specificity of the strategies and resources
they intended to use to achieve their performance goals, with DOT being
the most specific. Finally, the same five agencies--Education, HUD,
SBA, SSA, and DOT--made improvements in the area of greatest weakness-
-reporting on how they will ensure performance data will be credible.
However, only DOT's plan provided a full level of confidence that the
performance data the agency intended to collect would be credible.
Appendix IV provides a more detailed discussion of (1) the required and
other useful elements we reviewed to assess the clarity of the picture
of intended performance, the specificity of the strategies and
resources, and the level of confidence in the performance data and (2)
changes in the quality of the six agencies' annual performance plans we
reviewed.

Table 2: Characterizations of Agencies' Fiscal Year 1999 and 2004
Annual Performance Plans:

Agency: Department of Education;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
1999: Limited;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
2004: General;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 1999:
Limited;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 2004:
General;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 1999: Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Department of Energy;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
1999: Limited;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
2004: Limited;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 1999:
General;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 2004:
General;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 1999: Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 2004: Limited.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
1999: Limited;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
2004: General;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 1999:
Limited;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 2004:
General;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 1999: Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Small Business Administration;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
1999: Limited;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
2004: General;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 1999:
Limited;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 2004:
General;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 1999: Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Social Security Administration;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
1999: Limited;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
2004: Clear;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 1999:
Limited;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 2004:
General;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 1999: No;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Department of Transportation;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
1999: General;
Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear):
2004: Clear;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 1999:
General;
Strategies and resources: (no, limited, general, specific): 2004:
Specific;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 1999: Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): 2004: Full.

Sources: GAO analysis of agencies' fiscal year 2004 annual performance plans and

U.S. General Accounting Office, Results Act: Observations on the
Department of Education's Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-172R]
(Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1998);

Results Act: Observations on DOE's Annual Performance Plan for Fiscal
Year 1999,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-194R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 1998);

Results Act: Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban
Development's Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-159R]
(Washington, D.C.: June 5, 1998);

Results Act: Observations on the Small Business Administration's Fiscal
Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98- 200R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 28, 1998);

The Results Act: Observations on the Social Security Administration's
Fiscal Year 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi- bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-178R]
(Washington, D.C.: June 9, 1998);

Results Act: Observations on the Department of Transportation's Annual
Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-180R]
(Washington, D.C.: May 12, 1998).

[End of table]

Plans Generally Provided a Clearer Picture of Intended Performance,
Except for Crosscutting Areas:

At the most basic level, an annual performance plan is to provide a
clear picture of intended performance across the agency. Such
information is important to Congress, agency managers, and others for
understanding what the agency is trying to achieve, identifying
subsequent opportunities for improvement, and assigning
accountability. Our current review of agencies' fiscal year 2004
performance plans found that five of the six agencies provided a
clearer picture of intended performance than their fiscal year 1999
plans did, although only two of the 2004 plans--DOT's and SSA's--
received the highest rating possible. As shown in table 2, except for
DOT, the six agencies we reviewed for this report initially provided a
limited picture of intended performance. Most of the fiscal year 1999
performance plans we previously reviewed had at least some objective,
quantifiable, and measurable goals, but few plans consistently included
a comprehensive set of goals that focused on the results that programs
were intended to achieve. Moreover, agencies did not consistently
follow OMB's guidance that goals for performance and accountability
challenges be included in the plans. Agencies' plans generally showed
how their missions and strategic goals were related to their annual
performance goals and covered all of the program activities in the
agencies' budget requests.[Footnote 29] In addition, many agencies took
the needed first step of identifying their crosscutting efforts, with
some including helpful lists of other agencies with which they shared a
responsibility for addressing similar national issues. However, the
plans generally did not go further to describe how agencies expected to
coordinate their efforts with other agencies.

The fiscal year 2004 plans improved the picture of performance by
making annual goals and performance measures more results oriented,
objective, and quantifiable. For example, Education's plan included a
measure for the number of states meeting their eighth grade mathematics
achievement targets under the long-term goal to improve mathematics and
science achievement for all students. We previously criticized
Education's 1999 plan for lacking such outcome-oriented measures.
Another overall improvement we observed was that all of the plans
described intended efforts to address performance and accountability
challenges we and others had previously identified. For instance, to
address the governmentwide high-risk area of strategic human capital
management, HUD states that to develop its staff capacity, it will
complete a comprehensive workforce analysis in 2004 to serve as the
basis to fill mission critical skill gaps through succession planning,
hiring, and training initiatives in a 5-year human capital management
strategy. The clarity of DOE's plan remained limited because its annual
goals were not clearly linked to its mission, the long-term goals in
its strategic plan, or the program activities in its budget request.

Although five of the six agencies improved the clarity of the picture
of intended performance, improvement is still needed in reporting on
crosscutting efforts. In both the 1999 and 2004 plans, many agencies
identified their crosscutting efforts, with some including helpful
lists of other agencies with which they shared a responsibility for
addressing similar national issues. Our review of fiscal year 2004
plans shows that the six agencies we reviewed still did not discuss how
they expected to coordinate with other agencies to address common
challenges or to achieve common or complementary performance goals. As
we have reported previously, improved reporting on crosscutting efforts
can help Congress use the annual performance plan to evaluate whether
the annual goals will put the agency on a path toward achieving its
mission and long-term strategic goals. In addition, the plans can aid
in determining efforts to reduce significant program overlap and
fragmentation that can waste scarce resources, confuse and frustrate
program customers, and limit overall program effectiveness.

None of the six agencies' plans indicated an intention to request
waivers of specific administrative procedural requirements and controls
that may be impeding an agencies' ability to achieve results. This
provision of GPRA allows agencies greater managerial flexibility in
exchange for accountability for results. We previously reported on the
results of the pilot project to implement this provision of GPRA and
found that the pilot did not work as intended.[Footnote 30] OMB did not
designate any of the seven departments and one independent agency that
submitted a total of 61 waiver proposals as GPRA managerial
accountability and flexibility pilots. For about three-quarters of the
waiver proposals, OMB or other central management agencies determined
that the waivers were not allowable for statutory or other reasons or
that the requirement for which the waivers were proposed no longer
existed. For the remaining proposals, OMB or other central management
agencies approved waivers or developed compromises by using authorities
that were already available independent of GPRA.

Plans More Specifically Related Strategies and Resources to Performance
Goals:

To judge the reasonableness of an agency's proposed strategies and
resources, congressional and other decision makers need complete
information on how the proposed strategies and resources will
contribute to the achievement of agency goals. Agencies generally
improved their plans by better relating strategies and resources to
performance. Education's, HUD's, SBA's, and SSA's 1999 plans had a
limited discussion, while DOE's and DOT's 1999 plans had a general
discussion. In 2004, five of the six plans--Education's, DOE's, HUD's,
SBA's, and SSA's--provided general discussions of how their strategies
and resources would contribute to achieving their performance goals.
DOT's 2004 plan improved to include a specific discussion.

Our review of the 1999 plans found that most agencies' performance
plans did not provide clear strategies that described how performance
goals would be achieved. In contrast, the 2004 performance plans we
reviewed generally provided lists of the agencies' current array of
programs and initiatives. Several plans provided a perspective on how
these programs and initiatives were necessary or helpful for achieving
results. For example, DOE and HUD included in their plans a "means and
strategies" section for each of their goals that described how the goal
would be achieved. One strategy DOE identified to meet its goal of
contributing unique, vital facilities to the biological environmental
sciences was to conduct peer reviews of the facilities to assess the
scientific output, user satisfaction, the overall cost-effectiveness of
each facility's operations, and their ability to deliver the most
advanced scientific capability.

In addition, each of the agencies' plans identified the external
factors that could influence the degree to which goals are achieved.
Some of the better plans, such as DOT's and SBA's, provided strategies
to mitigate the negative factors or take advantage of positive factors,
as appropriate. For example, for its transportation accessibility
goals, DOT's plan states that as the population ages, more people will
require accessible public transit, for which states and local agencies
decide how best to allocate federally provided resources. One of the
strategies DOT intends to employ to address this external factor is the
"Special Needs of Elderly Individuals and Individuals with
Disabilities" grant program. The plan states the grant program will
help meet transportation needs of the elderly and persons with
disabilities when regular transportation services are unavailable,
insufficient, or inappropriate to meet their needs.

Agencies' 2004 plans did not consistently describe all the resources
needed and how they would be used to achieve agency goals. Our review
of agencies' fiscal year 1999 plans found that most did not adequately
describe--or reference other appropriate documents that describe--the
capital, human, information, and financial resources needed to achieve
their agencies' performance goals. The 2004 plans we reviewed generally
described the funding levels needed to achieve their performance goals
overall and in some cases broke out funding needs by high-level
performance goal. For example, SSA's plan provides a general
perspective on the financial resources needed to achieve its
performance goals because it provides budget information by account and
program activity. However, the plan is neither structured by budget
program activity or account, nor does it provide a crosswalk between
the strategic goals and budget program accounts. In contrast, HUD's
plan presented its requested funding and staffing levels at the
strategic goal level, but did not present budget information at the
level of its annual goals. In addition, although the plans make brief
mention of nonfinancial resources, such as human capital, information
technology, or other capital investments, little information is
provided on how such resources would be used to achieve performance
goals.

Plans Continue to Provide Less Than Full Confidence That Performance
Data Will Be Credible:

Credible performance information is essential for accurately assessing
agencies' progress towards the achievement of their goals and, in cases
where goals are not met, identifying opportunities for improvement or
whether goals need to be adjusted. Under GPRA, agencies' annual
performance plans are to describe the means that will be used to verify
and validate performance data. To help improve the quality of agencies'
performance data, Congress amended GPRA through the Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000 to require that agencies assess the
completeness and reliability of the performance data in their
performance reports. Agencies were also required to discuss in their
report any material inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of
their performance data and discuss actions to address these
inadequacies. Meeting these new requirements suggests the need for
careful planning to ensure that agencies can comment accurately on the
quality of the performance data they report to the public.

As shown in table 2, although five of the six agencies we reviewed
improved in reporting how they plan to ensure that performance data
will be credible, only one agency--DOT--improved enough over its 1999
plan to provide a full level of confidence in the credibility of its
performance data. Four agencies--Education, HUD, SBA, and SSA--improved
enough to provide a general level of confidence. However, DOE provided
the same limited level of confidence in the credibility of the
performance data as in its 1999 plan. Regarding all 24 of the fiscal
year 1999 performance plans we reviewed, we found most provided only
superficial descriptions of procedures that agencies intended to use to
verify and validate performance data. Moreover, in general, agencies'
performance plans did not include discussions of documented limitations
in financial and other information systems that may undermine efforts
to produce high-quality data. As we have previously noted, without such
information, and strategies to address those limitations, Congress and
other decision makers cannot assess the validity and reliability of
performance information.

We found that each of the 2004 plans we reviewed contained some
discussion of the procedures the agencies would use to verify and
validate performance information, although in some cases the discussion
was inconsistent or limited. For example, the discussions of SBA's
verification and validation processes for its indicators in the 2004
plan were generally one-or two-sentence statements. SBA also noted that
it does not independently verify some of the external data it gathers
or that it does not have access to the data for this purpose. In
contrast, the DOT plan referred to a separate compendium available on-
line that provides source and accuracy statements, which give more
detail on the methods used to collect performance data, sources of
variation and bias in the data, and methods used to verify and validate
the data.

In addition, all of the agencies except DOE discussed known limitations
to performance data in their plans. These agencies' plans generally
provided information about the quality of each performance measure,
including any limitations. According to DOE officials, DOE's plan
generally does not discuss data limitations because the department
selected goals for which data are expected to be available and
therefore did not anticipate finding any limitations. However, in our
2003 Performance and Accountability Series report on DOE, we identified
several performance and accountability challenges where data were a
concern, such as the need for additional information on the results of
contractors' performance to keep projects on schedule and within
budget.[Footnote 31] DOE's contract management continues to be a
significant challenge for the department and remains at high risk.

Finally, the remaining five agencies also discussed plans to address
limitations to the performance data. For example, DOT's plan provided a
general discussion of the limitations to the internal and external
sources of data used to measure performance. Detailed discussions were
contained in an appendix to the plan and separate source and accuracy
statements. This information had been lacking in its 1999 plan.
Education, HUD, SBA, and SSA also provided information on limitations
to their performance data and plans for improvement.

Strengths and Weaknesses of Selected Agencies' Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance Reports:

Key to improving accountability for results as Congress intended under
GPRA, annual performance reports are to document the results agencies
have achieved compared to the goals they established. To be useful for
oversight and accountability purposes, the reports should clearly
communicate performance results, provide explanations for any unmet
goals as well as actions needed to address them, and discuss known data
limitations as well as how the limitations are to be addressed in the
future. Compared to our reviews of the six agencies' fiscal year 1999
performance reports, we identified a number of strengths and
improvements as well as areas that continued to need improvement.
Because the scope of our review of the fiscal year 2002 reports was
broader than that for the fiscal year 1999 reports we previously
reviewed, we were unable to make specific comparisons for the three
characteristics we used to assess the fiscal year 2002 reports.
However, we discuss comparative information on aspects of the reports
where available. Table 3 shows the results of our assessment of the six
agencies' annual performance reports for fiscal year 2002. Appendix V
provides a more detailed discussion of (1) the required and other
useful elements we reviewed to assess the clarity of the picture of
performance, the clarity of the linkage between costs and performance,
and the level of confidence in the performance data and (2) changes in
the quality of the six agencies' annual performance plans we reviewed.

Table 3: Characterizations of Agencies' 2002 Annual Performance
Reports:

Agency: Department of Education;
Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear): Limited;
Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general, clear): Clear;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): General.

Agency: Department of Energy;
Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear): General;
Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general, clear): Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): Limited.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear): General;
Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general, clear): No;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): General.

Agency: Small Business Administration;
Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear): Limited;
Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general, clear): General;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): General.

Agency: Social Security Administration;
Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear): General;
Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general, clear): Limited;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): General.

Agency: Department of Transportation;
Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general, clear): General;
Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general, clear): No;
Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): Full.

Sources: GAO analysis of agencies' fiscal year 2002 annual performance
reports and

U.S. General Accounting Office, Observations on the Department of
Education's Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001
Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-128R];
(Washington, D.C. June 30, 2000);

Observations on the Department of Energy's Fiscal Year 1999
Accountability Report and Fiscal Years 2000 and 2001 Performance Plans,
GAO/RCED-00-209R; (Washington, D.C. June 30, 2000);

Observations on the Department of Housing and Urban Development's
Fiscal Year 1999 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance
Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00- 211R];
(Washington, D.C. June 30, 2000);

Observations on the Small Business Administration's Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00-207R];
(Washington, D.C. June 30, 2000);

Observations on the Social Security Administration's Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-00-126R];
(Washington, D.C. June 30, 2000);

and Observations on the Department of Transportation's Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-00-201R];
(Washington, D.C. June 30, 2000).

[End of table]

Progress in Providing a Clear Picture of Performance:

The six agency reports that we reviewed contained a number of
strengths, some of which we can describe as improvements over the
reports on fiscal year 1999 performance. A key strength of four of the
2002 reports (Education, HUD, DOT, SSA) was a discussion of the
relationship between the strategic plan, performance plan, and
performance report. For example, SSA's report identified relevant
results that were linked to its strategic objective to deliver
"citizen-centered, world-class service," such as maintaining the
accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency of service to people applying for
its benefit programs. The clarity of the DOE and SBA reports was
limited by not clearly relating agency performance results to strategic
and annual performance goals. For example, the structure of SBA's
report reflected the objectives in its draft 2003 to 2008 strategic
plan rather than those in its 2002 performance plan, making it
difficult to assess progress against the original 2002 objectives.
Furthermore, although there is no "right" number of performance
measures to be used to assess progress, a number of the plans allowed
for an easier review of results by limiting the overall number of
measures presented or by highlighting key performance measures of
greatest significance to their programs. For example, SBA discussed a
total of 19 performance goals and DOT discussed a total of 40. Although
SSA discussed a total of 69 performance goals, the report highlighted
its progress in achieving 14 key goals. In contrast, Education, HUD,
and DOE presented a total of 120, 184, and 260 measures, respectively.
Furthermore, while Education and SSA each provided a table showing
progress across all its measures, the other agencies did not provide
such summary information.

As we found in our earlier reviews, the six agencies' fiscal year 2002
reports generally allowed for an assessment of progress made in
achieving agency goals. Some of the reports made this assessment easier
than others by providing easy-to-read summary information. For example,
SSA provided a table at the beginning of the report that summarized the
results for each of its 69 indicators with the following dispositions:
met, not met, almost met, and data not yet available. Other reports,
such as HUD's, required an extensive review to make this assessment. In
addition, to place current performance in context, each of the
agencies' reports contained trend information, as required by GPRA,
which allowed for comparisons between current year and prior year
performance.

In addition, the majority of agencies maintained, or demonstrated
improvements over, the quality of their 1999 reports in discussing the
progress achieved in addressing performance and accountability
challenges identified by agency IGs and GAO. For example, SBA's report
contained two broad overviews and an appendix describing the status of
GAO audits and recommendations, as well as a description of the most
serious management challenges SBA faces as identified by the agency's
IG.

Unfortunately, many of the weaknesses we identified in the agencies'
fiscal year 2002 reports were similar to those we found in their fiscal
year 1999 reports related to the significant number of performance
goals (1) which were not achieved and lacked explanations or plans for
achieving the goal in the future and (2) for which performance data
were unavailable. Three of the six agencies we reviewed--HUD, SSA, and
Transportation--did not consistently report the reasons for not meeting
their goals. For example, Transportation provided explanations for only
5 of the 14 goals it did not meet. In addition, similar to our 1999
report findings, three of the six agencies we reviewed--HUD, SBA, and
DOT--did not discuss their plans or strategies to achieve unmet goals
in the future. For example, HUD reported "substantially meeting" only
47 percent of the performance targets in fiscal year 2002. However,
although HUD provides various reasons for not meeting all its targets,
it offers no information on plans or time frames to achieve the goals
in the future. Finally, we continued to observe a significant number of
goals for which performance data were unavailable. For example,
performance data for 10 of SBA's 19 performance goals were unavailable.

In addition, the majority of the reports we reviewed did not include
other GPRA requirements. The reports generally did not evaluate the
performance plan for the current year relative to the performance
achieved toward the performance goals in the fiscal year covered by the
report. The reports also did not discuss the use or effectiveness of
any waivers in achieving performance goals. In addition, for two of the
agencies--DOE and SBA--program evaluation findings completed during the
fiscal year were not summarized. As we have previously noted, such
evaluations could help agencies understand the relationship between
their activities and the results they hope to achieve.

Progress in Linking Resources to Results:

Although linking costs to performance goals is not a requirement of
GPRA, both GPRA and the CFO Act emphasized the importance of linking
program performance information with financial information as a key
feature of sound management and an important element in presenting to
the public a useful and informative perspective on federal spending.
The committee report for GPRA suggested that developing the capacity to
relate the level of program activity with program costs, such as cost
per unit of result, cost per unit of service, or cost per unit of
output, should be a high priority. In our survey of federal managers,
this year we asked for the first time the extent to which federal
managers had measures of cost-effectiveness for the programs they were
involved with. Only 31 percent of federal managers we surveyed reported
having such measures to a great or very great extent, lower than any of
the other types of measures associated with GPRA we asked about by at
least 12 percent (see fig. 3 in ch. 2). Under the PMA, the current
administration has set an ambitious agenda for performance budgeting,
calling for agencies to better align budgets with performance goals and
focus on capturing full budgetary costs and matching those costs with
output and outcome goals. All this suggests that agencies will need to
develop integrated financial and performance management systems that
will enable the reporting of the actual costs associated with
performance goals and objectives along with presentations designed to
meet other budgetary or financial purposes, such as the accounts and
program activities found in the President's Budget and responsibility
segments found in financial statements.[Footnote 32]

Of the six agencies we reviewed, only Education's report clearly linked
its budgetary information to the achievement of its performance goals
or objectives. Education's report laid out, using both graphics and
text, the estimated appropriations associated with achieving each of
its 24 objectives. In addition the report provided the staffing in
full-time equivalent employment (FTEs) and an estimate of the funds
from salaries and expenses contributing to the support of each of these
objectives. SBA's report contained crosswalks that showed the
relationship between SBA's strategic goals, outcome goals, performance
goals, and programs. Because SBA shows the resources for each program,
a reader can infer a relationship between SBA's resources and
performance goals. However, the linkage between resources and results
would be clearer if results and resources were presented by performance
goal as well. SSA provided a limited view of the costs of achieving its
performance goals by providing the costs associated with four out of
five of its strategic goals.[Footnote 33] However, as reported by the
IG, SSA needs to further develop its cost accounting system, which
would help link costs to performance.[Footnote 34] DOE also provided a
limited view of the costs of achieving its performance goals by
organizing its performance information by budget program activity and
associated net costs. According to DOE officials, the department plans
to link its individual performance measures to the costs of program
activities in future reports. Neither HUD nor DOT provided information
on the cost of achieving individual performance goals or objectives.

Progress in Providing Confidence in the Credibility of Performance
Data:

To assess the degree to which an agency's report provided full
confidence that the agency's performance information was credible, we
examined the extent to which the reports discussed the quality of the
data presented. As shown in table 3, only DOT's report provided a full
level of confidence in the quality of the data. The other agencies
provided general or limited confidence in their data.

All six agencies in our current review complied with the Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000 by including assessments of the completeness
and reliability of their performance data in their transmittal letters.
In contrast, we found that only 5 of the 24 CFO Act agencies included
this information in their fiscal year 2000 performance
reports.[Footnote 35] Of the six agencies in our current review, only
DOE provided this assessment in its fiscal year 2000 report. For
example, the Secretary of DOT stated in the transmittal letter that the
2002 report "contains performance and financial data that are
substantially complete and reliable." However, only two of the six
agencies also disclosed material inadequacies in the completeness and
reliability of their performance data and discussed actions to address
the inadequacies in their transmittal letters. For example, SBA stated
in its transmittal letter that it is "working to improve the
completeness and reliability of the performance data for the advice
provided to small business through SBA's resource partners." SBA
explained that data for this aspect of its performance are collected
through surveys, which are inconsistent and not comparable, and for
which client responses are difficult to obtain. SBA stated that it is
working to improve the survey instruments it uses to obtain performance
data.

In addition to the requirements of the Reports Consolidation Act, we
have previously reported on other practices that enhance the
credibility of performance data that are not specifically required by
GPRA. For instance, discussions of standards and methods used by
agencies to assess the quality of their performance data in their
performance reports provide decision makers greater insight into the
quality and value of the performance data. None of the reports
explicitly referred to a specific standard they used, however, DOE
described its method for assuring data quality. The report states that
the heads of DOE's organizational elements certified the accuracy of
their performance data. DOE subsequently reviewed the data for quality
and completeness.

Other useful practices that help foster transparency to the public and
assist decision makers in understanding the quality of an agency's data
include: (1) discussion of data quality, including known data
limitations and actions to address the limitations, and (2) discussion
of data verification and validation procedures, including proposals to
review data collection and verification and validation procedures.

All six agencies' reports described data limitations, although
discussions were mostly brief and very high level. One exception was
DOT, which directed readers to the DOT Web site to obtain an assessment
of the completeness and reliability of its performance data and
detailed information on the source, scope, and limitations of the
performance data. HUD and SBA also discussed plans for addressing the
limitations. For example, HUD stated that to address problems with its
indicator on the number of homeowners who have been assisted with the
Home Investment Partnership Program (HOME), HUD has established a team
of managers, technical staff, and contractors to make a series of
improvements to the Integrated Disbursement and Information System
beginning in fiscal year 2003 that should reduce the need to clean up
the data.

Each of the six agencies' reports also discussed the procedures they
used to verify and validate their performance data. However, these
discussions ranged from the very general description of the DOE method
(noted previously), to the very detailed discussions provided by DOT.
DOT provides an on-line compendium that discusses the source and
accuracy of its data. Furthermore, DOT's 2002 report also describes
strategies being undertaken to address the quality of its data. The
report states that a DOT intermodal working group addressed data
quality issues by developing departmental statistical standards and by
updating source and accuracy statements for all of DOT's data programs.
The working group also worked to improve quality assurance procedures,
evaluate sampling and nonsampling errors, and develop common
definitions for data across modes.

[End of section]

Chapter 4: Challenges to GPRA Implementation Persist:

While a great deal of progress has been made in making federal agencies
more results oriented, numerous challenges still exist to effective
implementation of GPRA. The success of GPRA depends on the commitment
of top leadership within agencies, OMB, and Congress. However,
according to federal managers surveyed, top leadership commitment to
achieving results has not grown significantly since our 1997 survey.
Furthermore, although OMB has recently shown an increased commitment to
management issues, it significantly reduced its guidance to agencies on
GPRA implementation compared to prior years, and it is not clear how
the program goals developed through its PART initiative will complement
and integrate with the long-term, strategic focus of GPRA. Obtaining
leadership commitment to implement a strategic plan depends in part on
the usefulness and relevance of agency goals and strategies to agency
leaders, Congress, and OMB. However, GPRA's requirement to update
agency strategic plans every 3 years is out of sync with presidential
and congressional terms and can result in updated plans that do not
have the support of top administration leadership and key congressional
stakeholders.

As noted in chapter 2, more federal managers surveyed reported having
results-oriented performance measures for their programs and we would
expect to have seen similar increases in the use of this information
for program management. However, we did not observe any growth in their
reported use of this information for key management activities, such as
adopting new program approaches or changing work processes.
Additionally, managers noted human capital-related challenges that
impede results-oriented management, including a lack of authority and
training to carry out GPRA requirements, as well as a lack of
recognition for the results achieved.

Consistent with our previous work, federal managers in our focus groups
reported that significant challenges persist in setting outcome-
oriented goals, measuring performance, and collecting useful data.
However, our survey data suggested that federal managers do not
perceive issues, such as "difficulty distinguishing between the results
produced by the program and results caused by other factors" and
"difficulty obtaining data in time to be useful," to be substantial
hindrances to measuring performance or using performance information.

Additionally, mission fragmentation and overlap contribute to
difficulties in addressing crosscutting issues, particularly when those
issues require a national focus, such as homeland security, drug
control, and the environment. GAO has previously reported on a variety
of barriers to interagency cooperation, such as conflicting agency
missions, jurisdiction issues, and incompatible procedures, data, and
processes. We have also reported that OMB could use the provision of
GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide performance plan to
integrate expected agency-level performance. Unfortunately, this
provision has not been fully implemented and the federal government
lacks a tool, such as a strategic plan, that could provide a framework
for a governmentwide reexamination of existing programs, as well as
proposals for new programs. Finally, federal managers in our focus
groups and political appointees we interviewed believed that Congress
does not use performance information to the fullest extent to conduct
oversight and to inform appropriations decisions. While there is
concern regarding Congress' use of performance information, it is
important to make sure that this information is initially useful. As a
key user of performance information, Congress needs to be considered a
partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. GPRA provides Congress
opportunities to influence agency performance goals through the
consultation requirement for strategic plans and through Congress'
traditional oversight role.

Top Leadership Does Not Consistently Show Commitment to Achieving
Results:

We have previously testified that perhaps the single most important
element of successful management improvement initiatives is the
demonstrated commitment of top leaders to change.[Footnote 36] This
commitment is most prominently shown through the personal involvement
of top leaders in developing and directing reform efforts.
Organizations that successfully address their long-standing management
weaknesses do not "staff out" responsibility for leading change. Top
leadership involvement and clear lines of accountability for making
management improvements are critical to overcoming organizations'
natural resistance to change, marshalling the resources needed in many
cases to improve management, and building and maintaining the
organizationwide commitment to new ways of doing business.

Results from our surveys show that while the majority of managers
continue to indicate top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to
achieving results, we have not seen a noteworthy improvement in the
percentage of managers expressing this view. From our 1997 survey, we
estimated about 57 percent of managers overall reported such commitment
to a great or very great extent. On our 2003 survey, 62 percent of
managers expressed a comparable view--a higher but not statistically
significant increase. (See fig. 10.):

Figure 10: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported to a Great or
Very Great Extent Their Top Leadership Has a Strong Commitment to
Achieving Results:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

As shown in figure 11, however, we continued to see a significant
difference between the perceptions of SES and non-SES managers on this
issue. That is, the percentage of SES managers reporting that top
leadership demonstrated strong commitment to a great or very great
extent in 2003 was 22 percent higher than for non-SES managers.

Figure 11: Percentage of SES and Non-SES Managers Who Reported to a
Great or Very Great Extent Their Agency Top Leadership Demonstrated
Strong Commitment to Achieving Results:

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between SES and
non-SES.

[End of figure]

We observed in our 1997 and 2000 reports on governmentwide
implementation of GPRA that we would expect to see managers' positive
perceptions on items, such as the extent to which top leadership is
committed to achieving results, become more prevalent and the gap
between SES and non-SES managers begin to narrow as GPRA and related
reforms are implemented; however, these changes do not appear to be
happening as expected.[Footnote 37]

Demonstrating the willingness and ability to make decisions and manage
programs based on results and the ability to inspire others to embrace
such a model are important indicators of leadership commitment to
results-oriented management. However, in both our 1997 and 2000
surveys, only about 16 percent of managers reported that changes by
management above their levels to the programs for which they were
responsible were based on results or outcome-oriented performance
information to a great or very great extent. In our 2003 survey, this
indicator increased to 23 percent, a statistically significant increase
from prior surveys. Twenty-eight percent of federal managers surveyed
who expressed an opinion reported that the lack of ongoing top
executive commitment or support for using performance information to
make program/funding decisions hindered measuring performance or using
performance information to a great or very great extent.

Our interviews with 10 top political appointees from the Clinton and
current Bush administrations indicated a high level of support and
enthusiasm for effectively implementing the principles embodied in
GPRA. For example, one appointee noted that GPRA focused senior
management on a set of goals and objectives to allow the organization
to understand what is important and how to deal with accomplishment at
a macro-level, as well as provided a structure for problem solving.
Another political appointee noted that GPRA has made it important to
look at what you get out of the budget, not just what you put into it,
while another concluded that GPRA brought about a fundamental
rethinking of how they managed their programs and processes. Such
indications of support for GPRA are promising. However, to support the
transition to more results-oriented agency cultures, top agency
management will need to make a more concerted effort to translate their
enthusiasm for GPRA into actions that communicate to employees that top
management cares about performance results and uses the information in
its decision making.

The need for strong, committed leadership extends to OMB as well. OMB
has shown a commitment to improving the management of federal programs,
both through its leadership in reviewing agency program performance
using the PART tool as well as through the PMA, which calls for
improved financial performance, strategic human capital management,
competitive sourcing, expanded electronic government, and performance
budget integration. Using the foundation of information generated by
agencies in their strategic plans, annual performance plans, and
program performance reports, OMB has used the PART tool to exercise
oversight of selected federal programs by assessing program purpose and
design, the quality of strategic planning, the quality of program
management, and the extent to which programs can demonstrate results.
PART provides OMB a lens through which to view performance information
for use in the budget formulation process. PART, and OMB's use of
performance data in the budget formulation process, potentially can
complement GPRA's focus on increasing the supply of credible
performance information by promoting the demand for this information in
the budget formulation process. As we reported in chapter 2, more
federal managers noted that OMB was paying attention to their agencies'
efforts under GPRA. (See fig. 6.) Additionally, OMB convened a
performance measurement workshop in April 2003 to identify practical
strategies for addressing common performance measurement challenges. As
a result of this workshop, it produced a paper in June 2003 that
included basic performance measurement definitions and concepts and
common performance measurement problems that were discussed at the
workshop. This was part of OMB's continuing efforts to improve PART as
an evaluation tool.

However, there are areas where OMB could further enhance its
leadership. OMB has stated that the PART exercise presents an
opportunity to inform and improve on agency GPRA plans and reports and
establish a meaningful, systematic link between GPRA and the budget
process. OMB has instructed agencies that, in lieu of a performance
plan, they are to submit a performance budget that includes information
from the PART assessments, including all performance goals used in the
assessment of program performance done under the PART process. The
result is that program-specific performance measures developed through
the PART review are to substitute for other measures developed by the
agency through its strategic planning process. GPRA is a broad
legislative framework that was designed to be consultative with
Congress and other stakeholders and address the needs of many users of
performance information--Congress to provide oversight and inform
funding decisions, agency managers to manage programs and make internal
resource decisions, and the public to provide greater accountability.
Changing agency plans and reports for use in the budget formulation
process may not satisfy the needs of these other users. Users other
than OMB are not likely to find the information useful unless it is
credible and valid for their purposes. PART's program-specific focus
may fit with OMB's agency-by-agency budget reviews, but it is not well
suited to achieving one of the key purposes of strategic plans--to
convey agencywide, long-term goals and objectives for all major
functions and operations. PART's focus on program-specific measures
does not substitute for the strategic, long-term focus of GPRA on
thematic goals and department-and governmentwide crosscutting
comparisons.

To reach the full potential of performance management, agency planning
and reporting documents need to reflect the full array of uses of
performance information, which may extend beyond those needed for
formulating the President's Budget. However, it is not yet clear
whether the results of those reviews, such as changes to agencies'
program performance measures, will complement and be integrated with
the long-term, strategic goals and objectives agencies have established
in consultation with Congress and other stakeholders under GPRA. OMB
has not yet clearly articulated how PART is to complement GPRA. Focus
group participants suggested that the administration and OMB needed to
reinforce GPRA's usefulness as a management tool for agencies. They
also emphasized the need for OMB to help agencies understand how to
integrate GPRA with other management initiatives, such as PART.

As we noted in chapter 3, agencies' plans and reports still suffer from
persistent weaknesses and could improve in a number of areas, such as
attention to issues that cut across agency lines, and better
information about the quality of the data that underlie agency
performance goals. However, OMB's July 2003 guidance for the
preparation and submission of strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and annual performance reports is significantly shorter and less
detailed than its 2002 guidance. For example, OMB no longer provides
detailed guidance to agencies for the development of performance plan
components. OMB's 2002 guidance on the preparation and submission of
annual performance plans is approximately 39 pages long; in its 2003
guidance, that discussion spans only 2 pages. The 2003 guidance in this
area does not include entire sections found in the 2002 guidance, such
as principles for choosing performance goals and indicators for
inclusion in the annual plan, types of performance goals, crosscutting
programs, and requirements for verifying and validating data.

OMB needs to maintain and strengthen its leadership role in working
with agencies to help them produce the highest quality GPRA documents
through its formal guidance and reviews of strategic plan and report
submissions. Focus group participants discussed the need for consistent
guidance on how to implement GPRA. Furthermore, there is no evidence
that agencies have institutional knowledge of GPRA requirements that
would obviate the need for OMB's guidance. New managers will need a
consistent resource that provides practical guidance on what agencies
need to include in their planning and reporting documents to comply
with GPRA and reflect best practices. Consistent, explicit OMB guidance
on preparing GPRA documents can help ensure that gains in the quality
of GPRA documents are maintained and provide a resource for agencies to
make further improvements in those documents. For example, guidance on
how to discuss coordination of crosscutting programs or improvements to
the credibility of performance data in agency performance plans goes
hand-in-hand with OMB's enhanced oversight of agency performance
through the PART exercise.

The success of GPRA depends on the commitment of top leadership within
agencies, OMB, and Congress. Obtaining such leadership commitment
depends in part on the usefulness and relevance of agency goals and
strategies to these parties. GPRA requires an agency to develop a
strategic plan at least every 3 years to cover the following 5-year
period. Thus, there have been two required updates of strategic plans
since the initial strategic plans were submitted for fiscal year 1997-
-fiscal year 2000 and fiscal year 2003. The fiscal year 2000 update
occurred the year before a new presidential term began. According to
our focus group participants--both the experts and federal managers--it
makes little sense to require an update of a strategic plan shortly
before a new administration is scheduled to take office. For example,
changes in political leadership generally result in a new agenda with
new objectives. Such changes force agencies to revise their plans,
management initiatives, and strategies, which translates into
additional GPRA-related work. A strategic plan that does not reflect
the participation and buy-in of top administration leadership and key
congressional stakeholders is unlikely to be successfully implemented.
Therefore, GPRA's requirement to update agency strategic plans
according to a schedule that is out of sync with presidential and
congressional terms means that effort may be wasted on plans that lack
the support of top leadership.

Managers Report Mixed Results in Use of Performance Information:

GPRA's usefulness to agency leaders and managers as a tool for
management and accountability was cited as a key accomplishment
numerous times by focus group participants. However, a number of
alternative views indicated use of performance information for key
management decisions has been mixed. For example, one participant said
they did not believe GPRA has been used as a tool yet, while another
participant commented that only better managers take advantage of GPRA
as a management tool. According to focus group participants, although
many federal managers understand and use results-oriented management
concepts in their day-to-day activities, such as strategic planning and
performance measurement, they do not always connect these concepts to
the requirements of GPRA.

This view was strongly supported by our survey results. Prior to
mentioning GPRA in our survey, we asked federal managers the extent to
which they consider their agency's strategic goals when engaging in key
management tasks such as setting program activities, allocating
resources, or considering changes in their programs. A relatively high
percentage of managers--ranging from 66 to 79 percent--responded to a
great or very great extent. However, when we asked similar questions
about the extent to which they considered their agency's annual
performance goals as set forth in the agency's GPRA annual performance
plan for the same activities, the comparable responses were
considerably lower, ranging from 22 to 27 percent.

Because the benefit of collecting performance information is only fully
realized when this information is actually used by managers, we asked
them about the extent to which they used the information obtained from
measuring performance for various program management activities. As
shown in figure 12, for seven of the nine activities we asked about,
the majority of managers who expressed an opinion reported using
performance information to a great or very great extent in 2003. Across
all nine activities, the percentage of managers saying they used
performance information to a great or very great extent ranged from 41
percent for developing and managing contracts to 60 percent for
allocating resources, setting individual job expectations, and
rewarding staff. While we had observed a decline in the reported use of
performance information to this extent for many of these activities
between 1997 and 2000, our 2003 results increased to levels not
significantly different from 1997 for all but one category--adopting
new program approaches or changing work processes. This category of use
continued to be significantly lower at 56 percent in 2003 than it was
in 1997 at 66 percent. Although another category, coordinating program
efforts with other internal or external organizations, shows a similar
pattern of limited recovery, the difference between the 1997 and 2003
results is not statistically significant.

Figure 12: Percentage of Federal Managers Who Reported Using
Information Obtained from Performance Measurement to a Great or Very
Great Extent for Various Management Activities:

[See PDF for image]

Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the
extent scale.

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.

[B] This question was not asked in 1997.

[End of figure]

We have reported that involving program managers in the development of
performance goals and measures is critical to increasing the relevance
and usefulness of this information to their day-to-day
activities.[Footnote 38] Yet, our survey data indicate that
participation in activities related to the development and use of
performance information has also been mixed. In 2003, only 14 percent
of managers believed to a great or very great extent that their
agencies considered their contributions to or comments on their
agency's GPRA plans or reports. However, significantly more SES
managers (43 percent) than non-SES managers (12 percent) expressed this
view. Also, when compared to our 2000 survey when we first asked this
question, the percentage of SES managers expressing this view in 2003
was significantly higher than in 2000 (32 percent). The percentage of
non-SES managers was essentially unchanged from 2000 (10 percent).

Furthermore, as shown in figure 13, overall around half or fewer of
managers responded "yes" on our 2003 survey to questions about being
involved in developing ways to measure whether program performance
goals are being achieved (46 percent), gathering and analyzing data to
measure whether programs were meeting their specific performance goals
(51 percent), or using measures for program performance goals to
determine if the agency's strategic goals were being achieved (43
percent). None of these overall results were significantly different
from our 1997 results. We did find, however, that significantly more
SES managers responded "yes" on the 2003 survey (72 percent) than the
1997 survey (55 percent) with regard to being involved in using
performance measurement information to determine if the agency's
strategic goals were being achieved when compared to our 1997 results.

Figure 13: Percentage of Federal Managers Responding "Yes" about Being
Involved in the Following Activities:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Managers Continue to Confront a Range of Human Capital Management
Challenges:

Managing people strategically and maintaining a highly skilled and
energized workforce that is empowered to focus on results are
critically important. Such human capital management practices are
essential to the success of the federal government in the 21st century
and to maximizing the value of its greatest asset--its people. Our
survey results showed continuing challenges related to the adequacy of
managerial decision making authority, training, and incentives.

Federal Managers Report That They Are Held Accountable for Program
Results but Do Not Have the Decision-Making Authority They Need to
Accomplish Agency Goals:

High-performing organizations seek to shift the focus of management and
accountability from activities and processes to contributions and
achieving results. In each of our three surveys, we asked managers
about the amount of decision-making authority they had and the degree
to which they were held accountable for results.

As shown in figure 14, for 2003, an estimated 40 percent of federal
managers overall reported that they had the decision-making authority
they needed to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals to a
great or very great extent. This was a statistically significant
increase over our 1997 estimate of 31 percent. While there were more
SES and non-SES managers expressing this view on our 2003 survey than
the 1997 survey, it was the non-SES managers that showed the
significant increase. Despite this promising trend, however, there
continued to be substantial differences in 2003, as well as on the two
previous surveys, between the responses of SES and lower-level managers
on this question. Compared to the 57 percent of SES managers who
reported having such authority to a great or very great extent in 2003,
only 38 percent of non-SES managers reported having such authority to a
great or very great extent.

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.

[B] There was a statistically significant difference between SES
compared to non-SES for each survey.

[End of figure]

However, when asked the extent to which managers or supervisors at
their levels were held accountable for the accomplishment of agency
strategic goals, 57 percent responded to a great or very great extent
in 2003. Unlike in other areas, where SES managers had significantly
different views from non-SES managers, there was little difference in
the area of accountability. (See fig. 15.):

Figure 15: Percentage of Federal Managers, SES, and Non-SES in 2003
Reporting to a Great or Very Great Extent That They Were Held
Accountable for the Accomplishment of Agency Strategic Goals:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

This 57 percent is significantly higher than the 40 percent of managers
overall who indicated that they had comparable decision-making
authority. However, in contrast to the question on authority, as shown
in figure 14, where more SES managers than non-SES managers expressed
the view that they had the authority, there was little difference, as
shown in figure 15, between the two groups in their views about being
held accountable for achieving agency strategic goals to a great or
very great extent. As figures 14 and 15 further illustrate, roughly the
same percentage of SES managers perceived to a great or very great
extent that managers at their level had decision-making authority and
accountability for achieving agency strategic goals. This result
suggests that their authority was perceived to be on par with their
accountability. In contrast, only 38 percent of non-SES managers
perceived that managers at their levels had the decision-making
authority they needed to a great or very great extent, while 57 percent
perceived that they were held accountable to a comparable extent.

Managers are hard-pressed to achieve results when they do not have
sufficient authority to act. In our report containing the results of
our 1997 survey, we noted that agencies needed to concentrate their
efforts on areas where managers were not perceiving or experiencing
progress, such as that concerning devolving decision-making authority
to managers throughout their organizations. While authority for
achieving results appears to be in a modestly upward trend, the balance
between authority and accountability that fosters decision making to
achieve results could be further improved, particularly among non-SES
managers.

Fewer Than Half of Managers Reported Training on Key Tasks:

We previously reported on the need for agencies to expend resources on
effective training and professional development to equip federal
employees to work effectively.[Footnote 39] Among the resources focus
group participants cited as lacking included federal managers and staff
with competencies and skills needed to plan strategically, develop
robust measures of performance, and analyze what the performance data
mean. Our 2003 Guide calls for training and development efforts to be
strategically focused on improving performance toward the agency's
goals and put forward with the agency's organizational culture firmly
in mind.[Footnote 40] Throughout this process it is important that top
leaders in the agencies communicate that investments in training and
development are expected to produce clearly identified results. By
incorporating valid measures of effectiveness into the training and
development programs they offer, agencies can better ensure that they
will adequately address training objectives and thereby increase the
likelihood that desired changes will occur in the target population's
skills, knowledge, abilities, attitudes, or behaviors. Furthermore, if
managers understand and support the objectives of training and
development efforts, they can provide opportunities to successfully use
the new skills and competencies on the job and model the behavior they
expect to see in their employees.

In response to our 2003 survey, fewer than half of managers answered
"yes" when we asked them whether, during the past 3 years, their
agencies had provided, arranged, or paid for training that would help
them accomplish any of seven critical results-oriented management-
related tasks. However, progress is indicated in our survey results. As
shown in figure 16, more managers answered "yes" in 2003 on all seven
training areas than in previous surveys. These increases were
statistically significant for five of the tasks--setting program
performance goals, using program performance information to make
management decisions, linking program performance to the achievement of
agency strategic goals, and implementing the requirements of GPRA.

[See PDF for image]

[A] This question was not asked in the 1997 survey.

[B] There was a statistically significant difference between the 2000
and 2003 surveys.

[C] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.

