This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-614 
entitled 'Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be 
Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results' which was released on 
June 25, 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: 

May 2004: 

HUMAN CAPITAL: 

Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be Significantly 
Strengthened to Achieve Results: 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-614]: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-04-614, a report to congressional requesters 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Congress and the administration have established a new performance-
based pay system for members of the Senior Executive Service (SES) that 
is designed to provide a clear and direct linkage between SES 
performance and pay. Also, GAO previously reported that significant 
opportunities exist for agencies to hold the SES accountable for 
improving organizational results. 

GAO assessed how well selected agencies are creating linkages between 
SES performance and organizational success by applying nine key 
practices GAO previously identified for effective performance 
management. GAO selected the Department of Education, the Department of 
Health and Human Services (HHS), and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA).

What GAO Found: 

Senior executives need to lead the way to transform their agencies’ 
cultures to be more results-oriented, customer focused, and 
collaborative in nature. Performance management systems can help manage 
and direct this process. While Education, HHS, and NASA have undertaken 
important and valuable efforts to link their career SES performance 
management systems to their organizations’ success, there are 
opportunities to maximize their systems to manage their organizations 
and achieve organizational goals. For example, as indicated below by 
the executives themselves, the agencies can better use their 
performance management systems as a tool to manage the organization or 
to achieve organizational goals. 

As Congress and the administration are reforming SES pay to better link 
pay to performance, valid, reliable, and transparent performance 
management systems with adequate safeguards are critical. Information 
on the experiences and knowledge of these agencies should provide 
valuable insights to other agencies as they seek to drive internal 
change and achieve external results. 

Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a “Very Great” or “Great” 
Extent on Their Agencies’ Overall Use of Their SES Performance 
Management Systems: 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO makes specific recommendations to the agencies to reinforce the 
key practices through their SES performance management systems. NASA 
concurred with the recommendations, and HHS provided no comments. 
Education described specific actions it plans to take to revise its 
system, which are generally consistent with our recommendations. 
However, GAO disagrees that Education has already implemented or does 
not need to implement two of the recommendations.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-614. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at 
(202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Performance Management Systems Can Be Used More Strategically by 
Selected Agencies: 

Selected Agencies Can Strengthen the Link between Senior Executive 
Performance and Organizational Success: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

Analyzed Agency Documents and Bonus and Rating Data, and Interviewed 
Cognizant Agency Officials: 

Assessed a Sample of Career SES Individual Performance Plans: 

Surveyed All Career SES at Each Agency: 

Appendix II: GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from Education, HHS, and 
NASA: 

Appendix III: Selected Elements of Education's, HHS's, and NASA's SES 
Performance Management Systems: 

Education: 

HHS: 

NASA: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS as Compared to Senior 
Executives Governmentwide Who Received Bonuses for Fiscal Years 2000 
through 2003: 

Table 2: Percentage of HHS Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and 
the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for Fiscal Year 2003: 

Table 3: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and 
the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for the 2002 and 2003 
Performance Appraisal Cycle: 

Table 4: Percentage of Education Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses 
and the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for the 2003 
Performance Appraisal Cycle: 

Table 5: Disposition of SES Performance Plan Review, by Agency: 

Table 6: Disposition of SES Survey, by Agency: 

Table 7: Number of SES Out of Scope and Reason, by Agency: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a "Very Great" 
or "Great" Extent on Their Agencies' Overall Use of Their SES 
Performance Management Systems: 

Figure 2: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a "Very Great" 
or "Great" Extent on Their Agencies' Use of Their SES Performance 
Management Systems to Meet Key Objectives: 

Figure 3: Of Those Senior Executives Who See a Connection between Daily 
Activities and Organizational Goals to a "Very Great" or "Great" 
Extent, Percentage Who Felt That Their System Holds Them Accountable to 
a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

Figure 4: Of Those Senior Executives Who Collaborate with Others to 
Achieve Crosscutting Goals to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent, 
Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a "Very Great" or "Great" 
Extent: 

Figure 5: Percentage of SES Plans in HHS with Performance Expectations 
Related to Collaboration: 

Figure 6: Percentage of SES Plans in Education with Performance 
Expectations Related to Collaboration: 

Figure 7: Of the Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency Formally 
Provides Performance Information That Allows Them to Track Their Work 
Unit's Performance, Percentage Who Felt This Information Was Useful, 
Available, or Both to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

Figure 8: Of Those Senior Executives Who Took Action on Areas of 
Improvement to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent, Percentage Who Felt 
They Are Recognized to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

Figure 9: Of Those Senior Executives Who Felt the Competencies They 
Demonstrate Help Them Contribute to Organizational Goals to a "Very 
Great" or "Great" Extent, Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a 
"Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

Figure 10: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting They "Strongly 
Agree" or "Agree" That They Are Rewarded for Accomplishments: 

Figure 11: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting That They 
Understand the Criteria Used to Award Bonuses by Extent: 

Figure 12: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives by Rating Level in the 
2003 Performance Appraisal Cycle: 

Figure 13: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said They Had the Opportunity 
to Be Involved, Percentage Who Said They Have Been Involved in Refining 
Their Agency's SES Performance Management System: 

Figure 14: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said Formal Training Is 
Available, Percentage Who Said They Have Participated in Formal 
Training on Their Agency's SES Performance Management System: 

Figure 15: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS Reporting Involvement 
and Training Opportunities by Extent: 

Figure 16: Percentage of Senior Executives at NASA Reporting 
Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent: 

Figure 17: Percentage of Senior Executives at Education Reporting 
Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent: 

Figure 18: Percentage of Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency's SES 
Performance Management System Helped to Maintain a Consistent Focus on 
Organizational Goals during Transitions by Extent: 

Abbreviations: 

CDC: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: 

EO: equal opportunity: 

FDA: Food and Drug Administration: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: 

NASA: National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

OPM: Office of Personnel Management: 

PRB: performance review board: 

SES: Senior Executive Service: 

Letter 
May 26, 2004: 

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

The Honorable Jo Ann Davis: 
Chairwoman: 
Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

High-performing organizations have recognized that effective 
performance management systems can help them drive internal change and 
achieve external results.[Footnote 1] Further, such organizations 
understand that they need senior leaders who are held accountable for 
results, drive continuous improvement, and stimulate and support 
efforts to integrate human capital approaches with organizational goals 
and related transformation issues. We previously reported that 
significant opportunities exist to strengthen agencies' efforts to hold 
senior executives accountable for results through their performance 
management systems.[Footnote 2] In particular, more progress is needed 
in explicitly linking senior executives' performance expectations to 
contributing to the achievement of results-oriented organizational 
goals, fostering the necessary collaboration both within and across 
organizational boundaries to achieve results, and demonstrating a 
commitment to lead and facilitate change.

Recently, Congress and the administration have sought to modernize 
senior executive performance management systems. Congress established a 
new performance-based pay system for members of the Senior Executive 
Service (SES) that is designed to provide a clear and direct linkage 
between SES performance and pay. An agency can raise the pay cap for 
its senior executives to $158,100 in 2004, with a senior executive's 
total compensation not to exceed $203,000, if the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) certifies and the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) concurs that the agency's performance management system, as 
designed and applied, makes meaningful distinctions based on relative 
performance. OPM and OMB are to issue regulations prescribing the 
requirements agencies must meet to obtain certification for these 
purposes. In a memo to the heads of departments and agencies requesting 
their comments on the draft proposed regulations outlining the 
certification criteria, the Director of OPM stated that OPM and OMB 
plan to fully implement the regulations in time for the fiscal year 
2004 performance ratings and pay adjustments for the senior 
executives.[Footnote 3] In addition, as part of the administration's 
President's Management Agenda, OPM set a goal for 15 percent of the 
agencies to link performance appraisals for senior executives to the 
organization's mission and goals, and use their senior executive 
performance management systems to make meaningful distinctions and 
provide consequences based on performance by July 2004. 

At your request, this report assesses how well selected agencies are 
creating linkages between senior executive performance and 
organizational success through their career senior executive 
performance management systems. We selected the Department of 
Education, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) based on several 
factors, including mission, size, organizational structure, and use of 
their performance management systems for their career senior 
executives. Within HHS, we selected the Food and Drug Administration 
(FDA) and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to 
determine how HHS's senior executive performance management system 
cascades down to these operating divisions.

To meet this objective, we assessed how these agencies' career senior 
executive performance management systems apply nine key practices for 
effective performance management that we previously identified based on 
public sector organizations' experiences both here and abroad.[Footnote 
4] These practices are as follows.

1. Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals.

2. Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals.

3. Provide and routinely use performance information to track 
organizational priorities.

4. Require follow-up actions to address organizational priorities.

5. Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of performance.

6. Link pay to individual and organizational performance.

7. Make meaningful distinctions in performance.

8. Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of performance 
management systems.

9. Maintain continuity during transitions.

We found that collectively these key practices create a "line of sight" 
showing how unit and individual performance can contribute to overall 
organizational goals and helping individuals understand the connection 
between their daily activities and the organization's success.

We analyzed the agencies' SES performance management systems' policies 
and guidance and other related documents; interviewed cognizant agency 
officials; assessed a sample of career senior executives' individual 
performance plans, which outline the performance expectations 
executives are to achieve during the year; analyzed aggregate senior 
executive performance rating and bonus data; and surveyed all career 
senior executives in each agency to gain information on their 
experiences and perceptions with regard to their senior executive 
performance management systems.[Footnote 5] We assessed the reliability 
of the senior executive performance rating and bonus data provided by 
Education, HHS, NASA, and OPM and determined that the data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. Information on 
the experiences and progress of the selected agencies should prove 
helpful to these agencies as well as provide valuable insights to other 
agencies as they seek to use senior executive performance management 
systems as a tool to drive internal change and achieve external 
results. We are using these practices to inform our internal senior 
executive performance management system.

We conducted our work from August 2003 through March 2004 in accordance 
with the generally accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I 
provides additional information on our scope and methodology. Appendix 
II provides the complete survey results for each agency. Appendix III 
provides information on selected elements of Education's, HHS's, and 
NASA's SES performance management systems.

Results in Brief: 

Education, HHS, and NASA have undertaken important and valuable efforts 
to link their career senior executive performance management systems to 
their organizations' success; however, there are opportunities to use 
these systems more strategically to manage their organizations and 
achieve organizational goals. Our review of senior executives' 
performance plans showed that Education, HHS, and NASA have begun to 
implement key practices to develop effective performance management 
systems for their career senior executives. Specifically, we found the 
following.

* All senior executives' performance plans in these agencies identified 
individual performance expectations that aligned with organizational 
goals. As a next step, setting specific levels of performance that are 
linked to these organizational goals can help senior executives see how 
they directly contribute to organizational results. While about 80 
percent of senior executives in HHS have set specific levels of 
performance linked to organizational goals in their individual 
performance plans, only about 5 percent of senior executives in 
Education and about 1 percent of senior executives in NASA have set 
specific levels of performance linked to organizational goals.

* About two-thirds of senior executives' performance plans in HHS and 
about one-third in Education identified a specific programmatic 
crosscutting goal for collaboration. All senior executives' performance 
plans in NASA included a general goal to achieve the mission of the 
organization. As a next step, identifying the relevant internal or 
external organizations with which they would collaborate can reinforce 
a focus across organizational boundaries. About one-third or less of 
senior executives at each of these agencies clearly identified the 
specific internal or external organization(s) with which they would 
collaborate to achieve crosscutting goals.

* All the performance plans of senior executives in NASA and almost all 
in Education included competencies that are to address the achievement 
of organizational results, employee perspectives, and customer 
satisfaction. In HHS, about 94 percent of executives' plans identified 
competencies related to organizational results, about 89 percent 
related to employee perspectives, and about 61 percent related to 
customer satisfaction.

* At Education, approximately 98 percent of senior executives' plans 
identified a performance expectation related to leading and 
facilitating change, while approximately 25 percent of the executives' 
plans at HHS and almost none at NASA identified such an expectation.

In addition, the agencies can use their senior executive performance 
management systems to strengthen the link between their senior 
executives' performance and their organizations' success by making 
meaningful distinctions in performance through ratings and performance 
awards (bonuses).

* While about 86 percent of HHS's senior executives received the 
highest rating in fiscal year 2003, HHS has restricted the percentage 
of senior executives who receive bonuses to generally no more than one-
third at each operating division each year since fiscal year 2001.

* About three-fourths of NASA's senior executives received its highest 
rating, and about 52 percent of its senior executives received bonuses 
in its 2003 performance appraisal cycle.

* Nearly all of Education's senior executives received its highest 
rating, and about 63 percent of senior executives received bonuses in 
its 2003 performance appraisal cycle.

As a point of comparison, across the executive branch, agencies rated 
about 75 percent of senior executives at the highest levels their 
systems permitted, and approximately 49 percent of senior executives 
received bonuses in fiscal year 2002, the most current year for which 
data are available. The Director of OPM stated that while a growing 
number of agencies have improved their distribution of ratings and 
bonuses, these governmentwide data also suggest that more work is 
needed. In addition, executive branch agencies can reward senior 
executives' performance in other ways, such as nominations for 
Presidential Rank Awards or other informal or honorary awards.

As reported through our survey, senior executives' perceptions 
underscore that their agencies have opportunities to use their systems 
more strategically.

* Generally, less than half of the senior executives at each agency 
feel that their agency uses its performance management system to the 
fullest extent possible, specifically by using the system as a tool to 
manage the organization or to achieve organizational goals to a very 
great or great extent.

* Less than half of the senior executives at each agency feel that 
their performance management system is fully used to provide candid and 
constructive feedback to help them maximize their contributions to 
organizational goals to a very great or great extent.

* Of the senior executives who reported that their agency provided 
performance information to track their work unit's performance, about 
39 percent at NASA, about 33 percent at HHS, and about 31 percent at 
Education found the performance information to be available when they 
need it and useful for making improvements in their work unit's 
performance to a very great or great extent.

* Of the senior executives who indicated that they took action to a 
very great or great extent on areas of improvement based on the 
performance information provided by their agency, about 65 percent at 
NASA, about 60 percent at HHS, and about 55 percent at Education felt 
they were recognized to a very great or great extent through their 
performance management systems for taking such actions.

* Senior executives at these three agencies were involved in refining 
their performance management systems or participated in formal training 
when given the opportunity. However, at all three agencies, at least 
one-third of senior executives reported that they had no opportunity 
for such involvement, and about one-fourth reported that no formal 
training was available to them on their agency's performance management 
system.

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Education and 
HHS and the Administrator of NASA for their review and comment. In 
addition, we provided a draft of the report to the Directors of OPM and 
OMB for their information. We received written comments from Education, 
HHS, and NASA, which are presented in appendixes IV, V, and VI. NASA's 
Deputy Administrator stated that NASA concurred with all the 
recommendations and plans to implement the recommendations in its next 
SES appraisal cycle beginning July 1, 2004. HHS's Acting Principal 
Deputy Inspector General stated that HHS had no comments upon review of 
the draft report.

In responding to our recommendations, Education's Assistant Secretary 
for Management and Chief Information Officer stated that Education 
plans to revise its existing senior executive performance management 
system dramatically given OPM's draft regulations for the new SES pay 
for performance system and described specific actions Education plans 
to take. These actions are generally consistent with our 
recommendations and their successful completion will be important to 
achieving the intent of our recommendations. While Education's actions 
are important steps, we disagree that Education has fully implemented 
our recommendation to provide performance information to help senior 
executive decision making and does not need to implement our 
recommendation to require senior executives to identify crosscutting 
goals and relevant internal or external organizations to achieve them.

Background: 

In November 2003, Congress authorized a new performance-based pay 
system for members of the SES.[Footnote 6] According to OPM's interim 
regulations, SES members are to no longer receive annual across-the-
board or locality pay adjustments with the new pay system. Agencies are 
to base pay adjustments for SES members on individual performance and 
contributions to the agency's performance by considering such things as 
the unique skills, qualifications, or competencies of the individual 
and their significance to the agency's mission and performance, as well 
as the individual's current responsibilities.

Specifically, the revised pay system, which took effect in January 
2004, replaces the six SES pay levels with a single, open-range pay 
band and raises the pay cap for all SES members to $145,600 in 2004 
(Level III of the Executive Schedule) with a senior executive's total 
compensation not to exceed $175,700 in 2004 (Level I of the Executive 
Schedule). If OPM certifies and OMB concurs that the agency's 
performance management system, as designed and applied, makes 
meaningful distinctions based on relative performance, an agency can 
raise the SES pay cap to $158,100 in 2004 (Level II of the Executive 
Schedule) with a senior executive's total compensation not to exceed 
$203,000 in 2004 (the total annual compensation payable to the Vice 
President).

In an earlier step, to help agencies hold senior executives accountable 
for organizational results, OPM amended regulations for senior 
executive performance management in October 2000. These amended 
regulations governing performance appraisals for senior executives 
require agencies to establish performance management systems that (1) 
hold senior executives accountable for their individual and 
organizational performance by linking performance management with the 
results-oriented goals of the Government Performance and Results Act of 
1993 (GPRA); (2) evaluate senior executive performance using measures 
that balance organizational results with customer satisfaction, 
employee perspectives, and any other measures agencies decide are 
appropriate; and (3) use performance results as a basis for pay, 
awards, and other personnel decisions. Agencies were to establish these 
performance management systems by their 2001 senior executive 
performance appraisal cycles.

Performance Management Systems Can Be Used More Strategically by 
Selected Agencies: 

High-performing organizations have recognized that their performance 
management systems are strategic tools to help them manage on a day-to-
day basis and achieve organizational goals. While Education, HHS, and 
NASA have undertaken important and valuable efforts to link their 
career senior executive performance management systems to their 
organizations' success, senior executives' perceptions indicate that 
these three agencies have opportunities to use their career senior 
executive performance management systems more strategically to 
strengthen that link. Based on our survey of career senior executives, 
we estimate that generally less than half of the senior executives at 
Education, HHS, and NASA feel that their agencies' are fully using 
their performance management systems as a tool to manage the 
organization or to achieve organizational goals, as shown in figure 1.

Figure 1: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a "Very Great" 
or "Great" Extent on Their Agencies' Overall Use of Their SES 
Performance Management Systems: 

[See PDF for image]

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year 
were more likely to respond "no basis to judge/not applicable." This 
was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives have 
served less than 1 year.

[End of figure]

Further, effective performance management systems are not merely used 
for once-or twice-yearly individual expectation setting and rating 
processes. These systems facilitate two-way communication throughout 
the year so that discussions about individual and organizational 
performance are integrated and ongoing. Effective performance 
management systems work to achieve three key objectives: (1) they 
strive to provide candid and constructive feedback to help individuals 
maximize their contribution and potential in understanding and 
realizing the goals and objectives of the organization, (2) they seek 
to provide management with the objective and fact-based information it 
needs to reward top performers, and (3) they provide the necessary 
information and documentation to deal with poor performers. In this 
regard as well, generally less than half of the senior executives felt 
that their agencies are fully using their performance management 
systems to achieve these objectives, as shown in figure 2. 

Figure 2: Percentage of Senior Executives Responding to a "Very Great" 
or "Great" Extent on Their Agencies' Use of Their SES Performance 
Management Systems to Meet Key Objectives: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year 
were more likely to respond "no basis to judge/not applicable." This 
was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives have 
served less than 1 year.

[End of figure] 

Selected Agencies Can Strengthen the Link between Senior Executive 
Performance and Organizational Success: 

High-performing organizations have recognized that a critical success 
factor in fostering a results-oriented culture is a performance 
management system that creates a "line of sight" showing how unit and 
individual performance can contribute to overall organizational goals 
and helping them understand the connection between their daily 
activities and the organization's success. Further, our prior work has 
identified nine key practices public sector organizations both here and 
abroad have used that collectively create this line of sight to develop 
effective performance management systems.[Footnote 7] To this end, 
while Education, HHS, and NASA have begun to apply the key practices to 
develop effective performance management systems for their career 
senior executives, they have opportunities to strengthen the link 
between their senior executives' performance and organizations' 
success.

Align Individual Performance Expectations with Organizational Goals: 

An explicit alignment of daily activities with broader results is one 
of the defining features of effective performance management systems in 
high-performing organizations. These organizations use their 
performance management systems to improve performance by helping 
individuals see the connection between their daily activities and 
organizational goals and encouraging individuals to focus on their 
roles and responsibilities to help achieve these goals. Education, HHS, 
and NASA require their senior executives to align individual 
performance with organizational goals in order to hold them accountable 
for organizational results. Our review of the senior executives' 
performance plans showed that all the plans at each agency identified 
individual performance expectations that aligned with organizational 
goals. In addition, nearly all of the senior executives at each agency 
have reported that they communicate their performance expectations to 
at least a small extent to those whom they supervise. Cascading 
performance expectations in this way helps individuals understand how 
they contribute to organizational goals.

Still, while most senior executives at each agency indicated that they 
see a connection between their daily activities and organizational 
goals to a very great or great extent, fewer of these senior executives 
felt that their agency's SES performance management system holds them 
accountable for their contributions to organizational results to a very 
great or great extent, as shown in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Of Those Senior Executives Who See a Connection between Daily 
Activities and Organizational Goals to a "Very Great" or "Great" 
Extent, Percentage Who Felt That Their System Holds Them Accountable to 
a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

The 95 percent confidence interval for the 50 percent of SES at 
Education ranges from 40 to 60 percent, and for HHS, the 58 percent of 
SES ranges from 53 to 62 percent.

[End of figure] 

These responses are generally consistent with our governmentwide 
surveys on the implementation of GPRA. In particular, governmentwide, 
senior executives have consistently reported that they are held 
accountable for results. Most recently, we reported in March 2004 that 
61 percent of senior executives governmentwide feel they are held 
accountable for achieving their agencies' strategic goals to a very 
great or great extent.[Footnote 8]

To reinforce the accountability for achieving results-oriented goals, 
we have reported that more progress is needed in explicitly linking 
senior executives' performance expectations to the achievement of these 
goals.[Footnote 9] Setting specific levels of performance that are 
linked to organizational goals can help senior executives see how they 
directly contribute to organizational results. While most senior 
executives at HHS have set specific levels of performance in their 
individual performance plans, few senior executives in Education and 
NASA have identified specific levels.

HHS requires its senior executives to set measurable performance 
expectations in their individual performance plans that align with 
organizational priorities, such as the department's "One-HHS" 
objectives and strategic goals and their operating divisions' annual 
performance goals or other priorities.[Footnote 10] We found that about 
80 percent of senior executives' performance plans identified specific 
levels of performance linked to organizational goals. For example, a 
senior executive in CDC set an expectation to "reduce the percentage of 
youth (grade 9-12) who smoke to 26. 5%," which contributes to CDC's 
annual performance goal to "reduce cigarette smoking among youth" and 
the One-HHS program objective to "emphasize preventive health measures 
(preventing disease and illness)." However, specifying levels of 
performance varies across operating divisions. We found that 
approximately 63 percent of senior executives at FDA versus 80 percent 
at CDC identified specific levels of performance linked to 
organizational goals in their individual performance plans.

Education requires its senior executives to include critical elements, 
each with specific performance requirements, in their individual 
performance plans that align with the department's goals and 
priorities, including the President's Management Agenda, the 
Secretary's strategic plan, the Blueprint for Management Excellence, 
and the Culture of Accountability. We found that approximately 5 
percent of senior executives' performance plans identified specific 
levels of performance linked to organizational goals.

NASA requires its senior executives to include seven critical elements, 
each with specific performance requirements that focus on the 
achievement of organizational goals and priorities, in their individual 
performance plans. For example, senior executives' performance plans 
include the critical element "meets and advances established agency 
program objectives and achieves high-quality results," and specifically 
"meets appropriate GPRA/NASA Strategic Plan goals and objectives." 
Senior executives may modify the performance requirements by making 
them more measurable or specific to their jobs; however, only about 23 
percent of senior executives added performance requirements that are 
specific to their positions in their individual performance 
plans.[Footnote 11] Also, about 1 percent of senior executives have 
performance expectations with specific levels of performance that are 
related to organizational goals in their individual plans.

Connect Performance Expectations to Crosscutting Goals: 

As public sector organizations shift their focus of accountability from 
outputs to results, they have recognized that the activities needed to 
achieve those results often transcend specific organizational 
boundaries. Consequently, organizations that focus on collaboration, 
interaction, and teamwork across organizational boundaries are 
increasingly critical to achieve results. In a recent GAO forum, 
participants agreed that delivering high performance and achieving 
goals requires agencies to establish partnerships with a broad range of 
federal, state, and local government agencies as well other relevant 
organizations.[Footnote 12] High-performing organizations use their 
performance management systems to strengthen accountability for 
results, specifically by placing greater emphasis on collaboration to 
achieve results.

While most senior executives in each agency indicated that they 
collaborate with others to achieve crosscutting goals, fewer of these 
senior executives felt that their contributions to crosscutting goals 
are recognized through their agency's system, as shown in figure 4. 

Figure 4: Of Those Senior Executives Who Collaborate with Others to 
Achieve Crosscutting Goals to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent, 
Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a "Very Great" or "Great" 
Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

[End of figure] 

We reported that more progress is needed to foster the necessary 
collaboration both within and across organizational boundaries to 
achieve results.[Footnote 13] As a first step, agencies could have 
senior executives identify specific programmatic crosscutting goals 
that would require collaboration to achieve in their individual 
performance plans. As a next step, agencies could have senior 
executives name the relevant internal or external organizations with 
which they would collaborate to reinforce a focus across organizational 
boundaries. HHS, Education, and NASA are connecting performance 
expectations to crosscutting goals to varying degrees.

While HHS does not require executives to identify programmatic 
crosscutting goals specific to the individuals in their performance 
plans, according to an agency official, it holds all senior executives 
accountable for the crosscutting One-HHS program objectives, such as to 
increase access to health care. We found that about 67 percent of 
senior executives' performance plans identified a programmatic 
crosscutting goal that would require collaboration to achieve, as shown 
in figure 5. The extent to which the senior executives' performance 
plans identified crosscutting goals varied across operating divisions. 
For example, 60 percent of the senior executives' plans in FDA 
identified crosscutting goals compared with 50 percent of the plans in 
CDC. Few HHS senior executives clearly identified the specific 
organization(s) either internal or external with which they would 
collaborate.

Figure 5: Percentage of SES Plans in HHS with Performance Expectations 
Related to Collaboration: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: GAO analysis based on review of career senior executives' 
performance plans.

[End of figure] 

Positive examples of senior executives' plans at HHS that included 
crosscutting goals, as well as either the internal or external 
organizations with which they would collaborate to achieve these goals, 
include the following: 

* A senior executive in the National Institutes of Health set an 
expectation to work with FDA and other agencies and organizations to 
accelerate drug development by specifically working on the National 
Cancer Institute/FDA task force to eliminate barriers and speed 
development.

* A senior executive in the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services 
Administration set an expectation to work collaboratively with the 
Office of National Drug Control Policy, the Department of Energy, and 
the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention to increase 
the use of the National Registry of Effective Programs in other federal 
agencies to identify and provide for early intervention for persons 
with or who are at risk for mental health or substance abuse problems.

As required by Education, all senior executives' performance plans 
included the general performance expectation: "promotes collaboration 
and teamwork, including effective union-management relations, where 
appropriate." However, only about 32 percent of senior executives' 
performance plans identified programmatic crosscutting goals on which 
they would collaborate and few executives clearly identified the 
specific organizations with which they would collaborate, as shown in 
figure 6. 

Figure 6: Percentage of SES Plans in Education with Performance 
Expectations Related to Collaboration: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: GAO analysis based on review of career senior executives' 
performance plans.

[End of figure] 

As required by NASA, all senior executives' performance plans included 
a general expectation: "integrates One-NASA approach to problem-
solving, program/project management, and decision making. Leads by 
example by reaching out to other organizations and NASA centers to 
collaborate on work products; seeks input and expertise from a broad 
spectrum .…" This expectation is designed to contribute to achieving 
NASA's mission. Only about 1 percent of the executives clearly 
identified specific centers in NASA and none of the executives clearly 
identified specific organizations outside of NASA that they need to 
collaborate with to achieve crosscutting goals.

Provide and Routinely Use Performance Information to Track 
Organizational Priorities: 

High-performing organizations provide objective performance 
information to executives to show progress in achieving organizational 
results and other priorities, such as customer satisfaction and 
employee perspectives, and help them manage during the year, identify 
performance gaps, and pinpoint improvement opportunities. We reported 
that disaggregating performance information in a useful format could 
help executives track their performance against organizational goals 
and compare their performance to that of the organization.[Footnote 14]

HHS, NASA, and Education took different approaches to providing 
performance information to their senior executives in order to show 
progress toward organizational goals or priorities. While all three 
agencies give their components the flexibility to collect and provide 
performance information to their senior executives, Education also 
provides performance information agencywide. Of the senior executives 
in Education, HHS, and NASA who reported that their agency provided 
performance information to track their work unit's performance, 
generally less than half found the performance information to be useful 
for making improvements, available when needed, or both to a very great 
or great extent, as shown in figure 7. 

Figure 7: Of the Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency Formally 
Provides Performance Information That Allows Them to Track Their Work 
Unit's Performance, Percentage Who Felt This Information Was Useful, 
Available, or Both to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

These responses are based on the 88 percent of senior executives at 
Education, 84 percent at HHS, and 93 percent at NASA who reported that 
their agencies provided performance information that allows them to 
track their work unit's performance. Senior executives in HHS who have 
served for less than 1 year were more likely to respond "no basis to 
judge/not applicable."

[End of figure] 

Education provides various types of performance information to senior 
executives intended to help them see how they are meeting the 
performance expectations in their individual performance plans. A 
tracking system monitors how Education is making progress toward its 
annual performance goals and supporting action steps. Each action step 
has milestones that are tracked and reported each month to the 
officials who developed and have "ownership" for them. Education also 
collects performance information on customer service and employee 
perspectives. For example, Education uses an automated performance 
feedback process, whereby customers, coworkers, and employees provide 
feedback at midcycle and the end of the performance appraisal cycle on 
how the senior executives are meeting their individual performance 
expectations and areas for improvement.[Footnote 15]

HHS conducts an annual departmentwide quality of work life survey and 
disaggregates the survey results for executives and other employees to 
use. HHS compares the overall high or low results of its survey for HHS 
as a whole to each operating division and to the component 
organizations within operating divisions. In the 2003 survey, HHS added 
questions about the President's Management Agenda, and each operating 
division had the opportunity to add specific questions focusing on 
issues that it believed were important to its employees, such as 
flexible work schedules or knowledge management issues. In addition, 
HHS gives operating divisions the flexibility to use other means of 
collecting and providing performance information, and in turn, FDA and 
CDC give their centers and offices the flexibility to collect and 
provide performance information. For example, according to a CDC 
official, senior executives receive frequent reports, such as the 
weekly situation reports, to identify priorities and help communicate 
these priorities among senior executives.[Footnote 16] In addition, CDC 
conducts a "pulse check" survey to gather feedback on employees' 
satisfaction with the agency and disaggregates the results to the 
center level. According to an agency official, CDC plans to conduct 
this survey quarterly.

An official at NASA indicated that while NASA does not systematically 
provide performance information to its senior executives on a NASA-wide 
basis, the centers have the flexibility to collect and provide 
performance information to their senior executives on programs' goals 
and measures and customer and employee satisfaction. This official 
indicated that NASA uses the results of the OPM Human Capital survey to 
help identify areas for improvement throughout NASA and its centers. 
NASA provides the OPM Human Capital survey data to its centers, showing 
NASA-wide and center-specific results, to help centers conduct their 
own analyses and identify areas for improvement and best practices.

Require Follow-up Actions to Address Organizational Priorities: 

High-performing organizations require individuals to take follow-up 
actions based on the performance information available to them. By 
requiring and tracking such follow-up actions on performance gaps, 
these organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals 
accountable for making progress on their priorities. Within Education, 
only the senior executives who developed the action steps for the 
annual performance goals are to incorporate expectations to demonstrate 
progress toward the goal(s) in their individual plans. HHS and NASA do 
not require senior executives to take follow-up actions agencywide, but 
they encourage their components to have executives take follow-up 
actions to show progress toward the organizational priorities. Of the 
senior executives at each agency who indicated that they took follow-up 
actions on areas of improvement, generally less than two-thirds felt 
they were recognized through their performance management systems for 
such actions, as shown in figure 8. 

Figure 8: Of Those Senior Executives Who Took Action on Areas of 
Improvement to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent, Percentage Who Felt 
They Are Recognized to a "Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives. For Education, 
the 55 percent of SES has a margin of error of ±12 percent. For HHS, 
the 60 percent of SES who said they feel recognized for taking follow-
up actions has a margin of error of ±5 percent. Senior executives in 
NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to 
respond "no basis to judge/not applicable." This was not an issue for 
Education since fewer senior executives have served less than 1 year.

[End of figure] 

At Education, senior executives who developed the action steps for 
Education's annual goals are required to set milestones that are 
tracked each month using a red, yellow, or green scoring system; assess 
how they are progressing toward the action steps and annual goals; and 
revise future milestones, if necessary. According to agency officials, 
these senior executives are to incorporate these action steps when 
developing their individual performance plans. Senior executives are 
also to address the feedback that their supervisors provide about their 
progress in achieving their performance expectations.

HHS as a whole does not require senior executives to take follow-up 
actions, for example, on the quality of work life survey results, or 
incorporate the performance information results into their individual 
performance plans. In addition, FDA and CDC do not require their senior 
executives agencywide to take any type of follow-up actions. However, 
FDA centers have the flexibility to require their senior executives to 
identify areas for improvement based on the survey results or other 
types of performance information. Similarly, CDC encourages its 
executives to incorporate relevant performance measures in their 
individual performance plans. For example, those senior executives 
within each CDC center responsible for issues identified at emerging 
issues meetings are required to identify when the issues will be 
resolved, identify the steps they will take to resolve the issues in 
action plans, and give updates at future meetings with the CDC Director 
and other senior officials.

NASA does not require its senior executives to take follow-up actions 
agencywide on the OPM Human Capital Survey data or other types of 
performance information, rather it encourages its centers to have their 
executives take follow-up action on any identified areas of 
improvement. However, an agency official stated that NASA uses the 
results of the survey to identify areas for improvement and that 
managers are ultimately accountable for ensuring the implementation of 
the improvement initiatives.

Use Competencies to Provide a Fuller Assessment of Performance: 

High-performing organizations use competencies to examine individual 
contributions to organizational results. Competencies, which define the 
skills and supporting behaviors that individuals are expected to 
demonstrate to carry out their work effectively, can provide a fuller 
picture of individuals' performance in the different areas in which 
they are appraised, such as organizational results, employee 
perspectives, and customer satisfaction. We have reported that core 
competencies applied organizationwide can help reinforce behaviors and 
actions that support the organization's mission, goals, and values and 
can provide a consistent message about how employees are expected to 
achieve results.[Footnote 17] Education and NASA identified 
competencies that all senior executives in the agency must include in 
their performance plans, while HHS gave its operating divisions the 
flexibility to have senior executives identify competencies in their 
performance plans.

Most of the senior executives in each agency indicated that the 
competencies they demonstrate help them contribute to the 
organization's goals to a very great or great extent. However, fewer of 
these executives felt that they were recognized through their 
performance management system for demonstrating these competencies, as 
shown in figure 9. 

Figure 9: Of Those Senior Executives Who Felt the Competencies They 
Demonstrate Help Them Contribute to Organizational Goals to a "Very 
Great" or "Great" Extent, Percentage Who Felt They Are Recognized to a 
"Very Great" or "Great" Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year 
were more likely to respond "no basis to judge/not applicable." This 
was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives have 
served less than 1 year.

[End of figure] 

Education requires all senior executives to include a set of 
competencies in their individual performance plans. Based on our review 
of Education's senior executives' performance plans, we found that all 
of the plans, unless otherwise noted, included the following examples 
of competencies.[Footnote 18]

* Organizational results--"sets and meets challenging objectives to 
achieve the Department's strategic goals."

* Employee perspectives--"fosters improved workforce productivity and 
effective development and recognition of employees."[Footnote 19]

* Customer satisfaction--"anticipates and responds to customer needs in 
a professional, effective, and timely manner."

NASA requires all senior executives to include a set of competency-
based critical elements in their individual performance plans. Based on 
our review of NASA's senior executives' performance plans, we found all 
of the plans included the following examples of competencies.

* Organizational results--Understands the principles of the President's 
Management Agenda and actively applies them; capitalizes on 
opportunities to integrate human capital issues in planning and 
performance and to expand e-government and competitive sourcing; and 
pursues other opportunities to reduce costs and improve service to 
customers.

* Employee perspectives--Demonstrates a commitment to equal opportunity 
and diversity by proactively implementing programs that positively 
impact the workplace and NASA's external stakeholders and through 
voluntary compliance with equal opportunity laws, regulations, 
policies, and practices.

* Customer satisfaction--Provides the appropriate level of high-quality 
support to peers and other organizations to enable the achievement of 
the NASA mission; results demonstrate support of One-NASA and that 
stakeholder and customer issues were taken into account.

According to an HHS official, the HHS senior executive performance 
management system, while not competency based, is becoming more outcome 
oriented. However, operating divisions may require senior executives to 
include competencies. For example, senior executives in FDA and CDC 
include specific competencies related to organizational results, 
employee perspectives, and customer satisfaction in their individual 
performance plans. Based on our review of HHS's senior executives' 
performance plans, we found that all of the plans at FDA and CDC and 
nearly all across HHS identified competencies that executives are 
expected to demonstrate.

* Organizational results--About 94 percent of HHS senior executives' 
plans identified a competency related to organizational results. For 
example, all senior executives' plans in FDA included a competency to 
"demonstrate prudence and the highest ethical standards when executing 
fiduciary responsibilities."

* Employee perspectives--About 89 percent of HHS senior executives' 
plans identified a competency related to employee perspectives. For 
example, senior executives in CDC are required to include a competency 
to exercise leadership and management actions that reflect the 
principles of workforce diversity in management and operations in such 
areas as recruitment and staffing, employee development, and 
communications.

* Customer satisfaction--About 61 percent of HHS senior executives' 
plans identified a competency related to customer satisfaction. For 
example, all senior executives' plans in FDA included a competency to 
"lead in a proactive, customer-responsive manner consistent with agency 
vision and values, effectively communicating program issues to external 
audiences."

Link Pay to Individual and Organizational Performance: 

High-performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward 
systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions 
to organizational results. These organizations recognize that valid, 
reliable, and transparent performance management systems with 
reasonable safeguards for employees are the precondition to such an 
approach. To this end, Education's, HHS's, and NASA's performance 
management systems are designed to appraise and reward senior executive 
performance based on each executive's achievement toward organizational 
goals as outlined in the executive's performance plan. Overall, the 
majority of senior executives at each agency either strongly agreed or 
agreed that they are rewarded for accomplishing the performance 
expectations in their individual performance plan or helping their 
agency accomplish its goals, as shown in figure 10. These responses are 
similar to those from our governmentwide survey on the implementation 
of GPRA. We reported that about half of senior executives 
governmentwide perceive to a very great or great extent that employees 
in their agencies received positive recognition for helping their 
agencies accomplish their strategic goals.[Footnote 20]

Figure 10: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting They "Strongly 
Agree" or "Agree" That They Are Rewarded for Accomplishments: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

[End of figure] 

Senior executives in NASA and HHS who have served for less than 1 year 
were more likely to respond "no basis to judge/not applicable." This 
was not an issue for Education since fewer senior executives have 
served less than 1 year.

We have observed that a performance management system should have 
adequate safeguards to ensure fairness and guard against abuse. Such 
safeguards will become especially important under the new performance-
based pay system for the SES. Education, HHS, and NASA have built the 
following safeguards required by OPM into their senior executive 
performance management policies.

* Each agency must establish one or more performance review boards 
(PRB) to review senior executives' initial summary performance ratings 
and other relevant documents and to make written recommendations to the 
agency head on the performance of the agency's senior executives. The 
PRBs are to have members who are appointed by the agency head in a way 
that assures consistency, stability, and objectivity in senior 
executive performance appraisals. For example, HHS specifically states 
that each operating division will have one or more PRBs with members 
appointed by the operating division head. HHS's PRB members may include 
all types of federal executives, including noncareer appointees, 
military officers, and career appointees from within and outside the 
department. In addition, NASA's PRB is to evaluate the effectiveness of 
the senior executive performance management system and report its 
findings and any appropriate recommendations for process improvement or 
appropriate policy changes to NASA management. For example, the PRB 
completed a study on NASA's senior executive bonus system in 2003. 

* A senior executive may provide a written response to his or her 
initial summary rating that is provided to the PRB. The PRB is to 
consider this written response in recommending an annual summary rating 
to the agency head.

* A senior executive may ask for a higher-level review of his or her 
initial summary rating before the rating is provided to the PRB. The 
higher-level reviewer cannot change the initial summary rating, but may 
recommend a different rating to the PRB that is shared with the senior 
executive and the supervisor. Upon receiving the annual summary rating, 
senior executives may not appeal their performance appraisals and 
ratings.

We have observed that a safeguard for performance management systems is 
to ensure reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability 
mechanisms in connection with the performance management process. 
Agencies can help create transparency in the performance management 
process by communicating the overall results of the performance 
appraisal cycle to their senior executives. Education, NASA, and HHS 
officials indicated that they do not make the aggregate distribution of 
performance ratings or bonuses available to their senior executives.

In addition, agencies can communicate the criteria for making 
performance-based pay decisions and bonus decisions to their senior 
executives to enhance the transparency of the system. Generally, less 
than half of the senior executives at each agency reported that they 
understand the criteria used to award bonuses to a very great or great 
extent, and some senior executives at each agency reported that they do 
not understand the criteria at all, as shown in figure 11.

Figure 11: Percentage of Senior Executives Reporting That They 
Understand the Criteria Used to Award Bonuses by Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

For Education, the percentage of senior executives does not equal 100 
percent due to rounding, and for HHS and NASA, due to the senior 
executives who responded "no basis to judge/not applicable." Senior 
executives in HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely 
to respond "no basis to judge/not applicable."

[End of figure] 

Make Meaningful Distinctions in Performance: 

High-performing organizations make meaningful distinctions between 
acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals and appropriately 
reward those who perform at the highest level. Executive agencies can 
reward senior executives' performance in a number of ways: through 
performance awards or bonuses, nominations for Presidential Rank 
Awards, or other informal or honorary awards. With the new performance-
based pay system for senior executives, agencies are required to have 
OPM certify and OMB concur that their performance management systems 
are making meaningful distinctions based on relative performance in 
order to raise the pay for their senior executives to the highest 
available level.

Recently, the Director of OPM stated that agencies' SES performance 
management systems should rely on credible and rigorous performance 
measurements to make meaningful distinctions based on relative 
performance in order for the new SES performance-based pay system to 
succeed.[Footnote 21] She also noted that while a growing number of 
agencies have improved in their distributions of SES ratings and awards 
based on agencies' fiscal year 2002 rating and bonus data, these data 
also suggest that more work is needed. Specifically, see the following: 

* Executive branch agencies rated about 75 percent of senior executives 
at the highest level their systems permit in their performance ratings 
in fiscal year 2002, the most current year for which data are available 
from OPM--a decrease from about 84 percent the previous fiscal year.

* When disaggregating the data by rating system, approximately 69 
percent of senior executives received the highest rating under five-
level systems in fiscal year 2002 compared to about 76 percent in 
fiscal year 2001, and almost 100 percent of senior executives received 
the highest rating under three-level systems in both fiscal years 2001 
and 2002. 

* Approximately 49 percent of senior executives received bonuses in 
fiscal year 2002 compared to about 52 percent the previous fiscal 
year.[Footnote 22]

At HHS, about 86 percent of senior executives received the highest 
possible rating in fiscal year 2003 compared with approximately 99 
percent in fiscal year 2002. While HHS gives its operating divisions 
the flexibility to appraise their senior executives' performance using 
a three-, four-, or five-level performance management system, most of 
HHS's operating divisions, including FDA and CDC, rate their senior 
executives under a three-level system. Almost all of HHS's senior 
executives rated under a three-level system received the highest rating 
of "fully successful" in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. [Footnote 23] 
Approximately 23 percent of senior executives rated under a five-level 
system received the highest rating of "outstanding" in fiscal year 2003 
compared with approximately 94 percent in fiscal year 2002. [Footnote 
24]

According to its Chief Human Capital Officer, HHS recognizes that its 
rating systems do not always allow for distinctions in senior 
executives' performance, and it has chosen to focus on the bonus 
process as the method for reflecting performance distinctions. Senior 
executive bonuses are to provide a mechanism for distinguishing and 
rewarding the contributions of top performers, specifically for 
circumstances in which the individual's work has substantially improved 
public health and safety or citizen services. Since the fiscal year 
2001 performance appraisal cycle, HHS has restricted the percentage of 
senior executives' bonuses to generally no more than one-third of each 
operating division's senior executives. HHS, including FDA and CDC, is 
making progress toward distinguishing senior executive performance 
through bonuses compared to the percentage of senior executives 
governmentwide who received bonuses, as shown in table 1.

Table 1: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS as Compared to Senior 
Executives Governmentwide Who Received Bonuses for Fiscal Years 2000 
through 2003: 

Agency: HHS (including CDC and FDA); 
FY 2000: 58; 
FY 2001: 34; 
FY 2002: 37; 
FY 2003: 29. 

Agency: CDC; 
FY 2000: 86; 
FY 2001: 52; 
FY 2002: 39; 
FY 2003: 35. 

Agency: FDA; 
FY 2000: 72; 
FY 2001: 36; 
FY 2002: 37; 
FY 2003: 34. 

Agency: Governmentwide; 
FY 2000: 51; 
FY 2001: 52; 
FY 2002: 49; 
FY 2003: Not available.

Sources: HHS and OPM.

Note: The percentage of senior executives governmentwide who received 
bonuses in fiscal year 2003 is not yet available.

[End of table]

Additionally, HHS generally limited individual bonus amounts to no more 
than 12 percent of base pay for top performers in fiscal year 2003. 
Most of the senior executives who received a bonus were awarded less 
than a 10 percent bonus in fiscal year 2003, as shown in table 2. 

Table 2: Percentage of HHS Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and 
the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for Fiscal Year 2003: 

Bonus amount: 12; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 3. 

Bonus amount: 11; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 0.

Bonus amount: 10; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 6. 

Bonus amount: 9; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 5. 

Bonus amount: 8; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 4. 

Bonus amount: 7; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 5. 

Bonus amount: 6; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2. 

Bonus amount: 5; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 4. 

Bonus amount: Total; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 29. 

Source: HHS. 

[End of table]

Lastly, senior executive responses to our survey indicated that they 
did not feel HHS was making meaningful distinctions in ratings or 
bonuses to a very great or great extent. Approximately 31 percent of 
senior executives felt that their agency makes meaningful distinctions 
in performance using ratings; approximately 38 percent felt that their 
agency makes meaningful distinctions in performance using bonuses.

NASA uses a five-level system to appraise senior executive performance. 
More than three-fourths of the senior executives received the highest 
rating of "outstanding" for the 2003 performance appraisal cycle (July 
2002-June 2003), as shown in figure 12. The distribution of senior 
executives across the rating levels was similar to the previous 
performance appraisal cycle.

Figure 12: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives by Rating Level in the 
2003 Performance Appraisal Cycle: 

[See PDF for image] 

Note: Percentage of senior executives exceeds 100 percent due to 
rounding.

[End of figure] 

NASA's senior executive bonus recommendations are to be based solely on 
exceptional performance as specified and documented in senior 
executives' performance plans. While NASA established a fixed 
allocation of bonuses for its organizations based on the total number 
of senior executives, an organization can request an increase to its 
allocation. Sixty percent of eligible senior executives within the 
organization's bonus allocation may be recommended for bonuses larger 
than 5 percent of base pay.

For the 2003 appraisal cycle, the percentage of senior executives who 
received bonuses increased from the previous year, as shown in table 3. 
An agency official indicated that this increase resulted from a study 
NASA's PRB conducted on the senior executive bonus system. The PRB 
reviewed NASA's bonus system in the context of OPM's data on senior 
executive bonuses across federal agencies and recommended that NASA 
revise its bonus system to move NASA into the upper half of the number 
and average amount of bonuses given across federal agencies. According 
to the PRB study, NASA made this change to meet its management's need 
to reward more senior executives while recognizing that bonus decisions 
must be based on performance.

Table 3: Percentage of NASA Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses and 
the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for the 2002 and 2003 
Performance Appraisal Cycle: 

Bonus amount: 20; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2002 cycle: 6; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2003 cycle: 8. 

Bonus amount: 15; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2002 cycle: 6; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2003 cycle: 11.

Bonus amount: 10; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2002 cycle: 6; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2003 cycle: 7. 

Bonus amount: 5; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2002 cycle: 22; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2003 cycle: 26. 

Total; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2002 cycle: 40; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 2003 cycle: 52. 

Source: NASA.

[End of table]

During NASA's 2003 appraisal cycle, the Space Shuttle Columbia accident 
happened. We reviewed the aggregate senior executive performance rating 
and bonus data for that cycle; however, we did not analyze individual 
senior executives' performance appraisals or bonus recommendations or 
determine if those who received ratings of outstanding, bonuses, or 
both were involved with the Columbia mission.

Lastly, senior executive responses to our survey indicated that about 
half of the executives felt NASA was making meaningful distinctions in 
ratings or bonuses to a very great or great extent. Approximately 46 
percent of senior executives felt that their agency makes meaningful 
distinctions in performance using ratings; approximately 48 percent 
felt that their agency makes meaningful distinctions in performance 
using bonuses.

Education uses a three-level rating system.[Footnote 25] About 98 
percent of senior executives received the highest rating of 
"successful" in the 2003 performance appraisal cycle (July 2002-June 
2003), a slight decrease from the previous performance appraisal cycle 
when all senior executives received this rating. Education's senior 
executive bonus recommendations are to be based on senior executives' 
demonstrated results and accomplishments toward the department's 
strategic goals and organizational priorities. About 63 percent of 
senior executives received bonuses in the 2003 appraisal cycle, 
compared to approximately 60 percent in the previous appraisal cycle. 
The majority of the senior executives who received bonuses were awarded 
5 percent bonuses in the 2003 appraisal cycle, as shown in table 4. 

Table 4: Percentage of Education Senior Executives Who Received Bonuses 
and the Bonus Amounts as a Percentage of Base Pay for the 2003 
Performance Appraisal Cycle: 

Bonus amount: 20; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 7. 

Bonus amount: 15-19; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 0.

Bonus amount: 10-14; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 4. 

Bonus amount: 6-9; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 15. 

Bonus amount: 5; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 37. 

Total; 
Senior executives who received bonuses: 63. 

Source: Department of Education.

[End of table]

Lastly, senior executive responses to our survey indicated that they 
did not feel Education was making meaningful distinctions in ratings or 
bonuses to a very great or great extent. Specifically, about 10 percent 
of senior executives felt that their agency makes meaningful 
distinctions in performance using ratings; about 33 percent felt that 
their agency makes meaningful distinctions in performance using 
bonuses.

Involve Employees and Stakeholders to Gain Ownership of Performance 
Management Systems: 

High-performing organizations have found that actively involving 
employees and stakeholders when developing or refining results-oriented 
performance management systems helps improve employees' confidence and 
belief in the fairness of the system and increase their understanding 
and ownership of organizational goals and objectives. Further, to 
maximize the effectiveness of their performance management systems 
these organizations recognize that they must conduct frequent training 
for staff members at all levels of the organization.[Footnote 26]

Generally, at Education, HHS, and NASA senior executives became 
involved in refining the performance management system or participated 
in formal training on those systems when provided the opportunities. Of 
the senior executives at each agency who reported that they have been 
given the opportunity to be involved in refining their agency's 
performance management system to at least a small extent, most of these 
senior executives said they took advantage of this opportunity, as 
shown in figure 13. 

Figure 13: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said They Had the Opportunity 
to Be Involved, Percentage Who Said They Have Been Involved in Refining 
Their Agency's SES Performance Management System: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

The 95 percent confidence interval for the 76 percent of SES at 
Education ranges from 63 to 87 percent.

[End of figure] 

Similarly, while less than three-fourths of the senior executives at 
each agency said formal training on their agency's performance 
management system is available to them, most of these senior executives 
said they participated in the training, as shown in figure 14. 

Figure 14: Of Those Senior Executives Who Said Formal Training Is 
Available, Percentage Who Said They Have Participated in Formal 
Training on Their Agency's SES Performance Management System: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

The 95 percent confidence interval for the 83 percent of SES at 
Education ranges from 73 to 91 percent. For the question on the 
availability of training, senior executives in HHS who have served for 
less than 1 year were more likely to respond "no basis to judge/not 
applicable."

[End of figure] 

At all three agencies, a proportion of senior executives reported that 
they had no opportunity to become involved with or trained on their 
performance management systems. At HHS, about 38 percent of senior 
executives said they did not have the opportunity to be involved in 
refining their agency's system, while about 24 percent of senior 
executives said formal training on their agency's system was not 
available to them, as shown in figure 15. 

Figure 15: Percentage of Senior Executives at HHS Reporting Involvement 
and Training Opportunities by Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who 
responded "no basis to judge/not applicable." For the question on 
training, senior executives who have served for less than 1 year were 
more likely to respond "no basis to judge/not applicable."

[End of figure] 

According to an HHS official, the Office of the Secretary developed the 
One-HHS objectives, the basis of its senior executive performance 
management system, with input from the leadership of all HHS staff 
offices and operating divisions. This official indicated that HHS 
conducted extensive interviews to develop and validate the goals. All 
career senior executives were briefed on the goals and offered training 
on development of outcome-oriented individual performance objectives 
derived from those goals. The agency official said that the operating 
divisions had the flexibility to involve their senior executives in 
customizing the new individual performance plans for their operating 
divisions.

According to HHS's guidance, the operating divisions are to develop and 
provide training on the performance management system to their senior 
executives on areas such as developing performance plans, conducting 
progress reviews, writing appraisals, and using appraisals as a key 
factor in making other management decisions. For example, according to 
an FDA official, the Human Resources Director briefed all of the senior 
executive directors on how to cascade the FDA Commissioner's 
performance plan into their fiscal year 2002 individual plans and 
incorporate the One-HHS objectives. FDA does not provide regular 
training to the senior executives on the performance management system; 
rather the training is provided as needed and usually on a one-on-one 
basis when a new senior executive joins FDA. The agency official also 
stated that because few senior executives are joining the agency, 
regular training on the system is not as necessary.

About half of NASA's senior executives reported that they did not have 
the opportunity to be involved in refining their agency's system, while 
about 21 percent of senior executives said formal training on their 
agency's system was not available to them, as shown in figure 16. 

Figure 16: Percentage of Senior Executives at NASA Reporting 
Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who 
responded "no basis to judge/not applicable."

[End of figure] 

According to an agency official, the NASA Administrator worked with the 
top senior executives to develop a common set of senior executive 
critical elements and performance requirements that reflect his 
priorities and are central to ensuring a healthy and effective 
organization. The Administrator then instructed the senior executives 
to review the common critical elements and incorporate them into their 
individual performance plans. When incorporating the elements into 
their individual plans, the senior executives have the opportunity to 
modify the performance requirements for each element to more clearly 
reflect their roles and responsibilities.

According to NASA's guidance, the centers and offices are to provide 
training and information on the performance management system to their 
senior executives. In addition, an official at NASA said that most 
centers and offices provide training to new senior executives on 
aspects of the performance management system, such as developing 
individual performance plans. Also, NASA provides training courses for 
all employees on specific aspects of performance management, such as 
writing performance appraisals and self-assessments.

Approximately half of Education's senior executives reported that they 
did not have the opportunity to be involved in refining their agency's 
system, while about one-fourth of the senior executives reported that 
formal training on their agency's system was not available to them, as 
shown in figure 17. 

Figure 17: Percentage of Senior Executives at Education Reporting 
Involvement and Training Opportunities by Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who 
responded "no basis to judge/not applicable."

[End of figure] 

An official at Education indicated that senior executives have the 
opportunity to comment on changes proposed to the performance 
management system by the Executive Resources Board. In addition, 
according to Education's guidance, training for all senior executives 
on the performance management system is to be provided periodically. An 
agency official said that Education provided training for all managers, 
including senior executives, on how to conduct performance appraisals 
and write performance expectations near the end of the performance 
appraisal cycle last year.

Maintain Continuity during Transitions: 

The experience of successful cultural transformations in large public 
and private organizations suggests that it can often take 5 to 7 years 
until such initiatives are fully implemented and cultures are 
transformed in a substantial manner. We reported that among the key 
practices consistently found at the center of successful 
transformations is to use the performance management system to define 
responsibility and assure accountability for change.[Footnote 27] The 
average tenure of political leadership can have critical implications 
for the success of those initiatives. Specifically, in the federal 
government the frequent turnover of the political leadership has often 
made it difficult to obtain the sustained and inspired attention 
required to make needed changes. We reported that the average tenure of 
political appointees governmentwide for the period 1990-2001 was just 
under 3 years.[Footnote 28]

Performance management systems help provide continuity during these 
times of transition by maintaining a consistent focus on a set of broad 
programmatic priorities. Individual performance plans can be used to 
clearly and concisely outline top leadership priorities during a given 
year and thereby serve as a convenient vehicle for new leadership to 
identify and maintain focus on the most pressing issues confronting the 
organization as it transforms. We have observed that a specific 
performance expectation in senior executives' performance plans to lead 
and facilitate change during transitions could be critical as 
organizations transform themselves to succeed in an environment that is 
more results oriented, less hierarchical, and more integrated.[Footnote 
29]

While many senior executives at each agency reported that their 
agency's senior executive performance management system helped to 
maintain a consistent focus on organizational goals during transitions, 
the majority of senior executives felt this occurred to a moderate 
extent or less, as shown in figure 18. 

Figure 18: Percentage of Senior Executives Who Felt Their Agency's SES 
Performance Management System Helped to Maintain a Consistent Focus on 
Organizational Goals during Transitions by Extent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Notes: Based on GAO survey of career senior executives.

Percentages do not add up to 100 percent due to senior executives who 
responded "no basis to judge/not applicable." Senior executives in NASA 
and HHS who have served for less than 1 year were more likely to 
respond "no basis to judge/not applicable." This was not an issue for 
Education since fewer senior executives have served less than 1 year.

[End of figure] 

According to an agency official, HHS as a whole struggles with 
transitions between secretaries as with each change in leadership comes 
a change in initiatives. Approximately 25 percent of HHS senior 
executives' plans identified performance expectations related to 
leading and facilitating change in the organization. For example, 
several senior executives' plans identified actions the executives were 
going to take in terms of succession planning and leadership 
development for their organizations. Specifically, a senior executive 
in the National Institutes of Health set the expectation to develop a 
workforce plan that supports the future needs of the office, including 
addressing such things as succession and transition planning. About 33 
percent of senior executives' plans in FDA and 15 percent in CDC 
identified performance expectations related to leading and facilitating 
change. To help address this issue of continuity in leadership and 
transitions, HHS identified as part of its One-HHS objectives a goal to 
"implement strategic workforce plans that improve recruitment, 
retention, hiring and leadership succession results for mission 
critical positions."

Education requires all senior executives to include a general 
performance expectation in their performance plans related to change: 
"initiates new and better ways of doing things; creates real and 
positive change." Approximately 98 percent of the senior executives' 
plans included this expectation.

Almost none of the NASA senior executives' performance plans identified 
an expectation related to leading and facilitating change during 
transitions. An agency official indicated that while NASA did not set a 
specific expectation for senior executives to include in their 
individual performance plans, leading and facilitating change is 
addressed through several of the critical elements. For example, for 
the "Health of NASA" critical element, senior executives are to 
demonstrate actions that contribute to safe and successful mission 
accomplishment and facilitate knowledge sharing within and between 
programs and projects. We have reported that NASA recognizes the 
importance of change management through its response to the Columbia 
Accident Investigation Board's findings.[Footnote 30] NASA indicated 
that it would increase its focus on the human element of change 
management and organizational development, among other things, to 
improve the agency's culture.

Conclusions: 

Senior executives need to lead the way for federal agencies to 
transform their cultures to be more results oriented, customer focused, 
and collaborative in nature to meet the challenges of the 21st century. 
Performance management systems can help manage and direct this 
transformation process. Education, HHS, and NASA have undertaken 
important and valuable efforts, but these agencies need to continue to 
make substantial progress in using their senior executive performance 
management systems to strengthen the linkage between senior executive 
performance and organizational success through the key practices for 
effective performance management.

Consistent with our findings and OPM's reviews across the executive 
branch, these agencies must use their career senior executive 
performance management systems as strategic tools. In addition, as the 
administration is about to implement a performance-based pay system for 
the SES, valid, reliable, and transparent performance management 
systems with reasonable safeguards are critical. The experiences and 
progress of Education, HHS, and NASA should prove helpful to those 
agencies as well as provide valuable information to other agencies as 
they seek to use senior executive performance management as a tool to 
drive internal change and achieve external results.

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Overall, we recommend that the Secretaries of Education and HHS and the 
Administrator of NASA continue to build their career senior executive 
performance management systems along the nine key practices for 
effective performance management. Specifically, we recommend the 
following.

The Secretary of Education should reinforce these key practices by 
taking the following seven actions: 

* Require senior executives to set specific levels of performance that 
are linked to organizational goals to help them see how they directly 
contribute to organizational goals.

* Require senior executives to identify in their individual performance 
plans programmatic crosscutting goals that would require collaboration 
to achieve and clearly identify the relevant internal or external 
organizations with which they would collaborate to achieve these goals.

* Provide disaggregated performance information from various sources to 
help facilitate senior executive decision making and progress in 
achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, and employee 
perspectives.

* Require senior executives to take follow-up actions based on the 
performance information available to them in order to make programmatic 
improvements, and formally recognize executives for these actions.

* Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to performance by 
communicating the overall results of the performance management 
decisions.

* Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance through 
both ratings and bonuses.

* Involve senior executives in future refinements to the performance 
management system and offer training on the system, as appropriate.

The Secretary of HHS should reinforce these key practices by taking the 
following seven actions: 

* Require senior executives to clearly identify in their individual 
performance plans the relevant internal or external organizations with 
which they would collaborate to achieve programmatic crosscutting 
goals.

* Provide disaggregated performance information from various sources to 
help facilitate senior executive decision making and progress in 
achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, and employee 
perspectives.

* Require senior executives to take follow-up actions based on the 
performance information available to them in order to make programmatic 
improvements, and formally recognize executives for these actions.

* Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to performance by 
communicating the overall results of the performance management 
decisions.

* Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance through 
ratings.

* Involve senior executives in future refinements to the performance 
management system and offer training on the system, as appropriate.

* Set specific performance expectations for senior executives related 
to leading and facilitating change management initiatives during 
ongoing transitions throughout the organization that executives should 
include in their individual performance plans.

The Administrator of NASA should reinforce these key practices by 
taking the following eight actions: 

* Require senior executives to set specific levels of performance that 
are linked to organizational goals to help them see how they directly 
contribute to organizational goals.

* Require senior executives to identify in their individual performance 
plans programmatic crosscutting goals that would require collaboration 
to achieve and clearly identify the relevant internal or external 
organizations with which they would collaborate to achieve these goals.

* Provide disaggregated performance information from various sources to 
help facilitate senior executive decision making and progress in 
achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, and employee 
perspectives.

* Require senior executives to take follow-up actions based on the 
performance information available to them in order to make programmatic 
improvements, and formally recognize executives for these actions.

* Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to performance by 
communicating the overall results of the performance management 
decisions.

* Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive performance through 
both ratings and bonuses.

* Involve senior executives in future refinements to the performance 
management system and offer training on the system, as appropriate.

* Set specific performance expectations for senior executives related 
to leading and facilitating change management initiatives during 
ongoing transitions throughout the organization that executives should 
include in their individual performance plans.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretaries of Education and 
HHS and the Administrator of NASA for their review and comment. We also 
provided a draft of the report to the Directors of OPM and OMB for 
their information. We received written comments from Education, HHS, 
and NASA, which are presented in appendixes IV, V, and VI. NASA's 
Deputy Administrator stated that the draft report is generally positive 
and that NASA concurred with all the recommendations and plans to 
implement them in its next SES appraisal cycle beginning July 1, 2004. 
HHS's Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General stated that HHS had no 
comments upon review of the draft report.

In responding to our recommendations, Education's Assistant Secretary 
for Management and Chief Information Officer stated that Education 
plans to revise its existing senior executive performance management 
system dramatically given OPM's draft regulations for the new SES pay 
for performance system and described specific actions Education plans 
to take. These actions are generally consistent with our 
recommendations and their successful completion will be important to 
achieving the intent of our recommendations.

However, Education stated that it does not plan to require the specific 
identification of the internal/external organizations with which the 
executives collaborate, as we recommended. We disagree that Education 
does not need to implement this recommendation. Education is taking 
important steps by requiring senior executives to include a general 
performance expectation related to collaboration and teamwork in their 
individual performance plans, but placing greater emphasis on this 
expectation is especially important for Education. We reported that 
Education will have to help states and school districts meet the goals 
of congressional actions such as the No Child Left Behind Act.[Footnote 
31] Consequently, Education should require senior executives to 
identify the crosscutting goals and relevant organizations with which 
they would collaborate to achieve them in order to help reinforce the 
necessary focus on results.

Lastly, Education stated that it has fully implemented our 
recommendation for providing senior executives disaggregated 
performance information from various sources to help facilitate 
decision making and progress in achieving organizational priorities. We 
disagree that Education has fully implemented this recommendation. 
While we recognize Education's two sources of agencywide performance 
information for its senior executives, we also reported that only about 
one-third of the senior executives who reported that the agency 
provided performance information felt that the performance information 
was useful for making improvements and available when needed to a very 
great or great extent. Consequently, Education should provide all of 
its senior executives performance information from various sources that 
is disaggregated in a useful format to help them track their progress 
toward achieving organizational results and other priorities, such as 
customer satisfaction and employee perspectives.

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
after its date. At that time, we will provide copies of this report to 
other interested congressional parties, the Secretaries of Education 
and HHS, the Administrator of NASA, and the Directors of OPM and OMB. 
We will also make this report available at no charge on the GAO Web 
site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Lisa 
Shames on (202) 512-6806 or at [Hyperlink, mihmj@gao.gov] or 
[Hyperlink, shamesl@gao.gov]. Other contributors are acknowledged in 
appendix VII.

Signed by: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 

[End of section]

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and Methodology: 

To meet our objective to assess how well selected agencies are creating 
linkages between senior executive performance and organizational 
success through their performance management systems, we applied the 
key practices we previously identified for effective performance 
management.[Footnote 32] We focused on agencies' career Senior 
Executive Service (SES) members, rather than all senior-level 
officials, because the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) collects 
data on senior executives across the government. In addition, career 
senior executives are common to all three of the selected agencies and 
typically manage programs and supervise staff.

We selected the Department of Education, the Department of Health and 
Human Services (HHS), and the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration (NASA) for our review to reflect variations in mission, 
size, organizational structure, and use of their performance management 
systems for career senior executives. Within HHS, we selected two of 
the operating divisions--the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the 
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)--to determine how 
HHS's SES performance management system cascades down to the operating 
division level. We selected these two operating divisions after 
reviewing HHS's strategic plan and its operating divisions' annual 
performance plans to identify two agencies that contributed to the same 
HHS strategic goal(s) through their annual performance goals. We then 
reviewed the SES population data from OPM's Central Personal Data File 
to verify that the two operating divisions each had a relatively large 
number of senior executives.

To assess the agencies' senior executive performance management 
systems, we did the following: 

Analyzed Agency Documents and Bonus and Rating Data, and Interviewed 
Cognizant Agency Officials: 

We collected and analyzed each agency's senior executive performance 
management system policy manual; personnel policies and memorandums; 
strategic plan and annual performance plan; employee and customer 
satisfaction survey instruments and analyses, as appropriate; and 
aggregate trend data for senior executive performance ratings and bonus 
distributions. In addition, we reviewed OPM's draft proposed 
regulations prescribing the criteria agencies must meet to obtain 
certification of their systems, which OPM provided for review and 
comment to the heads of departments and agencies, including GAO, on 
April 28, 2004. 

We also assessed the reliability of the senior executive performance 
rating and bonus data provided by Education, HHS, NASA, and OPM to 
ensure that the data we used for this report were complete and accurate 
by (1) performing manual and electronic testing of required data 
elements; (2) comparing the data to published OPM data, when 
applicable; and (3) interviewing agency officials knowledgeable about 
the data. We determined that the data provided by the agencies and OPM 
were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

We also interviewed the chief human capital officers at Education and 
HHS as well as officials at all three agencies responsible for managing 
human capital; implementing the strategic and annual performance plans; 
and administering agencywide employee and customer satisfaction 
surveys, as appropriate, and other agency officials identified as 
having a particular knowledge about issues related to senior executive 
performance management. In addition, we met with the President of the 
Senior Executives Association to obtain her thoughts on the new SES 
performance-based pay structure and performance management in general.

Assessed a Sample of Career SES Individual Performance Plans: 

We assessed a probability sample of SES individual performance plans at 
HHS and NASA and all the SES plans at Education using a data collection 
instrument we prepared in order to identify how senior executives were 
addressing certain practices--aligning individual performance 
expectations with organizational goals, connecting performance 
expectations to crosscutting goals, using competencies, and maintaining 
continuity during transitions--through their individual performance 
plans.

To randomly select the plans, we collected a list of all current career 
senior executives as of August/September 2003 from each agency. Since 
HHS's operating divisions develop their own SES performance plans and 
implement their performance management systems, we drew the sample such 
that it would include each operating division and be representative of 
all of HHS. In addition to the stratified sample for HHS overall, we 
reviewed all senior executives plans at FDA and CDC to ensure that 
estimates could be produced for these operating divisions. For all 
three agencies, we reviewed the individual performance plans most 
recently collected by the human resources offices. We reviewed plans 
from the performance appraisal cycle for HHS covering fiscal year 2003, 
for Education covering July 2002-June 2003, and for NASA covering July 
2003-June 2004. 

Sample Design: 

We selected and reviewed all senior executives' individual performance 
plans from Education, a simple random sample from NASA, and a 
stratified sample from HHS. The sample of SES performance plans allowed 
us to estimate characteristics of these plans for each of these three 
agencies. For each agency, the SES population size, number of SES plans 
in sample, and number of plans reviewed are shown in table 5. 

Table 5: Disposition of SES Performance Plan Review, by Agency: 

Agency: HHS; 
SES population: 334; 
Number of plans in sample: 125; 
Number of out of scope plans: 7; 
Number of plans reviewed: 118. 

Agency: - CDC (stratum 1); 
SES population: 20; 
Number of plans in sample: 20; 
Number of out of scope plans: 0; 
Number of plans reviewed: 20.

Agency: - FDA (stratum 2); 
SES population: 40; 
Number of plans in sample: 40; 
Number of out of scope plans: 0; 
Number of plans reviewed: 40.

Agency: - Rest of HHS (stratum 3); 
SES population: 274; 
Number of plans in sample: 65; 
Number of out of scope plans: 7; 
Number of plans reviewed: 58. 

Agency: Education; 
SES population: 59; 
Number of plans in sample: 59; 
Number of out of scope plans: 0; 
Number of plans reviewed: 59. 

Agency: NASA[A]; 
SES population: 397; 
Number of plans in sample: 86; 
Number of out of scope plans: 0; 
Number of plans reviewed: 81. 

Source: GAO.

[A] For NASA, 5 of the 86 SES performance plans were not provided by 
the agency; hence NASA's response rate is 94 percent.

[End of table]

We excluded out of scope cases from our population and sample, which 
included senior executives who had retired or resigned, were not career 
senior executives, or did not have individual performance plans because 
they were either new executives or on detail to another agency. For 
HHS, excluding CDC and FDA, we do not know the number of out of scope 
SES plans in the entire senior executive population; however, there 
were seven out of scope SES plans in our sample of performance plans. 
For this review, we only estimate to the population of in scope SES 
plans.

Estimation and Sampling Error: 

All population estimates based on this plan review are for the target 
population defined as SES performance plans for the most recent year 
available from each of the three agencies. For Education, we report 
actual numbers for our review of individual performance plans since we 
reviewed all the plans. For HHS and NASA, we produced estimates to the 
population of all SES performance plans in those agencies for the 
relevant year. Estimates are produced using appropriate methods for 
simple random sampling for NASA and for stratified random sampling for 
HHS. For NASA and for each stratum for HHS, we formed estimates by 
weighting the data by the ratio of the population size to the number of 
plans reviewed. For NASA, we considered the 81 plans obtained and 
reviewed to be a probability sample.

The HHS and NASA performance plan samples are subject to sampling 
error. There was no sampling error for the census review of senior 
executives' performance plans for FDA, CDC, and Education. The effects 
of sampling errors, due to the selection of a sample from a larger 
population, can be expressed as confidence intervals based on 
statistical theory. Sampling errors occur because we use a sample to 
draw conclusions about a larger population. As a result, the sample was 
only one of a large number of samples of performance plans that might 
have been drawn. If different samples had been taken, the results might 
have been different. To recognize the possibility that other samples 
might have yielded other results, we express our confidence in the 
precision of our particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence 
interval.

The 95 percent confidence intervals are expected to include the actual 
results for 95 percent of samples of this type. We calculated 
confidence intervals for this sample using methods that are appropriate 
for the sample design used. For HHS estimates in this report, we are 95 
percent confident that when sampling error is considered, the results 
we obtained are within +9 percentage points of what we would have 
obtained if we had reviewed the plans of the entire study population, 
unless otherwise noted. For NASA, the 95 percent confidence intervals 
for percentage estimates are no wider than +6 percentage points, unless 
otherwise noted.

Surveyed All Career SES at Each Agency: 

We administered a Web-based questionnaire to the study population of 
all career senior executives at Education, HHS, and NASA to obtain 
information on their experiences with and perceptions of their 
performance management systems. We collected a list of all career 
senior executives and e-mail addresses from each agency as of August/
September 2003 to identify the respondents for our survey. We 
structured the questionnaire around the key practices we identified for 
effective performance management and included some questions about 
senior executives' overall perceptions of their performance management 
systems. The questions were nearly identical across the agencies, 
though some introductory language and terminology varied. The complete 
questionnaire and results are shown in appendix II.

Although all senior executives were sampled, in the implementation of 
the survey, we found that some executives were out of scope because 
they retired or resigned, were not career senior executives, or 
otherwise did not respond. Table 6 contains a summary of the survey 
disposition for the surveyed cases at the three agencies.

Table 6: Disposition of SES Survey, by Agency: 

Number of SES: SES population; 
Education: 59; 
HHS: 329; 
NASA: 397. 

Number of SES: SES out of scope; 
Education: 2; 
HHS: 12; 
NASA: 4. 

Number of SES: SES in scope; 
Education: 57; 
HHS: 317; 
NASA: 393. 

Number of SES: Survey respondents; 
Education: 41; 
HHS: 214; 
NASA: 260.

Number of SES: In scope respondents; 
Education: 41; 
HHS: 213; 
NASA: 260.

Number of SES: Out of scope respondents; 
Education: 0; 
HHS: 1; 
NASA: 0.

Response rate; 
Education: 72%; 
HHS: 67%; 
NASA: 66%.

Source: GAO.

[End of table]

Table 7 summarizes why individuals originally included in the target 
population by each agency were removed from the sample.

Table 7: Number of SES Out of Scope and Reason, by Agency: 

Reason out of scope: Noncareer SES (e.g., political appointee or 
limited term); 
Education: 0; 
HHS: 1; 
NASA: 0.

Reason out of scope: No longer SES; 
Education: 0; 
HHS: 2; 
NASA: 0.

Reason out of scope: Retired or resigned; 
Education: 2; 
HHS: 8; 
NASA: 3. 

Reason out of scope: Not an SES member (e.g., General Schedule 
position); 
Education: 0; 
HHS: 1; 
NASA: 0.

Reason out of scope: On sick leave; 
Education: 0; 
HHS: 0; 
NASA: 1.

Total out of scope; 
Education: 2; 
HHS: 12; 
NASA: 4. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table]

For Education, we surveyed a total of 57 career senior executives and 
received completed questionnaires from 41 senior executives for a 
response rate of 72 percent. For HHS, we surveyed a total of 317 career 
senior executives and received completed questionnaires from 213 senior 
executives for a response rate of 67 percent. For NASA, we surveyed a 
total of 393 career senior executives and received completed 
questionnaires from 260 senior executives for a response rate of 66 
percent.

Estimation and Sampling Error: 

We obtained responses from across Education and from all subentities 
within HHS and NASA and had no reason to expect that the views of 
nonrespondents might be different from the respondents. Consequently, 
our analysis of the survey data treats the respondents as a simple 
random sample of the populations of senior executives at each of the 
three agencies.

We also reviewed whether senior executives who have served less than 1 
year at an agency tended to respond differently than those with more 
than 1 year of experience. We did find some differences on certain 
questions for which individuals who served as senior executives for 
less than 1 year were more likely to answer "no basis to judge/not 
applicable" and noted these differences in the report. The estimated 
percentage of the senior executives responding "no basis to judge/not 
applicable" to questions ranged from 0 to 24 percent. Since this range 
is relatively wide, we have reported "no basis to judge/not applicable" 
as a separate response category for each question in appendix II.

The particular sample of senior executives (those who responded to the 
survey) we obtained from each agency was only one of a large number of 
such samples of senior executives that we might have obtained. Each of 
these different samples might have produced slightly different results. 
To recognize the possibility that other samples might have yielded 
other results, we express our confidence in the precision of our 
particular sample's results as a 95 percent confidence interval. For 
Education, unless otherwise noted, the survey responses have a margin 
of error within ± 9 percent with a 95 percent level of confidence. For 
HHS and NASA, unless otherwise noted, the survey responses have a 
margin of error within ± 4 percent with a 95 percent level of 
confidence.

Nonsampling Error: 

In addition to sampling error, other potential sources of errors 
associated with surveys, such as question misinterpretation, may be 
present. Nonresponse may also be a source of nonsampling error. We took 
several steps to reduce these other sources of error.

We conducted pretests of the questionnaire both with appropriate senior 
executives in GAO and senior executives in the three agencies surveyed 
to ensure that the questionnaire (1) was clear and unambiguous, (2) did 
not place undue burden on individuals completing it, and (3) was 
independent and unbiased. We pretested a paper copy of the survey with 
three senior executives in GAO who did not work in the human capital 
area. We then had a human resources professional with each agency 
review the survey for agency-specific content and language. We 
conducted six pretests overall with senior executives in the audited 
agencies--one at Education, three at HHS, and two at NASA. The first 
four were conducted using a paper version of the questionnaire and the 
final two were conducted using the Web version.

To increase the response rate for each agency, we sent a reminder e-
mail about the survey to those senior executives who did not complete 
the survey in the initial time frame and conducted follow-up telephone 
calls to persons who had not completed the survey following the 
reminder e-mail. The HHS and NASA surveys were available from October 
22, 2003, through January 16, 2004, and the Education survey was 
available from November 3, 2003, through January 16, 2004. 

We performed our work in Washington, D.C., from August 2003 through 
March 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: GAO Senior Executive Survey Data from Education, HHS, and 
NASA: 

We administered a Web-based questionnaire to the study population of 
all career senior executives at Education, HHS, and NASA to obtain 
information on their experiences with and perceptions of their 
performance management systems.[Footnote 33] We structured the 
questionnaire around key practices we identified for effective 
performance management.[Footnote 34] The response rates and margins of 
error for each agency are as follows.

* For Education, we surveyed a total of 57 career senior executives and 
received completed questionnaires from 41 senior executives for a 
response rate of 72 percent. Unless otherwise noted, the survey 
responses have a margin of error within ± 9 percent with a 95 percent 
level of confidence.

* For HHS, we surveyed a total of 317 career senior executives and 
received completed questionnaires from 213 senior executives for a 
response rate of 67 percent. Unless otherwise noted, the survey 
responses have a margin of error within ± 4 percent with a 95 percent 
level of confidence.

* For NASA, we surveyed a total of 393 career senior executives and 
received completed questionnaires from 260 senior executives for a 
response rate of 66 percent. Unless otherwise noted, the survey 
responses have a margin of error within ± 4 percent with a 95 percent 
level of confidence.

The information below shows the senior executives' responses for each 
question by agency.[Footnote 35]

1. Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals. 

You see a connection between your daily activities and the achievement 
of organizational goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 45%; 
To a great extent (percent): 43%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 8%; 
To a small extent (percent): 5%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 52%; 
To a great extent (percent): 28%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 15%; 
To a small extent (percent): 4%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 64%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 8%; 
To a small extent (percent): 2%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0%. 

[End of table]

You communicate your performance expectations to the individuals who 
report to you to help them understand how they can contribute to 
organizational goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 30%; 
To a great extent (percent): 50%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 10%; 
To a small extent (percent): 0%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 36%; 
To a great extent (percent): 32%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 10%; 
To no extent (percent): 1%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 48%; 
To a great extent (percent): 42%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 8%; 
To a small extent (percent): 1%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

[End of table]

You see a connection between your daily activities and HHS's 
priorities. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 48%; 
To a great extent (percent): 35%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 11%; 
To a small extent (percent): 2%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4%. 

[End of table]

2. Connect performance expectations to crosscutting goals%. 

You collaborate with others to achieve crosscutting goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 37%; 
To a great extent (percent): 39%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 22%; 
To a small extent (percent): 0%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 52%; 
To a great extent (percent): 35%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 9%; 
To a small extent (percent): 3%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 53%; 
To a great extent (percent): 38%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 9%; 
To a small extent (percent): 1%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0%. 

[End of table]

You identify strategies for collaborating with others to achieve 
crosscutting goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 24%; 
To a great extent (percent): 49%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 24%; 
To a small extent (percent): 0%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 42%; 
To a great extent (percent): 43%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 10%; 
To a small extent (percent): 3%; 
To no extent (percent): 1%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 42%; 
To a great extent (percent): 44%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 12%; 
To a small extent (percent): 1%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0%. 

[End of table]

You are recognized through your performance management system for 
contributing to crosscutting goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 32%; 
To a great extent (percent): 20%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 17%; 
To a small extent (percent): 20%; 
To no extent (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 30%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 19%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 6%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 35%; 
To a great extent (percent): 32%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 7%; 
To no extent (percent): 5%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1%. 

[End of table]

Education's survey questions: 

Do you collaborate with other offices within Education to achieve 
crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent): 93%; 
No (percent): 2%; 
Does not apply given my current position. (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

Do you collaborate with other agencies or organizations outside of 
Education to achieve crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent): 83%; 
No (percent): 12%; 
Does not apply given my current position. (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

HHS's survey questions: 

Do you collaborate with other operating divisions within HHS to 
achieve crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent): 87%; 
No (percent): 5%; 
Does not apply given my current position. (percent): 8%. 

[End of table]

Do you collaborate with other agencies or organizations outside of HHS 
to achieve crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent): 83%; 
No (percent): 7%; 
Does not apply given my current position. (percent): 10%. 

[End of table]

NASA's survey questions: 

Do you collaborate with other centers within NASA to achieve 
crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent): 97%; 
No (percent): 2%; 
Does not apply given my current position. (percent): 1%. 

[End of table]

Do you collaborate with other agencies or organizations outside of 
NASA to achieve crosscutting goals?

Yes (percent): 87%; 
No (percent): 8%; 
Does not apply given my current position. (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

3. Provide and routinely use performance information to track 
organizational priorities. 

Your agency formally provides performance information that allows you 
to track your work unit's performance. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 30%; 
To a small extent (percent): 18%; 
To no extent (percent): 5%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 24%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 28%; 
To a small extent (percent): 14%; 
To no extent (percent): 11%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a great extent (percent): 31%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 27%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 4%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3%. 

[End of table]

Your agency formally provides performance information that allows you 
to compare the performance of your work unit to that of other work 
units. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 5%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 18%; 
To a small extent (percent): 35%; 
To no extent (percent): 18%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 9%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 16%; 
To a small extent (percent): 29%; 
To no extent (percent): 23%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 6%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 31%; 
To a small extent (percent): 20%; 
To no extent (percent): 13%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7%. 

[End of table]

Your agency formally provides performance information that allows you 
to compare the performance of your work unit to that of your agency. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 23%; 
To no extent (percent): 25%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 9%; 
To a great extent (percent): 16%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 22%; 
To no extent (percent): 20%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 12%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 6%; 
To a great extent (percent): 20%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 29%; 
To a small extent (percent): 22%; 
To no extent (percent): 16%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

[End of table]

Your agency formally provides performance information that is 
available to you when you need it. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 15%; 
To a small extent (percent): 30%; 
To no extent (percent): 13%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 17%; 
To no extent (percent): 16%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 16%; 
To a great extent (percent): 30%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 17%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3%. 

[End of table]

Your agency formally provides performance information that is useful 
for making improvements in your work unit's performance. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 20%; 
To no extent (percent): 18%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a great extent (percent): 20%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 28%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 18%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 28%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 27%; 
To a small extent (percent): 17%; 
To no extent (percent): 9%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

4. Require follow-up actions to address organizational priorities. 

You identified areas for improvement based on performance information 
formally provided by your agency. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 21%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 33%; 
To a small extent (percent): 18%; 
To no extent (percent): 5%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 17%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 22%; 
To a small extent (percent): 12%; 
To no extent (percent): 11%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 19%; 
To a great extent (percent): 35%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 9%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6%. 

[End of table]

You took action on any identified areas of improvement. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a great extent (percent): 33%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 8%; 
To no extent (percent): 5%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a great extent (percent): 35%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 14%; 
To a small extent (percent): 6%; 
To no extent (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 12%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 29%; 
To a great extent (percent): 45%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 11%; 
To a small extent (percent): 4%; 
To no extent (percent): 4%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7%. 

[End of table]

You documented areas for improvement in your individual performance 
plan. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 21%; 
To a great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 8%; 
To no extent (percent): 15%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 9%; 
To no extent (percent): 13%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 32%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 24%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 9%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 9%. 

[End of table]

You are recognized through your performance management system for 
taking follow-up actions. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 18%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 16%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 10%; 
To no extent (percent): 11%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 18%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 36%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 10%; 
To no extent (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

[End of table]

5. Use competencies to provide a fuller assessment of performance. 

The competencies you demonstrate help you contribute to the 
organization's goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 49%; 
To a great extent (percent): 36%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 10%; 
To a small extent (percent): 3%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 68%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 4%; 
To a small extent (percent): 1%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 1%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 62%; 
To a great extent (percent): 30%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 6%; 
To a small extent (percent): 1%; 
To no extent (percent): 0%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0%. 

[End of table]

You are recognized through your performance management system for your 
demonstration of the competencies. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 28%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 18%; 
To a small extent (percent): 18%; 
To no extent (percent): 3%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 31%; 
To a great extent (percent): 31%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 9%; 
To no extent (percent): 3%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 36%; 
To a great extent (percent): 36%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 16%; 
To a small extent (percent): 7%; 
To no extent (percent): 3%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

[End of table]

6. Link pay to individual and organizational performance. 

I am rewarded for accomplishing the performance expectations 
identified in my individual performance plan. 

EDUCATION; 
Strongly agree (percent): 28%; 
Agree (percent): 28%; 
Neither agree or disagree (percent): 15%; 
Disagree (percent): 13%; 
Strongly disagree (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
Strongly agree (percent): 27%; 
Agree (percent): 32%; 
Neither agree or disagree (percent): 14%; 
Disagree (percent): 12%; 
Strongly disagree (percent): 10%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6%. 

NASA; 
Strongly agree (percent): 38%; 
Agree (percent): 30%; 
Neither agree or disagree (percent): 12%; 
Disagree (percent): 8%; 
Strongly disagree (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

I am rewarded for helping my agency accomplish its goals. 

EDUCATION; 
Strongly agree (percent): 23%; 
Agree (percent): 31%; 
Neither agree or disagree (percent): 21%; 
Disagree (percent): 13%; 
Strongly disagree (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

HHS; 
Strongly agree (percent): 28%; 
Agree (percent): 32%; 
Neither agree or disagree (percent): 13%; 
Disagree (percent): 13%; 
Strongly disagree (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7%. 

NASA; 
Strongly agree (percent): 40%; 
Agree (percent): 31%; 
Neither agree or disagree (percent): 11%; 
Disagree (percent): 7%; 
Strongly disagree (percent): 6%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

You understand the criteria used to award bonuses (e.g., cash awards). 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 21%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 0%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 19%; 
To a great extent (percent): 28%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 17%; 
To no extent (percent): 13%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 29%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 23%; 
To no extent (percent): 12%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

[End of table]

You understand the criteria used to award pay level adjustments (e.g., 
an increase from SES level 1 to level 2). 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 24%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 11%; 
To a small extent (percent): 16%; 
To no extent (percent): 29%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 17%; 
To a great extent (percent): 22%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 16%; 
To no extent (percent): 19%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 14%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 27%; 
To a small extent (percent): 19%; 
To no extent (percent): 15%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

[End of table]

Pay level adjustments are dependent on an individual's contribution to 
the organization's goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 15%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 26%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 14%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 16%; 
To a great extent (percent): 34%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 18%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 6%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 11%. 

[End of table]

Bonuses are dependent on an individual's contribution to the 
organization's goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 5%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 15%; 
To a small extent (percent): 21%; 
To no extent (percent): 13%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 21%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 31%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 18%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 6%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 14%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a great extent (percent): 28%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 4%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 9%. 

[End of table]

7. Make meaningful distinctions in performance. 

Your agency's SES performance management system uses performance 
ratings to make meaningful distinctions between acceptable and 
outstanding performers. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 0%; 
To a great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 31%; 
To no extent (percent): 18%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 15%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 6%; 
To a great extent (percent): 25%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 25%; 
To a small extent (percent): 10%; 
To no extent (percent): 15%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 19%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 14%; 
To a great extent (percent): 32%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 30%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 3%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

[End of table]

Your agency's SES performance management system uses bonuses to make 
meaningful distinctions between acceptable and outstanding performers. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 10%; 
To a small extent (percent): 21%; 
To no extent (percent): 15%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 21%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 11%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 22%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 23%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 19%; 
To a great extent (percent): 29%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 14%; 
To no extent (percent): 4%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 15%. 

[End of table]

Your agency uses performance information and documentation to make 
distinctions in senior executive performance. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 3%; 
To a great extent (percent): 21%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 13%; 
To a small extent (percent): 23%; 
To no extent (percent): 15%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 26%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 24%; 
To a small extent (percent): 12%; 
To no extent (percent): 5%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 25%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 14%; 
To a great extent (percent): 33%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 3%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 15%. 

[End of table]

Your agency provides candid and constructive feedback that allows you 
to maximize your contribution to organizational goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 5%; 
To a great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 18%; 
To a small extent (percent): 28%; 
To no extent (percent): 23%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 28%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 17%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 27%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 10%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 3%. 

[End of table]

8. Involve employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of performance 
management systems%. 

You have been given the opportunity to be involved in refining your 
agency's SES performance management system. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 10%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 49%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 20%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 38%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 6%; 
To a great extent (percent): 7%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 15%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 51%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 6%. 

[End of table]

You have been involved in refining your agency's SES performance 
management system. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 11%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 5%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 61%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 9%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 17%; 
To a small extent (percent): 14%; 
To no extent (percent): 43%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 5%; 
To a great extent (percent): 5%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 13%; 
To a small extent (percent): 14%; 
To no extent (percent): 58%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

Formal training on your agency's SES performance management system is 
available to you. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 5%; 
To a great extent (percent): 11%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 21%; 
To no extent (percent): 26%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 11%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 12%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 25%; 
To a small extent (percent): 14%; 
To no extent (percent): 24%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 17%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 7%; 
To a great extent (percent): 21%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 24%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 21%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 14%. 

[End of table]

You have participated in formal training on your agency's SES 
performance management system. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 16%; 
To a small extent (percent): 22%; 
To no extent (percent): 41%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 7%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 23%; 
To a small extent (percent): 16%; 
To no extent (percent): 42%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 4%; 
To a great extent (percent): 11%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 22%; 
To a small extent (percent): 17%; 
To no extent (percent): 43%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 2%. 

[End of table]

Your overall involvement in the SES performance management system has 
increased your understanding of it. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 13%; 
To a small extent (percent): 26%; 
To no extent (percent): 28%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 11%; 
To a great extent (percent): 16%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 16%; 
To no extent (percent): 21%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 15%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 19%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 27%; 
To a small extent (percent): 16%; 
To no extent (percent): 17%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

[End of table]

9. Overall perceptions of the SES performance management system. 

Your agency's SES performance management system is used as a tool to 
manage the organization. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 3%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 13%; 
To a small extent (percent): 31%; 
To no extent (percent): 18%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 13%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 6%; 
To a great extent (percent): 23%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 35%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 12%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 9%; 
To a great extent (percent): 24%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 33%; 
To a small extent (percent): 19%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 7%. 

[End of table]

Your agency's SES performance management system is used in achieving 
organizational goals. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 8%; 
To a great extent (percent): 21%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 31%; 
To no extent (percent): 10%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 9%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 32%; 
To a small extent (percent): 11%; 
To no extent (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 12%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a great extent (percent): 33%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 28%; 
To a small extent (percent): 13%; 
To no extent (percent): 7%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

Your agency's SES performance management system holds you accountable 
for your contributions to organizational results. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 16%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 21%; 
To a small extent (percent): 24%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 22%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 27%; 
To a small extent (percent): 12%; 
To no extent (percent): 3%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 20%; 
To a great extent (percent): 39%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 22%; 
To a small extent (percent): 10%; 
To no extent (percent): 6%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 4%. 

[End of table]

Your agency's SES performance management system facilitates 
discussions about your performance as it relates to organizational 
goals during the year. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 26%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 18%; 
To a small extent (percent): 18%; 
To no extent (percent): 21%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 12%; 
To a great extent (percent): 27%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 20%; 
To no extent (percent): 8%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 8%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 18%; 
To a great extent (percent): 31%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 22%; 
To a small extent (percent): 15%; 
To no extent (percent): 10%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 5%. 

[End of table]

Your agency's SES performance management system helps to maintain a 
consistent focus on organizational goals during transitions, such as 
changes in leadership (at any level) and change management initiatives. 

EDUCATION; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 15%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 26%; 
To a small extent (percent): 18%; 
To no extent (percent): 21%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 10%. 

HHS; 
To a very great extent (percent): 10%; 
To a great extent (percent): 28%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 24%; 
To a small extent (percent): 17%; 
To no extent (percent): 10%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 12%. 

NASA; 
To a very great extent (percent): 13%; 
To a great extent (percent): 24%; 
To a moderate extent (percent): 24%; 
To a small extent (percent): 20%; 
To no extent (percent): 11%; 
No basis to judge/Not applicable (percent): 9%. 

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Selected Elements of Education's, HHS's, and NASA's SES 
Performance Management Systems: 

Education: 

Defining SES Performance Expectations: 

Education required all of its senior executives to include three 
critical elements in their individual performance plans for the 2003 
performance appraisal cycle (July 2002-June 2003). The critical 
elements and examples of the related individual and organizational 
performance requirements include the following.

* Leadership, management, and coaching: Takes leadership in promoting 
and implementing the department's mission, values, and goals; develops 
and communicates a clear, simple, customer-focused vision/direction for 
the organization and customers that is consistent with the department's 
mission and strategic goals; fosters improved workforce productivity 
and effective development and recognition of employees; and promotes 
collaboration and teamwork, including effective union-management 
relations, where appropriate.

* Work quality, productivity, and customer service: Produces or assures 
quality products that are useful and succinct, that identify and 
address problems or issues, and that reflect appropriate analysis, 
research, preparation, and sensitivity to department priorities and 
customer needs; anticipates and responds to customer needs in a 
professional, effective, and timely manner; initiates new and better 
ways of doing things; and creates real and positive change.

* Job specifics: Senior executives are to include performance 
expectations that are applicable to their individual positions and 
support their principal offices' goals as well as the department's 
strategic goals and priorities, including the President's Management 
Agenda, the Blueprint for Management Excellence, and the Culture of 
Accountability.

Appraising Performance: 

Education sets guidelines for its offices to follow in appraising 
performance and recommending senior executives for bonuses. The senior 
executive performance appraisals are to be based on demonstrated 
results related to Education's goals and priorities, including the 
President's Management Agenda, the Blueprint for Management Excellence, 
the Culture of Accountability, and the Secretary's strategic plan. In 
addition, the senior executive's appraisal is to be based on both 
individual and organizational performance, taking into account: 

* results achieved in accordance with the department's strategic plan 
and goals, which are developed in accordance with the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA);

* customer satisfaction;

* employee perspectives;

* the effectiveness, productivity, and performance quality of the 
employees for whom the senior executive is responsible; and: 

* equal employment opportunity and diversity and complying with merit 
systems principles.

In addition, the responses of the customers, coworkers, and employees 
through the automated performance feedback process are to be considered 
in determining the senior executive's performance rating.

Senior executives must receive a performance rating of "successful" to 
be eligible for a bonus. Bonus recommendations are to be based on the 
senior executive's demonstrated results and accomplishments toward the 
department's strategic goals and organizational priorities. 
Accomplishments should demonstrate how Education's achievements could 
not have been possible without the senior executive's leadership and 
contribution.

HHS: 

Defining SES Performance Expectations: 

HHS required its senior executives to set measurable, specific 
performance expectations in their fiscal year 2003 individual 
performance plans (or performance contracts) that align with HHS's 
strategic goals, the "One-HHS" management and program objectives, and 
their operating divisions' annual performance goals. According to 
agency officials, senior executives are to choose the One-HHS 
objectives and strategic and annual performance goals that relate to 
their job responsibilities, and tailor their individual performance 
expectations to reflect these responsibilities in their performance 
plans.

The One-HHS objectives, which reflect the program and management 
priorities of the Secretary, include the following.

Management objectives: The purpose of the objectives is to better 
integrate HHS management functions to ensure coordinated, seamless, and 
results-oriented management across all operating and staff divisions of 
the department.

1. Implement results-oriented management.

2. Implement strategic human capital management.

3. Improve grants management operation and oversight.

4. Complete the fiscal year 2003 competitive sourcing program.

5. Improve information technology management.

6. Administrative efficiencies.

7. Continue implementation of unified financial management system.

8. Consolidate management functions.

9. Achieve efficiencies through HHS-wide procurements.

10. Conduct program evaluations and implement corrective strategies for 
any deficiencies identified.

Program objectives: The purpose of the objectives is to enhance the 
health and well-being of Americans by providing for effective health 
and human services and by fostering strong, sustained advances in the 
sciences underlying medicine, public health, and social services.

1. Increase access to health care (Closing the Gaps in Health Care).

2. Expand consumer choices in health care and human services.

3. Emphasize preventive health measures (Preventing Disease and 
Illness).

4. Prepare for and effectively respond to bioterrorism and other public 
health emergencies (Protecting Our Homeland).

5. Improve health outcomes (Preventing Disease and Illness).

6. Improve the quality of health care (21st Century Health Care).

7. Advance science and medical research (Improving Health Science).

8. Improve the well-being and safety of families and individuals, 
especially vulnerable populations (Leaving No Child Behind).

9. Strengthen American families (Working Toward Independence).

10. Reduce regulatory burden on providers, patients, and consumers of 
HHS's services.

In addition to the annual performance goals, operating divisions may 
have their senior executives include specific individual performance 
expectations in their performance plans. According to an agency 
official, the senior executives in FDA have set expectations in their 
plans that are relevant to the work in their centers. For example, the 
senior executives who work on issues related to mad cow disease in the 
Center for Veterinary Medicine have included goals related to this type 
of work in their individual performance plans.

Appraising Performance: 

HHS sets general guidance for operating divisions to follow when 
appraising senior executive performance and recommending senior 
executives for bonuses and other performance awards, such as the 
Presidential Rank Awards. Overall, a senior executive's performance is 
to be appraised at least annually based on a comparison of actual 
performance with expectations in the individual performance plan. The 
operating divisions are to appraise senior executive performance taking 
into account such factors as: 

* measurable results achieved in accordance with the goals of GPRA;

* customer satisfaction;

* employee perspectives;

* the effectiveness, productivity, and performance quality of the 
employees for whom the executive is responsible; and: 

* meeting affirmative action, equal employment opportunity, and 
diversity goals and complying with the merit systems principles.

In recommending senior executives for bonuses, operating divisions are 
to consider each senior executive's performance, including the rating 
and the extent of the executive's contributions to meeting 
organizational goals. Senior executives who receive ratings of "fully 
successful" are eligible to be considered for bonuses. For fiscal year 
2003, bonuses generally were to be recommended for no more than one-
third of the operating division's senior executives and awarded to only 
the exceptional performers. Operating divisions were to consider 
nominating only one or two of their very highest contributors for the 
governmentwide Presidential Rank Awards. The greatest consideration for 
bonuses and Presidential Rank Awards was to be given to executives in 
frontline management positions, with direct responsibility for HHS's 
programs.

NASA: 

Defining SES Performance Expectations: 

NASA requires its senior executives to include seven critical elements, 
which reflect the Administrator's priorities and NASA's core values of 
safety, people, excellence, and integrity, in their individual 
performance plans for the 2004 performance appraisal cycle (July 2003-
June 2004). Senior executives may modify the related performance 
requirements by making them more specific to their jobs. These seven 
critical elements and the related performance requirements are as 
follows.

* The President's Management Agenda: Understands the principles of the 
President's Management Agenda and actively applies them; assures 
maximum organizational efficiency, is customer focused, and 
incorporates presidential priorities in budget and performance plans; 
capitalizes on opportunities to integrate human capital issues in 
planning and performance and expand electronic government and 
competitive sourcing; and pursues other opportunities to reduce costs 
and improve service to customers.

* Performance requirement: Applicable provisions of the agency human 
capital plan are implemented; financial reports are timely and 
accurate; clear measurable programmatic goals and outcomes are linked 
to the agency strategic plan and the GPRA performance plan; and human 
capital, e-government, and competitive sourcing goals are achieved.

* Health of NASA: Actions contribute to safe and successful mission 
accomplishment and/or strengthen infrastructure of support functions; 
increases efficient and effective management of the agency; facilitates 
knowledge sharing within and between programs and projects; and 
displays unquestioned personal integrity and commitment to safety.

* Performance requirement: Demonstrates that safety is the 
organization's number one value; actively participates in safety and 
health activities, supports the zero lost-time injury goals, and takes 
action to improve workforce health and safety; meets or exceeds cost 
and schedule milestones and develops creative mechanisms and/or 
capitalizes on opportunities to facilitate knowledge sharing; and 
achieves maximum organizational efficiency through effective resource 
utilization and management.

* Equal opportunity (EO) and diversity: Demonstrates a commitment to EO 
and diversity by proactively implementing programs that positively 
impact the workplace and NASA's external stakeholders and through 
voluntary compliance with EO laws, regulations, policies, and 
practices; this includes such actions as ensuring EO in hiring by 
providing, if needed, reasonable accommodation(s) to an otherwise 
qualified individual with a disability or ensuring EO without regard to 
race, color, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, or religion in 
all personnel decisions and in the award of grants or other federal 
funds to stakeholder recipients.

* Performance requirement: Actively supports EO/diversity efforts; 
consistently follows applicable EO laws, regulations, Executive Orders, 
and administration and NASA policies, and the principles thereof, in 
decision making with regard to employment actions and the award of 
federal grants and funds; cooperates with and provides a timely and 
complete response to NASA's Discrimination Complaints Division, the 
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and the courts during the 
investigation, resolution, and/or litigation of allegations of illegal 
discrimination under applicable EO laws and regulations.

* Collaboration: Integrates One-NASA approach to problem solving, 
program/project management, and decision making; leads by example by 
reaching out to other organizations and NASA centers to collaborate on 
work products; seeks input and expertise from a broad spectrum; and 
demonstrates possession of organizational and interpersonal skills.

* Performance requirement: Provides the appropriate level of high-
quality support to peers and other organizations to enable the 
achievement of the NASA mission; results demonstrate support of One-
NASA and that stakeholder and customer issues were taken into account.

* Professional development: Has a breadth of experience in different 
organizations, agencies, functional areas, and/or geographic 
locations; demonstrates continual learning in functional and leadership 
areas, for example, through advanced education/training or 
participating in seminars; encourages and supports development and 
training of assigned staff; and where feasible, seeks, accepts, and 
encourages opportunities for developmental assignments in other 
functional areas and elsewhere in NASA, with a focus on broadening 
agencywide perspective.

* Performance requirement: Participates in training/learning 
experiences appropriate to position responsibilities and to broaden 
agencywide perspective and actively plans for and supports the 
participation of subordinate staff in training and development 
activities.

* Meets program objectives: Meets and advances established agency 
program objectives and achieves high-quality results; demonstrates the 
ability to follow through on commitments; and individual fits into 
long-term human capital strategy and could be expected to make future 
contributions at a higher level or in a different capacity at the same 
level.

* Performance requirement: Meets appropriate GPRA/NASA strategic plan 
goals and objectives; customers recognize results for their high-
quality and responsiveness to requirements/agreements.

* Implements a fair and equitable performance-based system within 
organizational component (applicable only for supervisory positions): 
Implements/utilizes a fair, equitable, and merit/performance-based 
process/system for the evaluation of individuals for bonuses, 
promotions, career advancements, and general recognition.

* Performance requirement: System reflects the key leadership, 
teamwork, and professional excellence on which decisions are based; 
results have credibility with supervisors, subordinates, and peers.

Appraising Performance: 

NASA provides guidance for the centers and offices to follow in 
appraising senior executive performance and recommending executives for 
bonuses or other performance awards, such as Presidential Rank Awards 
or incentive awards. The senior executive's performance appraisal is to 
focus on results toward the performance requirements specified in the 
individual performance plan, specifically the achievements that address 
the agency's goals rather than the quality of effort expended. In 
addition, senior executive appraisals are to be based on individual and 
organizational performance, taking into account such factors as: 

* results achieved in accordance with the goals of GPRA;

* the effectiveness, productivity, and performance of assigned 
employees;

* meeting safety and diversity goals;

* complying with merit system principles;

* customer perspective focusing on customer needs, expectations, and 
satisfaction;

* employee perspective focusing on employee needs, such as training, 
internal processes, and tools to successfully and efficiently 
accomplish their tasks; and: 

* business perspective focusing on outcomes and the social/political 
impacts that define the role of the agency and the business processes 
needed for organizational efficiency and effectiveness.

In considering customer, employee, and other stakeholder perspectives 
for senior executive appraisals, rating officials may use formal 
mechanisms, such as surveys, or less formal mechanisms, such as 
unsolicited customer and employee feedback, and analysis of personnel 
data, such as turnover rates, diversity reports, grievances, and 
workforce awards and recognition.

All senior executives with annual summary ratings of "fully successful" 
or higher are eligible to be considered for bonuses. Bonus 
recommendations are to be based solely on exceptional performance as 
specified and documented in the senior executive's performance plan.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Education: 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION:

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT:
ASSISTANT SECRETARY:

May 7, 2004:


J. Christopher Mihm:
Managing Director, Strategic Issues 
U.S. General Accounting Office 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Mihm:

The Department of Education (ED) has reviewed the draft report entitled 
Human Capital: Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be 
Significantly Strengthened to Achieve Results.

Thank you for recognizing ED as having undertaken important and 
valuable efforts to link senior executive performance management 
systems to the success of its senior executives. In addition, we 
appreciate the fact that you acknowledged that ED has begun to 
implement key practices to develop an effective performance management 
system for career senior executives.

The recommendations provided by the General Accounting Office to fully 
maximize the performance management system to manage organizations and 
achieve organizational goals have been carefully reviewed.

Although ED has provided responses to those recommendations in the 
enclosures, it is important to note that our existing senior executive 
performance management system will change dramatically. Draft 
regulations for the new Senior Executive Service pay-for-performance 
system are now being circulated for review and comment. Specifically, 
more meaningful distinctions in performance will be made; there will be 
greater emphasis on performance and demonstrated results; and pay and 
performance will be greater linked.

Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments to the executive 
performance management study.

If there are any questions, please contact Veronica Trietsch, Director, 
Human Resources Services at (202) 401-0553.

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

William J. Leidinger: 

Enclosures:

GAO Recommendations for Executive Action:

GAO Recommendation: Require senior executives to set specific levels 
ofperformance that are linked to organizational goals to help them see 
how they directly contribute to organizational goals.

GAO also recommends making meaningful distinctions in senior executive 
performance through both ratings and bonuses. 

ED response: GAO has recognized that all ED performance plans 
identified individual performance expectations that are aligned with 
organizational goals: To finther enhance this requirement, ED's current 
executive appraisal system is already undergoing revisions with greater 
emphasis on a results-oriented evaluation system with a concentration 
of alignment of ED's mission, the Secretary's Strategic Plan, goals and 
priorities. Also, the SES proposed new performance management system 
will change from it's current 3-level system to a proposed 5-level 
system. Pay and award differentiations will additionally be emphasized 
for those who have performed at the highest levels and who have met 
ED's performance goals.

GAO Recommendation: Require senior executives to identify in their 
individual performance plans programmatic crosscutting goals that would 
require collaboration to achieve and identify the internal andlor 
external organizations with whom they would collaborate to achieve 
these goals.

ED response: The GAO study indicated that most SES employees in ED 
indicated that they collaborate with others to achieve crosscutting 
goals. However, fewer of these executives felt that their contributions 
to crosscutting goals were recognized through the performance 
management system. GAO recommends requiring senior executives to 
identify the internal and/or external organizations with whom they 
would collaborate to reinforce a focus across organizational 
boundaries.

ED recognizes. the importance of collaboration and teamwork across 
organizational boundaries. In fact, ED's current SES performance 
management system specifically identifies "collaboration and teamwork" 
as one of the required performance standards for the critical element 
under leadership; management and coaching for all ED SES employees. As 
such, ED does not recommend requiring the specific identification of 
the intemal/external organizations with whom the executives 
collaborate.

GAO Recommendation: Provide disaggregated performance information from 
various sources to help facilitate senior executive decision-making and 
progress in achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, 
and employee perspectives.

ED Response: ED has demonstrated where it has fully met this 
recommendation. GAO has cited that while all three agencies give their 
components the flexibility to collect and provide performance 
information to their senior executives, ED also was cited as providing 
performance information on an agency-wide basis. GAO also stated in 
their study that ED provides various types of performance information 
to senior executives to help them see how they are meeting the 
performance expectations in their individual performance plans. Also 
noted in the GAO study is ED's tracking system that monitors the 
Department's progress towards its annual performance goals and 
supporting action steps. Each action step has milestones that are 
tracked and reported on a monthly basis to the officials that developed 
and have ownership for them. GAO has also noted where ED also collects 
performance information on customer service and employee perspectives.

GAO Recommendation: Require all senior executives to take follow up 
actions based on the performance information available to them in order 
to make programmatic improvements and formally recognize executive for 
these actions.

ED response: The GAO study noted that at ED, only those senior 
executives who developed action steps for ED's annual goals are 
required to set milestones that are tracked on a monthly basis, assess 
how they are progressing towards the actions steps and annual goals, 
and revise future milestones, 'if necessary: GAO recommends this 
activity for all SES employees.

ED's proposed revisions to its executive appraisal system that affects 
all SES employees, already incorporates standards with milestones and 
execution target dates, and follow-up actions with an emphasis on 
outcomes, program improvements, improved quality, and other 
deliverables.

GAO Recommendation: Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to 
performance by communicating the results of the performance rating and 
bonus decisions.

ED response: Each Principal Office at ED is provided with the results 
of their senior executives' rating and bonus distribution. An agency-
wide aggregate distribution of performance ratings or bonuses will be 
given consideration.

GAO Recommendation Involve senior executives in future refinements to 
the performance management system and offer oFfer training on the 
system, as appropriate.

ED response: In the past, all ED SES executives have been given the 
opportunity to participate in refining the SES performance management 
system. This practice of senior executive involvement will continue as 
ED proceeds to make changes to it's current executive performance 
management system. 

[End of section]

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Health and Human Services: 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES
Office of Inspector General:

Washington, D.C. 20201:

MAY 4 2004:

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm:

Managing Director, Strategic Issues 
United States General Accounting Office 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Mihm:

The Department has reviewed your draft report entitled, "Human Capital: 
Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be Significantly 
Strengthened to Achieve Results" (GAO-04-614) and has no comments at 
this time.

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on this draft 
report before its publication.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

Dara Corrigan:

Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General:

Enclosure:

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) is transmitting the Department's 
response to this draft report in our capacity as the Department's 
designated focal point and coordinator for General Accounting Office 
reports. OIG has not conducted an independent assessment of these 
comments and therefore expresses no opinion on them. 

[End of section]

Appendix VI: Comments from the National Aeronautics and Space 
Administration: 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
Office of the Administrator 
Washington, DC 20546-0001:

May 14, 2004:

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm:  
Managing Director:  
Strategic Issues:
United States General Accounting Office:  
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Mihm:

I appreciate the opportunity to comment on GAO draft report GAO-04-614, 
"Senior Executive Performance Management Can Be Significantly 
Strengthened to Achieve Results." While the report is generally 
positive, there is always room for improvement, and the recommendations 
in the report will help to improve our SES appraisal system. In 
general, the findings in the report support our own conclusions from 
our review of the data.

The draft report recommends both system and process changes. The three 
recommendations for system change (the first, second, and eighth 
recommendation) recommend increasing the specificity in performance 
standards. The five process recommendations focus on providing more 
feedback to managers and employees on performance and bonus results 
(the third, fourth, and fifth recommendations), making meaningful 
performance distinctions in both ratings and bonuses (the sixth 
recommendation) and having more employee involvement in future system 
modifications and offering appropriate training on the system (the 
seventh recommendation).

The systems change recommendations may all be implemented through minor 
changes to our current system. To this end, we will engage our SES 
workforce and implement the recommendations in the next SES appraisal 
cycle, beginning July 1, 2004. With regard to the recommended process 
changes, we will provide feedback on performance and bonus results 
beginning with the next appraisal cycle and will begin immediately to 
have more employee involvement in future systems changes and offer more 
training on the appraisal system. We will also reemphasize the 
importance of developing rigorous performance standards, and we will 
hold executives accountable for making meaningful distinctions in 
ratings and bonuses based on these standards, beginning with the rating 
and bonus determinations that will be made as of the end of the current 
rating cycle, June 30, 2004.

Cordially, 

Signed by: 

Frederick D. Gregory: 
Deputy Administrator:

Enclosure:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration:

Comments on GAO Draft Report GAO-04-614 Senior Executive Performance 
Management Can Be Strengthened to Achieve Results:

Recommendation 1: "Require senior executives to set specific levels of 
performance that are linked to organizational goals to help them see 
how they directly contribute to organizational goals."

Response: Concur. This recommendation will be implemented through minor 
changes to our current system. We will engage NASA's SES workforce and 
implement the recommendation in the next SES appraisal cycle, beginning 
July 1, 2004.

Recommendation 2: "Require senior executives to identify in their 
individual performance plans programmatic crosscutting goals that would 
require collaboration to achieve and identify the internal and/or 
external organizations with whom they would collaborate to achieve 
these goals."

Response: Concur. This recommendation will be implemented through minor 
changes to our current system. We will engage NASA's SES workforce and 
implement the recommendation in the next SES appraisal cycle, beginning 
July 1, 2004.

Recommendation 3: "Provide disaggregated performance information from 
various sources to help facilitate senior executive decisionmaking and 
progress in achieving organizational results, customer satisfaction, 
and employee perspectives."

Response: Concur. NASA management will provide feedback on performance 
and bonus results in the next appraisal cycle that begins July 1, 2004.

Recommendation 4: "Require all senior executives to take follow up 
actions based on the performance information available to them in order 
to make programmatic improvements and formally recognize executives for 
these actions."

Response: Concur. This recommendation will be implemented through minor 
changes to our current system. We will engage NASA's SES workforce and 
implement the recommendation in the next SES appraisal cycle, beginning 
July 1, 2004.

Reconnnendation 5: "Build in additional safeguards when linking pay to 
performance by communicating the results of the performance rating and 
bonus decisions."

Response: Concur. NASA management will provide feedback on performance 
and bonus results in the next appraisal cycle that begins July 1, 2004.

Recommendation 6: "Make meaningful distinctions in senior executive 
performance through both ratings and bonuses."

Response: Concur. NASA management will reemphasize the importance of 
developing rigorous performance standards and hold executives 
accountable for making meaningful distinctions in ratings and bonuses 
based on these standards, beginning with the rating and bonus 
determinations that will be made as of the end of the current rating 
cycle, June 30, 2004.

Recommendation 7: "Involve senior executives in future refinements to 
the performance management system and offer training on the system, as 
appropriate."

Response: Concur. NASA management will begin immediately to have more 
employee involvement in future systems changes and offer more training 
on the appraisal system.

Recommendation 8: "Set specific performance expectations for senior 
executives related to leading and facilitating change management 
initiatives during ongoing transitions throughout the organization that 
executives should include in their individual performance plans."

Response: Concur. This recommendation will be implemented through minor 
changes to our current system. We will engage NASA's SES workforce and 
implement the recommendation in the next SES appraisal cycle, beginning 
July 1, 2004. 

[End of section]

Appendix VII: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contacts: 

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or m [Hyperlink, mihmj@gao.gov] 
ihmj@gao.gov Lisa Shames, (202) 512-6806 or s [Hyperlink, 
shamesl@gao.gov] hamesl@gao.gov: 

Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the individuals named above, Janice Lichty Latimer, Erik 
Hallgren, Ronald La Due Lake, Mark Ramage, Nyree M. Ryder, and Jerry 
Sandau made key contributions to this report.

(450230): 

FOOTNOTES

[1] For additional information on the attributes of high-performing 
organizations, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Highlights of a GAO 
Forum on High-Performing Organizations: Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms 
for Achieving High Performance in the 21st Century Public Management 
Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).

[2] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: Using 
Balanced Expectations to Manage Senior Executive Performance, GAO-02-
966 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2002). 

[3] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Memorandum for Heads of 
Departments and Agencies, Regulations Implementing the Senior Executive 
Service (SES) Performance-Based Pay System" (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 28, 
2004). 

[4] 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).

[5] For our review of a sample of SES performance plans, unless 
otherwise noted, the margins of error are within ± 9 percentage points 
for HHS and ± 6 percentage points for NASA. For Education, there is no 
sampling error since we reviewed all the SES plans. For our SES survey, 
unless otherwise noted, the margins of error are within ± 9 percentage 
points for Education and ± 4 percentage points for HHS and NASA.

[6] National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004, Pub. L. 
No. 108-136, November 24, 2003. 

[7] GAO-03-488. 

[8] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA 
Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-
04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).

[9] GAO-02-966. 

[10] The One-HHS management and program objectives reflect the goals 
and priorities of the Secretary.

[11] The 95 percent confidence interval for NASA ranges from 16 to 33 
percent.

[12] GAO-04-343SP.

[13] GAO-02-966. 

[14] GAO-02-966. 

[15] Agency officials indicated that they plan to reevaluate the use of 
this system in the future given the changes occurring with the new SES 
pay system. 

[16] For more information on CDC's tracking of performance information, 
see U.S. General Accounting Office, Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention: Agency Leadership Taking Steps to Improve Management and 
Planning, but Challenges Remain, GAO-04-219 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 
2004).

[17] U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: Implementing Pay 
for Performance at Selected Personnel Demonstration Projects, GAO-04-
83 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 23, 2004).

[18] See app. III for more information on selected elements of 
Education's, HHS's and NASA's SES performance management systems.

[19] About 98 percent of the senior executives at Education included a 
competency related to employee perspectives. 

[20] GAO-04-38. 

[21] U.S. Office of Personnel Management, "Memorandum for Heads of 
Departments and Executive Agencies, Reporting SES Performance Ratings 
and Awards for FY 2003" (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 12, 2004). 

[22] By law, bonus amounts paid to individual career senior executives 
are limited to from 5 to 20 percent of the executive's basic pay. 
Agency bonus totals cannot exceed the greater of 10 percent of the 
aggregate career senior executive basic pay or 20 percent of the 
average rates of career senior executive basic pay.

[23] Under HHS's three-level system senior executives may be rated at 
"fully successful," "minimally satisfactory," or "unsatisfactory," and 
under a five-level system, senior executives may be rated at these 
rating levels as well as at "excellent" and "outstanding."

[24] In fiscal year 2002, only the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 
Services used a five-level rating system. In fiscal year 2003, the 
Indian Health Service also used a five-level rating system.

[25] Under Education's three-level system, senior executives may be 
rated at "successful," "minimally satisfactory," and "unsatisfactory."

[26] For more information on how to assess agencies' training and 
development efforts, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Human Capital: 
A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and Development Efforts in the 
Federal Government, GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

[27] U.S. General Accounting Office, Results-Oriented Cultures: 
Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and Organizational 
Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003).

[28] U.S. General Accounting Office, High-Risk Series: Strategic Human 
Capital Management, GAO-03-120 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003).

[29] GAO-03-488. 

[30] U.S. General Accounting Office, NASA: Shuttle Fleet's Safe Return 
to Flight Is Key to Space Station Progress, GAO-04-201T (Washington, 
D.C.: Oct. 29, 2003).

[31] U.S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and 
Program Risks: Department of Education, GAO-03-99 (Washington, D.C.: 
January 2003).

[32] GAO-03-488. 

[33] For HHS, when the question refers to "my agency" or "my 
organization," we asked senior executives to respond regarding their 
operating divisions within HHS. For the questions on performance 
information, we asked NASA senior executives to respond on the extent 
that NASA or their center formally provides performance information.

[34] GAO-03-488. 

[35] Percentages for each question may not add to 100 due to rounding.

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: