Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the fiscal year (FY) 2000 performance plans of the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act, focusing on the: (1) extent to which the agencies' plans include the three key elements of informative performance plans: (a) clear pictures of intended performance; (b) specific discussions of strategies and resources; and (c) confidence that performance information will be credible; and (2) degree of improvement the FY 2000 performance plans represent over the FY 1999 plans.
Matter for Congressional Consideration
|Continued improvements in agencies' plans should help Congress in building on its recent and ongoing use of performance plans to help inform its own decisionmaking. Congressional committees of jurisdiction may wish to consider holding augmented oversight hearings on each of the major agencies at least once each Congress and preferably on an annual basis. Information on missions, goals, strategies, resources, and results could provide a consistent starting point for each of these hearings. Such hearings also will further underscore for agencies the importance that Congress places on creating high-performing executive organizations. Performance planning under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 should allow for more informed discussions about issues such as: (1) whether the agency is pursuing the right goals and making progress toward achieving them; (2) whether the federal government is effectively coordinating its responses to pressing national needs; (3) whether the federal government is achieving an unexpected level of performance for the budgetary and other resource commitments that have been provided; (4) the degree to which the agency has the best mix of programs, initiatives, and other strategies to achieve results; (5) the progress the agency is making in addressing mission-critical management challenges and program risks; (6) the efforts underway to ensure that the agency's human capital strategies are linked to strategic and programmatic planning and accountability mechanisms; and (7) the status of the agency's efforts to use information technology to achieve results.||Congress is demonstrating the importance it places in creating high-performing executive organizations by using the Act to inform its activities. In January, a CRS study was issued that demonstrated extensive use of the Act during the 105th Congress: eight House committees either enacted Results Act related provisions or included them in committee report language; 37 public laws were enacted that contained, or whose accompanying reports contained, relevant performance-related provisions. In August, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee Chairman Fred Thompson sent letters to the heads of federal agencies asking them to, among other things, improve their performance plans based on recommendations included in GAO's reviews of agencies' FY2000 performance plans. As another example, for the confirmation hearing for OMB's Deputy Director for Management, specific questions were asked on management practices, the Results Act, and major management problems.|
Recommendations for Executive Action
|Office of Management and Budget||The Director, Office Management and Budget ensure that executive agencies make continued progress in improving the usefulness of performance planning for congressional and executive branch decisionmaking. In GAO's assessment of the FY 1999 performance plans, GAO suggested five key improvement opportunities that provide an ongoing agenda for improving the usefullness of agencies performance plans. In assessing the FY 2000 plans, GAO identified important opportunities for continuing improvements in agencies' plans in each of those five areas: (1) better articulating a results orientation, with particular attention to ensuring that performance plans show how mission-critical management challenges and program risks will be addressed; (2) coordinating crosscutting programs, with particular attention to demonstrating that crosscutting programs are taking advantage of opportunities to employ complementary performance goals, mutually reinforcing strategies, and common or complementary performance measures, as appropriate; (3) showing the performance consequences of budget and other resource decisions; (4) clearly showing how strategies will be used to achieve results, with particular attention to integrating human capital and program performance planning; and (5) building the capacity within agencies to gather and use performance information, with particular attention to ensuring that agencies provide confidence that performance information will be credible.|