[End of figure]

As with our 2000 survey results, the 2003 survey results continued to
demonstrate that there is a positive relationship between agencies
providing training and development on setting program performance goals
and the use of performance information when setting or revising
performance goals. For those managers who responded "yes" to training
on setting performance goals, 60 percent also reported that they used
information obtained from performance measurement when setting new or
revising existing performance goals to a great or very great extent. In
contrast, for those managers who responded "no" to training on setting
performance goals, only 38 percent reported that they used information
obtained from performance measurement for setting new or revising
existing performance goals to a great or very great extent. The
difference between these percentages is statistically significant.
Effective training and development programs are an integral part of a
learning environment that can enhance the federal government's ability
to attract and retain employees with the skills and competencies needed
to achieve results. Training and developing new and current staff to
fill new roles and work in different ways will be a crucial part of the
federal government's endeavors to meet its transformation challenges.
Ways that employees learn and achieve results will also continue to
transform how agencies do business and engage employees in further
innovation and improvements.

Managers Perceive a Lack of Positive Recognition for Helping Agencies
Achieve Results:

Another fundamental aspect of the human capital management challenge
agencies face is providing the incentives to their employees to
encourage results-oriented management. Monetary and nonmonetary
incentives can be used as a method for federal agencies to reward
employees and to motivate them to focus on results.

Overall, an increasing but still small percentage of managers reported
in 1997, 2000, and 2003 that employees in their agencies received
positive recognition to a great or very great extent for helping
agencies accomplish their strategic goals. In 1997, 26 percent of
federal managers reported such an extent of positive recognition as
compared to 37 percent in 2003, a statistically significant increase.
Interestingly, this improvement is seen in the responses of non-SES
managers. As shown in figure 17, the percentage of SES managers
expressing this view stayed at about the same level over the three
surveys, while the percentage of non-SES managers holding this view was
significantly higher in 2003 than in 1997. Even with this improvement
on the part of the responses from non-SES managers, significantly more
SES managers (47 percent) than non-SES managers (36 percent) expressed
this perception to a comparable extent in 2003.

[See PDF for image]

[A] There was a statistically significant difference between the 1997
and 2003 surveys.

[End of figure]

Unfortunately, most existing federal performance appraisal systems are
not designed to support a meaningful performance-based pay system in
that they fail to link institutional, program, unit, and individual
performance measurement and reward systems. In our view, one key need
is to modernize performance management systems in executive agencies so
that they link to the agency's strategic plan, related goals, and
desired outcomes and are therefore capable of adequately supporting
more performance-based pay and other personnel decisions.

We have reported federal agencies can develop effective performance
management systems by implementing a selected, generally consistent set
of key practices. These key practices helped public sector
organizations both in the United States and abroad create a clear
linkage--"line of sight"--between individual performance and
organizational success and, thus, transform their cultures to be more
results oriented, customer-focused, and collaborative in nature.
Examples of such practices include:

* aligning individual performance expectations with organizational
goals,

* connecting performance expectations to crosscutting goals,

* linking pay to individual and organizational performance, and:

* making meaningful distinctions in performance.[Footnote 41]

Beyond implementing these key practices, high-performing organizations
understand that their employees are assets whose value to the
organization must be recognized, understood, and enhanced. They view an
effective performance management system as an investment to maximize
the effectiveness of people by developing individual potential to
contribute to organizational goals. To maximize this investment, an
organization's performance management system is designed, implemented,
and continuously assessed by the standard of how well it helps the
employees help the organization achieve results and pursue its mission.

Persistent Challenges in Setting Outcome-Oriented Goals, Measuring
Performance, and Collecting Useful Data:

In prior reports, we have described difficulties faced by federal
managers in developing useful, outcome-oriented measures of performance
and collecting data indicating progress achieved.[Footnote 42] One of
the most persistent challenges has been the development of outcome-
oriented performance measures. Additionally, it is difficult to
distinguish the impact of a particular federal program from the impact
of other programs and factors, thus making it difficult to attribute
specific program performance to results. The lack of timely and useful
performance information can also hinder GPRA implementation.

Meaningful, Outcome-Oriented Performance Measures Are Sometimes Hard to
Develop:

In the past, we have noted that federal managers found meaningful
performance measures difficult to develop. Focus group participants and
survey respondents noted that outcome-oriented performance measures
were especially difficult to establish when the program or line of
effort was not easily quantifiable. The challenge of the "complexity of
establishing outcome-oriented goals and measuring performance" was
cited by six of the eight focus groups as one of the key challenges
that managers face in implementing GPRA. Focus group participants
agreed that they often felt as if they were trying to measure the
immeasurable, not having a clear understanding of which performance
indicators could accurately inform the agency how it is carrying out a
specific activity. Managers from agencies engaged in basic science
research and development and grant-making functions noted that this
effort was particularly difficult for them because federal programs,
especially those that are research-based, often take years to achieve
the full scope of their goals. On our most recent survey, we estimated
that 36 percent of federal managers who had an opinion indicated that
the determination of meaningful measures hindered the use of
performance information or performance measurement to a great or very
great extent. While this number was significantly lower than the
percentage of managers expressing the comparable view on the 1997 or
2000 survey and may reflect some lessening of this as a hindrance to
some managers, it nonetheless continues to be among those items having
the largest percentage of managers citing it as a substantial
hindrance.

Impact of Federal Programs Difficult to Discern:

In our June 1997 report on GPRA, we noted that "the often limited or
indirect influence that the federal government has in determining
whether a desired result is achieved complicates the effort to identify
and measure the discrete contribution of the federal initiative to a
specific program result."[Footnote 43] This occurs primarily because
many federal programs' objectives are the result of complex systems or
phenomena outside the program's control. In such cases, it is
particularly challenging for agencies to confidently attribute changes
in outcomes to their program--the central task of program impact
evaluation. This is particularly challenging for regulatory programs,
scientific research programs, and programs that deliver services to
taxpayers through third parties, such as state and local governments.

We have reported that determining the specific outcomes resulting from
federal research and development has been a challenge that will not be
easily resolved.[Footnote 44] Due to the difficulties in identifying
outcomes, research and development agencies typically have chosen to
measure a variety of proxies for outcomes, such as the number of
patents resulting from federally funded research, expert review and
judgments of the quality and importance of research findings, the
number of project-related publications or citations, and contributions
to expanding the number of research scientists.

We have also reported that implementing GPRA in a regulatory
environment is particularly challenging.[Footnote 45] Although federal
agencies are generally required to assess the potential benefits and
costs of proposed major regulatory actions, they generally do not
monitor the benefits and costs of how these and other federal programs
have actually performed. For example, in the case of the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), to determine if existing environmental
regulations need to be retained or improved, we previously recommended
that EPA study the actual costs and benefits of such
regulations.[Footnote 46]

In the past, regulatory agencies have cited numerous barriers to their
efforts to establish results-oriented goals and measures. These
barriers included problems in obtaining data to demonstrate results,
accounting for factors outside of the agency's control that affect
results, and dealing with the long time periods often needed to see
results. Our prior work discussed best practices for addressing
challenges to measuring the results of regulatory programs. In
particular, to address the challenge of discerning the impact of a
federal program, when other factors also affect results, we suggested
agencies "establish a rationale of how the program delivers results."
Establishing such a rationale involves three related practices: (1)
taking a holistic or "systems" approach to the problem being addressed,
(2) building a program logic model that described how activities
translated to outcomes, and (3) expanding program assessments and
evaluations to validate the model linkages and rationale.

We have also reported on the difficulties encountered in meeting GPRA
reporting requirements for intergovernmental grant programs.[Footnote
47] Programs that do not deliver a readily measurable product or
service are likely to have difficulty meeting GPRA performance
measurement and reporting requirements. Intergovernmental grant
programs, particularly those with the flexibility inherent in classic
block grant design, may be more likely to have difficulty producing
performance measures at the national level and raise delicate issues of
accountability. Although most flexible grant programs we reviewed
reported simple activity or client counts, relatively few of them
collected uniform data on the outcomes of state or local service
activities. Collecting such data requires conditions (such as
uniformity of activities, objectives, and measures) that do not exist
under many flexible program designs, and even where overall performance
of a state or local program can be measured, the amount attributable to
federal funding often cannot be separated out.

Focus group participants also suggested that they faced challenges in
obtaining timely performance data from relevant partner organizations
and in identifying what the federal government's contribution has been
to a specific outcome. Furthermore, survey respondents provided some
corroboration for these views. Across all three of our surveys, we
estimate that roughly a quarter of all federal managers reported this
difficulty--distinguishing between the results produced by the program
they were involved with and results caused by other factors--as a
substantial hindrance. In response to a survey question about what the
federal government could do to improve its overall focus on managing
for results, one respondent noted: "Defining meaningful measures for
the work we do is extremely difficult; and even if they could be
defined, performance and accomplishment is (sic) dependent on so many
factors outside our control that it is difficult, if not impossible, to
make valid conclusions.":

Timely, Useful Performance Information Not Always Available:

In February 2000, we reported that intergovernmental programs pose
potential difficulties in collecting timely and consistent national
data.[Footnote 48] We also noted that agencies had limited program
evaluation capabilities and weaknesses in agencies' financial
management capabilities make it difficult for decision makers to
effectively assess and improve many agencies' financial performance. On
the basis of our current findings, these issues still exist. Federal
managers who participated in our focus groups cited difficulties in
gathering data from state or local entities, as well as statutory
limitations regarding the nature and breadth of data that they were
permitted to collect. However, in our 2003 survey, only 27 percent of
federal managers indicated that obtaining data in time to be useful was
a substantial hindrance; 31 percent expressed a comparable view with
regard to obtaining valid or reliable data.

Focus group participants also noted that OMB's accelerated time frames
for reporting performance information will contribute to the challenge
of producing complete, timely information in their agencies'
performance reports. Over the past 2 fiscal years, OMB has moved the
deadline for submission of agencies' performance reports (now
performance and accountability reports) back from the statutory
requirement of March 31; for fiscal year 2003 data, the deadline is
January 30, 2004. In fiscal year 2004, these reports will be due on
November 15, 2004. According to the managers, individual agencies may
work on different time frames based partially on the population they
serve or the stakeholders they must work with, such as state or local
agencies. This "one size fits all" approach does not take such
differences into account.

Additionally, OMB requires agencies to report on their performance data
quarterly; managers noted that this was particularly difficult for
outcomes that may be achieved over extended periods of time, such as
outcomes associated with basic science. As we have previously reported,
measuring the performance of science-related projects can be difficult
because a wide range of factors determine if and how a particular
research and development project will result in a commercial
application or have other benefits. Efforts to cure diseases or pursue
space exploration are difficult to quantify and break down into
meaningful quarterly performance measures.

Crosscutting Issues Hinder Successful GPRA Implementation:

Crosscutting issues continue to be a challenge to GPRA implementation.
Mission fragmentation and program overlap are widespread across the
federal government. Moreover, addressing this challenge is essential to
the success of national strategies in areas such as homeland security,
drug control, and the environment.

We have reported that agencies could use the annual performance
planning cycle and subsequent annual performance reports to highlight
crosscutting program efforts and to provide evidence of the
coordination of those efforts. Our review of six agencies' strategic
and annual performance plans showed some improvement in addressing
their crosscutting program efforts, but a great deal of improvement is
still necessary. Few of the plans we reviewed attempted the more
challenging task of discussing planned strategies for coordination and
establishing complementary performance goals and complementary or
common performance measures. For example, SSA's 2004 performance plan
makes some mention of the agency's efforts to coordinate with other
agencies to preserve the integrity of the Social Security number as a
personal identifier, but there are very few details about this
important component of its mission.

Previous GAO reports and agency managers identified several barriers to
interagency coordination. First, missions may not be mutually
reinforcing or may even conflict, making reaching a consensus on
strategies and priorities difficult. In 1998 and 1999, we found that
mission fragmentation and program overlap existed in 12 federal mission
areas, ranging from agriculture to natural resources and the
environment. Implementation of federal crosscutting programs is often
characterized by numerous individual agency efforts that are
implemented with little apparent regard for the presence of related
activities. Second, we reported on agencies' interest in protecting
jurisdiction over missions and control over resources.[Footnote 49]
Focus group participants echoed this concern, noting that there can be
"turf battles" between agencies, where jurisdictional boundaries, as
well as control over resources, are hotly contested. Finally,
incompatible procedures, processes, data, and computer systems pose
difficulties for agencies to work across agency boundaries. For
example, we reported how the lack of consistent data on federal
wetlands programs implemented by different agencies prevented the
government from measuring progress toward achieving the governmentwide
goal of no net loss of the nation's wetlands.[Footnote 50]

We have previously reported and testified that GPRA could provide OMB,
agencies, and Congress with a structured framework for addressing
crosscutting program efforts.[Footnote 51] OMB, for example, could use
the provision of GPRA that calls for OMB to develop a governmentwide
performance plan to integrate expected agency-level performance.
Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully implemented. OMB
issued the first and only such plan in February 1998 for fiscal year
1999. In our review of the plan,[Footnote 52] we found that it included
a broad range of governmentwide management objectives and a mission-
based presentation of key performance goals based on agency performance
plans and the plan's framework should ultimately allow for a cohesive
presentation of governmentwide performance. However, the specific
contents of this initial plan did not always deliver an integrated,
consistent, and results-oriented picture of fiscal year 1999 federal
government performance goals.

OMB officials we interviewed at the time stressed that developing the
governmentwide plan was viewed as an essential and integral component
of the President's budget and planning process. From OMB's perspective,
both the plan and the budget submission were intended to serve as
communication tools for a range of possible users. In their opinion,
the plan added value by reflecting a governmentwide perspective on
policy choices made throughout the budget formulation process. OMB
acknowledged that the plan itself did not serve to change the process
through which decisions on government priorities were made, but
enhanced it by placing a greater emphasis on results. As one official
described it, the governmentwide performance plan was a derivative
document, reflecting the budget and management decisions made
throughout the process of formulating the President's budget
submission. However, we found that focusing broadly on governmentwide
outcomes should be a central and distinguishing feature of the federal
government performance plan. To be most effective and supportive of the
purposes of GPRA, the governmentwide plan must be more than a
compilation of agency-level plans; integration, rather than repetition,
must be its guiding principle.

OMB has not issued a distinct governmentwide performance plan since
fiscal year 1999. Most recently, the President's fiscal year 2004
budget focused on describing agencies' progress in addressing the PMA
and the results of PART reviews of agency programs. Although such
information is important and useful, it does not provide a broader and
more integrated perspective of planned performance on governmentwide
outcomes. Additionally, the fiscal year 2004 budget identified budget
requests and performance objectives by agency, such as the U.S.
Department of Defense, as opposed to crosscutting governmentwide
themes. From this presentation, one could assume that the only
activities the U.S. government planned to carry out in support of
national defense were those listed under the chapter "Department of
Defense." However, the chapter of the fiscal year 2004 budget
discussing "the Department of State and International Assistance
Programs," contains a heading titled, "Countering the Threat from
Weapons of Mass Destruction." And while OMB may have a technical reason
for not classifying this task as being related to national defense or
homeland security, it is unclear that a lay reader could make that
distinction. The fiscal year 2005 budget also identified budget
requests by agency, not by crosscutting theme. Without such a
governmentwide focus, OMB is missing an opportunity to assess and
communicate the relationship between individual agency goals and
outcomes that cut across federal agencies and more clearly relate and
address the contributions of alternative federal strategies. The
governmentwide performance plan also could help Congress and the
executive branch address critical federal performance and management
issues, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in how we do
business. It could also provide a framework for any restructuring
efforts.

A strategic plan for the federal government, supported by key national
indicators to assess the government's performance, position, and
progress, could provide an additional tool for governmentwide
reexamination of existing programs, as well as proposals for new
programs. If fully developed, a governmentwide strategic plan could
potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals of
the federal government and provide a much needed basis for fully
integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal
activities. Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of
key stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism for building
consensus. Further, it could provide a vehicle for the President to
articulate long-term goals and a road map for achieving them. In
addition, a strategic plan could provide a more comprehensive framework
for considering organizational changes and making resource decisions.

Developing a strategic plan for the federal government would be an
important first step in articulating the role, goals, and objectives of
the federal government. It could help provide critical horizontal and
vertical linkages. Horizontally, it could integrate and foster
synergies among components of the federal government as well as help to
clarify the role of the federal government vis-à-vis other sectors of
our society. Vertically, it could provide a framework of federal
missions and goals within which individual federal agencies could align
their own missions and goals that would cascade down to individual
employees. The development of a set of key national indicators could be
used as a basis to inform the development of the governmentwide
strategic and annual performance plans. The indicators could also link
to and provide information to support outcome-oriented goals and
objectives in agency-level strategic and annual performance plans.

Managers View Congress' Use of Performance Information as Limited:

Focus group members believed that one of the main challenges to GPRA
implementation was the reluctance of Congress to use that information
when making decisions, especially appropriations decisions. This
concern was cited as a significant challenge in each of the focus
groups, and was one of the top three "challenges" in five of the eight
focus groups. In some cases, managers in our focus groups noted that
this lack of usage was a significant disincentive to doing a good job
in preparing GPRA plans and reports. Agency managers made the following
criticisms regarding the perceived lack of congressional use of
performance information:

* appropriators have not bought into GPRA, so there is no incentive to
do this well,

* failure of congressional leadership in developing and using
performance measures,

* appropriators do not use performance data or tools to make decisions,
and:

* GPRA does not drive public policy decisions.

Results from our survey provide some further information in support of
this view. On our 2003 survey, when we asked federal managers about the
extent to which they thought congressional committees paid attention to
agency efforts under GPRA, only 22 percent of federal managers
responded in the great to very great categories. This result was not
significantly different from the results we observed on our 2000 survey
when we asked this question about three specific types of congressional
committees--authorization, appropriation, and oversight. On the 2000
survey, only 18 percent of federal managers held a similar view
concerning authorizing committees, 19 percent for appropriations
committees, and 20 percent for oversight committees. As we noted
earlier, when this item was asked in relation to OMB, there was a
significant increase in the percentage of managers responding to a
great or very great extent from 2000 to 2003. The 31 percent of
managers who viewed OMB as paying attention to a great or very great
extent in 2003 was significantly higher than the 22 percent holding a
comparable view of congressional committees.

Although managers expressed these concerns about the use of this
information, a recent review by the CRS suggested that Congress uses
performance information to some extent, as evidenced by citations in
legislation and committee reports.[Footnote 53] For example, in the
106th Congress (1999-2000), 42 public laws contained statutory language
relating to GPRA and performance measures, and 118 legislative
reports[Footnote 54] contained GPRA-associated passages. As shown in
figure 18, across all three of our surveys, only a minority of federal
managers governmentwide viewed the lack of ongoing congressional
commitment for using performance information as a hindrance to a great
or very great extent.

[See PDF for image]

Note: Percentages are based on those respondents answering on the
extent scale.

[End of figure]

While there is concern regarding Congress' use of performance
information, it is important to make sure that this information is
initially useful. One of GPRA's purposes is to respond to a need for
accurate, reliable information for congressional decision making. In
2000, we reported that congressional staffs stated that they were
looking for recurring information on spending priorities within
programs; the quality, quantity, and efficiency of program operations;
the populations served or regulated; as well as programs' progress in
meeting their objectives.[Footnote 55] For example, learning who
benefits from a program can help in addressing questions about how well
services are targeted to those most in need. Some of these recurring
needs were met through formal agency documents, such as annual
performance plans. However, some information the agencies provided did
not fully meet the congressional staffs' needs because the presentation
was not clear, directly relevant, or sufficiently detailed. For
example, congressional staffs wanted to see more direct linkages among
the agencies' resources, strategies, and goals. In other cases, the
information was not readily available to the congressional staffs,
either because it had not been requested or reported, or because staff
were not informed that it was available.

As a key user of performance information, Congress also needs to be
considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset. For
example, through the strategic planning requirement, GPRA requires
federal agencies to consult with Congress and key stakeholders to
reassess their missions and long-term goals as well as the strategies
and resources they will need to achieve their goals. GPRA also provides
a vehicle for Congress to explicitly state its performance expectations
in outcome-oriented terms when establishing new programs or in
exercising oversight of existing programs that are not achieving
desired results. Congress could use authorizing and appropriations
hearings to determine if agency programs have clear performance goals,
measures, and data with which to track progress and whether the
programs are achieving their goals. If goals and objectives are unclear
or not results oriented, Congress could use legislation to articulate
the program outcomes it expects agencies to achieve. This would provide
important guidance to agencies that could then be incorporated in
agency strategic and annual performance plans.

[End of section]

Chapter 5: Conclusions and Recommendations:

Agenda for Achieving a Sustainable, Governmentwide Focus on Results:

As we have shown in this report, in the 10 years since the enactment of
GPRA, significant progress has been made in instilling a focus on
results in the federal government. First, GPRA statutory requirements
laid a foundation for results-oriented management in federal agencies.
Expert and agency focus group participants cited the creation of this
statutory foundation as one of the key accomplishments of GPRA. Since
GPRA began to be implemented governmentwide in fiscal year 1997, we
have observed significant increases in the percentage of federal
managers who reported having results-oriented performance measures for
their programs. Focus group participants' views on whether GPRA has had
a positive effect on the federal government's ability to deliver
results to the American public were mixed. For example, the information
gathered and reported for GPRA allows agencies to make better-informed
decisions, which improves their ability to achieve results. In
addition, GPRA has made the results of federal programs more
transparent to the public. Other participants stated that while certain
aspects of GPRA-related work have been positive, agencies' ability to
deliver results and public awareness of their activities cannot be
exclusively attributed to GPRA.

Second, GPRA has increased the connection between resources and results
by creating more formal linkages between agency performance goals and
objectives and the program activities in the budget. Over the first 4
years of agency efforts to implement GPRA, we observed that agencies
continued to tighten the required linkage between their performance
plans and budget requests. However, much remains to be done in this
area. For example, we have not observed notable increases in federal
managers' perceptions about their personal use of plans or performance
information when allocating resources, or about the use of performance
information when funding decisions are made about their programs.
However, it should be noted that we estimate a majority have positive
perceptions about the use of performance information to allocate
resources.

Third, GPRA has provided a foundation for examining agency missions,
performance goals and objectives, and the results achieved. We have
seen improvements in the quality of agency strategic plans, annual
performance plans, and performance reports since initial efforts.
However, few of the six agencies we reviewed in this report produced
GPRA planning and reporting documents that met all of our criteria for
the highest level of quality. Most of these agencies continued to miss
opportunities to present clear pictures of their intended and actual
performance results in their GPRA plans and reports and to show how
resources are aligned with actual performance results. Furthermore,
most of the agencies we reviewed did not provide a full level of
confidence in the credibility of their performance data.

Performance-based management, as envisioned by GPRA, requires
transforming organizational cultures to improve decision making,
maximize performance, and assure accountability. This transformation is
not an easy one and requires investments of time and resources as well
as sustained leadership commitment and attention. Challenges to
successful implementation of GPRA include inconsistent top leadership
commitment to creating a focus on results; an approach to setting goals
and developing strategies for achieving critical outcomes that creates
individual agency stovepipes rather than an integrated, holistic
governmentwide approach; getting federal managers to make greater use
of performance information to manage their programs and providing them
authority to act that is commensurate with their accountability for
results; difficulty in establishing meaningful measures of outcomes and
assessing results of federal programs that are carried out by
nonfederal entities; and untimely performance data.

The challenges identified in this report are not new--most have not
changed significantly since we first reported on governmentwide
implementation of GPRA. However, we have frequently reported on
approaches that agencies, OMB, and Congress could use to address the
challenges. These approaches include strengthening the commitment of
top leadership to creating and sustaining a focus on results; taking a
governmentwide approach to achieving outcomes that are crosscutting in
nature; improving the usefulness of performance information to
managers, Congress, and the public; and improving the quality of
performance measures and data. Collectively, these approaches form the
agenda that federal agencies, OMB, and Congress will need to follow to
bring about a more sustainable, governmentwide focus on results.

Strengthening Top Leadership Commitment to Creating and Sustaining
Results-Oriented Cultures:

Successfully addressing the challenges that federal agencies face
requires leaders who are committed to achieving results, who recognize
the importance of using results-oriented goals and quantifiable
measures, and who integrate performance-based management into the
culture and day-to-day activities of their organizations. Top
leadership must play a critical role in creating and sustaining high-
performing organizations. Without the clear and demonstrated commitment
of agency top leadership--both political and career--organizational
cultures will not be transformed, and new visions and ways of doing
business will not take root.

To be positioned to address the array of challenges faced by our
national government, federal agencies will need to transform their
organizational cultures so that they are more results oriented,
customer-focused, and collaborative. Leading public organizations here
in the United States and abroad have found that strategic human capital
management must be the centerpiece of any serious change management
initiative and efforts to transform the cultures of government
agencies. Performance management systems are integral to strategic
human capital management. Such systems can be key tools to maximizing
performance by aligning institutional performance measures with
individual performance and creating a "line of sight" between
individual and organizational goals. Leading organizations use their
performance management systems as a key tool for aligning
institutional, unit, and employee performance; achieving results;
accelerating change; managing the organization day to day; and
facilitating communication throughout the year so that discussions
about individual and organizational performance are integrated and
ongoing.[Footnote 56]

Furthermore, achieving this cultural transformation requires people to
have the knowledge and skills to develop and use performance
information to improve program performance. Our survey data indicated a
significant relationship between those managers who reported they
received training on setting performance goals and those who used
performance information when setting or revising performance goals.
However, federal agencies have not consistently showed a commitment to
investing in needed training and development opportunities to help
ensure that managers and employees have the requisite skills and
competencies to achieve agency goals.

The commitment to focusing on and using performance information needs
to extend to OMB and Congress as well. Through the administration's PMA
and PART initiatives, OMB has clearly placed greater emphasis on
management issues over the past several years. However, the focus of
such oversight needs to extend beyond the emphasis on formulating the
President's Budget to include an examination of the many challenges
agencies face that may be contributing to poor performance. In spite of
the persistent weaknesses we found in agencies' strategic plans and
annual performance plans and reports, OMB significantly reduced the
scope of its guidance to agencies on how to prepare these documents. By
emphasizing a focus on resource allocation through its PART exercise
and providing less information on how to comply with GPRA, OMB may be
sending a message to agencies that compliance with GPRA is not
important. Without strong leadership from OMB, the foundation of
performance information that has been built could deteriorate.

OMB leadership is critical to addressing the continuing challenges
presented in GPRA implementation and the transformation of the federal
government to an increasingly results-oriented culture. OMB, as the
primary focal point for overall management in the federal government,
can provide the needed impetus by providing guidance, fostering
communication among agencies, and forming intragovernmental councils
and work groups tasked with identifying potential approaches and
solutions to overcoming the persistent challenges to results-oriented
management.

Congress can also play a decisive role in fostering results-oriented
cultures in the federal government by using information on agency goals
and results at confirmation, oversight, authorization, and
appropriation hearings. Consistent congressional interest in the status
of an agency's GPRA efforts, performance measures, and uses of
performance information to make decisions, will send an unmistakable
message to agencies that Congress expects GPRA to be thoroughly
implemented.

We also found that timing issues may affect the development of agency
strategic plans that are meaningful and useful to top leadership. The
commitment of top leadership within agencies, OMB, and Congress is
critical to the success of strategic planning efforts. A strategic plan
should reflect the policy priorities of an organization's leaders and
the input of key stakeholders if it is to be an effective management
tool. However, GPRA specifies time frames for updating strategic plans
that do not correspond to presidential or congressional terms. As a
result, an agency may be required to update its strategic plan a year
before a presidential election and without input from a new Congress.
If a new president is elected, the updated plan is essentially moot and
agencies must spend additional time and effort revising it to reflect
new priorities. Our focus group participants, including GPRA experts,
strongly agreed that this timing issue should be addressed by adjusting
time frames to correspond better with presidential and congressional
terms.

Addressing Governmentwide Needs:

Mission fragmentation and program overlap are widespread throughout the
federal government.[Footnote 57] We have noted that interagency
coordination is important for ensuring that crosscutting program
efforts are mutually reinforcing and efficiently implemented. Our
review of six agencies' strategic and annual performance plans along
with our previous work on crosscutting issues has demonstrated that
agencies' still present their goals and strategies in a mostly
stovepiped manner. They have generally not used their plans to
communicate the nature of their coordination with other agencies, in
terms of the development of common or complementary goals and
objectives or strategies jointly undertaken to achieve those goals.

We have also reported that GPRA could provide a tool to reexamine
federal government roles and structures governmentwide. GPRA requires
the President to include in his annual budget submission a federal
government performance plan. Congress intended that this plan provide a
"single cohesive picture of the annual performance goals for the fiscal
year." The governmentwide performance plan could help Congress and the
executive branch address critical federal performance and management
issues, including redundancy and other inefficiencies in how we do
business. It could also provide a framework for any restructuring
efforts. Unfortunately, this provision has not been fully implemented.
Instead, OMB has used the President's Budget to present high-level
information about agencies and certain program performance issues. The
agency-by-agency focus of the budget does not provide the integrated
perspective of government performance envisioned by GPRA.

If the governmentwide performance plan were fully implemented, it could
provide a framework for such congressional oversight. For example, in
recent years, OMB has begun to develop common measures for similar
programs, such as job training. By focusing on broad goals and
objectives, oversight could more effectively cut across organization,
program, and other traditional boundaries. Such oversight might also
cut across existing committee boundaries, which suggests that Congress
may benefit from using specialized mechanisms to perform oversight
(i.e., joint hearings and special committees).

A strategic plan for the federal government, supported by key national
indicators to assess the government's performance, position, and
progress, could provide an additional tool for governmentwide
reexamination of existing programs, as well as proposals for new
programs. If fully developed, a governmentwide strategic plan can
potentially provide a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals of
the federal government and provide a much needed basis for fully
integrating, rather than merely coordinating, a wide array of federal
activities. Successful strategic planning requires the involvement of
key stakeholders. Thus, it could serve as a mechanism for building
consensus. Further, it could provide a vehicle for the President to
articulate long-term goals and a road map for achieving them. In
addition, a strategic plan can provide a more comprehensive framework
for considering organizational changes and making resource decisions.

Developing a strategic plan for the federal government would be an
important first step in articulating the role, goals, and objectives of
the federal government. It could help provide critical horizontal and
vertical linkages. Horizontally, it could integrate and foster
synergies among components of the federal government as well as help to
clarify the role of the federal government vis-à-vis other sectors of
our society. Vertically, it could provide a framework of federal
missions and goals within which individual federal agencies could align
their own missions and goals that would cascade down to individual
employees. The development of a set of key national indicators could be
used as a basis to inform the development of governmentwide strategic
and annual performance plans. The indicators could also link to and
provide information to support outcome-oriented goals and objectives in
agency-level strategic and annual performance plans.

Improving Usefulness of Performance Information:

We have found that leading organizations that progressed the farthest
to results-oriented management did not stop after strategic planning
and performance measurement. They applied their acquired knowledge and
data to identify gaps in their performance, report on that performance,
and finally use that information to improve their performance to better
support their missions.

Performance data can have real value only if they are used to identify
the gap between an organization's actual performance level and the
performance level it has identified as its goal. Once the performance
gaps are identified for different program areas, managers can determine
where to target their resources to improve overall mission
accomplishment. When managers are forced to reduce their resources, the
same analysis can help them target reductions to keep to a minimum the
impact on their organization's overall mission.[Footnote 58]

Under GPRA, agencies produce a single strategic plan, annual
performance plan, and annual performance report. However, there are
many potential consumers of agencies' performance information--
Congress, the public, and the agency itself. One size need not fit all.
Clearly, an agency will need more detailed information on its programs
for operational purposes than would be suitable for external audiences.
Of the six agencies' performance reports we reviewed, some of them
provided useful summary tables or information that provided overall
snapshots of performance or highlighted progress in achieving key
goals. Other reports that lacked such a summary made it difficult to
assess the progress achieved.

To improve the prospect that agency performance information will be
useful to and used by these different users, agencies need to consider
the different information needs and how to best tailor their
performance information to meet those needs. For example, we have
reported that, although many information needs were met, congressional
staff also identified gaps in meeting their information needs.[Footnote
59] Key to addressing these information gaps was improving
communication between congressional staff and agency officials to help
ensure that congressional information needs are understood, and that,
where feasible, arrangements are made to meet them. Improved two-way
communication might also make clear what information is and is not
available, as well as what is needed and what is not needed. This might
entail the preparation of simplified and streamlined plans and reports
for Congress and other external users.

Another challenge that limits the usefulness of agency performance
reports is the lack of timely data on performance. For the six
performance reports we reviewed we continued to observe a significant
number of goals for which performance data were unavailable. Policy
decisions made when designing federal programs, particularly
intergovernmental programs, may make it difficult to collect timely and
consistent national data. In administering programs that are the joint
responsibility of state and local governments, Congress and the
executive branch continually balance the competing objectives of
collecting uniform program information to assess performance with
giving states and localities the flexibility needed to effectively
implement intergovernmental programs.

Improving Performance Measures and Data Quality:

Another key challenge to achieving a governmentwide focus on results is
that of developing meaningful, outcome-oriented performance goals and
collecting performance data that can be used to assess results.
Performance measurement under GPRA is the ongoing monitoring and
reporting of program accomplishments, particularly progress toward
preestablished goals. It tends to focus on regularly collected data on
the level and type of program activities, the direct products and
services delivered by the programs, and the results of those
activities. For programs that have readily observable results or
outcomes, performance measurement may provide sufficient information to
demonstrate program results. In some programs, however, outcomes are
not quickly achieved or readily observed, or their relationship to the
program is uncertain. In such cases, more in-depth program evaluations
may be needed, in addition to performance measurement, to examine the
extent to which a program is achieving its objectives.

Given the difficult measurement challenges we have identified, it is
all the more important that agency strategic planning efforts include
the identification of the most critical evaluations that need to take
place to address those challenges. However, our previous work has
raised concerns about the capacity of federal agencies to produce
evaluations of program effectiveness.[Footnote 60] Few of the agencies
we reviewed deployed the rigorous research methods required to
attribute changes underlying outcomes to program activities. Yet we
have also seen how some agencies have profitably drawn on systematic
program evaluations to improve their measurement of program performance
or understanding of performance and how it might be improved.[Footnote
61] Our review of six agencies' strategic plans and performance reports
in this report revealed weaknesses in their discussions of program
evaluation. Most of the strategic plans lacked critical information
required by GPRA, such as a discussion of how evaluations were used to
establish strategic goals or a schedule of future evaluations.
Furthermore, two of the six performance reports did not summarize the
results of program evaluations completed that year, as required.

Our work has also identified substantial, long-standing limitations in
agencies' abilities to produce credible data and identify performance
improvement opportunities that will not be quickly or easily
resolved.[Footnote 62] According to our review, five of six agencies'
annual performance plans showed meaningful improvements in how they
discussed the quality of performance data. However, only DOT's
performance plan and report contained information that provided a full
level of confidence in the credibility of its performance data. In
particular, the plans and reports did not always provide detailed
information on how the agencies verified and validated their
performance data.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To improve the quality of agencies' strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and performance reports and help agencies meet the requirements
of GPRA, we recommend that the Director of OMB provide clearer and more
consistent guidance to executive branch agencies on how to implement
GPRA. Such guidance should include standards for communicating key
performance information in concise as well as longer formats to better
meet the needs of external users who lack the time or expertise to
analyze lengthy, detailed documents.

To help address agencies' performance measurement challenges, we
recommend that the Director of OMB engage in a continuing dialogue with
agencies about their performance measurement practices with a
particular focus on grant-making, research and development, and
regulatory functions to identify and replicate successful approaches
agencies are using to measure and report on their outcomes, including
the use of program evaluation tools. Additionally, we recommend that
the Director of OMB work with executive branch agencies to identify the
barriers to obtaining timely data to show progress against performance
goals and the best ways to report information where there are
unavoidable lags in data availability. Interagency councils, such as
the President's Management Council and the Chief Financial Officers'
Council, may be effective vehicles for working on these issues.

To facilitate the transformation of agencies' management cultures to be
more results-oriented, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with
agencies to ensure they are making adequate investments in training on
performance planning and measurement, with a particular emphasis on how
to use performance information to improve program performance.

Matters for Congressional Consideration:

To provide a framework to identify long-term goals and strategies to
address issues that cut across federal agencies, Congress also should
consider amending GPRA to require the President to develop a
governmentwide strategic plan.

Agency Comments:

We provided a copy of the draft report to OMB for comment. OMB's
written comments are reprinted in appendix VIII. In general, OMB agreed
with our findings and conclusions. OMB agreed to implement most of our
recommendations, noting that these recommendations will enhance its
efforts to make the government more results oriented. OMB agreed to (1)
work with agencies to ensure they are provided adequate training in
performance management, (2) revise its guidance to clarify the
integrated and complementary relationship between GPRA and PART, and
(3) continue to use PART to improve agency performance measurement
practices and share those practices across government.

In response to our recommendation that OMB fully implement GPRA's
requirement to develop a governmentwide performance plan, OMB stated
that the President's Budget represents the executive branch's
governmentwide performance plan. However, the agency-by-agency focus of
the budget over the past few years does not provide an integrated
perspective of government performance, and thus does not meet GPRA's
requirement to provide a "single cohesive picture of the annual
performance goals for the fiscal year." In response to our matter for
congressional consideration that Congress should consider amending GPRA
to require the President to develop a governmentwide strategic plan,
OMB noted that the budget serves as the governmentwide strategic plan.
However, in our opinion, the President's Budget focuses on establishing
agency budgets for the upcoming fiscal year. Unlike a strategic plan,
it provides neither a long-term nor an integrated perspective on the
federal government's activities. A governmentwide strategic plan should
provide a cohesive perspective on the long-term goals of the federal
government and provide a basis for fully integrating, rather than
primarily coordinating, a wide array of federal activities.

DOE disagreed with portions of our analyses of its 2004 Annual
Performance Plan and its 2002 Performance and Accountability Report.
Our analysis of DOE's documents was based on specific criteria (see
appendixes IV and V for details) and was characterized in relation to
our reviews of the other five agencies' documents. We modified or
clarified certain characterizations in response to DOE comments, but
for the most part found that our characterizations were appropriate.

SSA generally agreed with our observations and agreed to incorporate
them in its future planning efforts. SSA made several points of
clarification and disagreed with our observation that its performance
and accountability report does not clearly state how program
evaluations were used to answer questions about program performance and
results and how they can be improved. SSA noted that its evaluations
rely on surveys, and these surveys form the basis for its efforts to
deliver high-quality service. SSA also noted that it lists other
evaluations that are of great importance to its ongoing operations. We
do not discount the usefulness of SSA's surveys in assessing its day-
to-day management of programs. Rather, we believe that it would be
helpful for SSA to clearly identify the range of evaluations conducted
and how each of them contributed to improved program performance.

HUD noted that all of the areas we suggested for further improvement
are under consideration for improvement. However, they disagreed with
us on two observations related to the strategic plan: (1) that the link
between its long-term and intermediate goals is difficult to discern
and (2) that it did not explain how it used the results of program
evaluations to update the current plan and did not include a schedule
for future evaluations. On the basis of OMB guidance for preparing
strategic plans and the criteria we used to evaluate all six agencies'
strategic plans (see app. III for more detail), we maintain that these
two observations are valid and require further attention. HUD also
disagreed with how we presented the performance information in its
summary report cards (see fig. 22). HUD noted that many of the results
were explained in the individual indicator write-ups that followed the
summary information. Our analysis of HUD's information included
qualitative aspects of how the information was presented, such as its
usefulness to inform the average reader with little or no exposure to
the subject matter, and the extent to which HUD presented a complete
summary of performance information in a user-friendly format.

Technical comments from DOE, HUD, and SSA were incorporated, as
appropriate.

[End of section]

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:

As agreed with your offices, our objectives for this report were to
determine (1) the effect of the Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) over the last 10 years in creating a governmentwide focus on
results and the government's ability to deliver results to the American
public, including an assessment of changes in the overall quality of
agencies' strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports; (2) the challenges that agencies face in measuring
performance and using performance information in management decisions;
and (3) how the federal government can continue to shift toward a more
results-oriented focus. To meet our objectives, we collected
governmentwide data to assess the government's overall focus on
results. We conducted a governmentwide survey of federal managers,
focus groups with federal managers and GPRA experts, and interviews
with top appointed officials. We identified and reviewed previously
published reports on GPRA. Finally, we selected a sample of agencies to
review for changes in the quality of their strategic plans, performance
plans, and performance reports since their initial efforts.

We conducted our work from January through November 2003 in Washington,
D.C. in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. We provided drafts of the relevant sections of this report
to officials from each of the agencies whose GPRA reports we reviewed.
We also provided a draft of this report to OMB.

Methodology for Governmentwide Survey:

A Web-based questionnaire on performance and management issues was
administered to a stratified random probability sample of 800 persons
from a population of approximately 98,000 mid-level and upper-level
civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch
agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO). The
sample was drawn from the Office of Personnel Management's (OPM)
Civilian Personnel Data File as of December 31, 2002, using file
designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory
functions.

The questionnaire was designed to obtain the observations and
perceptions of respondents on various aspects of GPRA as well as such
results-oriented management topics as the presence, use, and usefulness
of performance measures, hindrances to measuring and using performance
information, and agency climate. Most of the items on the questionnaire
were closed-ended, meaning that depending on the particular item,
respondents could choose one or more response categories or rate the
strength of their perception on a 5-point extent scale. Almost all the
items on this questionnaire were asked in two earlier mail-out surveys.
One survey was conducted between November 1996 and January 1997 as part
of the work we did in response to a GPRA requirement that we report on
implementation of the act. The other survey was conducted between
January and August 2000.[Footnote 63]

This survey covered the same CFO Act agencies and was designed to
update the results from the two earlier surveys. Similar to the two
earlier surveys, the sample was stratified by whether the manager or
supervisor was Senior Executive Service (SES) or non-SES. The
management levels covered general schedule (GS), general management
(GM), or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS/GM-13 through
career SES or equivalent levels of executive service. The sample also
included the same or equivalent special pay plans that were covered in
our 2000 survey, e.g., Senior Foreign Service executives.

We sent an e-mail to members of the sample that notified them of the
survey's availability on the GAO Web site and included instructions on
how to access and complete the survey. Members of the sample who did
not respond to the initial notice were sent up to two subsequent
reminders asking them to participate in the survey. The survey was
administered from June through August 2003.

During the course of the survey, we deleted 26 persons from our sample
who had either retired, separated, died, or otherwise left the agency
or had some other reason that excluded them from the population of
interest. We received useable questionnaires from 503 sample
respondents, about 65 percent of the eligible sample. The eligible
sample includes 39 persons that we were unable to locate and therefore
unable to request that they participate in the survey.

To assess whether the views of those individuals who chose not to
participate in our survey might be different than those who did, we
made an effort to administer a brief survey over the telephone to those
individuals who still had not responded about a month or more after the
survey had been available to them despite being contacted twice after
the initial notification e-mail had been sent out. This telephone
survey consisted of four items from the full survey. There were 58
persons who agreed to answer these questions over the telephone. This
was 41 percent of those individuals who had not responded at the time
we attempted to contact them for the purpose of asking these four
questions.

We analyzed the responses of this group on the four selected items
compared to the responses received from all other respondents. Our
analyses of the items showed very few differences between nonresponders
and responders. There was no sufficient or consistent pattern of
responding that would warrant a conclusion that the views of
nonresponders were notably different than responders. The responses of
each eligible sample member who provided a useable questionnaire were
subsequently weighted in the analysis to account statistically for all
the members of the population.

The overall survey results are generalizable to the population of
managers as described above at the CFO Act agencies. All results are
subject to some uncertainty or sampling error as well as nonsampling
error. As part of our effort to reduce nonsampling sources of error in
survey results, we checked and edited (1) the survey data for responses
that failed to follow instructions and (2) the programs used in our
analyses. In general, percentage estimates in this report for the
entire sample have confidence intervals ranging from about ± 4 to ±11
percentage points at the 95 percent confidence interval. In other
words, if all CFO Act agency managers and supervisors in our population
had been surveyed, the chances are 95 out of 100 that the result
obtained would not differ from our sample estimate in the more extreme
cases by more than ±11 percent. Appendix VI shows the questions asked
with the weighted percentage of managers responding to each item.

Because a complex sample design was used in the current survey as well
as the two previous surveys and different types of statistical analyses
are being done, the magnitude of sampling error will vary across the
particular surveys, groups, or items being compared due to differences
in the underlying sample sizes and associated variances. The number of
participants in the current survey is only about one fifth of the
number in the 2000 survey (2,510) and slightly more than half of those
in the first survey (905). The 2000 survey was designed with a larger
sample than the other two surveys in order to provide estimates for
each individual agency as well as all the CFO Act agencies
collectively. Consequently, in some instances, a difference of a
certain magnitude may be statistically significant. In other instances,
depending on the nature of the comparison being made, a difference of
equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve statistical
significance. For example, when comparing a result from the current
survey to the larger 2000 survey with its relatively smaller confidence
interval, a difference of a certain magnitude may be significant.
However, when comparing the current survey with the first survey, that
difference may not be significant given the greater imprecision in the
estimates due to both surveys' smaller sample sizes. We note throughout
the report when differences are significant at the .05 probability
level.

Methodology for Focus Groups:

We held a series of focus groups as one of our methods for obtaining
information about the accomplishments and challenges agencies face in
implementing and overseeing GPRA-related activities. Focus groups are a
form of qualitative research in which a specially trained leader, a
moderator, meets with a small group of people (usually 8 to 10) who are
knowledgeable about the topics to be discussed.

In all, we conducted eight focus groups--one with experts on GPRA and
performance management and seven with federal managers. For our focus
group with experts, we invited individuals from the private sector,
academia, the National Academy of Public Administration, and OMB. These
individuals were involved either in drafting GPRA, overseeing its
implementation, or studying and critiquing implementation, from outside
government. Out of the 14 experts we invited, a total of 11 attended
the focus group.

For our focus groups with agency managers, we obtained a list of
potential participants for our focus groups by contacting all 24 CFO
Act agencies and requesting that they submit a list of candidates and
their profiles based on the following criteria: federal managers (1) in
the GS-13 pay grade and above, including members of the SES; (2) having
at least 3 years of managerial experience; (3) currently located in the
Washington, D.C., metropolitan area; (4) having hands-on experience
with GPRA or performance management;[Footnote 64] and (5) representing
both departments and their component bureaus. We received profiles of
candidates from all agencies; however, no managers from the OPM chose
to participate in the focus groups.

To select focus group participants, we reviewed the profiles submitted
by agencies and selected candidates with diverse experience who held a
variety of different positions within the agency in order to capture a
broad range of perspectives. For example, we invited a comptroller; a
deputy director of management, administration, and planning; budget
directors; budget officers; management analysts; and program managers;
among others. We contacted the candidates and provided them with the
list of questions to be discussed at the focus group in advance so they
would be aware of our interests and be better able to provide us, where
possible, with examples to illustrate their responses to our questions.
Out of 104 agency officials we invited, 70 participated in the focus
groups.[Footnote 65]

During each session, the moderator explained the scope of our work and
elaborated on how the focus groups were one of several methods we were
using to collect information relevant to our objectives. As part of the
focus group process, the moderator asked participants at each session
to identify the main accomplishments and challenges that, in their
view, could be attributed to GPRA and to mention possible solutions to
these challenges. During the sessions, we created lists of the
accomplishments, challenges, and solutions identified by group
participants and posted these lists around the meeting room.
Participants were then asked to review the lists and vote on the three
most important accomplishments and the top three challenges.[Footnote
66]

To organize the information collected during the focus groups, we
reviewed the statements made by participants in response to our
questions. We identified related sets of statements and summarized them
as a general theme. We noted how often a theme was expressed both
within and across each focus group. We also examined the number of
votes each posted statement obtained. Our analysis focused on those
themes that were supported by statements that obtained a high number of
votes and were mentioned frequently within and across the majority of
focus groups.

The focus group results discussed in this report are summary
descriptions reflecting the range of views and perceptions held by
employees, supervisors, or project managers who participated in the
focus groups. Although we cannot assume all federal managers share
these views, the extent to which certain opinions or perceptions were
repeatedly expressed or endorsed by many participants from multiple
focus groups provides a rough gauge of the significance of these views.

Methodology for Interviews with Political Appointees:

To obtain an additional perspective from top political managers of
federal agencies on GPRA, we held telephone or in-person interviews
with 10 high-level officials serving under political appointments with
CFO Act agencies. Five former officials from the Clinton administration
and five serving under the current Bush administration were
interviewed. For example, we interviewed deputy secretaries, chief
financial officers, and deputy assistant secretaries for management. We
asked them to provide their perspective on the main accomplishments or
other effects of GPRA, the key challenges to implementation, and
possible improvements to GPRA. We summarized the interviewees' answers
and identified recurring themes or observations for our analysis.

Methodology for Selecting Agencies to Review for Changes in the Quality
of Their Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual
Performance Reports:

To address how the quality of agency strategic plans, performance
plans, and performance reports have changed since their initial
efforts, we reviewed a sample of six agencies' current strategic plans,
annual performance plans, and annual performance reports and compared
the results to our findings from prior reviews of the agencies' initial
efforts in producing these documents. We did not independently verify
or assess the information we obtained from agency plans and reports. If
an agency chose not to discuss its efforts concerning elements in the
plans and reports, it does not necessarily mean that the agency is not
implementing those elements.

We selected the departments and agencies to review based on the extent
to which they collectively represented the full range of
characteristics in the following four areas: (1) agency size (small,
medium, large); (2) primary program types (direct service, research,
regulatory, transfer payments, and contracts or grants); (3) quality of
fiscal year 2000 performance plan based on our previous review (low,
medium, high);[Footnote 67] and (4) type of agency (cabinet department
and independent agency).

Based on these characteristics, we selected the following departments
and agencies:

* Department of Education (Education),

* Department of Energy (DOE),

* Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD),

* Small Business Administration (SBA),

* Social Security Administration (SSA), and:

* Department of Transportation (DOT).

Table 4 shows the characteristics represented by each of these
agencies.

Table 4: Summary of Characteristics of Agencies Selected for Review of
Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Performance
Reports:

Departments: Education;
Size[A]: Full time equivalent positions: 4,756;
Size[A]: Small;
Functions: Research: Yes;
Functions: Direct service: Yes;
Functions: Regulatory: Yes;
Functions: Transfer payments: Yes;
Functions: Grants/contracts: Yes;
Quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans: Medium.

Departments: DOE;
Size[A]: Full time equivalent positions: 16,067;
Size[A]: Medium;
Functions: Research: Yes;
Functions: Direct service: No;
Functions: Regulatory: Yes;
Functions: Transfer payments: No;
Functions: Grants/contracts: Yes;
Quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans: Low.

Departments: HUD;
Size[A]: Full time equivalent positions: 10,752;
Size[A]: Medium;
Functions: Research: No;
Functions: Direct service: Yes;
Functions: Regulatory: Yes;
Functions: Transfer payments: Yes;
Functions: Grants/contracts: Yes;
Quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans: Medium.

Departments: DOT;
Size[A]: Full time equivalent positions: 135,022[B];
Size[A]: Large;
Functions: Research: Yes;
Functions: Direct service: Yes;
Functions: Regulatory: Yes;
Functions: Transfer payments: No;
Functions: Grants/contracts: Yes;
Quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans: H.

Agencies: SBA;
Size[A]: Full time equivalent positions: 4,005;
Size[A]: Small;
Functions: Research: No;
Functions: Direct service: Yes;
Functions: Regulatory: Yes;
Functions: Transfer payments: No;
Functions: Grants/contracts: Yes;
Quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans: Low.

Agencies: SSA;
Size[A]: Full time equivalent positions: 64,418;
Size[A]: Large;
Functions: Research: No;
Functions: Direct service: Yes;
Functions: Regulatory: No;
Functions: Transfer payments: Yes;
Functions: Grants/contracts: No;
Quality of fiscal year 2000 performance plans: High.

Source: GAO.

[A] The size of the agencies is based on data from December 2002.

[B] In March 2003, the U.S. Coast Guard and the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA) were transferred from DOT to the Department of
Homeland Security. According to the fiscal year 2005 President's
Budget, in fiscal year 2003, the Coast Guard and TSA had 43,702 and
57,324 full-time equivalent positions, respectively.

[End of table]

A more detailed discussion of the criteria we used to assess the
quality of the agencies' planning and reporting documents and the
results of our review is contained in appendixes III, IV, and V.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Focus Group Participants Agreed GPRA Provides a Framework
for Federal Agencies to Become More Results Oriented:

While GPRA's goal is to make the federal government more results
oriented, work carried out in support of this effort, such as planning
activities, implementing programs, reporting on outcomes, and
evaluating performance, generally lies in the hands of federal
managers. To get a better appreciation for the main accomplishments and
challenges agencies face in implementing and overseeing GPRA-related
activities, we conducted a total of seven focus groups comprised of
federal managers from 23 CFO Act agencies, and an eighth focus group
comprised of 11 experts on GPRA and performance management and
budgeting.

For our focus groups, we asked participants to discuss (1) the key
accomplishments of GPRA to date, (2) whether GPRA has created a focus
on achieving results across the federal government, (3) the effect of
GPRA on the government's ability to deliver results to the American
public, (4) the persistent and prevalent challenges agencies face in
implementing and overseeing GPRA-related activities, and (5)
suggestions to address these challenges.

We recorded the views expressed by participants and categorized them
into themes that were most commonly expressed or endorsed both within
and across the groups. The focus group results discussed in this report
are organized according to the themes we identified and are summary
descriptions reflecting the range of views and perceptions expressed by
the experts, supervisors, and project managers. A more complete
discussion of our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.

Focus group participants indicated that GPRA has helped to make the
federal government more results oriented. However, they noted that a
number of obstacles have made GPRA implementation challenging, such as
difficulty in establishing results-oriented goals and measuring
performance, addressing frequently changing priorities resulting from
changes in administration, and lack of top leadership support for GPRA.
In all, participants generally perceive the information contained in
GPRA reports to be important and useful; however, they do not believe
that lawmakers use this information to make resource decisions or
conduct oversight. To address these problems and concerns, focus group
participants stated that, among other things, Congress should provide
guidance to agencies on how to make GPRA reports more useful, OMB
should reinforce its value as a management tool, and agencies need to
commit the resources necessary to carry out GPRA-related activities.

GPRA Accomplishments:

Overall, focus group participants stated that GPRA has had a positive
effect on federal agencies' efforts to become more results oriented.
Based in statute, GPRA has created a framework for agencies to focus on
achieving results by requiring them to establish program goals and
objectives, develop performance indicators, and measure the extent to
which they have made progress towards achieving program goals. As a
result, federal managers noted that they have been increasingly able to
view their programs in terms of outcomes, not outputs, and have been
generally learning how to use this framework as a management tool.
Participants also attributed a series of cultural changes within
federal agencies to GPRA, where problem solving, creative thinking, and
agencywide discussions on budget and performance have become more
common. The strategic and annual performance plan and performance
reports that federal agencies are required to submit to OMB and
Congress under GPRA have increased the transparency of government
activities. These documents have also helped agencies justify their
budget requests based on their performance.

Creating a Framework in Statute and a Management Tool for Agency
Leadership:

Participants agreed that GPRA created a framework in statute for
federal agencies to plan their activities in order to become more
results oriented and provided a managerial tool for program
accountability. Using this framework, agencies can develop and focus on
strategies to carry out the programs they administer; set goals and
identify performance indicators that will inform them whether or not
they achieved the performance they expected; and determine what impact,
if any, their programs have had on the American public. According to
the experts in one of our focus groups, comparing federal agencies'
current mission statements contained in their strategic plans to what
they were in the past demonstrates that agencies have done some "soul
searching" to get a better sense of what their role is (or should be)
and how they can achieve it. Given that GPRA is in statute, the use of
this planning framework is likely to be sustained within agencies.

Participants also mentioned that GPRA has encouraged federal managers
to view their programs in terms of results, not just inputs and
outputs. Such a change is important, as it has encouraged federal
managers to reflect on the statutory intent of their programs and use
this framework as a management tool for establishing accountability
within their programs.

Cultural Change within Federal Agencies:

Participants in the majority of focus groups agreed that GPRA has been
a driving force behind many cultural changes that have occurred within
federal agencies. Highlighting the focus on results, participants
stated that GPRA has stimulated a problem-solving approach within
federal agencies and encouraged them to think creatively when
developing performance indicators for their programs. GPRA has also
changed the dialogue within federal agencies; front-line managers and
staff at lower levels of the organization now discuss budget issues in
connection with performance. Similarly, experts noted that performance
management and resource investments are more frequently communicated
between agency officials and Congress than in the past. Within
agencies, GPRA documents can provide a context of missions, goals, and
strategies that political appointees can use to articulate agencies'
priorities.

Increased Transparency of Government Results:

Some participants agreed that GPRA has increased federal agencies'
ability to present their results to the American public, benefiting
both stakeholders and agency staff. On the one hand, GPRA reports
enable federal agencies to communicate the results of government
programs and activities to a broad public. For example, GPRA reports
are available on agencies' Web sites and provide information to OMB,
Congress, and the American public on what agencies plan to do, how they
plan to do it, and, as summarized in the performance and accountability
reports, what agencies have accomplished and how much money it cost
them to do it.

Similarly, some participants agreed that GPRA allows federal employees
to see exactly how their work can produce a positive outcome,
increasing employee morale. Using information contained in GPRA
reports, agency employees can compare department goals to the results
of their activities, and see how their work contributes to these goals.
For example, a focus group participant from the Indian Health Service
in California stated that he was pleased to learn that health care
indicators of some Native American tribes had already exceeded levels
originally projected by his agency to be reached by the year 2010.

Link between Budget and Performance:

Participants also agreed that the GPRA framework has had a positive
effect on agencies' ability to link their performance to their budget.
By focusing on their mission and outcomes, agencies are learning to
prioritize activities and align their resources to ensure that they
will be able to achieve results. For example, a participant stated that
the National Wild Horse and Burro Program, managed by the Bureau of
Land Management in the U.S. Department of the Interior, recently
developed a model for its GPRA-related work which divided their program
into discrete components, identifying the results it could accomplish
in the short-and long-term and specifying what additional resources
were needed. According to the participant, the program received
additional funding based on this needs assessment.

In addition, a few managers noted that the link between budget and
performance has given agencies an incentive to commit the resources
necessary to modernize information systems. Having the right
information on time enables agencies to integrate budget requests and
performance information in ways that are more meaningful. This
information also increases Congress's ability to make informed budget
decisions based on agency performance.

Views on Delivering Results to the American Public Were Mixed:

Participants' views on whether GPRA has helped agencies deliver results
to the American public were generally mixed. Some federal managers in
our focus groups agreed that GPRA has had a positive effect on raising
awareness on many issues, and that in and of itself is a way of
delivering results. The information gathered and reported for GPRA
allows agencies to make better-informed decisions, which improves their
ability to achieve results. Of note, GPRA has allowed agencies to move
towards performance-based budgeting, which helps agencies identify
resources available to use in programs where outcomes can be achieved.
For example, programs and expenses that do not add value to the
agency's mission could be eliminated. Having performance data readily
available is another key area where GPRA has enabled agencies to
deliver results to the American public.

Other participants stated that while certain aspects of GPRA-related
work have been positive, agencies' ability to deliver results and
public awareness of their activities cannot always be exclusively
attributed to GPRA. For example, while measuring performance is a move
in the right direction, GPRA reports provide too many indicators and it
is unclear how this has led to better performance among federal
agencies. A few participants also stated that agencies deliver results
in ways that the American public does not fully recognize. For example,
a participant stated that agencies working in the area of international
relations generally lack recognition for the results of their
activities, as the American public is generally unfamiliar with the
nuances of foreign policy and all the programs the U.S. government
finances overseas. And while GPRA has helped these agencies prioritize
their work to achieve results, it is unclear that GPRA has improved the
visibility and understanding in the public eye of what these agencies
do because the American public does not see the results of their work.
A participant stated that research-based agencies have also used GPRA
to plan activities that benefit the American public in ways they are
not fully aware of. For example, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration's (NASA) space program includes, among other things,
predicting whether or not an asteroid will strike the earth, although
on a daily basis the American public is probably not worried about such
a rarity.

For other participants, the link between GPRA and agencies' service
delivery was not clear. Participants characterized GPRA-related
activities as time consuming, and there is no real evidence that this
work has improved their ability to deliver results to the American
public. Other participants stated that many agencies rely on grant
recipients to carry out their work, and delivering results to the
American public depends, to a large extent, on the diligence of these
organizations to implement their programs. Overall, they held the view
that performance would not change dramatically if GPRA were no longer a
requirement for federal agencies.

Alternate Views on GPRA's Effect:

Participants in one of our focus groups stated that GPRA, per se, had
not led federal agencies to achieve specific accomplishments. These
participants believed that managers' initiative, not the framework
established by GPRA, has been key to improving agencies' planning
efforts and focus on results. A few participants also mentioned that
the results framework established by GPRA is somewhat intangible unless
managers can use it effectively; without the adequate infrastructure to
implement GPRA, an agency's compliance with the law is simply
paperwork, as GPRA does not allow for a systematic and thorough
approach to performance management. For example, while agencies can
develop performance indicators to gauge progress towards a program
goal, they often encounter problems in collecting relevant data and
measuring the agencies' contribution to a specific outcome. In
addition, agencies are not able to make changes to the programs they
manage, limiting their ability to deliver results.

Challenges in Implementing and Overseeing GPRA Activities:

Participants stated that agencies face significant challenges in
complying with GPRA-related activities. Focus group participants also
agreed Congress does not appear to use agencies' performance
information when making budget decisions. In carrying out GPRA-related
activities, managers find it difficult to identify performance
indicators and establish program goals that are results oriented, as
required by GPRA. In addition, a few participants stated that they lack
the support from senior management to work on GPRA activities. Changes
in administration also tend to disrupt progress made by agencies in
support of GPRA.

Performance Information Not Used:

Participants strongly believed that Congress does not take into account
agencies' performance information when overseeing agency activities and
making budget decisions. As a result, there is a negative effect on how
agencies view their efforts in producing GPRA plans and reports--many
believe that they are less worthwhile than the effort and resources
invested. On the other hand, participants perceive the budget process
strictly as a political exercise, and it is unclear how useful
performance information can be in this context.

Complexity of Establishing Results-Oriented Goals and Measuring
Performance:

Participants stated that establishing results-oriented goals and
identifying performance indicators are generally complex undertakings.
Participants agreed that they often feel as if they were trying to
measure the immeasurable, not having a clear understanding of which
performance indicators could accurately inform the agency how it is
carrying out a specific activity. And while agencies generally try to
improve the indicators from one year to another, in doing so, they
generally lose their ability to develop trend information to track
progress made over time.

Participants also mentioned that there appears to be a disconnect
between some federal programs that generally produce results over a
longer time period and GPRA's requirement that agencies report annually
on their progress towards achieving their goals. Participants stated
that federal programs, especially those that are research-based, often
take years to achieve the full scope of their work. Consequently, and
for reasons that range from lack of performance data to an absence of
short-term outcomes, it could appear as though resources invested in
carrying out their activities led to no results in the short run.

Focus group participants generally agreed that in cases where third
parties, such as states or localities, implement federal programs, some
agencies face challenges in obtaining timely performance data from
relevant partner organizations. In some instances, federal managers
have trouble identifying what the government's contribution has been to
a specific outcome. While the experts generally attributed this to
agencies not doing a good job at setting appropriate goals and the
corresponding measures and objectives not being clear enough, managers
stated that their lack of control over grantees and the strict
reporting deadlines imposed by GPRA were factors that worked against
their efforts to deliver results.

Managing Strategically with Frequently Changing Priorities:

Some participants stated that it is difficult for them to manage
strategically, given the frequently changing priorities that come with
changes in administrations. While GPRA requires an agency to develop a
strategic plan at least every 3 years to cover the following 5-year
period, participants agreed that it makes little sense to update it
shortly before a new administration is scheduled to take office. In
addition, changes in political leadership generally result in a new
agenda with new objectives. These changes force agencies to revise
their plans, management initiatives, and strategies, which translate
into additional GPRA-related work, generally characterized by focus
group participants as a burden agency staff must add to their normal
work load.

Lack of Top Leadership Support:

Some participants stated that they often encounter resistance from
agency leadership to endorse GPRA-related activities. In some
instances, senior-level support for GPRA falters or is nonexistent.
Participants attributed this to the reluctance within some federal
agencies to think about outcomes and performance. Some focus group
participants stated that in some instances high-level managers are
somewhat averse to being held accountable for the results of programs
they run.

Suggestions to Address GPRA Challenges:

To address these challenges, focus group participants made the
following suggestions.

Congress Should Clarify How Performance Information Could Be More
Useful:

Congressional staff should provide guidance on agencies' GPRA
submissions--specifically, how information could be presented in the
reports to make it more useful in the decision-making process. They
could also communicate to agencies how the performance information is
being used, so that agencies do not perceive their data gathering
efforts as inconsequential. Additionally, in using performance
information to make budget decisions, Congress should consider the
results achieved by agencies in addition to results not achieved.

The Administration and OMB Need to Reinforce the Value of GPRA as a
Management Tool:

Agencies should embrace GPRA as a management tool, not just an external
requirement that is separate from their day-to-day activities. To this
end, the administration and OMB need make sure agency officials
understand how GPRA can be further integrated with other management
initiatives.

Agency Guidance on GPRA Should Recognize Diversity of Federal Agencies:

OMB's guidance to agencies on how to implement GPRA should recognize
that one-size-fits-all approaches are unlikely to be useful. OMB should
also afford agencies some flexibility by simplifying the reporting
process. For example, some participants believed that not everything
needed to be measured. OMB should make exceptions for unique situations
and programs, e.g., science programs, and it could consider providing
multiyear funding for them.

OMB Should Publish a Governmentwide Performance Report:

OMB should commit to regularly publishing a governmentwide performance
report that would articulate the government's accomplishments to the
public. It would also be useful if it singled out higher-performing
programs so agencies could use them as models to guide their planning
efforts.

Agencies Need to Obtain and Commit Resources to Carry Out GPRA-Related
Activities:

Agency leadership needs to ensure that staff members have the necessary
resources to work on GPRA-related activities. In addition, they need to
invest resources to train staff, including political appointees, on
GPRA and the benefits of linking budget to performance.

Timing of GPRA Reports Should Take into Account Changes of
Administration:

Under GPRA, agencies are to update their strategic plans every 3 years.
However, this effort can be wasted. Given that federal administrations
generally span at least 4 years, participants suggested that the
required update be changed to every 4 years to correspond with new
presidential terms.

Agencies Should Share Experiences on How to Address Common Problems:

Agencies should collaborate more to develop strategies to address
difficult issues, such as how to identify performance indicators and
measure agency contributions to specific outcomes. It would be useful
if more agencies created structured forums for managers to share
experiences, talk about effective practices, and share solutions.

[End of section]

Appendix III: Observations on Agencies' Strategic Plans:

Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting point and basic
underpinning for results-oriented management. One of our objectives was
to assess the changes in the overall quality of agencies' goals,
strategies, and data articulated in their strategic plans. To meet this
objective, we judgmentally selected six agencies--Education, DOE, HUD,
SBA, SSA, and DOT--using criteria such as agency size, primary program
types, and previous GAO reviews. To assess the overall quality and
improvements made to the agencies' strategic plans, we relied on
requirements contained in GPRA and accompanying committee report
language,[Footnote 68] guidance to agencies from OMB for developing
strategic plans,[Footnote 69] previous GAO reports and
evaluations,[Footnote 70] and our knowledge of agencies' operations and
programs. In conducting our reviews, we compared our assessments of
agencies' current strategic plans to our assessments of draft plans
from fiscal year 1997.[Footnote 71] A more detailed discussion of our
scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.

Required Elements of Agency Strategic Plans:

GPRA requires an agency's strategic plan to contain six key elements:

1. A comprehensive agency mission statement. The agency mission
statement should concisely summarize what the agency does, as required
by law, presenting the main purposes for all its major functions and
operations. According to OMB guidance issued in 2002, a mission
statement is brief, defining the basic purpose of the agency, and
corresponds directly with an agency's core programs and activities. The
program goals should flow from the mission statement as well. The
federal government's adaptive responses over time to new needs and
problems have contributed to fragmentation and overlap in a host of
program areas, such as food safety, employment training, early
childhood development, and rural development, which could limit the
overall effectiveness of the federal effort. The mission statement
helps to distinguish agencies' roles from one another and reduce the
overlap and identify areas needing coordination and collaboration.

2. Agencywide long-term goals and objectives. General goals and
objectives--or strategic goals--explain what results are expected from
the agency's major functions and when to expect those results. Thus,
such goals are an outgrowth of the mission and are very often results
oriented. OMB guidance states that the goals should be defined in a
manner that allows a future assessment to be made on whether the goal
was or is being achieved. General goals should predominately be
outcomes, and are long-term in nature.

3. Approaches or strategies to achieve goals and objectives. Strategies
help in aligning an agency's activities, core processes, and resources
to support achievement of the agency's strategic goals and mission.
Under GPRA, strategies are to briefly describe the operational
processes, staff skills, and technologies, as well as the human,
capital, information, and other resources needed. According to OMB
guidance, descriptions should be brief, but more detailed data should
be provided if a significant change in a particular means or strategy
would be essential for goal achievement. In addition, the plan should
summarize agencies' efforts to provide high-quality and efficient
training and skill improvement opportunities for employees. As we have
reported previously, agencies' planning processes should support making
intelligent resource allocation decisions that minimize, to the extent
possible, the effect of funding reductions on mission accomplishment.

4. A description of the relationship between long-term and annual
goals. Under GPRA, agencies' long-term strategic goals and objectives
are to be linked to their annual performance plans and the day-to-day
activities of their managers and staff. Without this linkage, Congress
may not be able to judge whether an agency is making progress toward
achieving its long-term goals. OMB guidance states that an updated and
revised strategic plan should briefly outline (1) the type, nature, and
scope of the performance goals being included in annual performance
plans and (2) how these annual performance goals relate to the long-
term, general goals and their use in helping determine the achievement
of the general goals.

5. An identification of key external factors. Identification of key
factors, external to the agency and beyond its control that could
significantly affect the achievement of the strategic goals, are
important for Congress or the agencies to judge the likelihood of
achieving the strategic goals and actions needed to better meet those
goals. Such external factors could include economic, demographic,
social, technological, or environmental factors. Information on these
factors can be useful for goal setting and also for explaining results
in the agency's annual performance reports, including, when applicable,
the reasons annual performance goals were not met. According to OMB
guidance, if key factors cannot be identified, a statement of
explanation should be included in the plan.

6. A description of program evaluations. Finally, strategic plans
should include a description of completed program evaluations that were
used in developing the strategic plan, and a schedule for future
program evaluations. Program evaluations can be a potentially critical
source of information for Congress and others in ensuring the validity
and reasonableness of goals and strategies, as well as for identifying
factors likely to affect performance. Such information can also be
useful in explaining results in an agency's annual performance report,
including, when applicable, the reasons annual performance goals were
not met, and identifying appropriate strategies to meet unmet goals.
Program evaluations are defined in the act as objective and formal
assessments of the results, impact, or effects of a program or policy.
The evaluations include assessments of the implementation and results
of programs, operating policies, and practices.

In addition to the six key elements, OMB guidance also states that
agencies participating in crosscutting programs should describe in
their strategic plans how the programs are related and how coordination
will occur to support common efforts. Uncoordinated program efforts can
waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit
the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. OMB guidance also
states that the strategic plan should include a brief description of
any steps being taken to resolve mission-critical management problems.
One purpose of GPRA is to improve the management of federal agencies.
Therefore, it is particularly important that agencies develop
strategies to address management challenges that threaten their ability
to meet long-term strategic goals as well as this purpose of GPRA.

As shown in table 5, the majority of agencies have made progress in
addressing the required elements of strategic planning under GPRA.

Table 5: Agencies' Progress in Addressing Required Elements of
Strategic Planning under GPRA:

Agency strategic plans: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Plan year: 2003;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long- term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Small Business Administration;
Plan year: 2001[B];
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long- term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Agency strategic plans: Department of Transportation;
Plan year: 2003[A];
Element included in agency strategic plan? Mission statement: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Long-term goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Strategies: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Relationship
between long-term goals and annual goals: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? External factors: Yes;
Element included in agency strategic plan? Evaluations: No.

Sources:
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD- 10.1.16];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-176R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-199R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-208R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-179R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-205R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-224R];

and GAO analysis of U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy
Secretary, Planning and Performance Management Service, U.S. Department
of Education Strategic Plan 2002-2007; (Washington, D.C. 2002);

Department of Energy, 2003 Strategic Plan (Draft); (Washington, D.C.
2003);

Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of Transportation Draft
Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003-2008; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

Social Security Administration, Social Security Administration
Strategic Plan 2003-2008; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Strategic Plan FY
2003-FY 2008; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

and Small Business Administration, SBA Strategic Plan, FY 2001-FY 2006;
(Washington, D.C. 2000).

[A] The 2003 plans for DOE and DOT were in draft form during the time
of our review.

[B] At the time of our review, the most recent SBA strategic plan was
for fiscal years 2001-2008. SBA released a new strategic plan for
fiscal years 2003-2008 in October 2003.

[End of table]

The remainder of this appendix discusses our observations on how the
quality of each of the agencies' strategic plans we reviewed has
changed since the agencies submitted their first draft strategic plans
in 1997. We did not independently verify or assess the information we
obtained from agency strategic plans. If an agency chose not to discuss
its efforts concerning elements in the strategic plan, it does not
necessarily mean that the agency is not implementing those elements.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of Education's Strategic Plan:

In our review of Education's June 1997 draft strategic plan,[Footnote
72] we found that the plan generally complied with GPRA and included
all but one of the six elements required by GPRA; it did not discuss
how Education's long-term goals and objectives would be related to its
annual performance goals. Also, we observed that the plan presented a
logical, fairly complete description of how Education intended to
achieve its mission, but a few areas could have been improved. In
comparison, Education's 2002-2007 strategic plan has improved on
several areas we identified in our 1997 review. However, we still found
areas where Education could improve. Table 6 summarizes these findings.

Table 6: Education's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of
Strategic Planning under GPRA:

Element of strategic planning: Mission statement;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Mission statement
clearly and briefly explained why the agency exists, what the agency
does, and how it performs its work;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. Mission statement is outcome
oriented, comprehensive, covers all of the agency's functions and
activities, and is the same as in the 1997 draft plan.

Element of strategic planning: Long-term goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. These goals were related
to the mission and were results oriented, but did not appear to reflect
civil rights enforcement and monitoring responsibilities;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. The goals have changed, but
are related to each other and the mission and are results oriented.
They now additionally reflect civil rights enforcement and monitoring
responsibilities.

Element of strategic planning: Strategies;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The plan outlined
strategies to achieve goals overall and to hold managers accountable
for achieving objectives, and generally described some of its resource
requirements throughout the plan;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. The plan includes strategies
that are linked to the goals. Several strategies relate to resource
alignment to achieve outcomes, but the actual resources required are
not always specified.

Element of strategic planning: Relationship between long-term goals and
annual goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. Education did not discuss
the relationship between its strategic plan goals and those to be
included in its annual plan, but indicated this would be done once its
annual plan was prepared;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. Plan contains the annual
performance measures and targets, which represent the annual
performance goals, and aligns them with long-term goals, with which
they have a logical relationship.

Element of strategic planning: External factors;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The plan generally
described factors outside program scope and responsibilities that could
negatively affect Education's ability to achieve goals, but factors
were not directly linked to particular goals;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. The plan adequately describes
external factors that could affect achieving its goals and they are
linked to the particular goals. The plan also briefly discusses
strategies to ameliorate the effects of a number of these factors.

Element of strategic planning: Evaluations;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Education said it would
provide detailed descriptions of supporting evaluations once it
consulted with Congress, completed the strategic plan, and agreed on
performance indicators. The plan indicated a commitment to using
evaluations, listing evaluations it intended to use to develop sound
measures, but did not describe the evaluations;
Included in current strategic plan: No. Because of the comprehensive
revamping of Education's strategic plan in 2002, its program evaluation
plan was completely restructured and was not released until it was
included in the 2004 annual plan,[A] which contains information on its
new directions for program evaluation.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-176R];

U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary, Planning
and Performance Management Service, U.S. Department of Education
Strategic Plan 2002-2007; (Washington, D.C. 2002).

[A] According to OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 6, Preparation and
Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual
Program Performance Reports, June 2002, general goals, which are
multiyear and long term, are synonymous with general objectives, and
either term can be used. The objectives in Education's strategic plan
are such multiyear, long-term objectives, and are referred to in our
report as the agency's "long-term goals." OMB's Circular A-11 also
indicates that some agencies include strategic goals in their strategic
plan, which represent overarching statements of aim or purpose whose
achievement cannot be determined and which can be used to group outcome
or output goals. Education's strategic goals meet this description.

[End of table]

Current Strategic Plan Strengths and Improvements from Fiscal Year 1997
Draft Strategic Plan:

Education's current mission, "to ensure equal access to education and
to promote educational excellence throughout the nation," is the same
comprehensive, outcome-oriented mission that was included in its 1997
draft plan. All of Education's functions and activities are covered by
it. The plan's long-term goals[Footnote 73] are expressed so as to
allow Education and Congress to assess whether they are being achieved.
Moreover, in contrast to findings in our review of Education's 1997
Draft Strategic Plan, Education's civil rights responsibilities--
including enforcing five civil right statutes that ensure equal
educational opportunity for all students, regardless of race, color,
national origin, sex, disability, or age--appear to be reflected, at
least in part, in the current plan's goals. For example, one long-term
goal is to reduce the gaps in college access and completion among
student populations differing by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status,
and disability while increasing the educational attainment of all.
Another is to enhance the literacy and employment skills of American
adults. Under the latter, the plan includes a strategy to work with
state vocational rehabilitation agencies to ensure implementation of
standards that will assist individuals with disabilities in obtaining
high-quality employment outcomes. As in the past, some goals are
targeted at results for which Education has limited direct control and
are, instead, greatly influenced by third parties. However, Education
recognizes this situation and shows its intent to work closely with its
partners.

Education's current plan provides some information on linking results
and day-to-day activities within the department. For example, the plan
says employees will be held accountable for implementation and success
from top to bottom and senior officers will have performance contracts
linked to the plan and be recognized for achieving results. In
addition, the strategy to foster a customer service orientation by
ensuring that states, districts, and other partners receive timely
responses to inquiries; to assign senior officers to develop
relationships with individual states; and to create a customer support
team to respond to issues, seems logically linked to the day-to-day
activities of managers and staff. However, the link between results and
day-to-day activities is not apparent for most of the goals and their
strategies.

The current plan includes several annual performance measures that are
at least related to how well information technology is supporting
strategic and program goals, as required by the Clinger-Cohen Act. For
example, for its long-term goal to modernize the Federal Student
Assistance (FSA) Programs and reduce their high-risk status, the plan
contains a measure on the integration of FSA processes and systems that
work together to support FSA program delivery functions. Commendably,
Education includes some goals related to reducing agency program
unintended negative effects, such as a goal and related measure to
reduce the data collection and reporting burden.

Education's current plan shows great improvement on recognizing and
addressing external factors. Beyond adequately describing external
factors that could affect achieving its goals and directly linking
these factors to particular goals, the plan also briefly describes
strategies to ameliorate the effects of a number of factors. For
example, for an external factor on teacher certification under a goal
on reading, the plan says that Education "will work with the states and
national accreditation bodies to encourage the incorporation of
research-based reading instruction into teacher certification
requirements." In addition, the plan includes strategies indicating
that Education monitors some internal factors that could affect
achievement of long term goals. Moreover, the plan recognizes the
overarching critical external factor for Education--that it depends
greatly on third parties who often control the results the department
is trying to achieve--and its strategies related to the goal-specific
external factors often reflect this.

In our 1997 assessment of Education's draft plan, we commented that
although the plan identified several management challenges the
department would face in the coming years, it provided little detail
about them and how they would be addressed. In our January 2001
performance and accountability series, we identified four department-
specific and two governmentwide challenges that we said Education
needed to meet.[Footnote 74] Education's current strategic plan
includes some goals, measures, and strategies that could be used to
address these challenges. For example, Education's goal to "develop and
maintain financial integrity and management and internal controls" and
this goal's strategies and measures are directly related to the
management challenge we identified on improving financial management.
One of the measures under this goal is "the achievement of an
unqualified audit opinion," an important issue in our identification of
financial management weaknesses as a challenge in 2001, and Education
received an unqualified audit opinion in early 2003. Moreover, the
current strategic plan includes goals and strategies meant to improve
Education's strategic human capital management and strengthen
information technology security, two important governmentwide high-
risk areas we identified in 2001.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

In our report on Education's 1997 draft strategic plan, we found that,
although the department had numerous crosscutting programs and
activities, the plan had identified key interagency activities for some
programs but not for others. For example, we said that the plan did not
identify or discuss activities for postsecondary programs for which the
Higher Education Act of 1965 required coordination. Education's current
plan includes an appendix, which highlights collaborative initiatives
under each of the department's strategic goals, with some activities
related to postsecondary education, including most of those mentioned
in our 1997 report. However, as the plan states, the appendix presents
a brief overview of the highlights of some of its collaborative
initiatives with other agencies.

In our 1997 review, we stated that some resource requirements were
described throughout the plan. In the current plan, while a number of
strategies under the department's strategic goal to establish
management excellence are related to aligning resources to achieve
outcomes, the actual resources required--such as human, capital, and
information--are not always specifically indicated. The exception is
for information resources, for which a number of strategies discuss the
information resources that will be required to address the related
goal. For example, under the goal to develop and maintain financial
integrity and management and internal controls, the plan says that
Education will "implement a new financial system capable of producing
timely and reliable financial data and reconcile systems to the general
ledger." Moreover, while the plan stresses accountability throughout,
it only refers to providing the authority needed to achieve results
once.[Footnote 75] In addition, consideration of alternate strategies
for achieving goals is not discussed.

In our 1997 review, we reported that Education said it would provide
detailed descriptions of supporting evaluations once it consulted with
Congress, completed the strategic plan, and agreed on performance
indicators. The draft plan indicated Education's commitment to using
evaluations and listed evaluations and strategies it intended to use to
develop sound measures, but did not describe the evaluations. The
current plan does not include descriptions of supporting evaluations or
a future program evaluation schedule. According to Education officials,
this was not done because, with the complete revamping of the strategic
plan based on passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,[Footnote
76] Education was set on a course to totally restructure its evaluation
program, but could not do so in time to include it in the strategic
plan. Consequently, Education instead included information about its
new directions for program evaluation studies and a schedule of
evaluations in its 2004 annual plan. The schedule, however, lacked a
timetable, except for stating whether the evaluations were new or
continuing. The current strategic plan indicates, in some cases, the
use or planned use of program evaluation findings to develop or revise
components of the plan. For example, for long-term goals on various
types of academic achievement, data from the National Assessment of
Educational Progress were identified as having been used to set related
targets.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOE's Strategic Plan:

Overall, DOE's draft 2003 strategic plan meets the required elements of
GPRA and has improved greatly over its 1997 draft strategic plan, as
shown in table 7. DOE made improvements to its plan by establishing
results-oriented and measurable objectives, and addressing elements
that were not included in the department's 1997 plan, such as reporting
on external factors. Although DOE has shown improvement, a few elements
in the plan could still be enhanced. For instance, further improvement
could be made to the mission statement so that it better addresses the
department's major activities, and additional information could be
included in DOE's strategies to achieve its goals, such as management
accountability.

Table 7: DOE's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Element of strategic planning: Mission statement;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. DOE's mission was
results oriented, met a public need, and covered the agency's major
activities;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. DOE's mission is results
oriented and meets a public need, but it does not address the
department's major activities related to energy supply and
conservation.

Element of strategic planning: Long-term goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Long-term goals covered
mission and major functions of the agency. Goals and objectives were
results oriented but not measurable;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. Long- term goals cover
the mission and major functions of the agency. Objectives, referred to
as intermediate goals, are results oriented and measurable.

Element of strategic planning: Strategies;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The plan included
strategies and measures to evaluate the results of the strategies, but
was missing information on linkages to day-to-day activities, and the
extent to which managers have the knowledge, skills, and abilities to
implement the strategies;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. Strategies to achieve
each goal are included in the plan, along with intermediate goals to
measure success, but information on linkages to day-to-day activities,
and the extent to which managers have the knowledge, skills, and
abilities to implement the strategies, is not included.

Element of strategic planning: Relationship between long-term goals and
annual goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. Relationship between the
long-term goals and annual performance goals was missing in the draft
plan;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. The draft plan provides
a brief description of the relationship between the long-term strategic
goals and the annual performance goals.

Element of strategic planning: External factors;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. Key external factors were
not addressed in the draft plan;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. Key external factors and
how they could affect the ability to achieve each goal are identified
in the draft plan.

Element of strategic planning: Evaluations;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. The impact of program
evaluations on the development of strategic goals was not included in
the draft plan;
Included in current draft strategic plan: No. The impact of program
evaluations on the development of strategic goals is not discussed
thoroughly.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-199R];

and Department of Energy, 2003 Strategic Plan; (Draft); (Washington,
D.C. 2003).

[End of table]

Strategic Plan Strengths and Improvements from Fiscal Year 1997 Plan:

In its 2003 draft strategic plan, DOE has made significant improvements
in developing measurable objectives, referred to in its plan as
intermediate goals. GAO's review of DOE's 1997 draft strategic plan
found that objectives related to DOE's long-term goals were stated in
ways that would make it difficult to measure whether they were being
achieved. In the 2003 draft plan, the objectives are stated in ways
that will enable DOE to measure its progress in achieving goals. For
example, to meet the goal of enhancing energy security through various
means, one of DOE's affiliated objectives is to ensure that throughout
DOE's 25-year planning period, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve is ready
to supply oil at a sustained rate of 4.3 million barrels per day for 90
days within 15 days notice by the President.

In addition, DOE has improved its draft 2003 strategic plan by
including elements that were not included in its 1997 draft plan. These
elements consisted of (1) identifying external factors and (2)
describing the relationship between long-term and annual goals. For
each of its long-term goals, DOE identified external factors, such as
reduced funding, lack of scientific talent, and unpredictable
technological developments, that could affect its ability to achieve
its goals. The strategic plan also included a description of the
relationship between the long-term strategic goals and the annual
performance goals. The plan included a diagram that showed an example
of a strategic goal, its associated objectives, and how they are
related to the annual performance goals and targets. However, the plan
could be improved if all annual performance goals were discussed in the
plan and linked to each strategic goal so that it would be clear how
annual performance goals would be used to gauge performance. DOE staff
stated that a description of all actual annual performance goals was
not something that they thought should be included in the strategic
plan because the annual goals differ each year.

Finally, our past and current reviews of DOE's 1997 and 2003 draft
strategic plans found that DOE addressed performance and accountability
challenges that we had previously identified. In January 2003, we
identified six areas where DOE's management attention was needed: (1)
addressing security concerns, (2) revitalizing infrastructure, (3)
improving contract management, (4) managing the nuclear weapons
stockpile, (5) cleaning up radioactive and hazardous wastes, and (6)
enhancing leadership in meeting energy needs. All areas were addressed
in the 2003 draft strategic plan, with the exception of improving
contract management. For example, for the challenge of enhancing
leadership in meeting energy needs, one of the intermediate goals
requires DOE to develop and demonstrate technologies that can reduce
emissions by more than 70 metric tons of carbon and equivalent
greenhouse gases by 2012.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

There are three elements in DOE's draft 2003 strategic plan that
requires further improvement. To begin with, although DOE's mission is
results oriented, it was revised from the 1997 draft strategic plan and
does not address the department's major activities related to energy
supply and conservation. These activities account for approximately 10
percent of DOE's $23.4 billion fiscal year 2004 budget request. Our
review of the 1997 draft strategic plan found that DOE's mission
addressed all of its major activities.

In addition, the impact of program evaluations on the development of
strategic goals could be discussed in greater detail. The strategic
plan stated that internal, GAO, and the Inspector General (IG)
evaluations were used as resources to develop the draft strategic plan,
but specific program evaluations were not identified. A schedule of
future program evaluations was also not discussed in the strategic
plan. According to DOE, there is no plan to include a table of reports
and evaluations that were used to develop the goals for the strategic
plan because the evaluations were from a prior administration, and when
the administration changes, it usually does not use evaluations from
past administrations.

DOE could also enhance the strategies included in its plan by providing
information on how goals are linked to the department's day-to-day
activities, and the extent to which managers have the knowledge,
skills, and abilities to implement the strategies. None of this
information was included in the 1997 and 2003 draft strategic plans.
According to DOE officials, in drafting the plan, their goal was to
keep the plan at a high level and this additional information would
require more detail than what is needed for a strategic plan. For
example, one official stated that a description of linkages to day-to-
day activities was not discussed in the strategic plan because it would
conflict with the performance plan and budget justification, which is
where the information can be found. As we have stated previously,
without this information, it is difficult to judge DOE's likelihood of
success in achieving the goals or the appropriateness of the
strategies.[Footnote 77]

Finally, DOE's draft strategic plan could be improved by identifying
programs and activities that are crosscutting or similar to those of
other agencies. In the 2003 draft plan, crosscutting activities are
only identified for one goal related to science. According to one DOE
official, as the strategic goals were being developed, DOE staff took
crosscutting activities into consideration. As we stated in 1997,
unless DOE addresses crosscutting issues in its plan, Congress cannot
be assured that federal programs are working effectively.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of HUD's Strategic Plan:

Overall, HUD has made progress in developing its strategic plan for
fiscal years 2003 through 2008 as required under GPRA. In 1997, we
stated that HUD's draft strategic plan did not cover the six components
required under GPRA.[Footnote 78] HUD's fiscal year 2003-2008 strategic
plan addressed several issues we had previously identified, such as
making sure the mission statement is linked to the department's major
operations and functions; including outcome-related goals and
objectives for the department's functions and operations; generally
providing a description of how it will achieve its goals and
objectives; identifying key external factors affecting the achievement
of departmental goals; and explaining how HUD will coordinate with
other agencies to address crosscutting issues. However, HUD could
improve its strategic plan by explaining the relationship between the
long-term and intermediate performance measures listed for each
strategic goal and discussing how it used program evaluations to
develop the plan. Table 8 summarizes these findings.

Table 8: HUD's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Element of strategic planning: Mission statement;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. HUD's mission statement
did not cover the major program functions and operations of the agency;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. HUD's mission statement covers
the agency's major program functions and operations and relevant
statutes.

Element of strategic planning: Long-term goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The plan included eight
strategic objectives, and they generally covered the department's major
functions and operations;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. The plan includes long-term
goals that cover the major programs and functions of the agency.

Element of strategic planning: Strategies;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. The strategic plan lacked
an adequate description of how its strategic objectives would be
achieved;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. The strategic plan discusses
the means and strategies to address each strategic goal, including
plans to address human capital issues critical to carrying out its
mission.

Element of strategic planning: Relationship between long-term goals and
annual goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. HUD's strategic plan
provided limited examples of annual performance goals under each of its
strategic objectives, but it did not describe the relationship between
them;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. However, some long-term
performance measures do not appear to have corresponding intermediate
measures, and in other instances it is not clear how HUD will measure
progress towards its goals.

Element of strategic planning: External factors;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. HUD briefly discussed the
external factors in its draft strategic plan without linking them to
specific strategic objectives;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. HUD describes the external
factors that could affect achieving its strategic objectives.

Element of strategic planning: Evaluations;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. HUD's strategic plan did
not include information on program evaluations;
Included in current strategic plan: No. HUD does not describe how
program evaluations were used to prepare its strategic plan. Although
it mentions that program evaluations will be used to advance key policy
objectives, it states that there are no fixed timetables for when these
evaluations will take place.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-224R];
and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Strategic Plan FY
2003-FY 2008.; (Washington, D.C. 2003).

[End of table]

Strategic Plan Strengths and Improvements from Fiscal Year 1997 Draft
Plan:

In its most recent strategic plan for fiscal years 2003-2008, HUD has
made progress in crafting a mission statement that generally covers its
major program functions, operations, and relevant statutes that
authorize its programs. In addition, the current plan builds upon the
strength of its first draft strategic plan by including the strategic
objectives that cover the department's major functions and operations.

In contrast to its draft strategic plan of 1997, HUD's most recent plan
provides a general description of how its strategic objectives will be
achieved. For example, HUD lists the means and strategies following
each strategic goal and supporting objectives to describe how it will
carry out its activities. In addition, the strategic plan identifies a
few legislative and regulatory changes HUD will pursue to meet its
objectives, such as a new tax credit for developers of affordable
housing and expanded eligibility for the Assisted Living Conversion
Program. To carry out its work, HUD acknowledges in its plan that it
needs to recruit and retain its current workforce to ensure the proper
skills and abilities needed to carry out its mission.

HUD's most recent strategic plan also describes key factors external to
the department and beyond its control that could significantly affect
the achievement of its objectives. For example, for its goal of
Promoting Decent and Affordable Housing, HUD identifies the impact of
broad economic factors on opportunities for low-income workers as a
factor that will affect the department's ability to assist renters that
depend on HUD's programs to make progress towards self sufficiency.
HUD's strategic plan also provides a general description of current
program evaluations and mentions that the results of these evaluations
will support key policy objectives within the department.

Addressing a shortcoming of its draft strategic plan in 1997, HUD's
current plan generally explains how it will coordinate with other
agencies to address crosscutting problems. For example, the Interagency
Council on the Homeless (ICH), created by the Secretaries of HUD, the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Veterans Affairs
(VA), will continue to work to identify the obstacles homeless people
face to enroll in the main service programs and recommend specific
changes--legislative, policy, and procedural--that would make federal
supportive service programs more accessible to them.

Lastly, HUD improved its discussion of how it plans to address
performance and accountability challenges we have raised. In January
2003, we reported that programmatic and financial management
information systems and human capital issues were HUD's performance and
accountability challenges.[Footnote 79] While in the past HUD
acknowledged some of these problems and described how they would be
addressed, its plans for management reform were not fully integrated
into its draft strategic plan. In contrast, one of HUD's strategic
goals in its current strategic plan, "Embrace High Standards of Ethics,
Management, and Accountability," lists specific actions the department
will take to address these challenges.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

HUD has made progress in linking its strategic objectives to both long-
term goals and intermediate measures in its strategic plan; however,
long-term performance measures are not consistently linked to a
corresponding intermediate measure, making it difficult for the reader
to understand how the department will measure progress towards its
strategic goals. For example, HUD projects that the percentage of
architects and builders indicating awareness of the design and
construction requirements of the Fair Housing Act will increase through
fiscal year 2008. However, HUD does not mention in the plan how many
architects or engineers it will survey to establish a baseline of
awareness or to gauge progress made towards this goal in subsequent
years. HUD officials explained that only those long-term goals that are
critical to being achieved within the next 1-2 years have corresponding
intermediate performance measures. Therefore, it is somewhat unclear
how HUD plans to assess progress made towards its broader goal of
"Ensure Equal Opportunity in Housing.":

Similarly, the strategic plan does not always provide a clear picture
of how HUD will be able to measure progress towards its strategic
goals. For example, the plan states that HUD's Community Development
Block Grants (CDBG) Program will create or retain 400,000 jobs by
fiscal year 2008; HUD's intermediate measure for fiscal year 2004 is
84,000 jobs. These estimates are based on the average jobs created per
grant dollar reported by grantees. However, HUD does not mention how it
will be able to discern between those jobs created by CDBG and those
created by other means.

Similar to our previous finding, HUD's current strategic plan does not
describe how program evaluations were used to develop its strategic
goals or other components of its strategic plan, and does not include a
schedule for future evaluations. While the plan mentions that program
evaluations will be used to advance key policy objectives, it states
that there are no fixed timetables for when these evaluations will take
place.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SBA's Strategic Plan:

In our review of SBA's March 1997 draft strategic plan,[Footnote 80] we
found that the plan did not meet two of the six requirements set forth
by GPRA: (1) a discussion of the relationship between the long-term
goals and objectives and the annual performance goals and (2) a
description of how program evaluations were used to establish or revise
strategic goals and a schedule for future program evaluations. In
addition, the four elements the plan contained could have better
conformed to GPRA's requirements and OMB guidance. In comparison, SBA's
2001-2006 strategic plan has improved on several areas we identified in
our 1997 review.[Footnote 81] However, we still found areas that SBA
could improve. Table 9 summarizes these findings.

Table 9: SBA's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Element of strategic planning: Mission statement;
Initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The mission statement was results
oriented. However, it did not directly incorporate key aspects of SBA's
legislative mandate and it did not encompass one of SBA's significant
activities;
Current strategic plan: Yes. SBA's mission statement now specifically
mentions its mandate and encompasses SBA's disaster loan program to
families and businesses.

Element of strategic planning: Long-term goals;
Initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Generally the strategic goals
covered the major functions and operations of SBA. Most of SBA's
strategic goals were expressed as processes, not as outcomes;
Current strategic plan: Yes. The strategic goals are outcome oriented
and cover the major functions and operations of SBA.

Element of strategic planning: Strategies;
Initial draft strategic plan: Yes. However, the strategies were too
vague or general to assess whether or not they would help achieve SBA's
goals. Also, the strategies and goals could have been linked more
explicitly;
Current strategic plan: Yes. The strategies will generally help SBA
achieve its goals. The strategies are now listed by strategic goal and
related objective. The plan discusses some of the resources SBA needs
to achieve its goals.

Element of strategic planning: Relationship between long-term goals and
annual goals;
Initial draft strategic plan: No. The linkage between proposed
performance measures, strategies, and objectives was unclear;
Current strategic plan: Yes. The plan lists performance measures by
objectives for each strategic goal. Logic models show the relationship
between measures and outcomes.

Element of strategic planning: External factors;
Initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The plan listed a number of external
factors. A discussion of how the external factors would be taken into
account when assessing progress toward goals was not included in the
plan;
Current strategic plan: Yes. The plan lists several external factors.
Generally, strategies to ameliorate the effects of these factors are
included. However, SBA does not discuss how external factors will be
taken into account when assessing progress toward goals.

Element of strategic planning: Evaluations;
Initial draft strategic plan: No. The plan did not describe how program
evaluations were used to establish or revise strategic goals or include
a schedule for future program evaluations;
Current strategic plan: No. The plan states that lessons learned from
SBA's program evaluations have influenced its strategic direction.
Examples of future program evaluations are given, but a specific
schedule of when these evaluations are to occur is not included.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-205R];
and Small Business Administration, SBA Strategic Plan, FY 2001-FY 2006;
(Washington, D.C. 2000).

[End of table]

Strategic Plan Strengths and Improvements from Fiscal Year 1997 Plan:

SBA's current mission statement is an improvement from the one
contained in its 1997 draft strategic plan. In our July 1997 report on
SBA's draft strategic plan, we noted that the mission statement could
be improved by more directly incorporating key aspects of SBA's
legislative mandate to aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests
of small businesses. In addition, the mission statement did not
encompass one of SBA's significant activities-making loans to
individuals. The mission statement in the 2001-2006 strategic plan now
includes both of these items.

The long-term, or strategic, goals of SBA's 2001-2006 strategic plan
are (1) helping small businesses succeed, (2) helping Americans recover
from disasters, and (3) modernizing SBA. These three strategic goals
are outcome oriented. We stated in our previous report on SBA's draft
strategic plan that only two of SBA's seven strategic goals described
outcomes. The rest of the goals were expressed as processes.

SBA's 2001-2006 strategic plan shows significant improvement in its
strategies. In 1997 we stated that the plan could be improved by making
the linkage between the strategies and goals/objectives more explicit.
Objectives were listed as a group, followed by the strategies, which
were also listed as a group. The 2001-2006 plan describes the
strategies, objective by objective, making the linkage clear. The
strategies contained in SBA's 1997 plan consisted entirely of one-line
statements and most were too vague or general to enable an assessment
of whether or not they would help achieve the goals and objectives in
the plan. While many of the strategies listed in SBA's 2001-2006 plan
are only one-or two-sentence statements, all of the strategies seem to
aid in achieving SBA's goals and objectives. For example, one strategy
for the objective of providing entrepreneurial development assistance
is to train SBA personnel in outreach and business development
approaches. This strategy would presumably aid in making staff more
competent at helping small businesses develop. The current plan also
includes some of the resources needed to achieve SBA's goals. These
resources include a table showing SBA's fiscal year 2001 budget request
and its plans to modernize its information technology systems.

The 2001-2006 strategic plan also makes a clearer connection between
strategic goals and annual performance measures that will be used to
gauge progress in achieving strategic goals. SBA shows this
relationship by linking its performance output measures with the
intended outcomes of SBA's programs for two of the strategic goals. For
the other strategic goal, "Modernizing SBA," SBA lists the performance
measures it will use by objective. For example, the performance measure
"personnel trained or retrained" will gauge progress in achieving SBA's
human capital investments objective. This shows improvement over the
draft strategic plan, which listed the performance measures as a group
without showing how they were related to SBA's strategic goals.

Similar to its 1997 draft plan, SBA's 2001-2006 plan specifies external
factors that could affect the achievement of its strategic goals. The
plan lists eight external factors associated with two of its three
strategic goals; no external factors were associated with the third
goal. The plan includes strategies that seem to be intended to mitigate
the effect of six of these external factors, while two of the external
factors, congressional support and public support, do not seem to be
addressed. An example of an external factor that seems to be addressed
by a strategy is economic conditions, listed for the strategic goal
"helping small businesses succeed." One of the strategies for this
strategic goal is to determine economic trends and conditions. SBA
states that it tracks economic trends that affect small businesses and
the contribution small businesses make to the economy. SBA then brings
these data to the attention of policymakers.

We noted in our 1997 report that SBA did not explicitly address the
relationship of SBA's activities to similar activities in other
agencies and provided no evidence of coordination. In contrast, SBA's
current strategic plan includes a section on crosscutting issues. This
section contains discussions of innovation and research assistance,
international trade assistance, business development assistance,
veterans affairs, and disaster assistance. One example of coordination
is the U.S. Export Assistance centers, which combine the trade-
promotion and export-finance resources of SBA, the Department of
Commerce, the Export-Import Bank, and in some locations, the Agency for
International Development and the Department of Agriculture.

Finally, SBA's 2001-2006 strategic plan generally addresses performance
and accountability challenges that we have previously identified. For
example, we noted in our January 2001 report on major management
challenges and program risks[Footnote 82] that SBA needed to continue
to improve oversight of its lending partners to correct oversight
weaknesses. The plan identifies lender oversight as a management
challenge and states that SBA has developed and implemented a safety
and soundness oversight program for Small Business Lending companies,
institutionalizing the process through the Office of Lender Oversight.
This is an improvement over SBA's draft strategic plan, which we
reported did not clearly address previously identified management
problems.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

In 1997, we noted that SBA's draft strategic plan did not include a
discussion of how the external factors would be taken into account when
assessing progress toward goals. This observation holds true for the
current strategic plan. For the external factor mentioned above,
economic conditions, the plan states that if the economy remains
strong, surety bond guaranties will remain constant or decrease, but if
the economy deteriorates, demand will increase. However, the plan does
not state how SBA will assess success or failure in meeting its goals
in relation to this factor.

In its 1997 draft plan, SBA did not describe how program evaluations
were used to establish or revise strategic goals or include a schedule
for future program evaluations. In the 2001-2006 plan, SBA states, "We
have used lessons learned in our performance monitoring and program
evaluations to influence the strategic direction contained in this
plan." The plan includes findings from six completed program
evaluations; however, no further detail is given as to how these
program evaluations were used to establish or revise the strategic
goals. While the current plan gives examples of future program
evaluations, such as conducting a benchmark study on the HUBZone
program to assess the changes in employment and investment in
distressed urban and rural communities, it does not include a schedule
of future evaluations. SBA states that for the next several years, the
agency plans to systematically review programs that offer the most
financial risk to the government and also the programs that can offer
tips on how to improve efforts.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SSA's Strategic Plan:

SSA's strategic plan for 2003-2008 is well structured and contains all
of the required elements under GPRA. In 1997, we noted that SSA's draft
strategic plan contained all six required components, but suggested a
number of ways it could be strengthened. SSA has addressed some of the
issues we previously identified, such as associating specific programs
with goals and identifying external factors that may affect goal
achievement. SSA could further improve its strategic plan through (1)
ensuring that its strategic objectives will assist SSA in achieving its
strategic goals, (2) explicitly describing the effect of external
factors on goal attainment, (3) providing timetables or schedules for
achieving results, (4) providing details on how each performance and
accountability challenge will be addressed, (5) clearly explaining how
program evaluations were used in formulating the strategic plan, and
(6) discussing the manner in which SSA has coordinated with other
agencies, especially those that serve the same beneficiaries. Table 10
summarizes SSA's progress in addressing the required elements of GPRA.

Table 10: SSA's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Element of strategic planning: Mission statement;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. SSA's mission statement
was appropriate and reflective of its new status as an independent
agency;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. SSA's mission statement has
not changed substantially.

Element of strategic planning: Long-term goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Long-term goals were
established. However, the relationship between long-term goals and
specific programs was unclear and did not identify the results to be
achieved;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. The goals' relationship to
specific programs is more defined, but SSA's goal for achieving
solvency of the social security system is ambitious, given SSA's
mission and responsibilities. Key outcomes are identified for each
goal. SSA's major management challenges are not all clearly linked to
individual goals or objectives.

Element of strategic planning: Strategies;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The strategic plan was
generally complete with regard to processes and technology, but did not
include timetables or schedules. Some of the success was predicated on
changes in processes or technology improvements;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. SSA added some timetables, but
the required resources are not specified. Some of the success is still
predicated on technological improvements.

Element of strategic planning: Relationship between long-term goals and
annual goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. SSA provided numerous
performance measures relating to strategic goals and objectives, and
plans for developing new measures were discussed. It was sometimes
difficult to link measures with their appropriate objectives. It was
also hard to discern which objectives did not yet have performance
goals. Some data were expressed by program, while other data were
aggregated;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. SSA provided one or more key
outcomes for each strategic objective. SSA notes that success in
meeting the objectives will be measured in the annual performance plans
by progress in achieving the key outcomes.

Element of strategic planning: External factors;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The report mentioned
several key external factors, but did not explicitly link factors to
general goals and state how they could have affected goal attainment.
Also, the report did not discuss needed changes (by Congress) to ensure
solvency;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. External (environmental)
factors are listed in a separate section. However, the plan does not
explicitly link factors to general goals and state how they could
affect goal attainment. Specific effects are not discussed--most
examples are vague.

Element of strategic planning: Evaluations;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. The report contained a
broad discussion of program evaluations, but the evaluations were not
clearly described. Also, SSA did not describe how the evaluations were
used to establish or revise specific goals/objectives. Finally, there
was no schedule for completing future evaluations or methodologies;
Included in current strategic plan: Yes. Future evaluations (with brief
descriptions) are listed, but there is no discussion of how current
evaluations are used to establish or revise specific goals/objectives.
The plan states that SSA used internal and external (GAO, IG)
evaluations to determine strategic plans and objectives.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-179R];
and Social Security Administration, Social Security Administration
Strategic Plan 2003-2008, (Washington, D.C. 2000).

[End of table]

Strategic Plan Strengths and Improvements from Fiscal Year 1997 Plan:

SSA's mission statement changed very little between 1997 and 2003. OMB
Circular A-11 notes that the mission statement should be brief and
define the basic purpose of the agency, with particular focus on its
core programs and activities. SSA's statement conforms to this
guidance--it reads, "To advance the economic security of the nation's
people through compassionate and vigilant leadership in shaping and
managing America's social security programs."[Footnote 83]

In 1997, the relationship between SSA's long-term goals and specific
programs was unclear and did not identify the specific results to be
achieved. Since that time, SSA has improved this linkage and better
articulated intended results, including quantifiable goals. For
example, as part of its strategic goal to ensure superior stewardship
of Social Security programs and resources, SSA notes that one of its
key outcomes is to increase Supplemental Security Income (SSI) payment
accuracy to 96 percent (free of preventable error) by 2008.

SSA improved upon its linkage between long-term goals and annual goals
in its fiscal year 2003-2008 strategic plan. Under each strategic goal
in this plan, SSA provided one or more key outcomes for each strategic
objective; in its 1997 draft strategic plan, we found it difficult to
link measures with the appropriate objectives and discern which
objectives did not yet have performance goals.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

Not all of SSA's strategic objectives and associated performance
measures will allow SSA to achieve its related strategic goals.
Specifically, the solvency goal in SSA's current strategic plan reads,
"To achieve sustainable solvency and ensure Social Security programs
meet the needs of current and future generations," but the sole
associated objective--through education and research efforts, support
reforms to ensure sustainable solvency and more responsive retirement
and disability programs--will not allow SSA, on its own, to reach that
goal. While SSA's mission is to advance the economic security of the
nation's people, it is not unilaterally responsible for achieving
solvency in social security programs.

An agency's strategic plan is expected to contain strategies for
achieving the goals articulated. In 1997, SSA's strategic plan was
generally complete with regard to processes and technology, but did not
include timetables or schedules for results. While the current
strategic plan contains processes, anticipated progress in technology,
and some timetables, it does not contain timetables or schedules for
all of the results. For example, as part of its strategic objective to
"efficiently manage Agency finances and assets and effectively link
resources to performance outcomes," SSA's key outcomes include (1)
competing or converting 50 percent of commercial positions and (2) to
"get to green" on all five President's Management Agenda (PMA) items.
SSA has neither identified the required resources to achieve these
goals nor has it identified a time frame for achieving them.

In our review of SSA's 1997 draft strategic plan, we noted that SSA
described several key external factors that may affect its programs,
but did not explicitly link such factors to its general goals and state
how these factors could affect goal attainment. In the current
strategic plan, SSA identifies environmental (external) factors:
demographics, health and disability trends, technological advances, and
workforce trends. However, as we found in our earlier review, the
effects of these factors on specific performance goals are not
specified, even though SSA notes that they drive the development of
such goals.

SSA noted that it considered major management challenges identified by
GAO when it determined its strategic goals and objectives, but not all
of these challenges are clearly addressed in the plan. While these
challenges are not clearly identified, SSA addresses them to some
degree throughout the plan. For example, SSA's strategic goal to
"Strategically manage and align staff to support SSA's mission"
addresses the governmentwide challenge of strategic human capital
management.[Footnote 84]

SSA includes a list of major strategic process and program evaluations
scheduled for the fiscal years 2003-2008 time period, organized by
strategic goal. However, SSA does not list ongoing evaluations or
mention how the results of these evaluations were used to prepare the
current strategic plan. SSA notes that many of the hundreds of process
and program evaluations conducted annually were designed to evaluate
and improve internal processes falling below the strategic level.
However, some of the ongoing evaluations are associated with specific
strategic goals; thus, their outcomes could be discussed in the context
of the strategic goals with which they are affiliated.

SSA's strategic plan contains a very limited discussion of its
interactions with other agencies that have similar goals or serve the
same beneficiaries. In an interview, SSA officials noted that SSA has
extensive interactions with other agencies on such issues as earnings
accuracy and medical information, but the level of interaction varies
by initiative. SSA's strategic plan would benefit from a broader
discussion of these interactions, especially if they were broken down
by initiative. For example, as part of the objective to increase the
accuracy of earnings records, SSA notes that it will collaborate with
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to achieve more accurate wage
reporting as part of its means and strategies to reduce the size of the
suspense file.[Footnote 85] It would be helpful if SSA offered more
details as to the nature and extent of its collaboration with IRS.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOT's Strategic Plan:

In our review of DOT's July 1997 draft strategic plan, we found that
the plan only met three of the six elements required by GPRA.[Footnote
86] The plan did not meet GPRA's requirements to describe (1)
strategies for achieving the goals, (2) a linkage between DOT's long-
term goals and annual performance goals, and (3) the external factors
that could significantly affect DOT's ability to achieve its goals.
Further, for the three elements that the plan did meet, each had
weaknesses. In comparison, DOT's 2003-2008 draft strategic plan has
improved on several areas we identified in our 1997 review.[Footnote
87] However, we still found areas where DOT could improve. Table 11
summarizes these findings.

Table 11: DOT's Progress in Addressing Required Elements of Strategic
Planning under GPRA:

Element of strategic planning: Mission statement;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. DOT's mission statement
was comprehensive and covers its major functions and operations;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. The mission statement
continues to cover its major functions and operations and more
explicitly states DOT's statutory authority.

Element of strategic planning: Long-term goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Five long-term goals
encompassed DOT's major functions and operations. However, it was not
clear as to how DOT would measure success for most of its goals;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. Five strategic
objectives encompass DOT's major functions and operations. Outcome
goals and candidate performance measures for each strategic goal help
show how DOT will measure success.

Element of strategic planning: Strategies;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. While the plan listed six
corporate management strategies for achieving its long-term goals, it
did not describe the operational processes, the skills, the technology,
and the resources required to meet them;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. Strategies are listed by
strategic objective and include discussions on leadership, building
expertise, and technology.

Element of strategic planning: Relationship between long term-goals and
annual goals;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. The plan did not describe
how performance goals would be related to the long- term goals;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. The plan includes
performance measures and refers to the performance plan for further
information on annual performance goals.

Element of strategic planning: External factors;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: No. Four external factors
were identified, but other key factors were not included in the plan.
Only one external factor was discussed in terms of how it could have
affected DOT's ability to accomplish its goals;
Included in current draft strategic plan: Yes. Several external factors
are listed for each strategic objective. Generally the plan gives
descriptions of how these factors could affect the achievement of
goals.

Element of strategic planning: Evaluations;
Included in initial draft strategic plan: Yes. Program evaluations used
in establishing goals and a schedule of future evaluations were
discussed. However, the plan did not provide enough information to
determine the scope and methodology or the key issues to be addressed
in future evaluations;
Included in current draft strategic plan: No. An extensive table
describes the scope and methodology and the completion date of program
evaluations for fiscal years 2003-2008. However, the plan does not
specifically mention which or how previous evaluations were used in
developing the plan.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-97-208R];
and U.S. Department of Transportation, U.S. Department of
Transportation Draft Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2003-2008;
(Washington, D.C. 2003).

[End of table]

Strategic Plan Strengths and Improvements from Fiscal Year 1997 Plan:

The mission statement contained in DOT's 2003-2008 draft strategic plan
is an improvement over the one contained in the 1997 draft plan. DOT's
mission, as stated in the 2003-2008 draft strategic plan, is "to
develop and administer policies and programs that contribute to
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the
lowest cost consistent with the national objectives of general welfare,
economic growth and stability, the security of the United States, and
the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the United
States." The mission statement covers the major functions and
operations of the department. In our July 1997 report on DOT's 1997
draft strategic plan, we noted that the mission statement could be
improved by including language from the department's enabling
legislation to focus the mission statement more directly on DOT's core
activities. We gave an example of adding the department's purpose to
develop transportation policies and programs that "contribute to
providing fast, safe, efficient, and convenient transportation at the
lowest cost" from DOT's enabling legislation. The mission statement in
the 2003-2008 plan includes such language.

As in its 1997 draft strategic plan, DOT's 2003-2008 draft strategic
plan meets the requirement of GPRA to include long-term goals and
objectives for the major functions and operations of the department.
The 2003-2008 draft strategic plan contains five strategic objectives
(long-term goals) that cover the major functions and activities of the
department and are results oriented. Besides the strategic objectives
of "safety," "mobility," "global connectivity," "environmental
stewardship" and "security," the current draft also contains an
"organizational excellence" objective to "advance the department's
ability to manage for results and achieve the goals of the PMA.":

Each strategic objective section in the 2003-2008 draft plan contains
strategies for attaining DOT's outcomes and objectives. The strategies
for each strategic objective are listed in the categories of
"leadership," "building expertise," and "technology." For example, a
"technology" strategy for the "mobility" strategic objective is to
"examine ways to encourage cargo movements by water through the
development of barge and fast vessel technologies to bring new capacity
to our intermodal transportation system." The plan states that this
strategy supports DOT's outcomes of reduced congestion in all modes of
transportation and increased reliability throughout the system. The
strategies for each strategic objective generally describe the
operational processes, the skills, and the technology required to meet
DOT's goals and objectives. The current draft strategic plan also
states that the resources and programs listed in DOT's annual
performance plans and budgets are necessary to achieve DOT's outcomes
and to execute the strategies. In contrast, the 1997 draft strategic
plan provided insufficient information to describe the operational
processes, the skills, the technology, and the resources required to
meet DOT's long-term goals, as required by GPRA.

Also, each strategic objective section in the current draft plan
contains crosswalks between outcomes in the strategic plan and
performance measures in the annual performance plans and reports. These
crosswalks show the measures that will be used to measure progress in
achieving most of DOT's outcomes and strategic objectives. For example,
the performance measure "number of passengers in international markets
with open skies aviation agreements" is related in a crosswalk to the
outcome "reduced barriers to trade in transportation goods and
services." Together, the measure and outcome will show progress toward
DOT's global connectivity strategic objective. This is an improvement
from DOT's 1997 draft strategic plan when we noted that although
supporting documents showed that DOT had developed information on how
to measure each outcome goal, this information was not included in the
draft.

In contrast to DOT's 1997 draft strategic plan, the 2003-2008 draft
plan lists several external factors for each strategic objective and
generally discusses how these factors could affect the department's
ability to achieve its outcomes and objectives. For example, one of the
external factors for DOT's environmental stewardship strategic
objective is that DOT faces a significant challenge to control and
minimize air, water, and noise pollution. The plan states that if DOT
cannot control and minimize this pollution, the department may
encounter a public backlash that may impede system improvement. For the
external factors relating to the safety and mobility strategic
objectives, the plan lists both positive and negative consequences the
factors could have on achieving goals. One example would be the
possible effects the expansion and integration of the
telecommunications and e-commerce industry sectors could have upon
transportation safety. The plan states that this could affect the
achievement of DOT's safety objective by leading to unsafe practices,
such as the use of cell phones and other personal devices while
driving. On the other hand, these technologies could also contribute to
safety by alerting responders to the location of crashes and vehicles
in distress. The 1997 draft plan identified four external factors and
only discussed how one of those factors could affect DOT's ability to
accomplish its goals.

The current draft strategic plan includes an extensive table listing
program evaluations to be completed during fiscal years 2003-2008. The
table includes the name of the program to be evaluated, which strategic
goal(s) the program supports, the scope and methodology of the
evaluation, and the fiscal year during which the evaluation will be
completed. DOT's 1997 draft strategic plan only listed the titles for
the evaluations scheduled for 1997 and 1998, which was insufficient to
determine the scope and methodology.

DOT's current draft plan lists crosscutting programs by strategic
objective. The discussions of crosscutting programs include the goal of
each program, which of DOT's outcomes each supports, and the agencies
involved. For example, the goal of aviation security is to prevent
explosives, weapons, and other dangerous items from being placed aboard
aircraft. This program supports DOT's security outcome of rapid
recovery of transportation in all modes from intentional harm and
natural disasters. DOT, through the Federal Aviation Administration,
leads this program, which involves the Transportation Security
Administration, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Customs Service,
and U.S. Postal Service, among others. Previously, the 1997 draft did
not provide evidence that DOT coordinated with other agencies that had
programs and activities that were crosscutting or similar to DOT's.

DOT's major management challenges, which we identified, are generally
discussed in the 2003-2008 draft strategic plan, organized by related
strategic objective. For example, we noted in our January 2003 report
that one major management challenge that DOT faces is building human
capital strategies.[Footnote 88] The current draft strategic plan
includes a discussion of human capital in DOT's organizational
excellence objective. A separate section of this discussion addresses
our concerns regarding human capital strategies and includes several
milestones to address these concerns. These milestones include
conducting workforce planning for mission-critical occupations in
fiscal year 2003, and implementing a departmentwide performance
management system beginning in fiscal year 2003, and a uniform branding
and marketing approach to attract, acquire, and retain diverse high-
quality talent. DOT's 1997 draft strategic plan did not adequately
address the major management challenges we had previously identified.

Critical Strategic Planning Issues Needing Further Improvement:

As stated above, the 2003-2008 plan provides a clear picture of how
success will be measured for most of DOT's strategic objectives and
outcomes. However, this clarity is not provided for a few strategic
objectives and outcomes. We noted the same issue in our review of DOT's
1997 draft strategic plan. For example, in the current plan three of
the outcome goals for the global connectivity strategic objective lack
corresponding performance measures. These outcomes are enhanced
international competitiveness of U.S. transport providers and
manufacturers, harmonized and standardized regulatory and facilitation
requirements, and the most competitive, cost-effective and efficient
environments for passenger travel. The plan states that the measures
are to be determined. However, without these measures it is unclear how
progress will be measured because the outcomes themselves do not lend
themselves to measurement.

While the current strategic plan shows improvement in the schedule for
future program evaluations, it does not sufficiently describe the
evaluations used in establishing or revising DOT's strategic
objectives. DOT states that detailed descriptions of completed program
evaluations are presented in its 2002 performance and accountability
report. Further, the plan states that DOT considered the results of
completed program evaluations, as well as reports from DOT's Inspector
General and GAO, in writing the strategies to achieve its strategic
objectives and outcomes. The plan does not describe which or how
program evaluations were used to write the strategies.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Observations on Agencies' Annual Performance Plans:

Under GPRA, agencies are to prepare annual performance plans after the
development of their strategic plans. These annual plans are to
establish the connections between the long-term strategic goals
outlined in the strategic plans and the day-to-day activities of
managers and staff. One of our objectives was to assess the changes in
the overall quality of agencies' goals, strategies, and data
articulated in their annual performance plans. To meet this objective,
we judgmentally selected six agencies--Education, DOE, HUD, SBA, SSA,
and DOT--using criteria such as agency size, primary program types, and
previous GAO reviews. To assess the overall quality and improvements
made to the agencies' performance plans, we relied on requirements
contained in GPRA and accompanying committee report language,[Footnote
89] guidance to agencies from the OMB for developing performance
plans,[Footnote 90] best practices identified in our published
work,[Footnote 91] previous GAO evaluations,[Footnote 92] interviews
with agency officials, and our knowledge of agencies' operations and
programs.

Key Elements of Information for Annual Performance Plans:

Although GPRA does not require a specific format for the performance
plan, it does require the plan to (1) identify annual performance goals
and measures for each of an agency's program activities, (2) discuss
the strategies and resources needed to achieve annual performance
goals, and (3) provide an explanation of the procedures the agency will
use to verify and validate its performance data. We categorized each
agency's plan based on the degree to which it collectively addressed
these three characterizations.

To assess the degree to which an agency's plan provides a clear picture
of intended performance across the agency, we examined whether it
included (1) sets of performance goals and measures that address
program results, (2) baseline and trend data for past performance, (3)
performance goals or strategies to resolve mission-critical management
problems, and (4) identification of crosscutting programs (i.e., those
programs that contribute to the same or similar results), common or
complementary performance goals and measures to show how differing
program strategies are mutually reinforcing, and planned coordination
strategies.

To assess the degree to which an agency's plan provides a specific
discussion of strategies and resources the agency will use to achieve
performance goals, we examined whether it included (1) budgetary
resources related to the achievement of performance goals, (2)
strategies and programs linked to specific performance goals and
descriptions of how the strategies and programs will contribute to the
achievement of those goals, (3) a brief description or reference to a
separate document of the human capital, information, and other
resources required to achieve results,[Footnote 93] and (4) strategies
to leverage or mitigate the effects of external factors on the
accomplishment of performance goals.

Finally, to assess the degree to which an agency provides confidence
that its performance information will be credible, we examined how each
report discussed the quality of the data presented. To help improve the
quality of agencies' performance data, Congress included a requirement
in the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000 that agencies assess the
completeness and reliability of their performance data. Under the Act,
agencies were to include this assessment in the transmittal letter with
their fiscal year 2000 performance reports. Agencies were also required
to discuss in their report any material inadequacies in the
completeness and reliability of their performance data and discuss
actions to address these inadequacies.

For each of these elements, we characterized each agency's fiscal year
1999 and fiscal year 2004 plan in one of four ways, based on the degree
to which the plan contained informative practices associated with that
element. Thus, to address the first element concerning the degree to
which the plan provided a clear picture of performance, we
characterized each plan in one of four ways: (1) clear, (2) general,
(3) limited, or (4) unclear. To address the second element, on the
extent to which a plan includes specific discussions of strategies and
resources, we characterized each plan as (1) containing specific
discussions of strategies and resources, (2) general discussions, (3)
limited discussions, or (4) no discussions. Finally, to address the
third element on the extent to which a plan provides confidence that
performance information will be credible, we characterized each plan as
providing (1) full confidence, (2) general confidence, (3) limited
confidence, or (4) no confidence. In conducting our reviews, we
compared our assessments of agencies' fiscal year 2004 plans to our
assessments of plans from fiscal year 1999 using similar
criteria.[Footnote 94] A more detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology and the criteria we used can be found in appendix I.

Table 12 summarizes our characterizations of the six agencies' annual
performance plans based on our current review of fiscal year 2004 plans
and our previously published reviews of 1999 plans. Although the
characterization of agency performance plans did not change
significantly between the 1999 and the 2004 plans, the majority of
agencies' plans showed some improvement.

Table 12: Characterizations of Agencies' Annual Performance Plans:

Agency: Department of Education;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Department of Energy;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 2004: Limited;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 1999: General;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 2004: Limited.

Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Small Business Administration;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Social Security Administration;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 2004: Clear;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 2004: General;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 1999: No;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 2004: General.

Agency: Department of Transportation;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 1999: General;
Characterizations: Picture of intended performance: (unclear, limited,
general, clear): 2004: Clear;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 1999: General;
Characterizations: Strategies and resources: (no discussions, limited,
general, specific): 2004: Specific;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 1999: Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited,
general, full): 2004: Full.

Sources:

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-172R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-194R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-159R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-180R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/RCED-98-200R];
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-178R];

Department of Education, FY 2004 Annual Performance Plan;
(Washington, D.C. 2003);

Department of Energy, Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year 2004;
(Washington, D.C. 2003);

Housing and Urban Development, Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year
2004; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

Small Business Administration, Budget Request & Performance Plan: FY
2004 Congressional Submission; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

Social Security Administration, Annual Performance Plan, Fiscal Year
2004; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

Department of Transportation, Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan;
(Washington, D.C. 2003).

[End of table]

The remainder of this appendix discusses our observations on how the
quality of each of the agencies' annual performance plans we reviewed
has changed since the agencies submitted their first performance plans
in 1999. We did not independently verify or assess the information we
obtained from agency annual performance plans. If an agency chose not
to discuss its efforts concerning elements in the plan, it does not
necessarily mean that the agency is not implementing those elements.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of Education's Annual
Performance Plan:

Education's fiscal year 2004 annual plan[Footnote 95] provides a
general picture of intended performance across the agency--an
improvement over the 1999 plan--because the measures and indicators
adequately indicate progress toward meeting annual targets; the
measures are objective, measurable, and quantifiable; and baseline and
trend data are included where available. However, the relationship
between the goals and measures in volume 2 and the long-term goals in
volume 1 is not clear and the plan does not make clear whether, and, if
so, how, all of the program activities in the department's budget are
covered by the annual performance goals.[Footnote 96] In another
improvement over the 1999 plan, volume 1 of the 2004 plan provides a
general discussion of Education's strategies and resources to achieve
its goals by presenting strategies and resources and the projected
distribution of fiscal year 2004 funding and staffing for each long-
term goal. The plan also adequately recognizes and discusses external
factors that could affect the department's performance. However, the
resources and many of the strategies are not directly linked to the
achievement of individual annual performance goals and no strategies or
resources are designated for the goals and measures in the program
performance plans in volume 2. Lastly, the 2004 plan provides general
confidence that agency performance information will be credible. The
2004 plan contains information on data sources for most of its
measures, and for some, identifies limitations. The plan also includes
an appendix entitled "Information Quality Guidelines" which recognizes
data quality as a major challenge for the agency and says that its
improvement is a top priority.

Education's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General
Picture of Intended Performance:

Education's 2004 annual plan generally defines expected performance.
Measures and indicators are formulated so as to adequately indicate
progress towards meeting annual targets, seem to sufficiently cover key
performance aspects, and adequately capture important program
distinctions. The plan contains about 360 measures between volumes 1
and 2, an improvement over the 860 contained in its 1999 plan, which we
judged to be potentially excessive for an annual performance plan and
possibly interfering with Education's ability to assess its
performance. Unlike in our review of the department's 1999 annual plan,
the measures and indicators in the 2004 plan are objective, measurable,
and quantifiable. For example, most measures and indicators are set up
to measure percentages, cost, counts, or other numerical values with
measurable, quantifiable 2004 targets. In most cases where a measurable
target is not given, the plan provides a reasonable explanation, such
as a new program or the measure being new, or a case where data are not
collected or available each year. In most cases, the plan provides
trend data for measures, which provides a helpful context for assessing
the relevance of the 2004 targets, or an explanation of why such data
were not provided (e.g., the baseline has not yet been established
because the measure and/or program are new).

In our review of Education's 1999 annual plan, we said that greater
outcome measure use would make future annual plans more useful. The
2004 plan frequently includes outcome goals and measures, such as a
measure for the number of states meeting their eighth-grade mathematics
achievement targets under the long-term goal to improve mathematics and
science achievement for all students.

Volume 1 of Education's 2004 annual plan directly aligns strategies,
action steps, measures, and targets with each of Education's long-term
goals and six strategic goals,[Footnote 97] containing the same
strategic goals, long-term goals, and mission as the 2002-2007
strategic plan. In our review of the 1999 plan, we also found that the
plan had performance goals in volume 1 that were directly linked to its
mission, strategic goals, and objectives. However, the relationship
between the goals and measures in volume 2 and the long-term goals in
volume 1 was not made clear in the department's 2004 annual plan, which
was similar to what we found in our review of Education's 1999 plan--
that the department could more directly link the goals and measures in
volume 2 with the strategic objectives (long-term goals). Education's
fiscal year 2002 Performance and Accountability Report includes a table
making it clear that these programs and their goals and measures are
aligned across Education's strategic and long-term goals. By including
such a table in its annual performance plan, Education could clearly
show the link between the goals and measures in volume 2 and the long-
term goals in volume 1.

Although volume 2 of the 2004 annual plan states that it contains
individual program performance plans for all major programs and many
smaller programs, the annual plan does not make clear whether, and, if
so, how all of the program activities in the department's budget are
covered by performance goals. In contrast, we found that the 1999 plan
provided sufficient information to determine which performance goals
and measures in volume 2 covered which program activities in the budget
and whether all were covered. For example, the 1999 plan contained
tables indicating the funding levels for the program activities in the
department's budget and how those activities related to the programs in
volume 2.

In our review of Education's 1999 annual plan, we gave the agency
credit for addressing the need to coordinate with other federal
agencies having related strategic goals or performance goals. However,
we further noted that Education could build on its foundation by
identifying performance goals that reflect activities being undertaken
to support programs of a crosscutting nature and specifying the
activities each agency would undertake and what it expects to achieve
within the fiscal year. While selected action steps in the 2004 plan
refer to instances where the department will coordinate or cooperate
with other federal agencies, the plan does not include steps or goals
for most crosscutting issues identified in Education's strategic plan.
For example, for a crosscutting issue identified in the strategic plan
on safe and drug-free schools and communities, Education said it
partners with the Departments of Justice (Justice) and HHS to promote
drug and alcohol education programs and to disseminate information to
schools and private organizations. The department also coordinates
closely with the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and works
closely with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
Programs to share innovative ideas and promote prevention strategies
and programs. The relevant annual plan sections in both volumes 1 and 2
do not identify goals or action steps related to these interactions.
Additionally, according to our report on Education's June 1997 draft
strategic plan,[Footnote 98] the department has numerous crosscutting
programs and activities, such as those related to early childhood and
employment training, and the 2004 annual plan does not address them
all.

Education's 2004 annual plan discusses applicable goals, measures, and
strategies for two governmentwide major management challenges regarding
strategic human capital management and information security, as well as
three of the four major management challenges we identified for
Education in our January 2001 Performance and Accountability
Series.[Footnote 99] For example, for its student financial assistance
programs, the department has developed performance targets for fiscal
year 2004 related to being removed from our high-risk list, increasing
the default recovery rate, and decreasing grant overpayments to
students. Also, a key strategy under its goal to improve the strategic
management of the department's human capital is to develop a 5-year
human capital plan, including developing a recruitment plan and
relevant training programs. For the fourth of Education's major
management challenges--promoting coordination with other federal
agencies and school districts to help build a solid foundation of
learning for all children--the 2004 plan did not include specific goals
or measures, but it did discuss some related strategies and steps, such
as using partnerships with other federal programs to promote
development of intervention strategies and methods to address the high
incidence of learning disabilities and illiteracy among adolescents
attending high schools.

Education's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General
Discussion of Strategies and Resources:

In our review of Education's 1999 annual plan, we found that the plan
had a limited discussion of how the department's strategies and
resources would help achieve its annual performance goals. The 2004
plan includes strategies and resources under each of its long-term
goals to be used to achieve its annual performance goals in volume 1,
including the projected distribution of fiscal year 2004 funding and
staffing, in both dollars and full-time-employees (FTE), for each long-
term goal, under which the annual performance goals are organized.
However, the resources and many of the strategies are not directly
linked to the achievement of individual annual performance goals and no
strategies or resources are designated for the goals and measures in
the program performance plans in volume 2. Overall, the plan does not
discuss how resources were allocated to each goal, a rationale for how
the resources will contribute to improving performance, or the
relationship of capital asset investments, including those for
information technology (IT), to the achievement of specific goals.
However, the plan does include a performance measure and goal for the
cost and schedule of IT investments and a strategy for completing the
department's enterprise architecture, which is to be used to guide IT
capital decisions. In addition, the department has a plan for human
capital management and a new performance appraisal system that is meant
to link employee performance standards to the department's strategic
priorities, but neither had been fully implemented.

In our review of the 1999 plan, we said that external factors that
could affect performance were not discussed and that such factors are
important for a department like Education because much of what it hopes
to achieve depends on others and external events. In its 2004 plan,
Education clearly acknowledges that improving support for its state,
local, and institutional partners, who have the direct ability to
influence outcomes the department seeks, is a major challenge. The plan
contains numerous activities to handle this challenge, including, for
example, to provide support and technical assistance, improve grant
monitoring, and fund an annual survey of states' efforts. Moreover,
although not labeled as addressing external factors, the plan has
specifically related strategies and/or action steps for most external
factors identified in Education's 2002-2007 strategic plan.

Education's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides General
Confidence That Performance Data Will Be Credible:

In our review of Education's 1999 annual plan, we found that it did not
provide sufficient confidence that its performance information would be
credible. For example, the 1999 plan did not sufficiently recognize
limitations in Education's data for its elementary and secondary
education programs. In comparison, Education's 2004 plan recognizes
limitations in Education's data for many of its elementary and
secondary education programs, as well as for other programs. In many of
these cases, the plan also discusses plans to address these
limitations. Also, the plan includes an appendix containing an
abbreviated form of its "Information Quality Guidelines" and a sample
checklist for statistical data from its complete guidelines. The
appendix recognizes data quality as a major challenge to the
department's successful implementation of GPRA and says that the
improvement of data quality is a top priority. The checklist includes
several steps related to the verification and validation of data, such
as evaluating data quality, including known limitations; addressing the
reliability of data sources; and ensuring reproducibility of findings
using the same data and methods of analysis. In addition, the plan
usually identifies the sources of data and, although not in volume 1,
includes a column on sources and data quality for each measure in
volume 2, usually with an item entitled "Validated By" and, in some
cases, "Limitations." In the end, the lack of direct control over the
implementation of its programs, including the collection of data, is a
significant data quality challenge that Education must face.

The 2004 annual plan also contains several action steps on new or
changing information systems that relate to improving the collection of
information for measuring performance. For example, under its strategy
to reduce Education's partners' data reporting burden, the plan
includes an action step to develop and implement the Performance-Based
Data Management Initiative collection system. This step is directly
related to the plan's measure to reduce the burden hours of Education
program data collections per year.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOE's Annual Performance
Plan:

Compared to the fiscal year 1999 plan we reviewed, DOE's fiscal year
2004 performance plan continued to provide a limited picture of
intended performance. Although the plan included more results-oriented
annual performance measures, it still provided a limited linkage
between its reported annual goals and its mission, strategic plan
goals, and program activities within its budget request. Furthermore,
the 2004 plan provided a general discussion of strategies and
resources, similar to our 1999 findings. Finally, the 2004 plan
provided a limited level of confidence that data will be credible by
making little progress in reporting on the procedures it uses to ensure
data quality or identifying significant data limitations, which is
consistent with our 1999 findings.

DOE's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a Limited Picture of
Intended Performance:

While DOE has improved its development of annual performance measures-
-referred to as targets--by making them more results oriented, the
overall picture of performance is limited by the lack of alignment
between its annual and strategic goals and minimal discussion of
coordination with other agencies. Our review of DOE's 1999 plan found
that many measures were unclear, appeared limited in scope, or were not
very useful indicators of performance. We found these problems in the
performance plans for subsequent years as well. For the 2004 plan,
however, the majority of the performance measures related to each goal
were results oriented and pertained specifically to the performance of
fiscal year 2004. An example of one measure requires DOE to train 4,000
federal employees by the end of fiscal year 2004 in energy management
best practices that support National Energy Policy education goals.

DOE provided a limited link between its reported annual goals and its
mission, strategic plan goals, and program activities within its budget
request. While the 2004 annual performance plan goals address all of
the major program activities in DOE's budget, the goals and mission of
the 2004 plan do not align with the mission and goals for the 2003
draft strategic plan. This represents a set back because in our review
of DOE's 1999 annual performance plan, we found that DOE clearly linked
its annual goals to the agency's mission, strategic plan goals, and its
program activities within its budget request. DOE officials told us the
lack of linkage between the performance plan and the strategic plan was
a matter of timing. According to these officials, the department
originally updated its strategic plan at the same time as the annual
performance plan, which was finalized in the early months of 2003, and
the goals of each plan coincided, but the draft strategic plan goals
were revised in the latter part of the year and no longer align with
the 2004 performance plan.

DOE's ability to show coordination with other agencies is also limited.
In 1999, we reported that DOE did not adequately show that it
coordinated with other agencies that have related strategic or
performance goals. DOE's 1999 plan contained very little evidence of
specific goals and measures that addressed crosscutting programs and
only briefly described coordination with other agencies. The 2004 plan
does not specifically describe how coordination is taking place among
crosscutting programs, but does identify groups that it is
collaborating with on certain programs. In response, DOE officials told
us the plan does not discuss what specific collaboration activities are
taking place because it would require reporting too much detail for a
performance plan. DOE officials stated that it collaborates at the
program level, rather than the agency level, because the program plans
pertain to an organizational layer lower than the annual performance
plan.

Finally, the plan briefly mentions that the department has been
identifying challenges and working on ways to address them. According
to DOE officials, when developing annual targets for the department,
management challenges are considered but not mentioned specifically in
the report. Our review of management challenges in 2002 found that DOE
had addressed all eight of its challenges in its 2003 annual
performance plan.[Footnote 100] In comparing these challenges to the
2004 plan, we found that DOE continues to have goals that address the
eight challenges we identified in 2002 and the additional challenges
that we identified in our 2003 performance and accountability
report.[Footnote 101]

DOE's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General Discussion
of Strategies and Resources:

DOE provided a general discussion of the strategies and resources that
it will use to achieve its annual performance goals. DOE's 1999 plan
partially provided clear and reasonable strategies for achieving
performance goals, how strategies would contribute to achieving the
performance goals, and key external factors that might affect
performance. For each of the 2004 annual performance goals, DOE
included a "Means and Strategies" section in the plan that described
how each goal will be achieved. For example, one strategy identified to
meet its goal of contributing unique, vital facilities to the
biological and environmental sciences is to conduct peer reviews of the
facilities to assess the scientific output, user satisfaction, and the
overall cost-effectiveness of each facility's operations, and their
ability to deliver the most advanced scientific capability. The 2004
plan includes a brief discussion of the department's overall needs,
particularly in the areas of human capital, financial, and logistical
resources. The plan also identified budget amounts for each of its
goals. DOE's 1999 plan partially identified the resources needed to
accomplish annual performance goals.

The plan also provided a general discussion of the external factors
that could affect achievement of the goals, but it did not specifically
discuss actions on how the external factors will be addressed. For
example, the plan states that external factors related to DOE's goal of
achieving reliable, affordable, and environmentally sound energy
supplies, such as renewable fuels, include program funding, the state
of the economy, the availability of conventional supplies, the cost of
competing technologies, and the continuation of federal tax incentives
and other national-level policies.

DOE's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides Limited Confidence
That Performance Data Will Be Credible:

DOE has made limited progress on reporting the procedures it uses to
ensure data quality. Its 1999 plan described how DOE would ensure that
its performance information is sufficiently complete, accurate, and
consistent, but did not discuss in detail DOE procedures on how to help
ensure the quality of data or the process of collecting the data. The
plan also did not identify significant data limitations and how they
may affect DOE's ability to achieve performance goals. However, the
2004 plan showed some improvement over the 1999 plan by describing
credible procedures to verify and validate performance information and
specific program evaluations are mentioned for each goal. The plan also
discusses that DOE acquired new commercial software for performance
tracking through remote data entry, monitoring, and oversight by
program offices and managers. The 2004 plan only identifies data
limitations and any new or modified systems very briefly for a few
relevant goals. According to DOE officials, with a few exceptions, its
plans do not discuss data limitations because DOE writes goals that are
not affected by data limitations. The goals are written to ensure that
the data will be there to meet performance targets. However, our 2003
performance and accountability series identified several DOE management
challenges where data quality was a concern, such as further upgrades
needed for cyber security to ensure adequate protection of data and
information systems and additional information on the results of
contractors' performance to keep projects on schedule and within
budget.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of HUD's Annual Performance
Plan:

HUD's annual performance plan for fiscal year 2004 improves upon areas
where we previously reported shortcomings and generally meets the
criteria set forth in GPRA. HUD's 2004 plan provides a general picture
of intended performance by covering all the programs contained in HUD's
budget and linking program activities to strategic goals and
objectives. The plan also improved by providing specific information on
HUD's strategies and activities along with performance measures it will
use to assess progress toward its goals and discussing relevant
external factors that could affect the attainment of certain program
objectives. HUD also provides greater confidence that performance data
will be credible by thoroughly discussing the data it will use for
measuring progress toward its goals. Nevertheless, the plan could be
further enhanced if it included more specific information on how funds
will be allocated to achieve program objectives, explain how HUD will
contribute to crosscutting efforts along with other agencies, and what
steps it will take to mitigate the impact of external factors on its
programmatic objectives.

HUD's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General Picture of
Intended Performance:

Since our review of HUD's annual performance plan for fiscal year
1999,[Footnote 102] HUD has made progress in developing an annual
performance plan that generally reflects the department's mission and
provides a general picture of intended performance. HUD's most recent
performance plan covers the program activities contained in its budget,
and generally links program activities to strategic goals and
objectives, key items missing from its plan for fiscal year 1999. HUD
has also improved the quality of its performance plan by including
performance measures that generally indicate how the department will
gauge progress toward achieving its goals. For example, the performance
plan lists a series of performance measures for each objective that can
be used to indicate progress towards the department's goals and
expected performance. These measures are also objective and a number of
them have been quantified, another key area where HUD has improved
since its first performance plan. For example, activities supporting
HUD's long-term strategic objective to "Improve the Physical Quality
and Management Accountability of Public and Assisted Housing" include,
among other things, eliminating 100,000 units of the worst public
housing. According to the current plan, the department intends to
demolish 10,000 of these units in fiscal year 2004.

While HUD's most recent annual performance plan generally identifies
other agencies it will coordinate with to address crosscutting efforts,
it does not discuss how it plans to work with these agencies to address
these crosscutting activities. For example, the plan states that the
Interagency Working Group on Limited English Proficiency will ensure
that persons with limited English proficiency will have meaningful
access to funded and federally conducted programs and activities.
However, the plan does not discuss what HUD's contribution to this
multiagency effort will be, what strategies it will employ, or how it
will measure progress toward achieving the strategies of this
multiagency effort.

HUD's current performance plan is an improvement compared to its fiscal
year 1999 plan as it describes steps HUD will take to address major
management challenges. One of HUD's strategic goals, "Embrace High
Standards of Ethics, Management, and Accountability," identifies five
objectives that cover management challenges, some of which have been
raised by GAO and the HUD IG. These objectives discuss plans to rebuild
HUD's human capital and diversify its workforce; improve HUD's
management, internal controls, and resolve audit issues; improve
accountability, service delivery, and customer service; ensure program
compliance; and improve internal communication and employee
involvement.

HUD's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General Discussion
of Strategies and Resources:

HUD's most recent performance plan also improves upon earlier plans we
reviewed in providing readers an idea of the strategies that HUD will
employ to carry out its goals. Each strategic goal in the annual
performance plan contains a section titled "Means and Strategies,"
which describes activities HUD will pursue to support that goal. For
example, to support its goal of "Increasing Homeownership
Opportunities," HUD will fund low-income homeowner assistance programs
to provide approximately 40,000 families with down payments and closing
costs on their homes, 473,199 families with home purchase and
homeownership counseling, and about 232,370 families with rental
counseling.

HUD's performance plan also discusses the strategies it will employ to
address the department's human capital issues, such as the upcoming
potential wave of employees planning to retire and the need to equip
staff with the desired knowledge and skills. For example, HUD completed
a staff resource estimation and allocation system in 2002, and it will
conduct a comprehensive workforce analysis in 2004 to serve as the
basis to fill mission-critical skill gaps through succession planning,
hiring, and training initiatives in its Five-Year Human Capital
Management Strategy.

Although HUD has made progress in linking its resources to strategies,
it could improve the discussion by linking funding allocations to
specific performance goals, thus making the plan more informative. The
plan discusses budget and staff allocations for programs supporting
each strategic goal. For instance, portions of HUD's Community
Development Block Grants Fund and Home Investment Partnership Program,
with a combined budget authority for fiscal year 2004 of more than $2.5
billion and staff of 203, support the strategic goal of promoting
"Decent Affordable Housing." However, it is unclear what resources will
be used to pursue specific performance targets for each program.
Additionally, HUD does not mention in its plan how IT and capital
resources will be used to support its programs.

Anticipating that some aspects of the department's strategic goals are
intertwined with broader phenomena, the performance plan also discusses
several external factors relevant to each strategic goal that could
affect HUD's ability to meet its objectives. For example, for its
strategic goal "Promote Decent and Affordable Housing," HUD states that
broad economic factors can affect opportunities for low-income workers
relying on the department for rent assistance to make progress towards
self-sufficiency. However, it is unclear from the performance plan what
actions, if any, HUD has put in place to mitigate the effect of these
external factors.

HUD's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides General Confidence
That Performance Data Will Be Credible:

HUD has also made significant progress in providing assurance that the
department will be able to use credible data to gauge progress towards
achieving its goals. HUD identifies the steps it (or others) will take
to verify and validate the performance data to ensure that what is
reported on HUD's performance will be credible. For example, for its
objective "Increasing Minority Homeownership," HUD will rely on, among
other indicators, the rate of minority homeownership from the Current
Population Survey conducted monthly by the U.S. Census Bureau. HUD will
not verify the data because the Bureau performs that task.
Additionally, HUD also includes in its most recent performance plan a
discussion of the inherent limitations of the data it will use and
generally discusses steps it will take to improve the measure,
providing the reader with a clearer expectation of what HUD will be
able to report.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SBA's Annual Performance
Plan:

SBA's 2004 performance plan shows progress made over the agency's 1999
performance plan. In contrast to our review of SBA's 1999
plan,[Footnote 103] the 2004 plan provides a general picture of
intended performance by discussing coordination between SBA and other
federal agencies on crosscutting activities. Resource analysis sections
throughout the plan provide a general discussion of how SBA has
previously used its resources to achieve its goals and how it intends
to use future resources for the same purposes. The 2004 plan also
provides general confidence that SBA's performance data will be
credible by including more detail on how SBA verifies and validates its
data, as well as by identifying data limitations. However, several
areas of the plan could be improved, such as clearly linking SBA's
performance indicators, performance goals, and programs.

SBA's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General Picture of
Intended Performance:

SBA's fiscal year 2004 performance plan provides a general picture of
intended performance. The performance goals and performance indicators
in the plan are generally objective, measurable, and quantified.
Performance indicators are listed throughout the plan by related
programs and strategic programmatic goals. Performance goals and
outcome goals are listed for each strategic programmatic goal. In our
review of SBA's fiscal year 1999 performance plan, we noted that SBA's
performance goals were objective and measurable, its performance
measures were generally objective and quantified, and that the
performance goals in the plan were clearly linked to SBA's strategic
goals and objectives.

Like the performance measures contained in its 1999 plan, the 2004
plan's performance indicators will be useful in assessing progress
towards SBA's performance goals. For example, the performance indicator
"Regulatory Cost Savings to Small Business" will adequately show
progress for the corresponding performance goal "Cost savings for small
business due to the efforts of the Office of Advocacy." In this
example, the performance indicator, which is listed under the Advocacy
Program, can be linked to a performance goal because of a crosswalk
that relates outcome goals, performance goals, and programs. However,
there is not always such a clear link between all of SBA's performance
indicators and performance goals because indicators are listed by
program instead of by performance goal. The BusinessLaw.gov program is
linked to three performance goals: "number of users of
BusinessLaw.gov," "reduced cost to businesses and regulatory agencies,"
and "increased rate of compliance." While the first two performance
goals appear related to the first two indicators listed in the
BusinessLaw.gov program section, there is no clear relationship between
any of the other performance indicators for this program and the third
performance goal, "increased rate of compliance.":

SBA's 2004 performance plan contains annual performance goals that
generally cover the agency's budget activities. The 2004 performance
plan contains a budget crosswalk that "shows how the goals relate to
specific and general program areas." This is an improvement over the
1999 plan, which we noted contained a budget crosswalk, but the
categories in it did not match SBA's budget accounts or activities by
name or account number. However, the performance plan does not seem to
cover all of SBA's programs. Three "advocacy" programs listed in the
crosswalk do not seem to be contained in the plan: Business.gov,
Disability Initiative, and National Women's Business Council.

Each strategic programmatic goal section in the 2004 plan contains a
discussion of crosscutting issues. Several examples of coordination
efforts are given, such as SBA working with the Department of Defense
to integrate the PRO-Net system with the Central Contractor Registry
and SBA partnering with the Federal Acquisition Institute to develop
on-line training courses for small business programs. In contrast,
SBA's 1999 performance plan provided little information on SBA's
coordination efforts with other entities whose programs and activities
crosscut those of SBA.

SBA's 2004 performance plan generally addresses performance and
accountability challenges we have previously identified. For example,
we have previously stated that SBA needs to strengthen its performance
in human capital management. The 2004 plan includes outcome goals,
performance goals, and programs to address SBA's strategic management
of human capital in a section on the PMA.

SBA's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General Discussion
of Strategies and Resources:

The 2004 performance plan provides a general discussion of the
strategies and resources SBA will use to achieve its goals. Each
strategic programmatic goal and each of the goals for the PMA contains
a discussion of the strategies for accomplishing the goals. These
discussions provide a broad overview of the strategies used at the
strategic programmatic goal level. For example, the plan includes a
strategy for SBA's strategic management of human capital. The strategy
lays out SBA's Transformation and Human Capital plans, which will be
used to implement a new vision of SBA. In its 1999 performance plan,
SBA discussed strategies for most of its performance goals, although
for some of the goals the strategies were missing.

Each strategic programmatic goal and several of the PMA goals contain
brief discussions of external factors that could affect the achievement
of SBA's goals. These discussions include actions to address external
factors, such as working with an Interagency Acquisition Working Group
under the Procurement Executives Council to develop supplemental
performance measures to better evaluate the success of its programs. In
1998, we noted that SBA's 1999 plan recognized certain external factors
and contained a discussion of actions SBA could take to mitigate the
effects of such factors for one of its strategic goals. We stated that
it would be useful for SBA to include a similar discussion of external
factors and mitigation strategies for its other strategic goals.

Each program listed throughout the plan has a resource analysis section
that describes how resources were used in fiscal year 2002. Some of
these analyses also include planned resources for fiscal year 2004. For
example, the resource analysis section for the Small Business
Development Centers (SBDC) program states that for fiscal year 2004 SBA
requested approximately the same level of funding as in fiscal year
2002. In 2002, 85 percent of the funds were for grants, while the other
15 percent covered field support, program management, and overhead
costs such as rent, legal services, human resources, and information
technology support. Some of the resource analyses also contained pie
charts of the breakdown of costs. This is an improvement over SBA's
1999 performance plan, which we found did not specifically identify the
human or technological resources that SBA would need to achieve its
performance goals.

SBA's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides General Confidence
That Performance Data Will Be Credible:

SBA's 2004 performance plan provides general confidence that its
performance data will be credible. An appendix of the performance plan
contains verification and validation information, as well as data
limitations and remedies for these limitations for most of SBA's
performance indicators. However, the appendix does not include this
information for the performance indicators of the disaster loan
program, nor are any of the PMA performance indicators discussed in the
appendix.

Generally, the discussions of SBA's verification and validation
processes for its indicators in the 2004 plan are one-or two-sentence
statements. For one of the indicators, "number of jobs created and
retained by the 7(a) loan program," SBA states that it does not have
access to the data for verification purposes. SBA also notes that it
does not independently verify some of the external data it gathers, as
is stated in the verification discussion of the indicator, "504 loans
to emerging market firms." This is an improvement over SBA's 1999
performance plan, which included brief descriptions, often only one or
two words, on the means it used to verify and validate its data. We
noted in our report on the 1999 plan that these appeared to be sources
of data for the measures rather than means to verify and validate the
data.

The data limitations contained in SBA's 2004 performance plan are
generally one-sentence statements and the same limitations are used for
multiple indicators. For example, several limitations, such as "the
measure is based on the number of approved loans" or "information is
derived from loan approval data," are used for multiple indicators. The
appendix also lists remedies for the data limitations for each
indicator. For example, a limitation of SBA's indicator "small business
appointments conducted with procurement officials" is that the
indicator may not capture unscheduled appointments. The remedy for this
limitation is to keep track of both scheduled and unscheduled
appointments. The discussion of data limitations and their remedies in
the 2004 plan shows progress over SBA's 1999 plan, which did not
contain a discussion of data limitations.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of SSA's Annual Performance
Plan:

Compared to the fiscal year 1999 plan we reviewed, SSA's performance
plan provided a clear picture of intended performance by (1) defining
expected performance, (2) offering trend data, which helps track
progress toward performance goals, and (3) using objective, measurable,
and quantifiable performance measures. SSA also provided general
information on its strategies and resources, somewhat better than our
1999 findings. Finally, the plan provided a general level of confidence
that data will be credible by describing the Inspector General's (IG)
involvement in data testing, providing data sources and definitions,
and identifying some data weaknesses, an improvement over the 1999
plan. However, SSA's performance plan still does not fully discuss the
agency's coordination with other agencies, identify performance goals
that clearly cover all the program activities, address how SSA plans to
use the information from the evaluations to improve program results,
identify the resources needed to address each performance goal, and
discuss data verification and validation procedures for its internal
systems.

SSA's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a Clear Picture of
Intended Performance:

Overall, SSA's fiscal year 2004 performance plan has improved over its
1999 plan.[Footnote 104] The 1999 plan only provided a partial picture
of SSA's intended performance across the agency. In June 1998, we
reported that SSA's 1999 Annual Performance Plan contained performance
goals, many of which were measurable and linked to the agency's
strategic goals[Footnote 105] and objectives; some of the performance
goals related to particular strategic goals were objective, measurable,
and quantifiable. However, other goals were not measurable or
quantifiable and did not define the level of performance to be
achieved, thus making it difficult to see how SSA would assess success.

SSA's fiscal year 2004 plan provides a much clearer picture of intended
performance through (1) defining expected performance, (2) offering
trend data, which helps track progress toward performance goals, and
(3) the use of objective, measurable, and quantifiable performance
measures. For example, as part of the strategic objective to "Prevent
fraudulent and erroneous payments and improve debt management," SSA
provided historical data on the outcome measure "Percent of SSI
payments free of preventable error (overpayments and underpayments)"
from fiscal years 1999-2001 and projected goals for fiscal years 2002-
2004.

While we found significant improvements in SSA's 2004 annual
performance plan over its 1999 plan, we also found some weaknesses. For
example, coordination efforts with other entities, such as federal
agencies, state and local entities, and others, are not well
identified. According to SSA officials, SSA coordinates with other
federal agencies, such as the IRS and the Immigration and
Naturalization Service, as well as Veterans Administration, on
information-sharing initiatives. However, these types of coordination
efforts are mentioned only briefly, if at all, in the 2004 annual
performance plan.

In its 2004 plan, SSA includes a list of major program evaluations it
plans to conduct during 2003-2004, with a brief description of the
evaluations, their associated strategic goals, and projected completion
dates. However, there is no indication how SSA plans to use the
information from the evaluations to improve program results. The plan
could be enhanced if the descriptions of these evaluations included the
manner in which SSA planned to use the information gathered to improve
its programs.

SSA's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a General Discussion
of Strategies and Resources:

SSA's 1999 plan had little discussion of the relationship between SSA's
mission, goals, and budget activities. Throughout the document, the
fiscal year 2004 plan included clearer discussions of the linkage
between SSA's mission and goals. It also provided performance data
dating back to fiscal year 1999, essential to making comparisons
between prior and proposed levels of performance. The 2004 performance
plan noted that the Limitation on Administrative Expenses account,
SSA's basic administrative account, is an annual appropriation that
covers everything from salaries and benefits of SSA federal employees
(excluding IG) to systems and telecommunications activities. SSA
provided information on the funding sources of this account, including
some of its budget accounts.

In its fiscal year 2004 plan, SSA provided information on the
strategies it plans to use in addressing its key strategic objectives.
The plan included a summary chart, showing the strategic objectives
associated with each strategic goal, as well as the performance
measures under each objective. In addition, the "means and strategies"
section associated with each strategic objective identified strategies
that support items in the PMA, GAO and IG major management challenges,
and Social Security Advisory Board recommendations. In our October 2002
report Performance and Accountability: Reported Agency Actions and
Plans to Address 2001 Management Challenges and Program Risks,[Footnote
106] we noted that SSA identified directly related goals and measures
for five of its six challenges, and had strategies (without goals or
measures) for the sixth challenge.

It is difficult to determine whether or not the annual performance plan
identifies annual performance goals that cover all of the program
activities in the agency's budget, as well as the financial, human
capital, and information technology resources needed to address each
individual goal. General human capital requirements and goals are
identified as part of SSA's strategic goal to strategically manage and
align staff to support SSA's mission. The plan is neither structured by
program activity nor account. SSA noted that it aligned its strategic
goals, performance measures, and budget with its major functional
responsibilities rather than by program accounts since direct service
and support employees provide services linked to these functional
responsibilities, as opposed to a specific program. However, SSA does
not indicate what it means by "functional responsibilities," nor does
it show a clear link between its strategic goals and such
responsibilities.

As in the fiscal year 1999 plan, the fiscal year 2004 plan included a
discussion of external factors that could affect the achievement of its
goals.[Footnote 107] SSA identified strategies to alleviate some, but
not all of, the factors. For example, SSA plans to mitigate the loss of
institutional knowledge through SSA's "retirement wave" through the use
of employee development programs, redeploying positions to direct
service, hiring Presidential Management Interns, and the increased use
of hiring flexibilities. However, the discussion of factors affecting
SSA's solvency strategic goal merely notes that Social Security
programs must respond to related developments.

SSA's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides General Confidence
That Performance Data Will Be Credible:

SSA's 1999 plan stated that the Office of the Inspector General was
responsible for reviewing the data systems underlying its performance
measures, but did not provide further details that would assure the
reader that SSA is taking the steps necessary to ensure data integrity.
In contrast, SSA's fiscal year 2004 plan provided data sources and
definitions for each performance measure. SSA's fiscal year 2004 plan
identified data limitations related to performance measures, as well as
some efforts to correct or address data weaknesses. When performance
indicators and goals are not quantified, SSA describes its benchmarks
for goal achievement. For example, for the outcome measure "Developing
new performance management systems," SSA defines "Implementing the new
SES system" as its goal for 2003.

As in the fiscal year 1999 plan, SSA notes that the IG's office is
involved in the data system reliability process. In the fiscal year
2004 plan, SSA went further to explain the IG's four-point approach to
reviewing performance measures, including assessing whether the
reported performance measure data are valid. SSA also noted that
performance data for its quantifiable measures are generated by
automated management information and workload measurement systems, as a
by-product of routine operations. However, there is no discussion of
verification and validation procedures for data generated by these
systems.

Observations on Changes in the Quality of DOT's Annual Performance
Plan:

DOT's annual performance plan for fiscal year 2004 showed evidence of
improvements in areas that we previously identified had shortcomings in
our 1998 review of DOT's 1999 performance plan.[Footnote 108] The 2004
plan provides a clear picture of intended performance with DOT's
measures and performance goals now being clearly linked to the
department's strategic objectives. A specific discussion of DOT's
strategies and resources in the plan includes numerous and detailed
strategies for achieving DOT's performance goals, and the resources
needed for those strategies. Procedures to verify and validate data, as
well as known data limitations, are described for each performance
measure providing full confidence in the credibility of DOT's
performance data. Still, the performance plan could be improved by
including a discussion of, and performance measures for, each of DOT's
program activities and by more consistently describing DOT's role in
crosscutting programs.

DOT's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a Clear Picture of
Intended Performance:

DOT's fiscal year 2004 performance plan shows evidence of many of the
same strengths as, and a few improvements over, its fiscal year 1999
performance plan and provides a clear picture of intended performance.
The 2004 plan lists outcome goals, performance goals, and measures by
strategic objective, all of which are generally objective,
quantifiable, and can show progress toward DOT's strategic objectives.
For example, the measure "fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles of
travel" will gauge progress toward the performance goal "reduce highway
fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled to no more than 1.0
in 2008, from 1.7 in 1996." The data gathered by the measure will also
show progress toward the related outcome of "reduce the number of
transportation-related deaths" for DOT's "safety" strategic objective.
This is an improvement over DOT's 1999 plan in which we found that
DOT's performance goals typically covered only a portion of the
strategic goals and the link between annual performance goals and
strategic goals could be improved.

DOT's plan also presents trend and baseline data for each performance
measure and goal. For the example given above, the plan indicates the
performance targets from 1999 to 2004 and also presents actual data for
these targets for 1999 to 2002. In its 1999 plan, DOT had provided
baseline data for most of its performance goals and measures as well.
This information, along with the clearly linked performance goals and
strategic objectives, helps to show DOT's progress in achieving its
goals.

As in the 1999 plan, DOT's 2004 performance plan generally covers each
program activity in its budget request for fiscal year 2004. An
appendix to the performance plan lists DOT's program activities and
indicates the proposed funding level for each program by strategic
objective. However, as in its 1999 plan, a few programs do not seem to
be linked to the strategic objectives elsewhere in the plan. Capital
grants to the National Passenger Rail Corporation (Amtrak) and the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics' Office of Airline Information are
both linked to the "mobility & economic growth" strategic objective in
the budget crosswalk, but they do not appear in the discussions
contained within that strategic objective section. When the 2004 plan
was published in February 2003, DOT had not yet released its new reform
strategy for Amtrak, which was made public in July 2003. Still, the
inclusion of information on Amtrak, as well as a discussion of the
Bureau of Transportation Statistics' Office of Airline Information,
would provide a clearer picture of how DOT intends to achieve its
goals.

The discussions of each performance goal have sections entitled "Other
Federal Programs with Common Outcomes." In this section, the plan
describes crosscutting programs and other agencies with which DOT
works. For example, the plan states that the Research and Special
Programs Administration of DOT continues to develop the National
Pipeline Mapping System with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission,
the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Department of
Energy, the U.S. Geological Survey and others, in order to help analyze
risks to environmentally sensitive and populated areas. This supports
DOT's efforts to reduce pipeline incidents. Yet for several goals,
coordination efforts are not described. One example of this is in the
highway congestion section where the plan states that the Federal
Highway Administration works closely with the Department of the
Interior, Department of Agriculture, and Department of Defense agencies
to improve mobility on federally owned lands. However, the plan does
not describe the specific actions that are being taken to improve
mobility. Our 1998 report stated that DOT's contribution or role was
not described in many of the crosscutting programs listed in DOT's 1999
performance plan.

The 2004 performance plan generally addresses performance and
accountability challenges we previously identified. The discussions of
these management challenges are included in the plan by the performance
goal and programs to which they are related. For example, in discussing
highway safety, DOT addresses our concerns on transportation safety,
specifically through the use of safety belts. The strategies include
continuing the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration's safety
belt outreach to high-risk populations and encouraging states to
embrace "Click It or Ticket" as the message or theme for their Buckle
Up Campaigns. A performance measure related to this management
challenge included in the plan is "percentage of front seat occupants
using safety belts." However, not all of the management challenges have
related measures and goals. For example, we have previously identified
building human capital strategies as a management challenge for DOT. A
section within the plan focuses on an "organizational excellence"
objective to implement the PMA. Strategic management of human capital
strategies is discussed in this section but no goals or measures are
given to show DOT's progress with these strategies. Still, this shows
some improvement over the 1999 plan, which generally covered management
challenges, but did so in a separate appendix without explaining how
the challenges were related to the rest of the plan. We noted that this
area could be improved by including goals and measures related to
resolving these challenges.

DOT's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides a Specific Discussion
of Strategies and Resources:

DOT's 2004 performance plan shows several improvements over its 1999
performance plan, providing a specific discussion of strategies and
resources. Discussions of each performance goal include a section
titled "Strategies and Initiatives to Achieve 2004 Target." These
sections include a variety of means by which DOT intends to accomplish
its performance goals. One example would be for DOT's performance goal
to "reduce pipeline hazmat (hazardous materials) spilled 30 percent by
2006, from the last five years' average spill rate." The strategies for
this goal include enforcing operator qualification requirements,
expanding monitoring technology that can help prevent construction-
related damage to pipelines, and developing regulatory standards for
leak detection technology. This shows progress from when we reported
that DOT's 1999 performance plan lacked sufficient information to
clearly link the strategies to performance goals in many cases.

In contrast to its 1999 performance plan, DOT's 2004 performance plan
generally discusses the human, capital, information, and other
resources needed to meet its performance goals. Each performance goal
section of the performance plan includes a graph showing the enacted
funding for fiscal year 2002, and the proposed funding for fiscal years
2003 and 2004. The organizational excellence objective for DOT
describes DOT's human capital and information technology resources and
strategies. For example, one of DOT's strategies for strategic
management of human capital is to "establish a corporate approach to
target recruitment efforts, with special emphasis on cross-modal,
mission-critical occupations," which includes a pilot program for
centrally recruiting and training entry-level employees for one or more
mission-critical occupations.

The 2004 plan also discusses external factors that could hamper DOT's
ability to achieve its performance goals. In our review of DOT's 1999
performance plan, we noted that the plan could be improved by
recognizing more external factors and by discussing actions that DOT
could take to mitigate the effects of these factors. In contrast,
external factors are listed for most of the performance goals in the
2004 plan. For its transportation accessibility goals, DOT states that
as the population ages, more people will require accessible public
transit, for which states and local agencies decide how best to
allocate federally provided resources. One of the strategies that
addresses this external factor is the Special Needs of Elderly
Individuals and Individuals with Disabilities grants, which DOT states
will help meet the transportation needs of the elderly and persons with
disabilities when regular transportation services are unavailable,
insufficient, or inappropriate to meet their needs.

DOT's Fiscal Year 2004 Performance Plan Provides Full Confidence That
Performance Data Will Be Credible:

The 2004 plan provides full confidence that DOT's performance data will
be credible. As in the 1999 performance plan, the 2004 performance plan
contains a section, entitled "Performance Data and Performance
Measurement," that discusses the means that DOT uses to verify and
validate its data. But unlike the 1999 plan in which this discussion
was broad and not linked to specific goals and measures, the 2004 plan
also contains an appendix that provides the following for each of DOT's
measures: the source of the data, limitations of the data, observations
on the quality of the data, work planned or ongoing to improve data
quality, and any known biases. Finally, DOT has compiled source and
accuracy statements,[Footnote 109] which provide more detail on the
methods used to collect the data, sources of variation and bias in the
data, and methods used to verify and validate the data.

The presentation of data limitations in DOT's 2004 performance plan
also shows progress from its 1999 plan. The Performance Data and
Performance Measurement section includes a general discussion of DOT's
data limitations. This discussion includes limitations for the internal
and external data used by the department. Specific limitations for
internal data can be found in the aforementioned source and accuracy
compendium, while details on the limitations of external data are given
in the appendix on performance measures. In our report on DOT's 1999
performance plan, we stated that information on data limitations was
lacking for most measures and that the plan could be improved by more
consistently addressing the data limitations throughout the plan.

[End of section]

Appendix V: Observations on Agencies' Annual Performance and
Accountability Reports:

To help Congress and the President determine agencies' actual
performance and progress in achieving strategic plan goals, GPRA
requires each agency to prepare a report on program performance for the
previous fiscal year.[Footnote 110] One of our objectives was to assess
the overall quality of agencies' annual performance and accountability
reports and the extent to which selected elements of agency reporting
have improved. To meet this objective, we judgmentally selected six
agencies--Education, DOE, HUD, SBA, SSA, and DOT--using criteria, such
as agency size, primary program type, and previous GAO reviews. To
assess the overall quality and improvements made to the agencies'
performance and accountability reports, we relied on requirements and
guidance contained in GPRA and accompanying committee report
language,[Footnote 111] guidance to agencies from OMB for developing
performance reports,[Footnote 112] interviews with agency officials,
the Chief Financial Officers Act,[Footnote 113] our previous
reports,[Footnote 114] and our knowledge of agencies' operations and
programs. To assess the quality of the six agencies' performance and
accountability reports, we categorized each report based on the degree
to which it addressed three characterizations: (1) picture of
performance, (2) link between resources and results, and (3)
credibility of performance information.

To assess the degree to which an agency's report provided a clear
picture of performance across the agency, we reviewed the extent to
which the report addressed elements required by GPRA. The annual
performance report should:

* describe the performance indicators established in the agency's
annual performance plan, along with the actual program performance
achieved compared with the performance goals expressed in the plan for
that fiscal year;

* review the success of achieving the performance goals of the fiscal
year;

* provide actual results for the 3 preceding fiscal years;

* evaluate the performance plan for the current fiscal year relative to
the performance achieved toward the performance goals in the fiscal
year covered by the report;

* explain and describe where a performance goal has not been met or a
corresponding level of achievement if an alternative form is used, as
well as why the goal was not met, plans and schedules for achieving the
established performance goal, and if the performance goal is
impractical or infeasible;

* describe the use and assess the effectiveness of achieving
performance goals of any waivers; and:

* include the summary findings for those program evaluations completed
during the fiscal year covered by the report.[Footnote 115]

We also looked at the extent to which the reports clearly discussed
progress achieved in addressing the major management challenges
previously identified by us or others. For agencies that choose to
issue a performance and accountability report, the Reports
Consolidation Act of 2000 requires that the report include a summary of
the most serious management and performance challenges facing the
agency, as identified by their IG, and a brief assessment of the
agency's progress in addressing those challenges.

In assessing the clarity of the performance information, we also looked
at selected qualitative characteristics used by the Association of
Government Accountants, in conjunction with the Chief Financial
Officers Council, in assessing performance and accountability reports
for the Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting.[Footnote
116] These characteristics included (1) whether there was a clear
relationship between the performance information in the report and the
goals and objectives contained in the strategic and annual performance
plans, (2) the extent to which the agency limited the measures it
discussed to those that were most significant for its programs, and (3)
the extent to which the report was user friendly by being well-
organized, concise, readable, and making effective use of graphics to
ease understanding of narrative information. We characterized the
clarity of each report in one of four ways: (1) clear, (2) general, (3)
limited, or (4) unclear, based on the extent to which the 2002 report
addressed the elements required by GPRA and the other informative
practices we described.

Both GPRA and the CFO Act emphasized the importance of linking program
performance information with financial information as a key feature of
sound management and an important element in presenting to the public a
useful and informative perspective on federal spending. Similarly, the
current administration's ambitious agenda for performance budgeting,
calling for agencies to better align budgets with performance goals and
focus on capturing full budgetary costs and matching these costs with
output and outcome goals, suggests that agencies need to develop
integrated financial and performance management systems that will
enable the reporting of the actual costs associated with performance
results. Although linking resources to performance goals is not a
requirement of GPRA, the committee report for GPRA suggested that
developing the capacity to relate the level of program activity with
program costs, such as costs per unit of result, costs per unit of
service, or costs per unit of output, should be a high priority. We
have reported that world-class financial management practices call for
enterprisewide systems to integrate financial and operating data to
support both management decision making and external reporting
requirements. To assess the degree to which an agency's report
discussed the relationship between resources and results, we
characterized each report as having a (1) clear relationship, (2)
general relationship, (3) limited relationship, or (4) no relationship.

Finally, to assess the degree to which an agency's plan provided
confidence that the agency's performance information would be credible,
we examined how each report discussed the quality of the data
presented. To help improve the quality of agencies' performance data,
Congress included a requirement in the Reports Consolidation Act of
2000 that agencies assess the completeness and reliability of their
performance data. Under the act, agencies were to begin including this
assessment in the transmittal letter with their fiscal year 2000
performance reports. Agencies were also required to discuss in their
report any material inadequacies in the completeness and reliability of
their performance data and discuss actions to address these
inadequacies.

We have previously reported on other practices that enhance the
credibility of performance data that are not specifically required by
GPRA.[Footnote 117] For instance, discussions of standards and methods
used by agencies to assess the quality of their performance data in
their performance reports provides decision makers greater insight into
the quality and value of the performance data. We also reported on
additional practices, in several agencies' performance reports, that
would help foster transparency to the public and assist decision makers
in understanding the quality of an agency's data. The additional
practices we observed included (1) discussions of data quality,
including known data limitations and actions to address the limitations
and (2) discussions of data verification and validation procedures. To
address the extent to which a report provided confidence that
performance information was credible, we characterized each report as
providing (1) full confidence, (2) general confidence, (3) limited
confidence, or (4) no confidence.

In conducting our reviews, to the extent information was available in
prior assessments, we compared our findings of agencies' fiscal year
2002 reports to our assessments of reports for fiscal year
1999.[Footnote 118] A more detailed discussion of our scope and
methodology and the criteria we used can be found in appendix I. Table
13 shows the results of our assessment of the six agencies' reports.

Table 13: Characterizations of Agencies' Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Reports:

Department/agency: Department of Education;
Characterizations: Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general,
clear): Limited;
Characterizations: Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general,
clear): Clear;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited, general, full):
General.

Department/agency: Department of Energy;
Characterizations: Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general,
clear): General;
Characterizations: Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general,
clear): Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited, general, full):
Limited.

Department/agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development;
Characterizations: Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general,
clear): General;
Characterizations: Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general,
clear): No;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited, general, full):
General.

Department/agency: Small Business Administration;
Characterizations: Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general,
clear): Limited;
Characterizations: Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general,
clear): General;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited, general, full):
General.

Department/agency: Social Security Administration;
Characterizations: Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general,
clear): General;
Characterizations: Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general,
clear): Limited;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited, general, full):
General.

Department/agency: Department of Transportation;
Characterizations: Picture of performance: (unclear, limited, general,
clear): General;
Characterizations: Resources linked to results: (no, limited, general,
clear): No;
Characterizations: Data credible: (no, limited, general, full): Full.

Sources:
U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Education FY 2002
Performance and Accountability Report; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

U.S. Department of Energy, Performance and Accountability Report,
Fiscal Year 2002; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal Year 2002
Performance and Accountability Report; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

Small Business Administration, Fiscal Year 2002 Performance and
Accountability Report; (Washington, D.C. 2003);

Social Security Administration, Performance and Accountability Report,
Fiscal Year 2002; (Washington, D.C. 2002);

U.S. Department of Transportation, Fiscal Year 2002 Performance and
Accountability Report; (Washington, D.C. 2003).

[End of table]

The remainder of this appendix discusses our observations on the
quality of the agencies' annual performance and accountability reports
we reviewed and, to the extent information was available from our prior
reviews, how the quality has changed since the agencies submitted their
first reports on fiscal year 1999 performance. We did not independently
verify or assess the information we obtained from agency annual
performance reports. If an agency chose not to discuss its efforts
concerning elements in the report, it does not necessarily mean that
the agency is not implementing those elements.

Observations on the Quality of Education's Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
and Accountability Report:

Education's fiscal year 2002 Performance and Accountability Report
comprises two volumes--the main volume and a second volume including
performance reports for the agency's individual programs. In our
assessment, we did not review the second volume, which includes very
detailed, discrete, and disaggregated performance information with over
350 individual measures for the Office of Civil Rights, IG, and 117
Education programs in 60 clusters.

Although Education's report included many features designed to present
its performance information clearly, the overall clarity was limited by
the significant amount of performance information that was unavailable
to show Education's performance results. In contrast, Education's
report very clearly related its performance to its costs by using both
graphics and text to provide the agency's estimate of appropriations
associated with achieving each of its six strategic goals, 24
objectives (long-term goals), and individual programs. Finally,
Education provided a general level of confidence in the quality of its
data, primarily because of its recognition of the challenges it faces
on the timeliness, reliability, and validity of its data. Education's
recent efforts in undertaking a performance-based data management
initiative in partnership with state leaders to allow timely and ready
access to high-quality achievement and other performance data, which
the IG said would address many of the related concerns identified
during IG audits, also aided in the level of confidence in the data.

Education's Fiscal Year 2002 Report Provided a Limited Picture of
Performance:

Education's 2002 performance report is directly aligned with the goals
and measures in the agency's 2002-2007 strategic plan and its 2002-2003
annual plan. Of the 210 measures included in the agency's strategic
plan and annual plan, 120 were identified for measurement in fiscal
year 2002, and all of these are addressed in the performance report.
The report contains sections on changes planned to enhance performance
on the basis of results. For each measure, the performance report
includes trend data, with a table showing actual data from fiscal years
1999 through 2002; in some cases, the table also includes data from
fiscal year 1998. When data are not provided, the table indicates that
they were not applicable or not available. Overall, the report contains
clear, succinct figures and a table summarizing the status of all 120
measures, as summarized in figure 19.

Figure 19: Summary of Education's Performance Indicators for Fiscal
Year 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

However, while Education's 2002 report does review the levels of
success for its performance goals[Footnote 119] for fiscal year 2002,
there is a critical limitation. As we observed in our review of
Education's 1999 report,[Footnote 120] data were not yet available for
many measures in the 2002 report. Specifically, 2002 data were
available for only 41 of the 120 measures; the rest were characterized
as "Pending: Data Not Yet Available" (63) or "Incomplete: Data Not
Expected" (16). Despite the numerous strengths in Education's 2002
performance report, the picture of performance for Education presented
in this report is limited mainly because of the lack of data for so
many of its 2002 targets. However, Education recognizes the challenges
created by its limited access to timely, reliable data:

We still face significant challenges to meeting our national education
goals. Primary among these challenges is access to timely, reliable
data on our performance in meeting our goals and implementing our
programs. Our efforts to identify effective and ineffective programs in
the Department are severely limited by the frequent absence of useful
data about them. In FY 2002 we designed a performance-based data
management initiative which will provide much more robust information
about our programs and strategic objectives, as well as provide a
strong foundation for educational research and evaluation.

This data management initiative is being undertaken in partnership with
state leaders and the software industry and is expected to result in an
electronic data system that will allow ready access to high-quality
achievement and other performance data in a timely and seamless manner
in the future. Because the lack of data for so many of its targets
blurs the picture of performance, Education should take every possible
step to complete, as quickly as possible, its newly established
performance-based data management initiative.

While lacking data for so many of its measures, Education's 2002 report
provides an explanation for measures with pending or incomplete data.
For pending data, the report states that comparisons to targets will be
made in the subsequent performance and accountability report, in
addition to citing the department's performance-based data management
initiative. The report further indicates that measures with incomplete
data were so characterized because methods to collect data were not
ready in time to measure fiscal year 2002 results, data collection did
not occur, or data collection was delayed. The report goes on to say
that, for these measures, Education will put methods in place to
measure fiscal year 2003 results, develop other data sources, or revise
its measures to measure results differently. In addition, for each
incomplete measure, the report clearly describes why data are
incomplete and what will be done to address the situation. For example,
for its measure on the percentage of states with complete school
accountability systems in place, as required by the No Child Left
Behind Act,[Footnote 121] the report explains that the requirements
under this act are more extensive than in the past, that states that
had met prior requirements may not yet meet new requirements, that the
department had decided regulation would be necessary, and that
regulations had not been finalized to define a complete school
accountability system.

In addition, the report almost always included explanations of
performance and sometimes provided information on why targets were not
met when that was the case. However, such information was not always
easy to find, as the report did not always include it in the same area
as the related measure.

For most measures, including those that did not meet their targets, the
report provided information on the steps Education is taking or plans
to take to improve or enhance performance. For example, the 2002 target
for a measure on the number of children attending charter schools was
690,000 and the actual result was 575,000. To improve performance on
this measure, Education's report says that it is distributing guidance
and information to encourage parents to consider charter schools, using
both publications and its Web site to promote charter school
enrollment, and sponsoring a charter schools Web site with information
on federal assistance for charter schools. However, it was not always
clear how the steps cited would improve or enhance performance. For
example, for four measures on advanced placement (AP) achievement that
were not met in 2002, the strategy given for improving performance is
to continue to support increasing AP achievement through the Advanced
Placement Incentives program, but the report does not include an
explanation of, or any information on, this incentives program.

Education's report included an appendix entitled "Findings from FY 2002
Evaluations" and included summaries of the findings from nine GAO
reports and eight other studies completed in fiscal year 2002. For
example, the Education for Homeless Children and Youth Program:
Learning to Succeed report comprised two studies that found that
homeless students are best served when promising practices are
implemented as part of a comprehensive and coordinated education
program for the homeless.

The 2002 performance and accountability report also contained an
appendix consisting of the IG's summary of serious management
challenges, including financial management, federal student aid
programs, information technology, program performance and
accountability, and human capital. For each of these challenges, the IG
provided information on Education's progress in addressing them. Under
program performance and accountability, for example, the IG pointed out
that a significant amount of the data used to measure education
programs were provided by state and local education entities and that
it is imperative that these data are accurate, so as to provide
Congress, OMB, and the public with an objective measure of the success
of education programs. The IG said that Education has recognized the
importance of improving data quality and addressed this issue in its
performance plan.

The IG's summary of serious management challenges also included
references to GAO's high-risk list with respect to federal student aid
programs and human capital management, and Education's report included
measures related to both of these areas. Specifically, for its 2002
measure to have Federal Student Aid (FSA) leave the GAO high-risk list
by 2003 and not return, the report states that the department "almost
met" its 2002 target by achieving 94 percent of its FSA High Risk Plan,
and it described the shortfall as not significant or material. In
contrast, in our review of Education's 1999 Performance
Report,[Footnote 122] we noted that the department did not have goals,
objectives, or measures related to problems with its student assistance
programs. In addition, for the six measures in Education's 2002 report
under its strategic goal to improve the strategic management of its
human capital, the department reports that four targets were pending,
one was incomplete, and one had set the baseline. With respect to the
GPRA requirement[Footnote 123] that agencies' performance reports
include a review of the performance goals and evaluation of the
performance plan relative to the department's strategic human capital
management, Education's report discusses its human capital management
strategic goal and related performance goals in the context of its
human capital management plan, One-Ed.

Education's 2002 Report Showed a Clear Relationship between Resources
and Results:

Education's 2002 report included information for each of its six
strategic goals and 24 objectives that clearly linked the department's
resources with its efforts to achieve specific results. While the
department was not able to break the costs down by each of its measures
and targets, the report used both graphics and text to provide the
department's estimate of appropriations associated with achieving each
of its six strategic goals, 24 objectives (long-term goals), and
individual programs. For example, for each of its objectives, the
report used a pie chart to show the percentage of the department's
appropriation that supports the objective, the rest of the strategic
goal the objective falls under, and the other five strategic goals. An
example is shown in figure 20 for the objective to ensure that all
students read on grade level by the third grade.

Figure 20: Inputs: Allocating Funds for Education's Objective to Ensure
That All Students Read on Grade Level by the Third Grade:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

The text accompanying each chart listed the dollar amount supporting
the objective's activities, the percentage of the strategic goal's
allocation that amount represented, the individual programs that
supported the objective, and the dollar amount from salaries and
expenses that was included in the dollar amount for the objective. In
addition, in the report's appendixes, a table summarizing fiscal year
2002 appropriations and staffing allocated by goal and objective also
included the FTEs under staffing for each strategic goal and objective.
Another table provided a percentage breakdown of each objective's
appropriations by 146 agency programs.

Education's Fiscal Year 2002 Report Provided General Confidence That
Performance Data Were Credible:

Education's 2002 performance report provided general confidence that
the agency's data were credible because of its recognition of the
challenges it faces on the timeliness, reliability, and validity of its
data; its straightforward disclosure of these challenges; and its
recent efforts to address them. In Education's transmittal letter, the
department secretary said that the information contained in the report
is "as complete and reliable as we have available." However,
Education's report recognized that one of the agency's significant
challenges to meeting its national education goals is access to timely,
reliable data on performance and that the lack of useful data severely
limits efforts to identify effective and ineffective programs. The
report further explained that 97 percent of the department's funding is
awarded to third parties, including, for example, state and local
agencies, that have an impact on the measurement of results, especially
the timing of data collection. Thus, Education recognized in its report
that it had limited control over the data it must use to report
results. Similarly, in the IG's summary of serious management
challenges, the report noted that Education needs to improve its
controls over the timeliness, reliability, and validity of data.

Moreover, Education's report included information on recent steps it
has taken to address its data challenges. In addition to a discussion
of its data management initiative to develop an electronic data system
providing access to timely, high-quality data, the report included an
appendix with the agency's Information Quality Guidelines and draft
Data Quality Standards presented in an abbreviated format. The
discussion of data quality standards recognizes the importance of data
quality concepts to the process of developing high-quality performance
measures. The eight standards provided are: validity, accurate
definitions, accurate counts, editing, calculation, timeliness,
reporting, and burden reduction. To facilitate the use of the
standards, Education reported that it created a data quality checklist
and regularly held classes to teach staff how to apply the standards.
The IG's summary of serious management challenges gave the department
credit for this effort, pointing out that these guidelines address many
of the concerns identified during IG audits and that the department
plans to disseminate these guidelines to the chief state school
officers.

The report also provided explanations of data sources and data quality
for most measures. For example, for the measures on the percentages of
12thgrade students scoring at or above the basic and proficient levels
on the National Assessment for Educational Progress (NAEP) reading
test, the source is given as: "U.S. Department of Education; National
Center for Education Statistics, (NAEP); The Nation's Report Card,
Reading." Under data quality, the report states that NAEP data are
validated using rigorous National Center for Education Statistics
statistical standards. For most of the measures, the explanations of
data quality contain similar information on data validation. However,
the data quality information only sometimes identifies what limitations
are relevant, if any. For example, for a measure on the percentage of
managers satisfied with services received from Education's Office of
Management when hiring staff, the department relied on an internal
survey of managers for its data. Although the response rate for this
survey was 22 percent, the report did not say whether this was a
limitation to the data collected. For a few of Education's measures,
the report stated that no data limitations had been noted. It would be
better if the agency clearly stated whether the data for each measure
had limitations or not, and, if so, what they were.

Observations on the Quality of DOE's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

DOE's 2002 Annual Performance and Accountability Report provided a
general picture of intended performance by explaining in detail the
progress made in meeting performance measures and addressing management
challenges. It also provided a limited discussion of the costs incurred
to achieve DOE's performance goals by organizing its report by major
program activities, the costs of these activities, and their
corresponding goals. Finally, the report provided a limited level of
confidence that data will be credible because the report did not
include a discussion on data limitations.

DOE's Fiscal Year 2002 Report Provided a General Picture of
Performance:

DOE's 2002 Performance and Accountability Report provided a general
picture of performance in meeting its goals and measures. The report
contained a detailed explanation of progress for each of its
performance measures, which were referred to as "targets," by
identifying whether each measure was met, not met, or had mixed
results, as shown in figure 21. In addition, the report identified the
operational processes, technology, human capital, and other resources
used to achieve each performance measure. The results for the past 3
years of performance measures related to each goal were also reported
so that performance trends could be identified. However, the report did
not clearly explain how the results of the performance measures
reported contributed to achieving the performance goals in DOE's annual
performance plan and strategic plan.

Figure 21: Summary of DOE's Performance Indicators for Fiscal Year
2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Each performance measure that was not met or had mixed results
contained a plan of action to achieve the measure in the future. In
addition, the majority of fiscal year 2002 measures that were not met
contained a clear explanation as to why they were not met or had mixed
results. For example, a measure that required Southeastern Power
Administration to meet its planned repayment of principal of federal
investment was not met due to severe drought. DOE's report explained
that to achieve the measure in the future, Southeastern plans to change
its rate design, propose rate increases to obtain greater revenue, and
increase cost recovery from fixed charges.

DOE also discussed the progress it made in addressing performance and
accountability challenges. The report identifies significant issues for
fiscal year 2002 that, as stated in the report, merit a higher level of
attention and focus in the department. Each of the challenges were
linked to a goal and its related performance measure(s). In addition,
actions taken to address each challenge and the progress made on those
actions were identified. For example, one of the challenges identified
was the need for DOE to meet federal requirements for improved and more
cost-effective use of information technology. A related goal to deal
with this challenge was for DOE to promote the effective management of
information technology resources in the department. To address this
challenge, the report stated that DOE realigned its management
structure for information technology issues, established an
enterprisewide license for Microsoft software, and launched an e-
government applications task force to identify high-priority e-
government investments, among other actions. In our prior review of
DOE's 2001 performance report, we also found that DOE had made progress
in addressing all eight of its major management challenges.[Footnote
124]

It is unclear, however, how program evaluations were used to assess
performance because DOE did not include a summary of program evaluation
findings in either the fiscal year 1999 or 2002 reports. According to
DOE officials, a section on program evaluations was not included in
fiscal year 2002 and one is not planned for fiscal year 2003 in order
to limit the amount of detail included in the report.

DOE's Fiscal Year 2002 Report Showed a Limited Relationship between
Resources and Results:

DOE's 2002 performance report provided a limited discussion of how its
resources were related to its performance. As in our review of the 1999
report, DOE's 2002 report, which also includes DOE's financial
information, continued its practice linking the department's
performance information to the costs of its program activities. For the
majority of its program activities, the 2002 report included the
program activity's net costs and related performance information for
fiscal years 1999 through 2002. During our review of DOE's 1999
performance report, we were supportive of DOE's efforts to link its
performance goals and measures to the program activities in the
President's Budget. However, DOE has not moved beyond presenting its
performance and cost information by program activity, instead of by
strategic or annual performance goal or objective. A report that
presented cost and performance information by performance goals in
addition to other presentations would more clearly identify the costs
associated with the achievement of each goal. According to DOE
officials, the department plans to link its individual performance
measures to the costs of program activities in future reports.

DOE's Fiscal Year 2002 Report Provides Limited Confidence That
Performance Data Are Credible:

DOE's reporting on data credibility has improved but is still limited.
Based on our review of DOE's 1999 performance report, a key improvement
made to the 2002 performance report was the department's ability to
report on its data validation and verification processes. DOE's 1999
report did not discuss the implementation of DOE's verification and
validation plan or provide any evidence that the data quality was
sufficient for assessing the department's performance. The 2002 report
met some requirements of the Reports Consolidation Act by including a
statement in the report's transmittal letter assessing the completeness
and reliability of the data. The letter did not discuss any material
inadequacies with DOE's performance data. The report also included a
high-level discussion on how DOE will validate and verify its data and
refers the reader to its 2003 annual performance plan for further
details. For example, the report stated that DOE's end-of-year
reporting process includes certification by heads of organizational
elements on the accuracy of reported results, followed by a review for
quality and completeness by DOE's Office of Program Analysis and
Evaluation.

Although the department has improved on reporting its data verification
and validation processes, it has not improved on reporting any existing
data limitations. Neither the 1999 nor the 2002 report included an
overall discussion of the limitations to the data or steps DOE would
take to address those limitations, although the 2002 performance report
did identify minor data limitations for a few specific goals. DOE
officials stated that a discussion on data limitations was not included
in the 2002 report because the department already reports on this
information in the annual performance plan and they thought it was
redundant to put it in the report.

Observations on the Quality of HUD's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

Compared to its fiscal year 1999 performance report, HUD's fiscal year
2002 Performance and Accountability Report provides a general picture
of what the department accomplished by including, among other things, a
report card listing its performance indicators with the corresponding
achievement, a list of program evaluations concluded during the fiscal
year, trend information for some of its performance indicators, a
discussion of the department's attempts to address its performance and
accountability challenges, and visual aids to illustrate information on
its performance. In a few instances, the report mentions whether
certain performance goals are impractical or unfeasible. However, the
report is not as clear as it could be because it does not (1) explain
how it plans to address performance targets that were not met during
the fiscal year; (2) include an evaluation of the fiscal year 2003
performance plan relative to the performance information presented in
the performance report for the fiscal year; or (3) include an
evaluation of the fiscal year 2003 performance plan relative to the
performance information presented in the performance report for fiscal
year 2002. The report does not show the relationship between resources
and results by linking expended dollar amounts to specific program
objectives. The report provides general confidence to the reader that
the data presented are credible by providing background information on
each performance indicator and discussing the results and analysis of
the most recent data.

HUD's 2002 Report Provided a General Picture of Performance:

Overall, HUD's fiscal year 2002 Performance and Accountability Report
provides a general understanding of what the department's mission is
and what it accomplished during the previous fiscal year.[Footnote 125]
Since we first reviewed its report for fiscal year 1999, HUD has made
progress in developing its performance report to comply with
GPRA.[Footnote 126] In reviewing HUD's fiscal year 1999 performance
report, we noted that it only contained performance information for
three of the department's four outcome measures. HUD's report for
fiscal year 2002 includes a report card for each strategic goal listing
performance targets that were met. The report card also provides an
explanation for many performance targets that were not marked as being
met during the fiscal year. Although the report includes visual aids to
enhance readers' understanding of progress made toward attaining
performance targets, HUD could enhance the report by providing a
summary of performance targets for all strategic objectives met (or
not) during the fiscal year.

HUD's performance report does not meet GPRA's requirement of including
an evaluation of its fiscal year 2003 performance plan relative to the
performance attained by the department in fiscal year 2002. Including
this evaluation could provide readers some assurance that HUD takes
into account prior performance information, such as unmet goals, to
manage its performance in the fiscal year already under way.

The report suggests that some of the performance targets that were not
met during the fiscal year were impractical or unfeasible. For example,
for its goal of "Increase the Rate of Homeownership," HUD mentions that
the indicator can be resistant to increases above an undetermined level
because homeownership is not practical or desirable for all households.
Broad economic conditions, including employment, incomes and interest
rates can affect homeownership rates. Likewise, HUD will no longer
track a performance indicator that measures the percentage of low-
income housing units containing threats to health and safety, such as
exposed wiring, unvented heaters, holes in the floor, and rodents. HUD
mentions that this indicator is not included in the fiscal year 2003
annual performance plan because of the difficulty of attributing the
results to its programs.

In several instances, HUD's annual performance report lacks a
discussion of how it plans to address unmet performance targets as
required by GPRA. For example, while HUD substantially met almost half
of its performance targets in fiscal year 2002, the report does not
mention what steps the department will take to address some of its
unmet performance targets (see fig. 22).

Figure 22: Summary of HUD's Performance Indicators for Fiscal Year
2002:

[See PDF for image]

[A] Rather than stating if some performance targets were met or not,
HUD provided the following explanations: data not available; no
performance goal for this fiscal year; third quarter of calendar year
(last quarter of fiscal year, not entire fiscal year); calendar year
ending in the current fiscal year; calendar year ending the previous
fiscal year; other reporting period; results too complex to summarize;
and baseline newly established.

[End of figure]

HUD continued to build upon the strengths of its earlier report by
including trend information for some performance indicators it used to
measure progress toward its targets during the past fiscal year. While
not presented consistently throughout the report, trend information
provides a context to understand HUD's performance and helps to show
the extent to which HUD exceeded or fell short of expectations set for
its performance targets. For instance, for HUD's performance indicator
that tracks increases in the share of welfare families residing in
public housing that move from welfare to work each year, the report
mentions that in fiscal year 2002 the rate was 13.1 percent compared to
19.9 percent in fiscal year 2001. In preparing to implement the
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, HUD originally
estimated this indicator to be around 6.5 percent in fiscal year 1997.

HUD's fiscal year 2002 report also mentions that it concluded several
program evaluations during the fiscal year, a key requirement absent
from its performance report for fiscal year 1999. The report also
provides a brief summary of the main findings of these program
evaluations. In fiscal year 2002, HUD concluded and published reports
on 21 program evaluations covering five of its strategic goals.

Similar to our findings on HUD's previous performance reports,[Footnote
127] HUD's fiscal year 2002 report discusses the steps the department
took to address decade-long management challenges. For example, while
HUD's report mentions that deficiencies remain in its financial
management systems, in fiscal year 2002 the department initiated a
project to design and implement an integrated financial system.
Similarly, to address staffing imbalances and human capital challenges,
HUD implemented the last phase of its Resource Estimation and
Allocation Process in January 2002 and started to implement the Total
Estimation and Allocation Mechanism, a tool that collects actual
workload accomplishments and staff usage within the various operating
components at HUD.

HUD's 2002 Report Showed No Relationship between Resources and Results:

While HUD has made some improvements in how it presents cost
information in its report, it is still not useful for linking program
objectives to specific dollar expenditures. HUD's report provides a
summary of the cost of operations by each reporting segment, such as
the total amount of money spent by the Federal Housing Authority and
the Public and Indian Housing programs, and states that the total cost
for fiscal year 2002 operations was $33 billion. However, the report
does not reconcile these costs to specific program performance
objectives, limiting the reader's ability to understand how HUD used
its resources to carry out its objectives during the fiscal year.

HUD's 2002 Report Provided General Confidence That Performance Data Are
Credible:

HUD's fiscal year 2002 performance report generally informs the reader
on critical issues about the reliability of its performance data, an
issue that was not discussed in detail in its earlier report. In its
transmittal letter, HUD briefly discusses that in some instances the
data used in the report were either incomplete and/or unreliable. The
report includes background information, results, analysis, and a
discussion of the data used for each performance indicator during the
fiscal year. In discussing the data, in some instances HUD points out
issues concerning data validity and accuracy and mentions steps HUD
will take to correct problems. For example, to address problems with
its indicator on the number of homeowners who have been assisted with
the HOME program, HUD has established a team of managers, technical
staff, and contractors to make a series of improvements to the
Integrated Disbursement and Information System beginning in fiscal year
2003, which should reduce the need for data cleanup.

Observations on the Quality of SBA's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

SBA's fiscal year 2002 annual performance report shows several
improvements over the agency's initial report. The report shows a
general relationship between resources and results by including an
analysis of resources used by each program in fiscal year 2002. A
section on data validation and verification, which includes data
limitations and remedies for those limitations, provides a general
level of confidence in the credibility of SBA's performance data. While
the 2002 report includes a scorecard to show the agency's overall
performance, the report provides a limited picture of performance due
to a lack of plans to meet unmet goals in the future and data that were
unavailable to show progress towards a large share of SBA's performance
goals, among other reasons.

SBA's 2002 Report Provided a Limited Picture of Performance:

SBA's 2002 performance report[Footnote 128] provides a limited picture
of its performance. SBA's 2002 report includes a scorecard that shows
overall agency performance for its 2002 goals, including trend data
(when available) from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2002, the fiscal
year 2002 goal, and a column showing the percentage of the fiscal year
2002 goal achieved. However, based on the performance information
provided in the fiscal year 2002 performance report, it can be
difficult to gauge SBA's progress in achieving its goals. This is
similar to our findings on SBA's 1999 report, which we noted was
unclear as to how well SBA performed in achieving several of its
performance goals for two of the key outcomes addressed in our 2000
report.[Footnote 129] Figure 23 summarizes SBA's progress on its 19
performance goals for fiscal year 2002.

Figure 23: Summary of SBA's Performance Goals for Fiscal Year 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Data were unavailable for 10 of SBA's 19 performance goals in 2002. For
the nine goals that had performance data available, SBA met seven.
SBA's 2002 performance report included explanations for all of its
goals that were unmet, deemed infeasible, or for which data were not
available. For example, the report states that "homes restored to pre-
disaster conditions" and "businesses restored to pre-disaster
conditions" are no longer goals because SBA is reviewing its outcome
measures for the disaster loan program. Also, data were not available
for the "customer satisfaction" goal in the disaster assistance program
because a Customer Service Survey for disaster loan recipients was not
issued during the fiscal year due to having not received final
clearance from OMB. This contrasts to our findings on SBA's 1999 report
when the agency did not provide explanations for not meeting several of
its performance goals. However, for the two goals that were unmet in
2002, "start-ups receiving 7(a) and 504 financing" and "jobs created
and retained by SBIC clients," the report does not describe any plans
for achieving the goals in the future. The lack of information for over
half of SBA's performance goals and the absence of plans for achieving
unmet goals limits our ability to assess the overall progress the
agency made in fiscal year 2002, as well as the likelihood that it will
improve its performance in the future.

Several other factors limited our ability to evaluate SBA's performance
in its fiscal year 2002 report. The report presents performance data in
accordance with the goal structure of SBA's 2003-2008 draft strategic
plan. The goal structure contained in the fiscal year 2002 performance
report does not directly correspond with the goal structure presented
in the 2002 performance plan. Only one of the report's strategic goals,
"Help Families and Businesses Recover from Disasters," directly
corresponds to the 2002 performance plan. Similarly, not all of the
performance goals listed in performance scorecards in both documents
correspond. For example, the performance goal "start-ups receiving 7(a)
and 504 loans viable 3 years after receiving loan," listed in the
scorecard in the 2002 report, is not listed in the 2002 performance
plan. The report states that based on 2002 results SBA made
"substantial modifications" to its fiscal year 2003 goals, but the
report does not specifically discuss how the performance achieved in
2002 could affect the achievement of the 2003 goals. Finally, the
report does not include the findings of program evaluations completed
in fiscal year 2002. SBA states that it was unable to conduct program
evaluations in 2002 due to a lack of funding and that the agency has
requested funding for program evaluations in fiscal years 2003 and
2004.

Similar to our findings on SBA's 1999 performance report, the agency
continues to provide information indicating the agency's progress in
addressing management challenges that have been previously identified.
For example, we have previously observed that SBA needs to improve the
quality of the performance measures that it uses for the disaster loan
program. SBA states in its 2002 report that the agency is in the
process of reevaluating its measures for the disaster loan program, and
specifically that the methodology for measuring the number or
percentage of homes and businesses restored through the program will be
addressed by this review.

SBA's 2002 performance report also discusses the agency's strategic
management of human capital. One section of the report relating to the
PMA describes SBA's transformation plan, which is to realign the
agency's "organization, operation, and workforce to better serve its
small business customers." An appendix to the report identifies fully
developing and implementing the agency's human capital management
strategy as one of SBA's major challenges. This section lists the
actions that SBA needs to take to address this challenge as well as the
progress the agency has made in implementing these actions. However,
the report does not include a review of the performance goals and
evaluation of the performance plan relative to the agency's strategic
human capital management, as required by the Homeland Security Act of
2002.

The report also contains two broad overviews and an appendix of GAO
audits and recommendations, as well as a description of management
challenges identified by the agency's Inspector General. One chart,
entitled "Status of GAO Reviews Conducted at SBA in FY 2002," shows the
review title, status of the review (open or closed), and the number of
recommendations that came from these reviews. Another chart, entitled
"Number of Open GAO Recommendations at End of FY 2002," lists the GAO
report number and title, the year it was issued, and the number of
recommendations remaining open. Further detail is provided in an
appendix to the performance report, which lists GAO's outstanding
recommendations, the status of the recommendations, and the estimated
date of completion. Another appendix includes a report from SBA's
Acting IG that describes the most serious management challenges SBA
faced in fiscal year 2002.

SBA's 2002 Report Showed a General Relationship between Resources and
Results:

SBA's 2002 performance report contains analyses of resources and
results for SBA's programs that show a general relationship between
resources and results. In the description of each program's
performance, the report includes an analysis of the resources used by
each program. For example, the fiscal year 2002 cost of the Advocacy
Program was estimated to be $8 million, with 50 percent of the funds
going to support the Office of Advocacy, 14 percent funding economic
research, 11 percent for SBA's executive direction support, 16 percent
for fixed costs, and 9 percent going to human resources, information
technology, and procurement. The report contains crosswalks that show
the relationship between SBA's strategic goals, outcome goals,
performance goals, and programs. The resources used by each program can
then be linked through this crosswalk to performance goals to generally
show the resources needed for the results achieved towards the goals.
However, the connection of resources to results could be more
explicitly stated in the report if results and resources were also
presented by performance goal.

SBA's 2002 Report Provided General Confidence That Performance Data Are
Credible:

SBA's 2002 performance report provides general confidence that the
agency's performance data are credible. In the letter transmitting its
2002 performance report, SBA states that the performance data for its
credit and procurement assistance programs are complete and reliable,
based on a systematic review of these data. SBA further states that it
is "working to improve the completeness and reliability of the
performance data for the advice provided to small business through
SBA's resource partners." Data for this aspect of SBA's performance are
collected through surveys, which the agency notes are neither
consistent nor comparable, and from which client responses are
difficult to obtain. This could be seen as a material inadequacy, of
which a discussion is required by the Reports Consolidation Act. SBA
discusses the actions it will take to address the quality of the
surveys by stating in the transmittal letter that it is working to
improve the survey instruments it uses to obtain performance data.

SBA provides a detailed discussion of each performance indicator in a
section of the report on data validation and verification. For each
indicator, the report provides a definition, source, information on
validation, and means for data verification. The verification process
for several measures includes audits, independent reviews, and
consistency checks. However, for these measures this is the only
discussion of verification procedures and no further details are
provided. Also, for several measures, such as "number of start-up firms
financed by 7(a) & 504" and "regulatory cost savings to small
businesses," SBA states that it does not independently verify the data.

The report also addresses limitations to its data in the section on
data validation and verification. In this section SBA states that it
faces many challenges in acquiring high-quality data on both outputs
and outcomes, from both internal and external sources. The strategies
that SBA will use to address the shortcomings of its data quality are
contained in this section as well, which include ensuring the validity
of performance measures and data, fostering organizational commitment
and capacity for data quality, assessing the quality of existing data,
responding to data limitations, and building quality into the
development of performance data.

The section on data validation and verification in the 2002 report
discusses how SBA plans to remedy the limitations for each indicator.
For example, for the "customer satisfaction rate" measure of the
disaster loan program, the report states that the surveys used for this
measure only determine the satisfaction of those who received disaster
loans and therefore do not address the satisfaction of those who did
not receive the loans. The remedy listed for this limitation is to
expand the survey to include all applicants. This is an improvement
from SBA's 1999 report, which we noted did not discuss data limitations
that could affect the quality of data used by SBA to assess its
performance.

Observations on the Quality of SSA's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

On the whole, SSA's 2002 performance report generally showed the
agency's progress towards its annual goals for fiscal year
2002.[Footnote 130] It showed continued emphasis on outcome-oriented
goals and identified relevant results that were linked to individual
strategic objectives. It also provided trend information, typically
back to fiscal year 1999, and contained a brief discussion of the
program evaluations completed during fiscal year 2002. SSA's strategic
goals were linked to financial resources at a very high level, but none
of the performance goals were associated with costs; thus, the cost of
achieving (or not achieving) a particular goal was not clear.
Additionally, the SSA Commissioner certified that SSA's data
presentation was credible, but missing data and a lack of documentation
of the methods and data used to measure its performance reduced the
overall quality of the document.

SSA's 2002 Report Provided a General Picture of Performance:

SSA's 2002 performance report exhibited a general description of
performance, including the identification of 14 key performance
indicators out of a total of 69 indicators. Similar to our review of
SSA's fiscal year 1999 report,[Footnote 131] we found that many of
SSA's fiscal year 2002 goals and indicators were outcome oriented. In
the fiscal year 2002 report, SSA plainly summarized progress on its 69
performance indicators, as shown in figure 24.

Figure 24: Summary of SSA's Performance Goals for Fiscal Year 2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

In SSA's 1999 annual performance report, performance measures focused
on activities rather than results, so it was difficult to determine the
agency's real progress in achieving results. For example, the measures
directly related to the outcome "long-term disability benefits are
reduced because people return to the workplace" did not sufficiently
track progress toward this key outcome. One of the measures was to
"begin implementation of the 'Ticket to Independence' program,
contingent upon enactment of supporting legislation in FY
1998."[Footnote 132] This measure was neither quantifiable nor
measurable, and did not measure the number of beneficiaries achieving
this outcome.

In the 2002 report, SSA identified relevant results that are linked to
strategic objectives. For example, one of SSA's objectives related to
the strategic goal "deliver citizen-centered, world-class service" was
to "maintain the accuracy, timeliness, and efficiency of service to
people applying for Old Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and
Supplemental Security Income (SSI) Aged benefits." SSA reported on the
timeliness of OASI and SSI claims, as well as the implementation of
software and infrastructure for paperless processing of claims, as the
relevant results.

In its 1999 performance report, SSA noted that a number of its goals
were not met, such as those relating to accurate and timely disability
determinations. Also, data on the accuracy of decisions at the initial
level were not available, and accuracy at the appellate level was not
measured. In its 2002 report, 10 percent of the goals were not met and
10 percent were almost met. SSA's report provided explanations for 17
performance goals SSA did not meet. However, not all of the
explanations actually identified the reasons for SSA's not meeting its
goals. For example, SSA did not meet its goals for the performance
indicators "percent of 800-number calls handled accurately--payment"
and "percent of 800-number calls handled accurately--service." The
explanation noted that several quality initiatives were implemented,
but SSA did not provide explanations as to why the goals were not met.
SSA also noted that some of its performance indicators were being
eliminated in favor of more focused and outcome-based goals. In some
cases, SSA identified future plans to improve performance.

In SSA's 2002 performance and accountability report, trend information
was generally available for comparison of data back to fiscal year
1999. This information was helpful in making an assessment whether SSA
was making progress towards its goals. SSA noted that it addressed all
the IG's list of major management challenges in its report, and that it
addressed the major management challenges we identified in its annual
performance plan. SSA also addresses the progress it made against
certain challenges GAO and the IG identified during fiscal year 2002 in
its performance and accountability report.[Footnote 133] For example,
SSA highlights components of its SSI Corrective Action Plan that are
geared to improve the administration of the SSI program and get it
removed from our high-risk list. The IG's report noted that SSA needs
to have performance goals and measures that address the major
management challenges facing SSA, as they are not all addressed. For
example, performance measures were not established to address problems
with the Earnings Suspense File and the integrity of the representative
payee process.

Finally, SSA's performance and accountability report contained a
discussion of the program evaluations conducted, organized by strategic
goal. However, the program evaluations SSA identified were typically
surveys of people who did business with SSA or assessments of internal
needs, such as a survey of training effectiveness and water/air quality
surveys. While this is a slight improvement over its 1999 report, where
there was only a brief summary of program evaluations, it would be
helpful for SSA to report on whether and how its evaluations have
helped answer questions about program performance and results. We have
previously reported that evaluations can help agencies improve their
measurement of program performance and/or understanding of performance
and how it might be improved.[Footnote 134]

SSA's 2002 Report Showed a Limited Relationship between Resources and
Results:

In the fiscal year 2002 performance and accountability report, SSA's
performance goals were not aligned by budget account--rather, they were
associated with strategic goals, which in turn cross budget accounts
and programs. Thus, the monetary, human capital, and technological
resources necessary to achieve many performance goals were not
adequately described. The financial statements show a schedule of
financing and a schedule of budgetary resources for each of SSA's major
programs, and operating expenses were associated with four out of the
five strategic goals.[Footnote 135] However, these resources were not
broken down by performance goal, and were not linked to outcomes.
Additionally, as reported by the IG, SSA needs to further develop its
cost accounting system, which it began to use in fiscal year 2002; such
a system would help to link costs with performance.[Footnote 136]

SSA's 2002 Report Provided General Confidence That Performance Data Are
Credible:

While SSA provides data sources and definitions for the data supporting
its performance indicators, some data issues continue to detract from
SSA's performance report. SSA's transmittal letter noted that the
performance and financial data presented are fundamentally complete and
reliable, and that no material inadequacies were identified. Data
sources are identified for many of the performance indicators, such as
findings from evaluations and quality assurance reports. In certain
cases, data limitations are identified; for example, SSA noted that
data to support the "Percent of SSNs issued accurately" goal does not
include SSNs (social security numbers) assigned via the Enumeration-at-
Birth process and major errors identified by the Office of Quality
Assurance that do not include these SSNs result in SSN cards being
issued erroneously. Some data verification procedures are noted in the
report, but verification procedures are not consistently discussed and
data reliability and completeness is not ensured. The IG noted that of
the 21 measures it reviewed, 16 were reliable; data or documentation of
the methods used to measure SSA's performance were not available for
the other five measures. The IG went further to say that even for the
performance measures found to be reliable, SSA lacks documentation of
the methods and data used to measure its performance. Finally, data
were not available for 17 percent of the performance goals, so it was
difficult to assess whether or not progress had been made in those
areas.

Observations on the Quality of DOT's Fiscal Year 2002 Annual
Performance and Accountability Report:

DOT's fiscal year 2002 performance report provided information that
generally showed the department's performance and progress toward its
goals. Summary tables within the report showed when DOT met or did not
meet its targets and the report supplied brief analyses as to whether
or not DOT would likely meet its targets for fiscal year 2003 based on
actual performance in 2002. A separate section of the report on
performance data completeness and reliability, along with an on-line
compendium, provides a full level of confidence in DOT's performance
data. However, the report does not clearly show the relationship
between resources and results.

DOT's 2002 Report Provided a General Picture of Performance:

DOT's fiscal year 2002 performance report[Footnote 137] provides a
general picture of the department's performance. The report includes
performance summary tables, which show the progress made toward each
strategic objective. These performance summaries include actual
performance data from fiscal years 1996 to 2002 when possible, as well
as the performance targets for fiscal year 2002 and whether or not the
target was met. Similarly, we noted in our 2000 report[Footnote 138]
reviewing DOT's 1999 performance report that performance information
was clearly articulated, with summary tables listing the fiscal year
1999 goals and trend data, and checkmarks to indicate whether or not
goals were met. Figure 25 summarizes DOT's overall performance on its
40 performance targets, as reported in its 2002 report.

Figure 25: Summary of DOT's Performance Indicators for Fiscal Year
2002:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

According to the report, DOT met 24 (60 percent) of its performance
targets. Fourteen (35 percent) of DOT's performance targets were not
met. The report provides explanations for why five of these targets
were unmet. For example, the target for the measure "number of
passengers (in millions) in international markets with open skies
aviation agreements" of the "mobility and economic growth" strategic
objective was unmet. The target was set at 59.7 million passengers,
while DOT's preliminary estimate for this measure indicated there were
57 million passengers. The report states that this target was unmet
because passenger travel diminished in fiscal year 2002 due to the
impact that the events of September 11, 2001, had on air travel.
However, the report did not provide explanations describing why the
nine other targets were not met. A DOT official stated that
explanations for these unmet targets were not included in the 2002
report due, in part, to time constraints. In our 2000 report of DOT's
1999 performance report, we stated that for all of its unmet goals
except transit fatalities, the department provided explanations for not
meeting the goals related to the outcomes we observed.

We noted in our report on DOT's 1999 performance report that the
department supplied strategies to achieve its unmet goals in the
future, for the areas we reviewed. However, of the 14 unmet targets in
the fiscal year 2002 report, DOT provided future plans to achieve only
two. For example, the report provided a plan for future achievement of
the unmet target "percent of environmental justice cases unresolved
after one year." The report stated that DOT's External Complaint
Tracking System was being revised "to track complaints more closely, in
a more timely way, and with a higher level of data quality." DOT is
also developing guidance requiring more intensive legal staff
involvement in external civil rights complaints, especially
environmental justice cases. A DOT official stated that future plans
were not included in the 2002 report for the other unmet targets due,
in part, to time constraints.

Data were unavailable for two of DOT's measures, "cumulative average
percent change in transit passenger-miles traveled per transit market"
and "employment sites (in thousands) made accessible by Job Access and
Reverse Commute (JARC) transportation services." The report explains
the reasons why data were unavailable for both of these measures and
includes plans to provide these data in the future. Data were
unavailable for the JARC program performance measure because DOT had
not received data from JARC grantees to verify that fiscal year 2002
program targets had been achieved. DOT states that a new reporting
system is being implemented, which should improve data gathering
performance.

Although the report does not identify any performance goals that were
impractical or infeasible, it states that the measure on transit
passenger-miles traveled had been changed in fiscal year 2002 because
"it placed excessive emphasis on increasing ridership in the Nation's
very largest urban areas." However, after using the measure for one
year, DOT concluded that the measure should once again be modified to
account for changes in the level of employment in each urban area. The
report states that a recent study found that changes in the level of
employment are a key economic factor related to changes in the level of
transit ridership.

Another strength of DOT's fiscal year 2002 performance report is an
analysis of whether or not DOT will likely meet its planned performance
targets for fiscal year 2003. Each discussion of performance goals
contains an evaluation of the fiscal year 2003 performance plan target
and whether or not it will likely be met based on the fiscal year 2002
data. For example, for its highway fatality rate targets, DOT says that
the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the Federal
Motor Carrier Safety Administration will be challenged to meet the
established fiscal year 2003 targets because targets had not been met
for fiscal year 2002. In other instances where DOT is sure that it will
meet its targets for fiscal year 2003, it simply states so, as in the
case of its aviation safety targets.

DOT's 2002 performance report also includes information on completed
program evaluations. There is a separate section in the report that
discusses DOT's fiscal year 2002 program evaluations. Summaries of the
findings of these evaluations are discussed in this section. For
example, an evaluation of the Noise Set-Aside Portion of the FAA
(Federal Aviation Administration) Airport Improvement Program found
that funding for the program's noise compatibility projects was
variable from year to year, making it difficult to forecast annual
population benefits.

As we found in the 1999 report, the major management challenges that
DOT faces are generally discussed in the 2002 report. These discussions
were contained within the program section to which they relate. The
report also showed the progress DOT has made in addressing its
management challenges. For example, we noted in our January 2003
report[Footnote 139] on DOT's major management challenges that FAA's
financial management systems remained at high risk. DOT's 2002 report
states that FAA created an Interim Fixed Asset System to centrally
control and account for its property and that in fiscal year 2003, FAA
will convert to use Delphi, DOT's financial accounting system.

The 2002 performance report included a discussion on strategic human
capital management as part of DOT's "organizational excellence"
strategic objective. This discussion included a brief overview of DOT's
human capital plan as well as strategies for strategic human capital
management. For example, the report noted that FAA was redirecting
37,300 employees into a results-oriented Air Traffic Organization,
"freeing most of the FAA to manage better and modernize more
efficiently." However, the report did not include a review of the
performance goals and evaluation of the performance plan relative to
the agency's strategic human capital management, as required by the
Homeland Security Act of 2002.

DOT's 2002 Report Showed No Relationship between Resources and Results:

DOT's 2002 performance report did not show the relationship between the
resources it used and the results it achieved in fiscal year 2002. The
financial portion of the report provided a statement of net cost for
each of DOT's programs in fiscal year 2002. The report could be
improved by providing net cost information for DOT's performance goals
in the performance section of the report, similar to the funding
information provided in the 2004 performance plan.

DOT's 2002 Report Provided Full Confidence That Performance Data Are
Credible:

DOT's 2002 performance report provided a full level of confidence that
the department's performance data were credible. In his transmittal
letter, the Secretary of DOT stated that the 2002 report "contains
performance and financial data that are substantially complete and
reliable." The letter also stated that a section of the report assessed
the inadequacies of DOT's performance data and provided plans to remedy
those inadequacies.

The "Performance Data Completeness and Reliability" section of the 2002
report generally discussed data completeness, reliability, and
limitations. This section discussed an overall limitation in DOT's
performance data. The report stated that much of DOT's performance data
came from external sources, and therefore, the department had no direct
control over the quality of these data. The report continues by stating
that DOT takes limitations to its external data into account when it
uses these data.

The 2002 report noted that DOT has compiled source and accuracy
statements that provide detail on the methods used to collect
performance data, sources of variation and bias in the data, methods
used to verify and validate the data, as well as data
limitations.[Footnote 140] However, the online Source and Accuracy
Compendium does not include this information for the goals and measures
related to the department's organizational excellence objective. The
compendium states that a small number of source and accuracy statements
are not yet completed and that they will be added upon completion.

Finally, the 2002 report also described strategies being undertaken to
address the quality of data used by DOT. The report stated that a DOT
intermodal working group addressed data quality issues by developing
departmental statistical standards and by updating source and accuracy
statements for all of DOT's data programs. The working group also
worked to improve quality assurance procedures, evaluate sampling and
nonsampling errors, and develop common definitions for data across
modes.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Federal Managers' Survey Data:

Q1. What is your current grade level?

GS/GM-13 or equivalent (percent): 31.4;
GS/GM-14 or equivalent (percent): 35.2;
GS/GM-15 or equivalent (percent): 24.6;
Senior Executive Service or equivalent (percent): 7.9;
Other - please specify - Continue with next question (percent): 0.9;
Number of respondents: 500.

Q1a. If you answered "Other" in question 1 above, please enter your
response below.

Writing comment (percent): 0.9;
Number of respondents: 3.

Q2. In total, for how many years have you been a supervisor and/or a
manager in the federal government?

Mean: 13.1;
Median: 13;
Minimum: 1;
Maximum: 43;
Number of respondents: 497.

Q2no. Or, if you have never been a supervisor or a manager in the
federal government, please check the box below.

Percent: 0.6;
Number of respondents: 3.

Q3. In your current role, approximately how many government employees
are you responsible for? (Please answer for your permanent position.
Please specify the total number. If none, enter 0.) Enter numeric
digits only. Employees:

Mean: 77.7;
Median: 15;
Minimum: 1;
Maximum: 11,000;
Number of respondents: 475.

Q4. Please indicate where you currently work. (If you are currently on
temporary assignment or on detail, please answer for your permanent
work location.):

Headquarters of my department or agency (percent): 28.9;
A field office of my department or agency (percent): 60.7;
Other - please specify - Continue with next question (percent): 9.5;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q4a. If you answered "Other" in question 4 above, please enter your
response below.

Writing comment (percent): 9.5;
Number of respondents: 38.

Q5. For those program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) that you are involved
with, to what extent, if at all, do you consider your agency's
strategic goals when participating in the following activities? (Check
one box in each row.):

a. Setting program priorities;
To a very great extent (percent): 33.9;
To a great extent (percent): 45.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 11.4;
To a small extent (percent): 4.7;
To no extent (percent): 1.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.2;
No answer (percent): 0.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Allocating resources;
To a very great extent (percent): 30.3;
To a great extent (percent): 39.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 18.9;
To a small extent (percent): 4.8;
To no extent (percent): 1.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.1;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Adopting new program approaches or changing work processes;
To a very great extent (percent): 33.6;
To a great extent (percent): 39.2;
To a moderate extent (percent): 16.5;
To a small extent (percent): 4.6;
To no extent (percent): 2.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.9;
No answer (percent): 1.8;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Developing or refining program performance measures;
To a very great extent (percent): 29.0;
To a great extent (percent): 37.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 16.3;
To a small extent (percent): 8.3;
To no extent (percent): 4.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4.4;
No answer (percent): 0.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q6. Are there performance measures for the program(s)/operation(s)/
project(s) that you are involved with?

Yes (percent): 89.0;
No (percent): 6.2;
Do not know (percent): 3.8;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q7. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following
statements as they relate to performance measures for the program(s)/
operation(s)/project(s) that you are involved with? (Check one box in
each row.) We have performance measures that.

a. Tell us how many things we produce or services we provide. (Output
measures);
To a very great extent (percent): 25.8;
To a great extent (percent): 28.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.4;
To a small extent (percent): 8.4;
To no extent (percent): 4.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.8;
No answer (percent): 11.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Tell us if we are operating efficiently. (Efficiency measures);
To a very great extent (percent): 15.2;
To a great extent (percent): 27.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 25.8;
To a small extent (percent): 13.4;
To no extent (percent): 5.5;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.5;
No answer (percent): 11.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Tell us whether or not we are satisfying our customers. (Customer
service measures);
To a very great extent (percent): 16.8;
To a great extent (percent): 29.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 21.6;
To a small extent (percent): 12.6;
To no extent (percent): 6.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.6;
No answer (percent): 11.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Tell us about the quality of the products or services we provide.
(Quality measures);
To a very great extent (percent): 16.0;
To a great extent (percent): 30.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.5;
To a small extent (percent): 12.6;
To no extent (percent): 5.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0.7;
No answer (percent): 11.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Demonstrate to someone outside of our agency whether or not we are
achieving our intended results. (Outcome measures);
To a very great extent (percent): 19.1;
To a great extent (percent): 35.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.0;
To a small extent (percent): 10.5;
To no extent (percent): 2.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.5;
No answer (percent): 11.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Link our product or service costs with the results we achieve.
(Cost-benefit measures);
To a very great extent (percent): 12.5;
To a great extent (percent): 18.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.7;
To a small extent (percent): 20.0;
To no extent (percent): 11.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6.0;
No answer (percent): 11.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q8. For those program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) that you are involved
with, to what extent, if at all, do you use the information obtained
from performance measurement when participating in the following
activities?

a. Setting program priorities;
To a very great extent (percent): 13.0;
To a great extent (percent): 38.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 21.7;
To a small extent (percent): 10.8;
To no extent (percent): 3.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.2;
No answer (percent): 11.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Allocating resources;
To a very great extent (percent): 14.9;
To a great extent (percent): 36.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 20.3;
To a small extent (percent): 10.8;
To no extent (percent): 3.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.8;
No answer (percent): 12.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Adopting new program approaches or changing work processes;
To a very great extent (percent): 13.9;
To a great extent (percent): 34.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.2;
To a small extent (percent): 10.2;
To no extent (percent): 4.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0.9;
No answer (percent): 11.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Coordinating program efforts with other internal or external
organizations;
To a very great extent (percent): 10.1;
To a great extent (percent): 32.2;
To a moderate extent (percent): 29.4;
To a small extent (percent): 10.9;
To no extent (percent): 3.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.7;
No answer (percent): 11.1;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Refining program performance measures;
To a very great extent (percent): 14.4;
To a great extent (percent): 28.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.7;
To a small extent (percent): 13.2;
To no extent (percent): 3.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4.1;
No answer (percent): 11.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Setting new or revising existing performance goals;
To a very great extent (percent): 16.1;
To a great extent (percent): 32.4;
To a moderate extent (percent): 21.0;
To a small extent (percent): 11.8;
To no extent (percent): 2.9;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.5;
No answer (percent): 12.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Setting individual job expectations for the government employees I
manage or supervise;
To a very great extent (percent): 18.4;
To a great extent (percent): 33.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 22.0;
To a small extent (percent): 9.3;
To no extent (percent): 2.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.4;
No answer (percent): 11.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

h. Rewarding government employees I manage or supervise;
To a very great extent (percent): 17.7;
To a great extent (percent): 33.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 21.8;
To a small extent (percent): 8.2;
To no extent (percent): 4.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.0;
No answer (percent): 11.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

i. Developing and managing contracts;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.3;
To a great extent (percent): 18.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.3;
To a small extent (percent): 10.4;
To no extent (percent): 8.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 24.4;
No answer (percent): 11.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q9. Based on your experience with the program(s)/operation(s)/
project(s) that you are involved with, to what extent, if at all, have
the following factors hindered measuring performance or using the
performance information?

a. Setting program priorities;
To a very great extent (percent): 14.2;
To a great extent (percent): 20.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 32.1;
To a small extent (percent): 19.7;
To no extent (percent): 9.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.9;
No answer (percent): 0.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Different parties are using different definitions to measure
performance;
To a very great extent (percent): 10.3;
To a great extent (percent): 23.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.6;
To a small extent (percent): 24.6;
To no extent (percent): 10.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5.6;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Difficulty obtaining valid or reliable data;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.5;
To a great extent (percent): 22.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 26.0;
To a small extent (percent): 27.2;
To no extent (percent): 12.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4.1;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Difficulty obtaining data in time to be useful;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.6;
To a great extent (percent): 17.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.9;
To a small extent (percent): 26.0;
To no extent (percent): 18.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4.4;
No answer (percent): 2.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Lack of incentives (e.g., rewards, positive recognition);
To a very great extent (percent): 12.9;
To a great extent (percent): 15.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 25.0;
To a small extent (percent): 24.1;
To no extent (percent): 16.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4.8;
No answer (percent): 0.8;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Difficulty resolving conflicting interests of stakeholders, either
internal or external;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.5;
To a great extent (percent): 19.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 25.5;
To a small extent (percent): 22.0;
To no extent (percent): 14.5;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8.1;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Difficulty distinguishing between the results produced by the
program and results caused by other factors;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.4;
To a great extent (percent): 18.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.3;
To a small extent (percent): 28.6;
To no extent (percent): 13.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6.3;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

h. Existing information technology and/or systems not capable of
providing needed data;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.7;
To a great extent (percent): 19.4;
To a moderate extent (percent): 20.6;
To a small extent (percent): 26.6;
To no extent (percent): 17.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5.4;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

i. Lack of staff who are knowledgeable about gathering and/or analyzing
performance information;
To a very great extent (percent): 10.1;
To a great extent (percent): 17.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.4;
To a small extent (percent): 26.2;
To no extent (percent): 16.5;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5.0;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

j. Lack of ongoing top executive commitment or support for using
performance information to make program/funding decisions;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.7;
To a great extent (percent): 16.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 18.4;
To a small extent (percent): 24.0;
To no extent (percent): 23.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7.9;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

k. Lack of ongoing Congressional commitment or support for using
performance information to make program/funding decisions;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.1;
To a great extent (percent): 16.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 18.1;
To a small extent (percent): 16.5;
To no extent (percent): 17.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 23.8;
No answer (percent): 0.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

l. Difficulty determining how to use performance information to improve
the program;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.3;
To a great extent (percent): 12.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 30.1;
To a small extent (percent): 26.6;
To no extent (percent): 18.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5.6;
No answer (percent): 0.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

m. Concern that OMB will micromanage programs in my agency;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.9;
To a great extent (percent): 10.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 14.7;
To a small extent (percent): 19.2;
To no extent (percent): 26.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 19.7;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q10. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following
statements? (Check one box in each row.):

a. Agency managers/supervisors at my level have the decision making
authority they need to help the agency accomplish its strategic goals;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.5;
To a great extent (percent): 30.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 28.1;
To a small extent (percent): 25.2;
To no extent (percent): 5.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0.6;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Agency managers/supervisors at my level are held accountable for
agency accomplishment of its strategic goals;
To a very great extent (percent): 14.6;
To a great extent (percent): 42.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.1;
To a small extent (percent): 12.7;
To no extent (percent): 3.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.5;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Agency managers/supervisors at my level are held accountable for the
results of the program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) they are responsible
for;
To a very great extent (percent): 24.2;
To a great extent (percent): 46.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 17.2;
To a small extent (percent): 7.2;
To no extent (percent): 3.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0.9;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Employees in my agency receive positive recognition for helping the
agency accomplish its strategic goals;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.7;
To a great extent (percent): 27.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 31.2;
To a small extent (percent): 22.0;
To no extent (percent): 7.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1.5;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. My agency's top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to
achieving results;
To a very great extent (percent): 24.4;
To a great extent (percent): 37.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 21.8;
To a small extent (percent): 9.9;
To no extent (percent): 2.9;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.6;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. My agency is investing the resources needed to ensure that its
performance data is of sufficient quality;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.5;
To a great extent (percent): 21.4;
To a moderate extent (percent): 29.3;
To a small extent (percent): 21.9;
To no extent (percent): 7.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 9.3;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q11. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following
statements? (Check one box in each row.) The following items focus on
the program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) that you are responsible for.

a. The individual I report to periodically reviews with me the results
or outcomes of the program(s) operation(s)/project(s) that I am
responsible for;
To a very great extent (percent): 18.8;
To a great extent (percent): 36.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.1;
To a small extent (percent): 15.3;
To no extent (percent): 5.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0.4;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Funding decisions for the program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) I am
responsible for are based on results or outcome-oriented performance
information;
To a very great extent (percent): 4.5;
To a great extent (percent): 20.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.1;
To a small extent (percent): 26.4;
To no extent (percent): 16.5;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7.5;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Staffing and personnel decisions for the program(s)/operation(s)/
project(s) I am responsible for are based on results or outcome-
oriented performance information;
To a very great extent (percent): 4.2;
To a great extent (percent): 20.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 27.8;
To a small extent (percent): 23.2;
To no extent (percent): 19.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.7;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Changes by management above my level to the program(s)/operation(s)/
project(s) I am responsible for are based on results or outcome-
oriented performance information;
To a very great extent (percent): 2.6;
To a great extent (percent): 20.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 25.2;
To a small extent (percent): 26.5;
To no extent (percent): 15.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8.2;
No answer (percent): 1.6;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. It is easy to motivate employees to be more results-oriented in the
program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) I am responsible for;
To a very great extent (percent): 3.5;
To a great extent (percent): 22.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 33.6;
To a small extent (percent): 29.0;
To no extent (percent): 7.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.8;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. I have sufficient information on the validity of the performance
data I use to make decisions;
To a very great extent (percent): 4.7;
To a great extent (percent): 32.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 30.2;
To a small extent (percent): 20.3;
To no extent (percent): 7.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.2;
No answer (percent): 1.8;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q12. During the past 3 years, has your agency provided, arranged, or
paid for training that would help you to accomplish the following
tasks? (Check one box in each row.):

a. Conduct strategic planning;
Yes (percent): 46.7;
No (percent): 52.3;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Set program performance goals;
Yes (percent): 48.8;
No (percent): 50.2;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Develop program performance measures;
Yes (percent): 42.9;
No (percent): 55.5;
No answer (percent): 1.6;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Assess the quality of performance data;
Yes (percent): 35.3;
No (percent): 63.5;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Use program performance information to make decisions;
Yes (percent): 40.7;
No (percent): 56.8;
No answer (percent): 2.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Link the performance of program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) to the
achievement of agency strategic goals;
Yes (percent): 40.8;
No (percent): 57.0;
No answer (percent): 2.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Implement the requirements of the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA or the Results Act);
Yes (percent): 31.9;
No (percent): 66.7;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q13. In your opinion, to what extent, if at all, do you believe you
need training (or additional training) in order to help you to
accomplish the following tasks? (Check one box in each row.):

a. Conduct strategic planning;
To a very great extent (percent): 8.2;
To a great extent (percent): 18.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 27.8;
To a small extent (percent): 30.8;
To no extent (percent): 11.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.8;
No answer (percent): 0.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Set program performance goals;
To a very great extent (percent): 8.6;
To a great extent (percent): 19.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 27.6;
To a small extent (percent): 27.2;
To no extent (percent): 12.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.0;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Develop program performance measures;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.6;
To a great extent (percent): 21.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 29.2;
To a small extent (percent): 23.7;
To no extent (percent): 11.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3.6;
No answer (percent): 1.6;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Assess the quality of performance data;
To a very great extent (percent): 8.9;
To a great extent (percent): 22.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 25.7;
To a small extent (percent): 25.7;
To no extent (percent): 13.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.5;
No answer (percent): 1.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Use program performance information to make decisions;
To a very great extent (percent): 9.5;
To a great extent (percent): 22.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.7;
To a small extent (percent): 26.9;
To no extent (percent): 13.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.2;
No answer (percent): 1.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Link the performance of program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) to the
achievement of agency strategic goals;
To a very great extent (percent): 12.0;
To a great extent (percent): 21.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.2;
To a small extent (percent): 27.3;
To no extent (percent): 11.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2.8;
No answer (percent): 0.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Implement the requirements of the Government Performance and Results
Act (GPRA or the Results Act);
To a very great extent (percent): 12.0;
To a great extent (percent): 25.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 26.4;
To a small extent (percent): 17.6;
To no extent (percent): 11.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6.9;
No answer (percent): 1.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q14. What, in your opinion, can the Federal government do to improve
its overall focus on managing for results?

Writing comment (percent): 65.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q15. Prior to receiving this questionnaire , which of the following
statements best describes your awareness of GPRA?

I had never heard of GPRA. (percent): 19.5;
I had heard of GPRA but had no knowledge of its requirements.
(percent): 13.5;
I had heard of GPRA and had a low level of knowledge of its
requirements. (percent): 24.5;
I had heard of GPRA and had moderate knowledge of its requirements.
(percent): 35.4;
I had heard of GPRA and had extensive knowledge of its requirements.
(percent): 5.6;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q16. For those program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) that you are involved
with, to what extent, if at all, do you consider the annual performance
goals set forth in your agency's GPRA annual performance plan when
participating in the following activities?

a. Setting program priorities;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.5;
To a great extent (percent): 19.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 24.4;
To a small extent (percent): 12.7;
To no extent (percent): 13.5;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 20.8;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Allocating resources;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.2;
To a great extent (percent): 16.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.9;
To a small extent (percent): 15.7;
To no extent (percent): 14.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 22.5;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Adopting new program approaches or changing work processes;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.9;
To a great extent (percent): 21.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.8;
To a small extent (percent): 13.5;
To no extent (percent): 13.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 21.1;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Coordinating program efforts with other internal or external
organizations;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.4;
To a great extent (percent): 16.2;
To a moderate extent (percent): 26.4;
To a small extent (percent): 15.7;
To no extent (percent): 12.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 22.3;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Developing or refining program performance measures;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.7;
To a great extent (percent): 18.1;
To a moderate extent (percent): 21.5;
To a small extent (percent): 15.9;
To no extent (percent): 14.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 22.9;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Setting individual job expectations for the government employees I
manage or supervise;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.7;
To a great extent (percent): 22.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.7;
To a small extent (percent): 15.4;
To no extent (percent): 15.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 20.5;
No answer (percent): 1.6;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Rewarding government employees I manage or supervise;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.9;
To a great extent (percent): 19.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 20.4;
To a small extent (percent): 16.1;
To no extent (percent): 16.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 20.5;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

h. Developing and managing contracts;
To a very great extent (percent): 3.3;
To a great extent (percent): 12.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 14.9;
To a small extent (percent): 13.3;
To no extent (percent): 16.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 37.1;
No answer (percent): 2.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q17. During the past 3 years, have you been involved in these
activities? (Check one box in each row.) GPRA-related activities:

a. Developing ways to measure whether program performance goals are
being achieved;
Yes (percent): 45.8;
No (percent): 52.7;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Gathering and analyzing data to measure whether programs are meeting
their specific performance goals;
Yes (percent): 50.6;
No (percent): 47.9;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. Using measures for program performance goals to determine if the
agency's strategic goals are being achieved;
Yes (percent): 42.6;
No (percent): 55.9;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Assessing the quality of data used in measuring performance;
Yes (percent): 39.7;
No (percent): 58.2;
No answer (percent): 2.1;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q18. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with the following
statements? (Check one box in each row.) Extent I agree with the
following statements:

a. The objectives of my program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) are in
alignment with my agency's strategic plan under GPRA;
To a very great extent (percent): 10.1;
To a great extent (percent): 29.4;
To a moderate extent (percent): 15.8;
To a small extent (percent): 7.2;
To no extent (percent): 1.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 35.0;
No answer (percent): 1.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. The costs associated with implementing GPRA have taken time or funds
away from other important activities or projects;
To a very great extent (percent): 4.8;
To a great extent (percent): 7.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 13.1;
To a small extent (percent): 15.1;
To no extent (percent): 10.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 46.1;
No answer (percent): 2.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. The benefits to my agency that are achieved by implementing GPRA are
worth the costs incurred in doing so (e.g., in time, money, and
effort);
To a very great extent (percent): 3.8;
To a great extent (percent): 11.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 15.8;
To a small extent (percent): 12.4;
To no extent (percent): 7.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 48.0;
No answer (percent): 1.3;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. GPRA strategic and annual performance plans are mostly a repackaging
of goals, measures, and objectives that were already being used within
my agency;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.7;
To a great extent (percent): 22.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.1;
To a small extent (percent): 7.7;
To no extent (percent): 2.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 40.1;
No answer (percent): 1.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Managerial effectiveness is impeded by the lack of integration
between GPRA and other federal management programs;
To a very great extent (percent): 3.8;
To a great extent (percent): 7.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 16.3;
To a small extent (percent): 13.4;
To no extent (percent): 6.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 50.5;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. My agency considers contributions to and comments on GPRA plans or
reports from managers/supervisors at my level: ;
To a very great extent (percent): 3.5;
To a great extent (percent): 10.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 15.6;
To a small extent (percent): 15.0;
To no extent (percent): 11.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 42.1;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Agency managers/supervisors at my level use GPRA annual performance
plans to manage their program(s)/operation(s)/project(s);
To a very great extent (percent): 3.6;
To a great extent (percent): 7.8;
To a moderate extent (percent): 18.5;
To a small extent (percent): 16.4;
To no extent (percent): 17.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 33.9;
No answer (percent): 2.1;
Number of respondents: 503.

h. GPRA's planning and reporting requirements impose a significant
paperwork burden;
To a very great extent (percent): 2.9;
To a great extent (percent): 7.4;
To a moderate extent (percent): 17.1;
To a small extent (percent): 15.9;
To no extent (percent): 7.3;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 47.7;
No answer (percent): 1.8;
Number of respondents: 503.

i. GPRA has caused agency managers/supervisors at my level to place a
greater emphasis on getting input from appropriate stakeholders on
their interests and expectations;
To a very great extent (percent): 2.5;
To a great extent (percent): 7.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 20.8;
To a small extent (percent): 13.1;
To no extent (percent): 12.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 42.2;
No answer (percent): 2.1;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q19. To what extent, if at all, do you believe that GPRA has improved
your agency's ability to deliver results to the American public.

To a very great extent (Continue with question 19a. ) (percent): 1.6;
To a great extent (Continue with question 19a. ) (percent): 6.9;
To a moderate extent (Continue with question 19a. ) (percent): 14.5;
To a small extent (percent): 25.2;
To no extent (percent): 11.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 38.0;
No answer (percent): 2.1;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q19a. Please briefly describe how GPRA has improved your agency's
ability to deliver results to the American public.

Writing comment (percent): 23.0;
Number of respondents: 139.

Q20. To what extent, if at all, do you believe the following persons or
entities pay attention to your agency's efforts under GPRA? (Check one
box in each row.):

a. Department Secretary (if applicable);
To a very great extent (percent): 10.3;
To a great extent (percent): 18.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 10.6;
To a small extent (percent): 6.2;
To no extent (percent): 3.6;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 47.1;
No answer (percent): 3.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

b. Agency head other than Department Secretary (if applicable);
To a very great extent (percent): 11.4;
To a great extent (percent): 20.6;
To a moderate extent (percent): 12.9;
To a small extent (percent): 6.9;
To no extent (percent): 2.1;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 42.9;
No answer (percent): 3.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

c. The individual I report to;
To a very great extent (percent): 8.5;
To a great extent (percent): 16.0;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.3;
To a small extent (percent): 14.0;
To no extent (percent): 13.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 26.6;
No answer (percent): 2.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

d. Managers and supervisors at my level;
To a very great extent (percent): 5.1;
To a great extent (percent): 13.2;
To a moderate extent (percent): 19.7;
To a small extent (percent): 19.5;
To no extent (percent): 16.0;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 24.1;
No answer (percent): 2.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

e. Employees who report to me;
To a very great extent (percent): 2.5;
To a great extent (percent): 8.3;
To a moderate extent (percent): 13.8;
To a small extent (percent): 18.1;
To no extent (percent): 30.7;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 24.0;
No answer (percent): 2.7;
Number of respondents: 503.

f. Office of Management and Budget;
To a very great extent (percent): 14.1;
To a great extent (percent): 16.7;
To a moderate extent (percent): 11.4;
To a small extent (percent): 4.0;
To no extent (percent): 1.8;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 49.0;
No answer (percent): 2.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

g. Congressional committees;
To a very great extent (percent): 7.8;
To a great extent (percent): 14.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 13.0;
To a small extent (percent): 8.2;
To no extent (percent): 3.5;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 50.3;
No answer (percent): 2.6;
Number of respondents: 503.

h. The audit community (e.g., GAO, Inspectors General);
To a very great extent (percent): 11.7;
To a great extent (percent): 16.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 11.5;
To a small extent (percent): 7.3;
To no extent (percent): 1.2;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 48.2;
No answer (percent): 3.2;
Number of respondents: 503.

i. The general public;
To a very great extent (percent): 1.5;
To a great extent (percent): 2.5;
To a moderate extent (percent): 6.1;
To a small extent (percent): 17.5;
To no extent (percent): 26.4;
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 42.2;
No answer (percent): 3.9;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q21. To what extent, if at all, do you believe that efforts to
implement GPRA to date have improved the program(s)/operation(s)/
project(s) in which you are involved?

I have not been sufficiently involved in GPRA to have an opinion.
(percent): 48.7;
To a very great extent (percent): 2.9;
To a great extent (percent): 5.2;
To a moderate extent (percent): 14.7;
To a small extent (percent): 16.2;
To no extent (percent): 10.0;
No answer (percent): 2.4;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q22. To what extent, if at all, do you believe that efforts to
implement GPRA to date have improved your agency's programs/operations/
projects?

I have not been sufficiently involved in GPRA to have an opinion.
(percent): 47.9;
To a very great extent (percent): 2.3;
To a great extent (percent): 6.2;
To a moderate extent (percent): 17.0;
To a small extent (percent): 16.3;
To no extent (percent): 8.7;
No answer (percent): 1.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q23. To what extent, if at all, do you believe implementing GPRA can
improve your agency's programs/operations/projects in the future?

To a very great extent (percent): 3.4;
To a great extent (percent): 11.9;
To a moderate extent (percent): 23.7;
To a small extent (percent): 16.7;
To no extent (percent): 5.6;
No basis to judge (percent): 35.7;
No answer (percent): 3.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q24. If you have been involved to any extent in implementing GPRA for
the program(s)/operation(s)/project(s) you are involved with, what has
been your greatest difficulty, and in what ways, if any, do you think
this difficulty could be addressed?

Writing comment (percent): 26.0;
Number of respondents: 503.

Q25. If you have additional comments regarding any previous question or
any comments/suggestions concerning GPRA, please use the space provided
below.

Writing comment (percent): 16.5;
Number of respondents: 503.

Note: Percents reported are weighted percents based on the population
size. Unweighted N reported for each item.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix VII: Agencies Subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act:

The Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (the CFO Act) created the
position of Chief Financial Officer in each executive department and in
each major executive agency in the federal government. The agencies
covered by the CFO Act are:

1. Agency for International Development:

2. Department of Agriculture:

3. Department of Commerce:

4. Department of Defense:

5. Department of Education:

6. Department of Energy:

7. Department of Health and Human Services:

8. Department of Housing and Urban Development:

9. Department of the Interior:

10. Department of Justice:

11. Department of Labor:

12. Department of State:

13. Department of Transportation:

14. Department of the Treasury:

15. Department of Veterans Affairs:

16. Environmental Protection Agency:

17. Federal Emergency Management Agency[Footnote 141]

18. General Services Administration:

19. National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

20. National Science Foundation:

21. Nuclear Regulatory Commission:

22. Office of Personnel Management:

23. Small Business Administration:

24. Social Security Administration[Footnote 142]

[End of section]

Appendix VIII: Comments from the Office of Management and Budget:

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT:
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20503:

DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR MANAGEMENT:

February 2, 2004:

Ms. Pat Dalton:
Director:
Strategic Issues:
General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Dalton:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft GAO report on
GPRA implementation (Results-Oriented Government: GPRA has Established
a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38).

We appreciate GAO's extensive review of the Executive Branch's
implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA). We
agree that GPRA provides a foundation for making the Federal government
more results-oriented. However, too often, neither Congress nor the
Executive Branch was using GPRA performance information to manage or
oversee programs. As you know, we are giving enhanced attention to
agency and program results and identifying the corrective action
necessary to overcome any shortcomings in program management or
performance. Our goal should be to implement those corrective actions,
which will help us realize the results-orientation envisioned by GPRA.

Your recommendations will enhance our efforts to make the government
more results-oriented. For instance, we will continue to use the
Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to improve agency performance
measurement practices and share those practices across
government. And we will revise our guidance, both for GPRA and the
PART, to clarify the integrated and complementary relationship between
the two initiatives. We will also work with agencies to ensure they are
provided adequate training in performance management, a key objective
of the PMA.

With respect to your recommendation to produce a government-wide
strategic and performance plan, we believe that the President's annual
Budget represents the Executive Branch's government-wide strategic and
performance plan. The President's Budget provides a
strategic cross-cutting view of the President's priorities, and the
Budget is providing increasing emphasis on performance. The Budget
includes a discussion of agency performance against goals, as well as
agency status and progress on the President's Management Agenda. As the
Administration works to reach its goal of applying the PART to all
programs administered by the Federal government, we will be able to
include in the President's Budget outcome-oriented goals for all the
government's programs.

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on your draft
report. I appreciate your willingness to take our oral and written
comments into consideration in the final draft. I look forward to
working with you to improve the ways in which we are creating a
results-oriented government.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Clay Johnson III:

[End of section]

Appendix IX: Comments from the Department of Energy:

Department of Energy:
Washington, DC 20585:

January 15, 2004:

Ms. Patricia A. Dalton, Director:
Strategic Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Dalton:

We are forwarding our comments on the draft audit entitled, "Results -
Oriented Government, GPRA has Established a Solid Foundation for
Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38, January 2004." In this report,
GAO reviewed the draft strategic plans, annual performance plans, and
annual performance reports for the Department of Energy (DOE) and five
other agencies. The DOE took a different approach to preparing these
documents than some other agencies. Below we have demonstrated how we
complied with GPRA guidelines in preparing the required documents, yet
in some cases GAO did not give us the proper credit.

In regard to Annual Performance Plans (APPS), GAO compared agencies'
APPs for 2004 with 1999. The report (pages 8-9) indicates that DOE was
the only agency of the six reviewed that did not:

* Maintain or improve our efforts to provide a clear picture of intended
performance.

* Specify the strategies and resources we intended to use to achieve our
performance goals.

* Report on how we would ensure performance data will be credible.

DOE disagrees with all three comments.

* In the introduction section of the FY 2004 APP, we provide a clear
picture of intended performance. Each of the 17 General Goals contains
a description of the program. A good example of providing a clear
picture of performance can be found on page 12 of our FY 2004 APP in
General Goal 1 where each activity (hydrogen, wind, hydropower, solar,
etc.) is separately addressed.

* Each General Goal contains a paragraph on the means and strategies
that will be used to achieve our goals. In addition, funding is
included at the General Goal level.

* The introduction contains a section on "Criteria for Assessing our
Results." Under the Validation and Verification section on page 4 of
our FY 2004 APP, we discuss the Joule software package used for
documenting and tracking performance data.

On page 1 I of the report, GAO states that "The clarity of Energy's
plan remained limited because its annual goals were not clearly linked
to its mission, the long-term goals in its strategic plan, or the
program activities in its budget request." This is not a accurate
statement. As was explained to the GAO team that visited with DOE, when
the FY 2004 APP was prepared, the draft strategic plan contained 17
General Goals and matched the published version of the FY 2004 APP. As
a result of coordinating our draft strategic plan within DOE and with
the Office of Management and Budget, the draft strategic plan used for
this report had been reduced to seven General Goals. Had the draft of
the strategic plan in its place at the time the FY 2004 APP was
prepared been used, there would have been a one-to-one correlation
between the goals in the APP and the strategic plan.

The portion of the draft GAO report dedicated to Annual Performance
Reports for FY 2002 (i.e., Performance and Accountability Report (PAR))
states on page 19, that six agencies (including DOE) did not
consistently report the reasons for not meeting their goals. In the DOE
FY 2002 PAR, each target that was not met provided a plan of action for
addressing the causes of not meeting the target. An example can be
found on page 32 of the FY 2002 PAR, under SC3-1, where an action plan
is provided for a target that was not met.

Also in reference to the DOE FY 2002 PAR, page 105 of the draft GAO
report indicates that DOE did not provide a discussion of the
relationship between the strategic plan, performance plan, and the
performance report. However, page 80 of the FY 2002 PAR under the
introductory section of the Detailed Performance Results contains a
paragraph dedicated to providing that linkage.

We are hopeful that our comments will lead to a fair and accurate
presentation of DOE in your final report. Our staff is available to
meet with you to discuss these points in further detail. In order to
arrange such a meeting, please contact Van Jones on 202-586-4050.

Signed by:

James G. Powers:

Director, Office of Program Assessment and Evaluation/OMBE:

The following are our comments on DOE's letter dated January 15, 2004.

GAO Comments:

The Director of the Office of Program Assessment and Evaluation
forwarded written comments from DOE on a draft of this report. DOE
disagreed with several of our conclusions concerning its 2004 Annual
Performance Plan and 2002 Performance and Accountability Report. We
incorporated the additional information and perspectives of DOE into
our report as appropriate.

1. We stated that, when compared to the 1999 Annual Performance Plan,
DOE's 2004 Annual Performance Plan continued to provide a limited
picture of intended performance. DOE disagreed, stating that the plan
provided a clear picture of intended performance because a description
of each program was contained in each of the general goals. We agree
that a description of programs is provided for each goal, and we also
stated in our draft report that improvement was made in developing
results-oriented performance measures that pertained specifically to
fiscal year 2004. However, in our view, describing each program does
not sufficiently explain DOE's expectations for intended performance.
More specifically, we found the overall picture of intended performance
was limited because DOE did not specifically describe how it
coordinates with other agencies to accomplish crosscutting programs and
did not provide a clear link between its annual goals and its mission
and strategic goals. In our draft report we acknowledged that a link
did not exist between the performance plan and the strategic plan
because the strategic plan was revised after the performance plan was
finalized. Nevertheless, DOE did not revise the final 2004 performance
plan to reflect its changes in strategic goals. The lack of alignment
between the performance plan and strategic plan goals limits the
usefulness of the performance plan to support managers and staff in
their day-to-day activities in achieving DOE's long-term strategic
goals.

2. In response to our observation that DOE provided a general
discussion of the strategies and resources needed to achieve its
performance goals, DOE stated that its 2004 annual performance plan
provided specific strategies and resources that will be used to achieve
performance goals. DOE also noted that funding was included at the
general goal level. We agree that funding was included at the general
strategic goal level. However, better plans relate resources to the
achievement of performance goals. DOE did not provide resource
information at the performance goal level. Furthermore, while DOE
discussed external factors that could affect its ability to achieve its
performance goals at a high level, it did not discuss any specific
strategies to mitigate those factors.

3. DOE disagreed with our characterization that its 2004 annual
performance plan provided limited confidence that performance data will
be credible. The department stated that the introduction section of its
plan contained specific sections on assessing results and validating
and verifying data, as well as discussed a software package used to
document and track performance. In our draft report, we stated that
DOE's plan showed some improvement over its 1999 plan by describing
credible procedures to verify and validate performance information and
by mentioning specific program evaluations for each goal. We also noted
that DOE acquired new commercial software for performance tracking
through remote data entry, monitoring, and oversight by program offices
and managers. However, we concluded that DOE's reporting of credible
performance data was limited because its plan does not specifically
identify data limitations overall or for each of its goals. As we
stated in our report, we found this to be of particular concern
because, as we mentioned in our 2003 performance and accountability
series, DOE has several management challenges where data quality is a
concern.

4. Concerning its 2002 Annual Performance and Accountability Report,
DOE stated that it provided a plan of action for addressing the causes
of targets that were not met. We agree, and in our draft report we
state that all targets that were not met or had mixed results contained
a plan of action to achieve the target in the future. We also found
that the majority of DOE targets that were not met or had mixed results
contained clear explanations. We revised our text in the final version
of this report to make these findings more evident.

5. Finally, DOE disagreed with our finding that it did not provide a
discussion of the relationship between the strategic plan, performance
plan, and the performance report in its 2002 Performance and
Accountability Report. DOE stated that the introductory section of the
report contains a paragraph that discusses the linkages between these
three reports. However, although the performance and accountability
report links these documents by organizing its results section
according to strategic goals, associated program performance goals and
targets, it did not succinctly demonstrate how the results relate to
the annual and long-term strategic goals. We modified the draft
accordingly to clarify this point.

[End of section]

Appendix X: Comments from the Department of Housing and Urban
Development:

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
WASHINGTON, DC 20410-3000:

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER:

JAN 9 2003:

Ms. Patricia A. Dalton:
Director:
Strategic Issues:

U.S. General Accounting Office:
451 G Street NW:
Washington, DC 20548:

The Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) appreciates the
recognition of the substantial progress HUD has made in meeting the
Government Performance and Results Act requirements in your draft
report entitled "Results-Oriented Government: GPRA has Established
a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results." All of the areas
that GAO has suggested for further improvement are in process or under
consideration at HUD.

Per your request, we are providing the enclosed comments for your
consideration in clarifying or correcting the draft report. Please
contact James Martin at (202) 708-0638 ext. 3706 or Kenneth M.
Leventhal (202) 708-0614 ext. 6849 if you have any questions.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by:

De W. Ritchie:

Deputy Chief Financial Officer:

Enclosure:

ENCLOSURE:

Comments for GAO:

Strategic Plan:

Comment 1: In the last paragraph on page 4 of the draft report, we
question why HUD is omitted from the list of agencies whose strategic
plans contained long-term goals that: demonstrated improvements in the
quality of their 1997 goals; covered their missions; were results-
oriented; and were expressed in a manner that could be used to gauge
future success. HUD's March 2003 Strategic Plan addresses all these
issues. The omission of HUD from this listing appears inconsistent with
the HUD progress recognized by GAO in Table 1 on page 3 of the draft
report.

In addition, HUD does not believe that the improvements in both long-
term numerical and intermediate goals are fully reflected. We would
first comment that the nature of a Strategic Plan has certain
limitations as to the level of details and that the linkages flow in
large part from the corresponding development of the Annual Performance
Plan. Furthermore, we do not agree with the assessment on page 41 that
the link between long-term and intermediate goals is difficult to
discern. For example, in the last paragraph of page 41, the general
point is not apparent. The statement that "long-term performance
measures are not consistently linked to a corresponding intermediate
measure" seems to miss the point that both long-term and intermediate
measures are aligned with strategic goals. The need for a direct
linkage with each other is not apparent. Second, the example given
seems to be characterized as a problem simply because the baseline has
not yet been determined. It is not clear how this fact illustrates the
general point. Finally, the statement about the number of respondents
to be surveyed seems out of place; the appropriate consideration for a
Strategic Plan would seem to be whether a statistically reliable
measure currently exists or is planned. HUD suggests that extraneous
material be edited out of the paragraph to clarify the point, and that
GAO further consider the following points.

* HUD worked diligently to improve the quality of its long-term
strategic goals and substantially increased the number of long-term
goals and advanced the quality by committing to many numerical goals
that can be reviewed, as was requested during Congressional
consultation. The provision of numerical goals makes HUD's goals
particularly meaningful since they can then be measured. In addition,
many of the long-term performance measures reflect a maturing of HUD's
efforts and ability to measure performance accurately. As an example,
the PHAS and SEMAP systems have now been in place for sufficient time
to provide over the course of the strategic plan accurate measurement
of progress in our Public Housing and Section 8 programs which
represent close to 70 percent of the Department's overall resources.

* HUD also feels strongly that the long-term performance measurements
under Strategic Goal: Embrace High Standards of Ethics, Management and
Accountability reflect substantial progress in capturing the major
management challenges facing the Department as identified by GAO and IG
reviews.

Comment 2: On page 40, HUD is given credit for explaining how it will
coordinate with other agencies but credit should also be recognized on
page 7. Paragraph 3, states that none of the agencies provided any
details regarding crosscutting activities. Following are citations from
HUD's Strategic Plan, for GAO's consideration:

* On page 7. HUD cites its intention to "Work with the Department of
Treasury to enact a tax credit for developers of affordable single-
family housing."

* On page 17, under "Increase-housing opportunities for persons with
disabilities HUD cites "...a pilot program in 11 states called Project
Access, a joint effort between HUD and the Department of HHS designed
to ease the transition of non-elderly persons with disabilities from
nursing homes into community living and also cites...."

* "Signing a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Justice
and IRS to ensure that multifamily properties within the Low-Income
Housing Tax Credit Program, the number one producer of low-income
housing, comply with federal accessibility standards."

* On page 26, HUD details the interagency approach in fighting
homelessness reflected in the reauthorized Interagency Council on the
Homeless and the coordination between the Secretaries of HUD, HHS, and
Veterans Affairs.

* On page 34, HUD cites the cooperative efforts with the Department of
Justice to enforce the Fair Housing Act and with the Departments of
Treasury and Justice to ensure the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit
projects are in compliance with the Fair Housing Act.

* On page 50 the Plan also refers to the conducting of interagency
events and conferences designed to educate and train faith-based and
community organizations on equal access issues and partnership
opportunities.

* Finally, the Department has a more extensive discussion of Interagency
Partnerships on page 53, which highlights 6 additional interagency
efforts.

Comment 3: On page 42, GAO states that, "HUD's current strategic plan
does not describe how program evaluations were used to develop its
strategic goals or other components of its plan, and does not include a
schedule for future evaluations." On page 3, HUD requests that in Table
1 and in the discussion on page 3 GAO will recognize HUD's fulfillment
of the Evaluations element in our Strategic Plan. For example, the
closing cost research discussed on page 9 is the only feasible way to
address the issue of home purchase transaction costs. The research
directly supports the long-term performance measure and the strategic
objective, and the discussion specifies a timetable for replicating the
evaluation for long-term performance assessment. Similarly, the
"awareness of fair housing laws" discussion (page 35, as well as 33-34)
shows how research provided a baseline and was used to establish a
goal, and also provides a timetable for replicating the study. Numerous
similar examples appear.

HUD was not recognized for the Plan's extensive discussion of policy
development and program evaluation supporting strategic goals (pages
57-60). For example, the "increasing minority homeownership" and
"Affordable housing goals for GSEs" discussions on
page 57 explain how research helped establish the goals and in turn how
research is being shaped to address policy issues that are critical to
goal achievement. Program evaluation also is mentioned throughout the
document, and plays a central role in the establishment of performance
goals; a number of the long-term performance measures and intermediate
measures explicitly rely on research efforts to supplement the
performance metrics available from Administrative data for the reasons
discussed above, HUD requests that GAO modify Table 111. 4 and the
discussion on page 39 to recognize the inclusion of evaluations
material in HUD's Strategic Plan. The plan explains how evaluations
were used to establish and measure goals in the Strategic Plan, and
identifies timetables for several evaluations. In light of this
material, it seems appropriate to change the "No" in Table 111. 4 to
"Yes."

HUD believes that the second paragraph of page 42 is factually
incorrect for the reasons discussed above. It would seem appropriate
for GAO to recognize the ways in which HUD's Strategic Plan fulfills
the GPRA evaluations requirement and to identify ways in which it falls
short of GAO's criteria for a successful presentation of evaluation
information.

Comment 4: On page 42 the draft rises the issue of how HUD will
"discern between those jobs created by CDBG and those created by other
means", this question is more appropriate to a data review or data
audit and seems unnecessary for this report.

Annual Performance Plans:

Comment 1: HUD included a detailed Means and Strategy discussion for
each of our Strategic Goals and we believe we should be added to the
DOE citation on pages 12-13.

Comment 2: On page 75, HUD's goal is misstated: it should read,
"Promote decent affordable housing." A strategic objective is misstated
on the same page: "Increase minority homeownership."

Performance and Accountability Report:

Comment 1: On page 13, for the FY 2002 PAR, HUD for the first time
provided a table akin to the SSA table with results shown in the front
of each Strategic Goal Section. The table/shows whether HUD
"substantially met" (a check mark) or did not meet (no check mark) and/
or provided extensive footnotes where necessary to clarify the result.
In addition, HUD had approximately 190 data elements to report on
compared to the 69 cited for SSA.

We recognize that the number of indicators required by GPRA guidance
regarding full coverage of program and activities does require a
thorough effort to review HUD's inclusive performance results. Thus,
the multi-pronged nature of HUD's mission and programs to some extent
precludes simple summaries of overall performance. HUD believes that
the summary tables for each strategic goal provided the best and most
feasible balance of simplicity, transparency and completeness for the
Department's strategic framework and programmatic structure.

Comment 2: On page 19, the report says that HUD, SBA and DOT did not
discuss plans or strategies to achieve unmet goals in the future and
that HUD and several other agencies did not report the reasons for not
meeting their goals. HUD believes that we consistently tried to report
on reasons for not meeting goals as well as discussing strategies to
achieve unmeet goals in the future. We would concede that we may not
have done this in every case and that is in part because it is often
difficult to assess why some goals were not met and therefore what
actions might improve performance. As an example of our consistent
effort, on the very first goal and indicator in which we did not meet a
goal, pages 2-13, indicator 1. 1.f., the first paragraph under
"Results" gives a reason for missing the target and the following
paragraph describes our planned efforts to improve results. This same
approach is on the very next indicator on pages 2-14, indicator 1.1.13
and is replete throughout the report.

Comment 3: Regarding the middle paragraph on page 108 of the draft
report, HUD requests that GAO consider: 1) the impacts of acceleration
of the performance report issuance on an agency's ability to include an
evaluation of the new fiscal year's performance plan relative to the
performance attained in the just completed fiscal year, and 2)
reasonable alternative actions to fulfill this requirement. At HUD, the
issuance of the annual performance report was initially completed in
six months or 180 days after the end of the fiscal year and this has
been accelerated to 120 days last year, 80 days this year and will be
in only 45 days next year. As a reasonable alternative, HUD generally
considers prior year performance in conjunction with updating the
annual performance plan for each upcoming year.

The intended point of the last paragraph on page 108 needs to be
clarified for HUD and other users of this report. Whereas the previous
paragraph contends that HUD's FY 2002 performance report did not
include an evaluation of the FY 2003 performance plan relative to
performance attained in FY 2002, the paragraph in question cites two
examples where HUD's FY 2002 performance report reflects an adjustment
of FY 2003 plans based on an assessment of prior year performance. If
the examples are to be retained in the final report, HUD requests that
they be put in proper context because the current wording incorrectly
implies that HUD no longer has an interest in establishing and
measuring goals for homeownership or housing quality. HUD did eliminate
the two indicators in question because they were too broad and beyond
the direct scope or influence of HUD's programs. However, the draft
report fails to indicate that HUD's performance plans and reports
retained other indicators that capture the direct impact of HUD
programs on homeownership and housing quality.

Comments 4: On page 110, we disagree with the chart's depiction that 35
percent of HUD's performance targets were "undetermined" and that 15
percent had "no explanation." While it is true that detailed
explanations of missed goals were not provided in the summary charts at
the beginning of each strategic goal section, many of the missed
targets had explanations in the individual indicator write-ups that
followed the summaries. We request that GAO reassess the basis for the
percentages and labels reflected in this chart to accurately reflect
the content of HUD's performance report. We are concerned that GAO has
not recognized the complexity in reporting whether indicator
performance goals have been substantially met or missed. The estimate
of 47 percent is of concern since HUD has not done that measurement and
there can be very legitimate differences as to how to score indicators
where "results are too complex to summarize" or data is unavailable. We
are also concerned how you determined that 2 percent of data is "not
reliable."

More specifically, on page 110, the footnote to Figure V.4 appears to
mischaracterize the purpose of the footnotes in HUD's performance
report cards. The footnotes are intended to briefly and transparently
disclose attributes of the performance data in the report cards that
could mislead a reader who does not read the full discussion of each
performance indicator. In a number of instances, the explanations
appear along with a statement of whether targets were missed. HUD
requests that GAO revise the statement "Rather than stating if some
performance targets were met or not, HUD provided the following
explanations" to capture our efforts to better inform the reader.

In Figure V.4, it is unclear why HUD indicators are characterized as
"undetermined," "no explanation," and "not reliable," as GAO has not
defined these terms or their criteria. The preponderance of
"undetermined" and "no explanation" designations is especially puzzling
and suggests that GAO may have misinterpreted the performance report
cards. HUD requests that GAO review these indicators for
recategorization as "data not available" (as denoted by footnote "a" or
"goal not achieved." No indicator should be classified as
"undetermined" simply because HUD described it with a footnote.
Agencies also appear to be treated inconsistently in the use of
categories and the way indicators are assigned to categories. For
example, a number of HUD indicators did not have a performance target
for fiscal year 2002, usually because data sources were not scheduled
to be available. These indicators were denoted by footnote "b" in HUD's
performance report card. GAO characterized these indicators as "data
not expected" for the Department of Education (Figure V.1), but has not
used this category for HUD. HUD requests that GAO review all indicators
with footnote "b" for recategorization as "data not expected."

Comment 5: On page 93, first paragraph, the first sentence seems to be
confusing the annual performance "plan" with the annual performance
"report," as it is unclear what the report could do to make the plan
more credible.

Comment 6: On page 107, second paragraph, it appears that "fiscal"
should be changed to "fiscal year."

The following are our comments on HUD's letter dated January 9, 2004.

GAO Comments:

HUD provided written comments and disagreed with several of our
observations, which we address below. HUD also mentioned that all of
the areas we suggested for further improvement were already in process
or being considered. Where appropriate, we incorporated HUD's comments
and perspectives to clarify our report.

1. HUD did not agree with our observation that the link between long-
term and intermediate goals in its strategic plan is difficult to
discern. The department mentioned that the need for a direct link
between long-term and intermediate goals is not apparent, as they are
aligned with strategic goals. GPRA requires that an agency's strategic
plan contain, among other things, a description of the relationship
between the long-term goals and objectives and the annual performance
goals. In addition, OMB's June 2002 Circular A-11 states that the
strategic plan should briefly outline how annual performance goals
relate to the long-term, general goals, and how they help determine the
achievement of the general goals. Federal agencies can help readers
understand how they move from general goals to specific, measurable
outcomes by discussing how they plan to measure progress in achieving
the long term-goals in their strategic plan. For example, for its
strategic goal of "Increase Homeownership Opportunities," HUD mentions
that one of its long-term performance measures is to combat predatory
lending. Readers can review the intermediate measures listed under that
goal to get a sense of how HUD plans to accomplish this objective. For
example, HUD mentions that beginning in the third quarter of fiscal
year 2003, field offices will report all activities related to
predatory lending to headquarters each quarter. However, not all long-
term measures listed in the strategic plan have a corresponding
intermediate performance measure.

2. HUD disagreed with our observation that it did not explain in its
strategic plan how it used the results of program evaluations to update
the current plan and did not include a schedule for future evaluations.
As we have previously reported, program evaluations are individual,
systematic studies that use objective measurement and analysis to
answer specific questions about how well a program is working and,
thus, may take many forms. Where a program aims to produce changes that
result from program activities, outcome or effectiveness evaluations
assess the extent to which those results were achieved. Where complex
systems or events outside a program's control also influence its
outcomes, impact evaluations use scientific research methods to
establish the causal connection between outcomes and program activities
and isolate the program's contribution to those changes. A program
evaluation that also systematically examines how a program was
implemented can provide important information about why a program did
or did not succeed and suggest ways to improve it.[Footnote 143] In its
strategic plan, HUD provides a few examples of how it modified
performance measures as a result of program evaluations. However, we
found that 38 of the 41 performance measures discussed in the strategic
plan did not mention how, if at all, HUD revised and/or updated them as
the result of program evaluations. Elsewhere in the plan, HUD discussed
program evaluation activities carried out by its Office of Policy
Development and Research; however, a significant number of those
evaluations will take place in the future and there is no fixed
timetable for when HUD will issue reports on its findings.

3. HUD questioned an example we used to show that its strategic plan
did not always provide a clear picture of how it will be able to
measure progress toward its strategic goals. We chose this example
because HUD used the number of jobs created or retained to measure its
progress in achieving the results of the Community Development Block
Grant (CDBG) program. As HUD discusses in it strategic plan, there are
factors external to the CDBG program, such as broad macro-economic
trends and HUD's limited control over how grant recipients use the
funding, which can significantly affect job creation in a community.
Therefore, it is difficult to establish the contribution of the CDBG
program--apart from the other factors--to HUD's stated goal.

4. HUD also disagreed with our observation that in its annual
performance report it did not state the steps it would take to address
unmet performance goals. We recognize that in some instances HUD
mentioned how it would address unmet goals. GPRA requires that agencies
explain and describe, where a performance goal has not been met, why
the goal was not met, schedules for achieving the established
performance goal, and whether or not the performance goal is
impractical or unfeasible. However, our review of HUD's performance
report found that of the 93 unmet performance targets for fiscal year
2002, 74 lacked an explanation of how HUD would address them in fiscal
year 2003.

5. In commenting on our observation that HUD did not include an
evaluation of its fiscal year 2003 performance plan relative to the
performance attained by the department in fiscal year 2002, HUD
mentioned that we should consider the impact of the acceleration of
reporting deadlines on the department's ability to include an
evaluation of the new fiscal year's performance plan relative to the
performance attained in the just completed fiscal year and reasonable
alternative actions to fulfill this requirement. While we acknowledge
that changes in the reporting deadlines can create challenges for
federal agencies, these deadlines are governmentwide and not specific
to HUD. In our review of agency plans we found that some agencies, such
as DOT, were able to collect performance information for 95 percent of
their performance indicators and were able to predict future
performance, despite not having complete performance information and
facing the same deadlines. DOT provided an evaluation of whether or not
fiscal year 2003 performance targets would be met for each of its 40
performance goals based on fiscal year 2002 results. These evaluations
were included for the two performance goals for which data were
unavailable. For example, for the measure "Number of employment sites
(in the thousands) that are made accessible by Job Access and Reverse
Commute (JARC) transportation services," DOT could not characterize
performance since data had not yet been received from JARC grantees.
The 2002 performance report stated that a new easier to use reporting
system is being implemented that should improve data gathering
performance. The report further stated that DOT would meet this target
in fiscal year 2003.

6. HUD also disagreed with how we presented the performance information
in its summary report cards (see fig. 22). HUD noted that many of the
results were explained in the individual indicator write-ups that
followed the summary information. Our review of HUD's reports included,
among other things, qualitative aspects of how the information was
presented, such as its usefulness to inform the average reader with
little to no exposure on the subject matter, and the extent to which it
presented summarized performance information that was complete and
user-friendly. Our analysis of HUD's performance information was
largely based on a review of the information and terms used in the
performance report cards. We characterized some of HUD's performance
indicators as being "undetermined," given that HUD did not clearly
indicate whether or not a goal was achieved. Instead, HUD provided
footnotes, such as "results too complex to summarize." We also
characterized some performance targets as having "no explanation,"
given that information was missing from the report card to determine
whether HUD had reached its desired target. To develop the graphic
summarizing HUD's performance information, we compiled the results of
HUD's performance indicators across all five report cards contained in
the report.

[End of section]

Appendix XI: Comments from the Social Security Administration:

SOCIAL SECURITY:

The Commissioner:

January 16, 2004:

Ms. Patricia A. Dalton:
Director, Strategic Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office Room 2440C:
441 G Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Ms. Dalton:

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft report
"Review Results-Oriented Government: Government Performance Results
Act (GPRA) has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater
Results" (GAO-04-38). Our comments on the report contents and
suggestions are enclosed.

If you have any questions, please contact Candace Skurnik, Director,
Audit Management and Liaison Staff at (410) 965-4636. Staff questions
should be directed to Laura Bell at (410) 965-2636.

Sincerely,

Signed by:

Jo Anne B. Barnhart:

Enclosure:

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION BALTIMORE MD 21235-0001:

COMMENTS ON THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE (GAO) DRAFT REPORT "REVIEW
RESULTS-ORIENTED GOVERNMENT: GOVERNMENT PERFORMANCE RESULTS ACT (GPRA)
HAS ESTABLISHED A SOLID FOUNDATION FOR ACHIEVING GREATER RESULTS" (GAO-
04-38):

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft
report. I am proud to see that the Social Security Administration (SSA)
was once again the only Agency, out of the six reviewed, where GAO
found that our Strategic Plan (SP) contained all required elements
during both the 1997 and the 2002 review. The figure on page 28 clearly
demonstrates our commitment and continued progress in our GPRA planning
efforts.

It should be noted that our performance measures are more outcome
oriented and that we have made, and are continuing to make, progress in
integrating SSA's budget with performance. For example, we are able to
align costs and workyears with overarching performance goals in our SP
(e.g., eliminating backlogs) as part of the budget development process.

In summary, we agree for the most part with your conclusions and
appreciate the suggestions for improvement. We will incorporate them
where appropriate in our future planning efforts.

Regarding the specific references to our SP, Annual Performance Plan
(APP), and Performance and Accountability Report (PAR) please see my
comments below. In addition, I am providing some technical comments
that should be included in the final report.

Strategic Plan:

On page 47 the report suggests that we could further improve our SP
through:

2) Explicitly describing the effect of external factors on goal
attainment.

Response:

We believe that the relationship between external factors and our
goals, objectives and strategies are clear in most cases. Our SP
clearly identifies four categories of environmental factors impacting
our future operations: Demographics, Health and Disability Trends,
Technological Advances and Workforce Trends. Each strategic goal
includes an introduction and description of related issues that
explains the interrelationship between these factors and our strategic
priorities. For example, under Service we explain how changing
demographics (page 15), health and disability trends, including the
desire of disabled people to return to work (page 16), and improvements
in technology (page 18), impact our service
delivery strategies. The impact of environmental factors is equally
clear in the context of our Solvency and Staff goals. Our Stewardship
goal, driven by the need for the effective management of Agency
finances and assets, is the only goal not explicitly linked to
environmental factors.

3) Providing timetables or schedules for achieving results.

Response:

Generally speaking, unless specified, we expect to achieve our long-
term outcomes within the 5-year period covered by the SP. In some
instances, shorter time frames are specified for key outcomes. More
detailed plans and timetables for specific activities are featured in
our APP.

4) Providing details on how each performance and accountability
challenge will be addressed.

Response:

Presumably this is a reference to the Major Management Challenges (MMC)
identified by the GAO and our Office of Inspector General (OIG). We are
not aware of a specific requirement in the Office of Management and
Budget's (OMB) A-1 I instructions to address every one of these
challenges in our long-term SP's. While our current SP does address
some of the challenges that were identified at the time of its
publication, because the MMC's are updated every year, we believe that
they are more appropriately addressed in the context of our APP and our
annual PAR. Therefore, we have made more of an effort to address the
MMC beginning with our 2004 APP and our 2003 PAR.

6) Discussing the manner in which SSA coordinated with other agencies,
especially those that serve the same beneficiaries.

Response:

While we agree that such a discussion would be useful, we note that it
is not one of the OMB requirements for preparing a strategic plan. Our
SP does discuss in several places our interaction with other Government
agencies including our partnership with the State Disability
Determination Services, and collaboration with the Department of Labor
on Ticket to Work initiatives. Again, while we believe that this is not
an OMB requirement for preparing a strategic plan, we will make a
greater effort to provide details regarding such collaborations in
future SP's.

Annual Performance Plan:

This section highlights our improvement in identifying data sources and
definitions for each performance measure but observes that there is no
discussion of verification and validation procedures for data generated
by these systems.

Response:

We will continue to improve our verification and validation procedures
and ensure that there is adequate documentation in the APP. Currently
Appendix C (pages 69 to 70) of our APP outlines our validation efforts.
We maintain internal controls on our data gathering systems and make
significant efforts to validate those controls by use of a variety of
audits, both internal and external. Most notably,
PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) conducts an audit of our financial
statements each year. This audit includes a very thorough review of the
15 or so key performance measures highlighted in our annual PAR. We
also work closely with our OIG to validate the remaining performance
measures through ongoing reviews.

Annual Performance Report (Performance and Accountability Report-PAR):

Page 118 states that missing data and a lack of documentation of the
methods used to measure our performance reduced the overall quality of
the document.

Response:

As mentioned previously, in addition to our own internal controls, we
work with PwC and our OIG to validate our data sources. Our annual PAR
has received the Certificate of Excellence in Accountability Reporting
for five consecutive years, in large part because of this
collaboration. Beginning in FY 2003, we began placing greater emphasis
on documenting the processes and validation methods used in our data
gathering activities. We will do more to report on these efforts in
future PAR'S.

Also, on page 121 in the program evaluation section, GAO implies the
need for us to report on how our evaluations have helped answer
questions about program performance and results as opposed to merely
describing the surveys we conduct with those who do business with us or
based on our internal needs assessment surveys.

Response:

We disagree with this assessment. Many of the evaluations directed at
our efforts to deliver high quality, citizen-centered service rely on
these surveys. This assessment seems to minimize the importance of
these surveys; however, we feel that they are an extremely important
part of our service delivery efforts. Furthermore, the program
evaluation section of our report lists about a dozen:

other evaluations that are of great importance to our ongoing
operations. For example, our continuing disability and redetermination
reviews reduce program outlays by billions of dollars every year. In
the future, we will make more of an effort to explain how these and
other evaluations help improve program performance.

Technical Comments:

References on pages 13 and 83 state that we did not structure our
performance and strategic plans by program activity or account. The
references on page 83 then go on to say that "SSA noted that it aligned
its strategic goals, performance measures, and budget with its major
functional responsibilities rather than by program accounts since
direct service and support employees provide services linked to these
functional responsibilities, as opposed to a specific program. However,
SSA does not indicate what it means by `functional responsibilities,'
nor does it show a clear linkage between its strategic goals and such
responsibilities." We believe that we do attempt to describe our
functional responsibilities in Parts I and II of our FY 2004 APP. We
will take under advisement GAO's concern and consider including clearer
descriptions in future APPs.

On page 21 we believe that footnote 10 should be included as part of
the narrative in the first paragraph and that the sentence be modified
as follows: "According to the Inspector General, SSA began to implement
an improved cost accounting system in FY 2002, which was to be phased
in over the next 3 to 4 years." The current language makes it appear
that we did not have a cost accounting system prior to 2002.

The following are our comments on SSA's letter dated January 16, 2004.

GAO Comments:

In general, SSA agreed with our conclusions. SSA also agreed to
incorporate the suggestions for improvement in its future planning
efforts. SSA made several points of clarification and disagreed with
our assessment in one area.

1. In our draft report, we noted that SSA did not explicitly link
external factors that may affect its programs to its general goals and
state how these factors could affect goal attainment. SSA attests that
its four categories of environmental factors are discussed under each
of the strategic goals, as appropriate, and the relationship between
these factors and SSA's strategic priorities is described. This general
discussion of the environmental factors is useful in understanding the
challenges SSA faces in working toward its broad strategic goals.
However, SSA provides little or no discussion of these challenges in
its discussion of the agency's performance goals. Thus, the range of
challenges facing the agency in meeting each of its performance goals
is not fully explained.

2. In our draft report, we noted that SSA does not provide timetables
or schedules for achieving all the results in its strategic plan. SSA
noted that it expects to achieve its long-term outcomes within the 5-
year period covered by the strategic plan; in selected instances,
shorter time frames are specified. SSA noted that more detailed plans
and timetables are featured in its annual performance plan. GPRA
requires agencies to furnish a schedule of significant actions in their
strategic plans; however, SSA does not clearly articulate its
timetables and schedules for achieving each of its long-term outcomes
in its strategic plan.

3. We noted that SSA's strategic plan could be improved by providing
details on how each performance and accountability challenge will be
addressed. SSA asserted that the strategic plan addresses some of the
challenges, but because the challenges are updated every year, they are
more appropriately addressed in the annual performance plan and
performance and accountability report. As noted in our discussion of
the criteria used to analyze agencies' strategic plans, it is
particularly important that agencies develop strategies that address
management challenges that threaten their ability to meet long-term
strategic goals, as one of the purposes of GPRA is to improve the
management of federal agencies.

4. In our draft report, we observed that SSA's discussion of its
interactions with other agencies, especially those that serve the same
beneficiaries, was limited. SSA noted that such a discussion would be
useful, but is not an OMB requirement. While we agree that this is not
an OMB requirement, we have reported that given scarce resources and
competing priorities, it would be useful to identify agency efforts to
maximize its effect through cooperation and coordination across the
federal government. Better strategic plans not only identify the need
to coordinate with other agencies, but also discuss how agencies intend
to coordinate common or complementary goals and strategies with other
agencies.

5. With regard to SSA's performance and accountability report, we noted
that SSA did not clearly state how program evaluations were used to
answer questions about program performance and results and how those
results can be improved. SSA disagreed with our observation, stating
that many of its evaluations rely on surveys, and these surveys form
the basis for its efforts to deliver high-quality service. SSA also
noted that it listed other evaluations that are of great importance to
its ongoing operations. We do not discount the usefulness of SSA's
surveys in assessing its day-to-day management of programs. Rather, as
we noted in the report, it would be helpful for SSA to clearly identify
the range of evaluations conducted and how each of them contributed to
improved program performance. For example, we recently recommended that
SSA evaluate a new initiative to improve the integrity of Social
Security number issuance to noncitizens; the description of such an
evaluation would be helpful for SSA to determine how it can be best
positioned to ensure the integrity of its enumeration process.[Footnote
144] Additionally, our September 2000 report on program evaluation
states that GPRA recognizes the complementary nature of program
evaluation and performance measurement. Strategic plans are to describe
the program evaluations that were used in establishing and revising
goals and to include a schedule for future program evaluations.
Agencies are to summarize the findings of program evaluations in their
annual performance reports.

Additionally, SSA made technical comments that we incorporated into the
report, as appropriate.

[End of section]

Appendix XII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contact:

Patricia Dalton, (202) 512-6806:

Acknowledgments:

In addition to the persons mentioned above, Thomas Beall, Daniel
Bertoni, Kay Brown, Joyce Corry, Elizabeth Curda, David Dornisch,
William Fenzel, Kimberly Gianopoulos, Evan Gilman, Katie Harris, Susan
Higgins, Benjamin Licht, William McKelligott, James Noel, Carol
Petersen, Carolyn Samuels, Teresa Spisak, Daren Sweeney, Carolyn
Taylor, Michael Volpe, Lynn Wasielewski, and Steven Westley made key
contributions to this report.

[End of section]

Related GAO Products:

GPRA/Managing for Results:

Results-Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century
Challenges,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-1166T];
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 18, 2003).

Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in
Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and Wildland
Fire Management,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-321];
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 20, 2002).

Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans in
Drug Control, Family Poverty, Financial Institution Regulation, and
Public Health Systems,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-320];
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 20, 2002).

Performance and Accountability: Reported Agency Actions and Plans to
Address 2001 Management Challenges and Program Risks,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-225];
(Washington, D.C. Oct. 31, 2002).

Managing for Results: Next Steps to Improve the Federal Government's
Management and Performance,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-439T];
(Washington, D.C. Feb. 15, 2002).

Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views on Key Management Issues
Vary Widely Across Agencies,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-592];
(Washington, D.C. May 25, 2001).

Managing for Results: Federal Managers' Views Show Need for Ensuring
Top Leadership Skills,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-01-127];
(Washington, D.C. Oct. 20, 2000).

Managing for Results: Barriers to Interagency Coordination,
Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-106];
(Washington, D.C. Mar. 29, 2000).

Management Reform: Elements of Successful Improvement Initiatives,
Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-00-26];
(Washington, D.C. Oct. 15, 1999).

Management Reform: Using the Results Act and Quality Management to
Improve Federal Performance,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-99-151];
(Washington, D.C. July 29, 1999).

Managing for Results: Opportunities for Continued Improvements in
Agencies' Performance Plans,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215];
(Washington, D.C. July 20, 1999).

Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve
Usefulness to Decisionmakers,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69];
(Washington, D.C. Feb. 26, 1999).

The Results Act: Assessment of the Governmentwide Performance Plan for
Fiscal Year 1999,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-159];
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 8, 1998).

Managing for Results: An Agenda to Improve the Usefulness of Agencies'
Annual Performance Plans,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228];
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 8, 1998).

The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency Annual
Performance Plans.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.20];
(Washington, D.C. April 1998).

Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An Assessment
Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18];
(Washington, D.C. February 1998).

Managing for Results: Agencies' Annual Performance Plans Can Help
Address Strategic Planning Challenges,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-44];
(Washington, D.C. Jan. 30, 1998).

Managing for Results: Building on Agencies' Strategic Plans to Improve
Federal Management,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-98-29];
(Washington, D.C. Oct. 30, 1997).

Managing for Results: Critical Issues for Improving Federal Agencies'
Strategic Plans,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-180];
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 16, 1997).

Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to Address Mission
Fragmentation and Program Overlap,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-97-146];
(Washington, D.C. Aug. 29, 1997).

Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Improving Federal
Management and Effectiveness,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-97-144];
(Washington, D.C. June 24, 1997).

The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide
Implementation Will Be Uneven,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-109];
(Washington, D.C. June 2, 1997).

Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate
Congressional Review,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16];
(Washington, D.C. May 1997).

GPRA: Managerial Accountability and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work as
Intended,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-36];
(Washington, D.C. Apr. 10, 1997).

Managing for Results: Enhancing the Usefulness of GPRA Consultations
Between the Executive Branch and Congress,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-97-56];
(Washington, D.C. Mar. 10, 1997).

Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges in Implementing GPRA in
Science Agencies,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214];
(Washington, D.C. July 10, 1996).

Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118];
(Washington, D.C. June 1996).

Strategic Human Capital Management:

Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development
Efforts in the Federal Government; (Exposure Draft),
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-893G];
(Washington, D.C. July 2003).

Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual
Performance and Organizational Success,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-488];
(Washington, D.C. Mar. 14, 2003).

Results-Oriented Cultures: Insights for U.S. Agencies from Other
Countries' Performance Management Initiatives,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-862];
(Washington, D.C. Aug. 2, 2002).

Human Capital: Key Principles From Nine Private Sector Organizations,
Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-28];
(Washington, D.C. Jan. 31, 2000).

Linking Resources to Results:

Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB's Program
Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-174];
(Washington, D.C. Jan. 30, 2004).

Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources
and Results at the Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-258];
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 10, 2002).

Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources
and Results at the Administration for Children and Families,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-9];
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 10, 2002).

Managing for Results: Efforts to Strengthen the Link Between Resources
and Results at the Veterans Health Administration,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-10];
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 10, 2002).

Managing for Results: Agency Progress in Linking Performance Plans With
Budgets and Financial Statements,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-236];
(Washington, D.C. Jan. 4, 2002).

Performance Budgeting: Fiscal Year 2000 Progress in Linking Plans With
Budgets,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-99-239R];
(Washington, D.C. July 30, 1999).

Performance Budgeting: Initial Experiences Under the Results Act in
Linking Plans With Budgets,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67];
(Washington, D.C. Apr. 12, 1999).

Performance Budgeting: Past Initiatives Offer Insights for GPRA
Implementation,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/AIMD-97-46];
(Washington, D.C. Mar. 27, 1997).

Measuring Performance:

Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative
Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-454];
(Washington, D.C. May 2, 2003).

Managing for Results: Next Steps to Improve the Federal Government's
Management and Performance,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-439T];
(Washington, D.C. Feb. 15, 2002).

Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain Program
Performance,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-204];
(Washington, D.C. Sept. 29, 2000).

Managing for Results: Strengthening Regulatory Agencies' Performance
Management Practices,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-10];
(Washington, D.C. Oct. 28, 1999).

Managing for Results: Measuring Program Results That Are Under Limited
Federal Control,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-99-16];
(Washington, D.C. Dec. 11, 1998).

Grant Programs: Design Features Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and
Performance Information,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-137];
(Washington, D.C. June 22, 1998).

Program Evaluation: Agencies Challenged by New Demand for Information
on Program Results,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-98-53];
(Washington, D.C. Apr. 24, 1998).

Managing for Results: Regulatory Agencies Identified Significant
Barriers to Focusing on Results,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-97-83];
(Washington, D.C. June 24, 1997).

Managing for Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance,
Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS/GGD-97-138];
(Washington, D.C. May 30, 1997).

Data Credibility:

Performance Reporting: Few Agencies Reported on the Completeness and
Reliability of Performance Data,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-372];
(Washington, D.C. Apr. 26, 2002).

Managing for Results: Assessing the Quality of Program Performance
Data,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-140R];
(Washington, D.C. May 25, 2000).

Managing for Results: Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible
Performance Information,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-52];
(Washington, D.C. Feb. 4, 2000).

Performance Plans: Selected Approaches for Verification and Validation
of Agency Performance Information,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-99-139];
(Washington, D.C. July 30, 1999).

Using Performance Information:

Managing for Results: Views on Ensuring the Usefulness of Agency
Performance Information to Congress,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-00-35];
(Washington, D.C. Jan. 26, 2000).

Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and Executive
Branch Decisionmaking,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-97-43];
(Washington, D.C. Feb. 12, 1997).

Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA's Objectives Requires Strong
Congressional Role,
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-GGD-96-79];
(Washington, D.C. Mar. 6, 1996).

(450181):

FOOTNOTES

[1] Pub. L. No. 103-62.

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Opportunities
for Continued Improvements in Agencies' Performance Plans, GAO/GGD/
AIMD-99-215 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 1999).

[3] PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that it has been using
to rate the effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus
on program results. OMB's goal is to review all federal programs over a
5-year period using the PART tool. OMB used the tool to review
approximately 400 programs between the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle
and the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle--234 programs were assessed last
year and 173 were assessed this year. Some reassessed programs were
combined for review for the 2005 budget, which is why the number of
programs assessed over the 2 years does not add up to exactly 400
programs.

[4] U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Performance Measures:
Federal Agency Collection and Use of Performance Data, GAO/GGD-92-65
(Washington, D.C.: May 4, 1992).

[5] Types of measures were defined in the questionnaire as follows:
performance measures that tell us how many things we produce or
services we provide (output measures); performance measures that tell
us if we are operating efficiently (efficiency measures); performance
measures that tell us whether or not we are satisfying our customers
(customer service measures); performance measures that tell us about
the quality of the products or services we provide (quality measures);
and performance measures that would demonstrate to someone outside of
our agency whether or not we are achieving our intended results
(outcome measures).

[6] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: An Agenda to
Improve the Usefulness of Agencies' Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD/
AIMD-98-228 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 1998).

[7] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Critical
Issues for Improving Agencies' Strategic Plans, GAO/GGD-97-180
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 16, 1997).

[8] GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228.

[9] Pub. L. No. 103-62.

[10] The guidance on the preparation of strategic plans, annual
performance plans, and program performance reports is contained in OMB
Circular A-11, Part 6.

[11] OMB Circular A-11, July 2003.

[12] PART is a diagnostic tool developed by OMB that it has been using
to rate the effectiveness of federal programs with a particular focus
on program results. OMB's goal is to review all federal programs over a
5-year period using the PART tool. OMB used the tool to review
approximately 400 programs between the fiscal year 2004 budget cycle
and the fiscal year 2005 budget cycle--234 programs were assessed last
year and 173 were assessed this year. Some reassessed programs were
combined for review for the 2005 budget, which is why the number of
programs assessed over the 2 years does not add up to exactly 400
programs.

[13] U.S. General Accounting Office, GPRA: Managerial Accountability
and Flexibility Pilot Did Not Work as Intended, GAO/GGD-97-36
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 10, 1997).

[14] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Agency
Progress in Linking Performance Plans With Budgets and Financial
Statements, GAO-02-236 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 4, 2002).

[15] GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215. Based on how we had rated agencies' annual
performance plans on their picture of performance, specificity of
strategies and resources, and the degree of confidence that performance
information will be credible, we assigned numeric values to each
agencies' rating (e.g., clear=3, general=2, limited=1, unclear=0) and
added them up to determine overall quality of high, medium, or low. An
agency's plan was considered high quality if its score was between 7-9,
a score of 5-6 was considered medium quality, and a score of 3-4 was
low. No agencies received a score lower than 3.

[16] GAO/GGD-92-65.

[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting:
Observations on the Use of OMB's Program Assessment Rating Tool for the
Fiscal Year 2004 Budget, GAO-04-174 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2004).

[18] Types of measures were defined in the questionnaire as follows:
performance measures that tell us how many things we produce or
services we provide (output measures); performance measures that tell
us if we are operating efficiently (efficiency measures); performance
measures that tell us whether or not we are satisfying our customers
(customer service measures); performance measures that tell us about
the quality of the products or services we provide (quality measures);
and performance measures that would demonstrate to someone outside of
our agency whether or not we are achieving our intended results
(outcome measures).

[19] GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228.

[20] GAO-02-236; U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Budgeting:
Initial Experiences Under the Results Act in Linking Plans With
Budgets, GAO/AIMD/GGD-99-67 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 12, 1999); and
Performance Budgeting: Fiscal Year 2000 Progress in Linking Plans With
Budgets, GAO/AIMD-99-239R (Washington, D.C.: July 30, 1999).

[21] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Efforts to
Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Veterans
Health Administration, GAO-03-10 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2002).

[22] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Efforts to
Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Administration
for Children and Families, GAO-03-09 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2002).

[23] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Efforts to
Strengthen the Link Between Resources and Results at the Nuclear
Regulatory Commission, GAO-03-258 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2002).

[24] GAO/GGD-97-180.

[25] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Challenges
Agencies Face in Producing Credible Performance Information, GAO/GGD-
00-52 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2000).

[26] Since 1990, GAO has periodically reported on government operations
that it identifies as "high risk" because of the greater
vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement. See U.S.
General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Using the
Results Act to Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, GAO/
AIMD-97-146 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 29, 1997).

[28] GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-228.

[29] Program activity refers to the list of projects and activities in
the appendix portion of the Budget of the United States Government.
Program activity structures are intended to provide a meaningful
representation of the operations financed by a specific budget account.

[30] GAO/GGD-97-36.

[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Energy, GAO-03-100 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2003).

[32] According to OMB's Statement of Federal Financial Accounting
Standards No. 4--Managerial Cost Accounting Standards, July 31, 1995, a
responsibility segment is a component of a reporting entity that is
responsible for carrying out a mission, conducting a major line of
activity, or producing one or a group of related products or services.
In addition, responsibility segments usually possess the following
characteristics: (1) their managers report to the entity's top
management directly and (2) their resources and results of operations
can be clearly distinguished from those of other segments of the
entity. Managerial cost accounting should be performed to measure and
report the costs of each segment's outputs.

[33] SSA noted that its fifth strategic goal, "Valued Employees,"
supports the accomplishment of all its basic functions, so its
resources are inherently included in the other four goals.

[34] According to the IG, SSA began to implement an improved cost
accounting system in fiscal year 2002, which was to be phased in over
the next 3 to 4 years.

[35] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance Reporting: Few
Agencies Reported on the Completeness and Reliability of Performance
Data, GAO-02-372 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 26, 2002).

[36] U.S. General Accounting Office, Management Reform: Elements of
Successful Improvement Initiatives, GAO/T-GGD-00-26 (Washington, D.C.:
Oct. 15, 1999).

[37] U.S. General Accounting Office, The Government Performance and
Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven, GAO/
GGD-97-109 (Washington, D.C.: June 2, 1997) and Managing for Results:
Federal Managers' Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills,
GAO-01-127 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 20, 2000).

[38] GAO/GGD-97-109 and GAO-01-127.

[39] GAO-01-127.

[40] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: A Guide for
Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the Federal
Government (Exposure Draft) GAO-03-893G (Washington, D.C.: July 1,
2003).

[41] For a complete list and discussion of the practices, see U.S.
General Accounting Office, Results oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear
Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-
03-488 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

[42] See for example, U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for
Results: Analytic Challenges in Measuring Performance, GAO/HEHS/GGD-
97-138 (Washington, D.C.: May 30, 1997); Program Evaluation: Agencies
Challenged by New Demand for Information on Program Results, GAO/GGD-
98-53 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 1998); Managing for Results:
Measuring Program Results That Are Under Limited Federal Control, GAO/
GGD-99-16 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 1998); and Managing for Results:
Challenges Agencies Face in Producing Credible Performance Information,
GAO/GGD-00-52 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 4, 2000).

[43] GAO/GGD-97-109, 6.

[44] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Key Steps
and Challenges in Implementing GPRA in Science Agencies, GAO/T-GGD/
RCED-96-214 (Washington, D.C.: July 10, 1996).

[45] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results:
Strengthening Regulatory Agencies' Performance Management Practices,
GAO/GGD-00-10 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 28, 1999).

[46] U.S. General Accounting Office, Environmental Protection:
Assessing the Impacts of EPA's Regulations Through Retrospective
Studies, GAO/RCED-99-250 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 1999).

[47] U.S. General Accounting Office, Grant Programs: Design Features
Shape Flexibility, Accountability, and Performance Information, GAO/
GGD-98-137 (Washington, D.C.: June 22, 1998).

[48] GAO/GGD-00-52.

[49] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Barriers to
Interagency Coordination, GAO/GGD-00-106 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29,
2000).

[50] U.S. General Accounting Office, Wetlands Overview: Problems With
Acreage Data Persist, GAO/RCED-98-150 (Washington, D.C.: July 1, 1998)
and Results-Oriented Management: Agency Crosscutting Actions and Plans
in Border Control, Flood Mitigation and Insurance, Wetlands, and
Wildland Fire Management, GAO-03-321 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 20, 2002).

[51] GAO/GGD-00-106 and U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-
Oriented Government: Using GPRA to Address 21st Century Challenges,
GAO-03-1166T (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 18, 2003).

[52] U.S. General Accounting Office, The Results Act: Assessment of the
Governmentwide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999, GAO/AIMD/GGD-98-
159 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 8, 1998).

[53] Congressional Research Service, Government Performance and Results
Act: Overview of Associated Provisions in the 106th Congress,
(Washington, D.C.: 2002).

[54] This included reports that accompanied bills passed by both the
House and Senate that were either enacted into law or vetoed by the
President.

[55] U.S. General Accounting Office, Managing for Results: Views on
Ensuring the Usefulness of Agency Performance Information to Congress,
GGD-00-35 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 26, 2000).

[56] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Key Principles From
Nine Private Sector Organizations, GAO/GGD-00-28 (Washington, D.C.:
Jan. 31, 2000).

[57] GAO/AIMD-97-146.

[58] U.S. General Accounting Office, Executive Guide: Effectively
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118
(Washington, D.C.: June 1, 1996).

[59] GAO/GGD-00-35.

[60] U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Agencies
Challenged by New Demand for Information on Program Results, GAO/GGD-
98-53 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 24, 1998).

[61] U.S. General Accounting Office, Program Evaluation: Studies Helped
Agencies Measure or Explain Program Performance, GAO/GGD-00-204
(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 28, 2000).

[62] GAO/GGD-00-52.

[63] For information on the design and administration of the two
earlier surveys, see GAO/GGD-97-109, GAO-01-127, and U.S. General
Accounting Office, Managing For Results: Federal Managers' Views on Key
Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies, GAO-01-592 (Washington,
D.C.: May 25, 2001).

[64] For example, candidates could be operations managers with hands-on
experience managing a federal program or agency officials directly
involved in carrying out the activities required under GPRA, such as
developing a strategic or annual performance plan or annual performance
report.

[65] Due to last minute circumstances, a federal manager participated
via teleconference from an agency's field office and another was unable
to attend the focus group, but mailed his answers to questions we sent
to all participants in advance of the focus groups.

[66] We read the list of comments to the manager who participated via
teleconference and voted on his behalf based on his preferences.

[67] GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215. Based on how we had rated agencies' annual
performance plans on their picture of performance, specificity of
strategies and resources, and the degree of confidence that performance
information will be credible, we assigned numeric values to each
agencies' rating (e.g., clear=3, general=2, limited=1, unclear=0) and
added them up to determine overall quality of high, medium, or low. An
agency's plan was considered high quality if its score was between 7-9,
a score of 5-6 was considered medium quality, and a score of 3-4 was
low. No agencies received a score lower than 3.

[68] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, S. Rpt. No. 58, 103d Cong.
1st Sess. (1993).

[69] Office of Management and Budget, Circular No. A-11, Part 6,
Preparation and Submission of Strategic Plans, Annual Performance
Plans, and Annual Program Performance Reports (Washington, D.C.: June
2002).

[70] U.S. General Accounting Office, Agencies' Strategic Plans Under
GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16
(Washington, D.C.: May 1, 1997).

[71] GAO/HEHS-97-176R; GAO/RCED-97-199R; GAO/RCED-97-208R; GAO/HEHS-
97-179R; GAO/RCED-97-205R; and GAO/RCED-97-224R.

[72] GAO/HEHS-97-176R.

[73] U.S. Department of Education, Office of the Deputy Secretary,
Strategic Accountability Service, U.S. Department of Education FY 2004
Annual Plan (Washington, D.C.: March 2003). This document represents
Education's performance plan for GPRA and will be referred to
henceforth as the "annual plan."

[74] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance and Accountability
Series: Major Management Challenges and Program Risks, Department of
Education, GAO-01-245 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001). The January
2001 assessment was the last time we assessed the Department of
Education under our Performance and Accountability Series before the
release of the agency's 2002-2007 Strategic Plan. We further reported
in October 2002 on how Education and other agencies reported responding
to their management challenges and program risks. (U.S. General
Accounting Office, Performance and Accountability: Reported Agency
Actions and Plans to Address 2001 Management Challenges and Program
Risks, GAO-03-225 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2002).

[75] Within one of its strategies, the plan states that "managers will
be given the freedom to manage and will be held accountable for
results."

[76] Pub. L. No. 107-110, January 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, one of the major pieces of authorizing legislation for the
Department of Education.

[77] GAO/RCED-97-199R.

[78] GAO/RCED-97-224R.

[79] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Housing and Urban Development, GAO-03-103
(Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

[80] GAO/RCED-97-205R.

[81] At the time of our review, the most recent SBA strategic plan was
for fiscal years 2001-2008. SBA released a new strategic plan for
fiscal years 2003-2008 in October 2003.

[82] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Small Business Administration, GAO-01-260 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2001).

[83] In the 2003-2008 plan, the word "advance" replaced the word
"promote."

[84] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Social Security Administration, GAO-03-117 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003).

[85] The suspense file contains information on earnings that cannot be
matched to an individual's record due to an invalid name/Social
Security number combination.

[86] GAO/RCED-97-208R.

[87] At the time of our review, the Department of Transportation was in
the process of revising its strategic plan. A draft copy of the updated
strategic plan, dated July 1, 2003, was used for this review.

[88] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks: Department of Transportation, GAO-03-108 (Washington,
D.C.: January 2003).

[89] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, S. Rpt. No. 58, 103d Cong.
1st Sess. (1993).

[90] OMB Circular No. A-11: Part 6, Preparation and Submission of
Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program
Performance Reports (Washington, D.C.: June 2002).

[91] GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-215 and The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to
Assessing Agency Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20
(Washington, D.C.: April 1998).

[92] GAO/HEHS-98-172R, GAO/RCED-98-194R, GAO/RCED-98-159R, GAO/RCED-
98-180R, GAO/RCED-98-200R, and GAO/HEHS-98-178R.

[93] The Homeland Security Act (Pub. L. No. 107-296), also requires
that agencies provide a description of how the performance goals and
objectives are to be achieved, including the operations, processes,
training, skills and technology, and the human capital, information,
and other resources and strategies required to meet those performance
goals and objectives.

[94] GAO/HEHS-98-172R, GAO/RCED-98-194R, GAO/RCED-98-159R, GAO/RCED-
98-180R, GAO/RCED-98-200R, and GAO/HEHS-98-178R.

[95] Education's plan states that its fiscal year 2004 annual plan
includes both department-level measures and program performance plans.
These are organized into two volumes: the Annual Plan Fiscal Year 2004
U.S. Department of Education includes the department-level measures and
the FY 2004 Program Performance Plan: U.S. Department of Education
includes the program performance plans with their individual program
measures. These volumes are presented in a slightly different
electronic format for the public and other parties in general, which is
available at Education's Web site. The two volumes will henceforth be
referred to as Education's 2004 annual plan, or, where applicable,
volume 1 and volume 2.

[96] Education's 2004 annual plan represents its annual performance
goals as "targets." According to GPRA, the definition for "performance
goal" is "a target level of performance."

[97] In this report, we refer to the multiyear, long-term objectives in
Education's annual plan as "long-term goals." The strategic goals
included in the plan represent overarching statements of aim or purpose
that are used to group Education's long-term goals.

[98] GAO/HEHS-97-176R.

[99] U.S. General Accounting Office, Performance and Accountability
Series--Major Management Challenges and Program Risks: A Governmentwide
Perspective, GAO-01-241 (Washington, D.C.: January 2001) and GAO-01-
245.

[100] GAO-03-225.

[101] GAO-03-100.

[102] GAO/RCED-98-159R.

[103] GAO/RCED-98-200R.

[104] Much of this improvement took place between the 1999 and 2000
plans. We reported that SSA's fiscal year 2000 performance plan showed
significant improvement over its 1999 plan in U.S. General Accounting
Office, Observations on the Social Security Administration's Fiscal
Year 2000 Performance Plan, GAO/HEHS-99-162R (Washington, D.C.: July
20, 1999).

[105] SSA reduced its strategic goals from five to four in its 2003-
2008 strategic plan.

[106] GAO-03-225.

[107] SSA refers to external factors as environmental factors.

[108] GAO/RCED-98-180R.

[109] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Source & Accuracy
Compendium, http://www.bts.gov/statpol/SAcompendium.html (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003).

[110] Office of Management and Budget, Memorandum: Program Assessment
Rating Tool (PART) - Presentation in Congressional Justifications, M-
03-06 (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

[111] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, S. Rpt. No. 58, 103d Cong.
1st Sess. (1993).

[112] OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of
Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program
Performance Reports (Washington, D.C.: June 2002).

[113] Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 101-576).

[114] GAO-02-372 and Executive Guide: Creating Value Through World-
class Financial Management, GAO/AIMD-00-134 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1,
2000).

[115] The Homeland Security Act (Pub. L. No. 107-296) requires agencies
to include a review of the performance goals and evaluation of the
performance plan relative to the agency's strategic human capital
management.

[116] Association of Government Accountants, Certificate of Excellence
in Accountability Reporting: Reviewers Checklist, Fiscal Year 2001.
(Washington, D.C.).

[117] GAO-02-372.

[118] GAO/HEHS-00-128R, GAO/RCED-00-209R, GAO/RCED-00-211R, GAO/RCED-
00-207R, GAO/HEHS-00-126R, and GAO/RCED-00-201R.

[119] Education's annual performance goals are represented by its
targets.

[120] GAO/HEHS-00-128R.

[121] Pub. L. No. 107-110, January 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind
Act of 2001 is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act, one of the major pieces of authorizing legislation for
Education.

[122] GAO/HEHS-00-128R.

[123] As amended by the Homeland Security Act of 2002.

[124] GAO-03-225.

[125] U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Fiscal year
2002 Performance and Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

[126] GAO/RCED-00-211R.

[127] GAO-03-225.

[128] Small Business Administration, SBA's Performance & Accountability
Report for Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

[129] Our review of SBA's fiscal year 1999 report, GAO/RCED-00-207R,
focused on our observations on only three of SBA's key outcomes, as
well as the major management challenges addressed in the performance
report. Since our review of SBA's 2002 performance report used somewhat
different assessment criteria, we could not make valid comparisons on
all aspects of the reports.

[130] Social Security Administration, Performance and Accountability
Report, Fiscal Year 2002 (Washington, D.C.: 2002).

[131] Our review of SSA's fiscal year 1999 performance report (GAO/
HEHS-00-126R) focused on our observations on five of the agency's key
outcomes, as well as the major management challenges addressed in the
performance report. Since our review of SSA's 2002 performance report
used different assessment criteria, we could not make valid comparisons
on all aspects of the reports.

[132] This program was an administration proposal to test allowing
disabled beneficiaries to choose their own public or private vocational
rehabilitation provider.

[133] In our October 2002 report GAO-03-225, we noted that SSA reported
progress on all six of its major management challenges in its fiscal
year 2001 annual performance report.

[134] We characterized program evaluations and their uses in GAO/GGD-
00-204.

[135] SSA noted that its fifth strategic goal, "Valued Employees,"
supports the accomplishment of all its basic functions, so its
resources are inherently included in the other four goals.

[136] SSA began to implement an improved cost accounting system in
fiscal year 2002, which will be phased in over the next 3 to 4 years.

[137] U.S. Department of Transportation, Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
and Accountability Report (Washington, D.C.: 2003).

[138] Our review of DOT's fiscal year 1999 report, GAO/RCED-00-201R,
focused on our observations regarding only four of the department's key
outcomes, as well as the major management challenges addressed in the
performance report. Since our review of DOT's 2002 performance report
used different assessment criteria, we could not make valid comparisons
on all aspects of the reports.

[139] GAO-03-108.

[140] Bureau of Transportation Statistics, Source & Accuracy
Compendium, http://www.bts.gov/statpol/SAcompendium.html (Washington,
D.C.: Aug. 15, 2003).

[141] The Federal Emergency Management Agency became part of the
Department of Homeland Security in March 2003.

[142] Formerly part of the Department of Health and Human Services, the
Social Security Administration once again became an independent agency
on March 31, 1995. Congress established the position of Chief Financial
Officer within SSA in the Social Security Independence and Program
Improvements Act of 1994.

[143] GAO/GGD-00-204.

[144] U.S. General Accounting Office, Social Security Administration:
Actions Taken to Strengthen Procedures for Issuing Social Security
Numbers to Noncitizens, but Some Weaknesses Remain, GAO-04-12
(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15, 2003).

GAO's Mission:

The General Accounting Office, the investigative arm of Congress,
exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. General Accounting Office

441 G Street NW,

Room LM Washington,

D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone:

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 U.S.

General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C.

20548: