[House Hearing, 108 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
10 YEARS OF GPRA--RESULTS, DEMONSTRATED
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT EFFICIENCY
AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT
of the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 31, 2004
__________
Serial No. 108-175
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
95-196 WASHINGTON : DC
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California
ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER,
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland
TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia
JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee ------ ------
PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
(Independent)
Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director
David Marin, Deputy Staff Director
Rob Borden, Parliamentarian
Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania, Chairman
MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida
Ex Officio
TOM DAVIS, Virginia HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
Mike Hettinger, Staff Director
Larry Brady, Professional Staff Member
Sara D'Orsie, Clerk
Adam Bordes, Minority Professional Staff Member
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on March 31, 2004................................... 1
Statement of:
Breul, Jonathan D., senior fellow, IBM Center for the
Business of Government..................................... 33
Dalton, Patricia, Director, Strategic Issues, General
Accounting Office.......................................... 8
DeMaio, Carl, president and founder, the Performance
Institute.................................................. 43
Keevey, Richard F., director, Performance Consortium,
National Academy of Public Administration.................. 52
McGinnis, Patricia, president and CEO, the Council for
Excellence in Government................................... 64
Mercer, John, GPRA & Performance Management Services......... 72
Metzger, Carl J., director, Government Results Center........ 91
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Breul, Jonathan D., senior fellow, IBM Center for the
Business of Government, prepared statement of.............. 36
Dalton, Patricia, Director, Strategic Issues, General
Accounting Office, prepared statement of................... 12
DeMaio, Carl, president and founder, the Performance
Institute, prepared statement of........................... 47
Keevey, Richard F., director, Performance Consortium,
National Academy of Public Administration, prepared
statement of............................................... 54
McGinnis, Patricia, president and CEO, the Council for
Excellence in Government, prepared statement of............ 66
Mercer, John, GPRA & Performance Management Services,
prepared statement of...................................... 75
Metzger, Carl J., director, Government Results Center,
prepared statement of...................................... 95
Platts, Hon. Todd Russell, a Representative in Congress from
the State of Pennsylvania, prepared statement of........... 3
Towns, Hon. Edolphus, a Representative in Congress from the
State of New York, prepared statement of................... 5
10 YEARS OF GPRA--RESULTS, DEMONSTRATED
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 31, 2004
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial
Management,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2 p.m., in
room 2247, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Todd Russell
Platts (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Platts, Towns, and Maloney.
Staff present: Mike Hettinger, staff director; Dan Daly,
counsel; Larry Brady and Tabetha Mueller, professional staff
members; Amy Laudeman, legislative assistant; Sarah D'Orsie,
clerk; Adam Bordes, minority professional staff member; and
Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Mr. Platts. A quorum being present, this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Government Efficiency and Financial Management
will come to order.
I have a brief opening statement and ask, without
objection, that my full statement be submitted for the record.
I was pleased to be part of the request for the General
Accounting Office to examine the effects that the Government
Performance and Results Act has had on the Federal Government.
I certainly commend GAO for its work, and I feel it is very
important for us in Congress to go back and analyze how the
laws that are passed are implemented. We need to make sure that
GPRA is having a positive impact on agency management.
The findings of the report were encouraging. GAO found that
GPRA has improved the focus of the Federal Government. The
report also identifies some important challenges, and we look
forward to discussing these areas here today.
Many of the successes we have seen under the President's
management agenda, including the evolution of the Program
Assessment Rating Tool, could not have happened without the
foundation established by GPRA. It is important for Congress to
pay close attention to management reforms. These efforts are
not the most exciting issues, but there are few matters more
important for us to focus on than ensuring that the Federal
Government is well run and results oriented.
Today, we are delighted to have a great panel of witnesses
before the subcommittee. We have the author of the report, Pat
Dalton, Director of Strategic Issues at the General Accounting
Office. Again, I thank you and your staff for a tremendous
effort in compiling all the information and making a great
assessment for us to build on as we go forward.
Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Platts. We also have a panel of experts who have spent
a good deal of time looking at these issues from the private
sector, including Jonathan Breul from the IBM Center for the
Business of Government. We appreciate having you back before
the subcommittee again, Jonathan.
Carl DeMaio is president and founder of the Performance
Institute.
Richard Keevey is director of Performance Consortium, at
the National Academy of Public Administration. As a holder of a
degree in public administration, I appreciate Mr. Keevey's
work.
Patricia McGinnis is president and CEO of the Council for
Excellence in Government.
John Mercer is widely known as the father of GPRA. We
appreciate your participation today.
Last but not least, Carl Metzger, director of the
Government Results Center.
As a committee, we thank each of you for being with us.
I yield to the ranking member, Mr. Towns from New York, for
the purpose of an opening statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Todd Russell Platts
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.001
Mr. Towns. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing as we continue to evaluate the progress being made in
the Government Performance and Results Act.
Today's hearing focuses on GAO's recent report evaluating
the impact of GPRA among the agency community and its progress
toward making our government a more results-oriented
institution. As this subcommittee knows, initiatives like these
have been attempted for over 5 decades through both legislative
mandates and administration of both political parties, but have
often resulted in only limited progress. While I support our
efforts to bring about greater efficiency and accountability in
the programs and services that our Nation depends on, it
appears that the intent of the GPRA has only been partially
fulfilled.
There seems to be a divide among the number of agencies
that are committed to utilizing the performance information
provided through GPRA and those that choose to only comply with
its reporting requirements. Perhaps this is due to a lack of
agency leadership and commitment to the requirements under the
statute, or an inadequate level of training and guidance from
OMB for agency managers to understand the information obtained
through the process.
Let me also add that agency management often struggles in
establishing appropriate outcome-oriented goals for the program
and linking such measures to long-term strategic objectives for
both individual program and agency mission.
Last, agencies are now facing new challenges for
implementing performance and budget-based measurements through
program assessment rating tools as part of the President's
Management Agenda Budget and Performance Integration
Initiative. With this, I am concerned that agencies are now
being required to comply with two separate reporting
requirements, while not yet realizing or understanding the
benefits of GPRA.
If GPRA is to substantiate the intended benefits that were
envisioned when it was enacted 10 years ago, OMB must recommit
itself to the cause through increased guidance and
communication with the agency community on establishing
appropriate measurements and implementation strategies for all
programs. Moreover, the utilization of a governmentwide
performance plan for an integrated approach to cross-cutting
agency issues must be completed.
I look forward to the hearing today and look forward to
hearing from the witnesses. On that note, I yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Edolphus Towns follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.004
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Towns.
Now I ask for all of our witnesses to be sworn in.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Platts. The clerk will note that all witnesses affirm
the oath.
Again, the subcommittee appreciates your presence here
today, and your substantive written testimonies that you
provided to us ahead of time. We would ask if you could stay as
close as possible to the initial 5 minutes for opening
statements. Because we have a large panel, we will try to stay
close to the 5 minutes, and then we will have questions.
Ms. Dalton, we will begin with you.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA DALTON, DIRECTOR, STRATEGIC ISSUES,
GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE
Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to be
here today to talk about the Government Performance and Results
Act.
Prior to enactment of GPRA, our work at GAO on performance
measurement showed that Federal agencies generally lacked the
infrastructure needed to manage and report on results in a way
that was transparent to the Congress and to the American
people. Today, based on a decade of work in this area, we can
safely say we have seen a transformation in the capacity of the
Federal Government to manage for results.
This capacity includes an infrastructure of outcome-
oriented strategic plans, performance measures and
accountability reporting that have significantly improved over
time and provide a solid foundation for improving the
performance of Federal programs. However, there are a number of
challenges that remain.
Our recent report for this subcommittee and others provides
a comprehensive assessment of GPRA at its 10-year anniversary.
Our report is based on a large body of work, including three
governmentwide surveys over the past 10 years of Federal
managers and seven focus groups with managers of 23 out of the
24 CFO act agencies. My statement today will briefly summarize
our findings on the effectiveness of GPRA, the challenges
facing agencies and, finally, how the Federal Government can
continue to shift toward a more results oriented focus. Ten
years after enactment, GPRA requirements have laid a solid
foundation of results-oriented agency planning measurement and
reporting.
First of all, the strategic framework that GPRA established
has been very important. GPRA addressed agency shortcomings by
creating a comprehensive and consistent statutory foundation of
required agency-wide strategic plans, annual performance plans
and annual performance reports. It provided consistency as
opposed to, in the past, the ``flavor of the month'' where we
had, MBOs, ZZB, and other management initiatives.
Cultural changes also have occurred. Performance planning
and measurement have slowly, yet increasingly, become a part of
agency cultures. A new vocabulary is being used, new approaches
are being taken to problem solving, decisions are discussed in
terms of results and performance, not just activities and
processes. Rethinking of agency missions has also occurred.
A performance management infrastructure has been
established. Federal managers reported having significantly
more of the types of performance measures called for by GPRA,
particularly outcome-oriented performance measures. The chart
to my right illustrates what we have seen in the three surveys
from 1997, 2000 and 2003, and it is consistently trending
upwards in terms of the types of measures being reported--
especially of all types in the outcomes.
At the same time, we are also observing a significant
decline in the percentage of Federal managers who found factors
hindering measuring performance or using performance
information.
The foundation of results-oriented planning and reporting
that has been established through GPRA is reflected in the
quality of the plans and reports of the six Federal agencies we
reviewed as part of our work. We found significant improvement
in strategic plans, annual performance plans and annual
performance and accountability reports of Education, Energy,
HUD, Transportation, SBA and SSA compared to our reviews of
their earlier plans and reports. However, there is still
further room for improvement, particularly in addressing cross-
cutting issues, using program evaluations, discussing and
improving data credibility, and linking cost to performance.
The final area that we find a significant positive effect
in is in the transparency of government. It has increased under
GPRA. Prior to GPRA, few agencies reported their performance
information externally; now it is reported on a regular basis.
OMB is a key consumer of performance information, most recently
through the PART assessment. Our survey data suggested that
more Federal managers, especially at the SES level, believed
that OMB was paying attention to their efforts under GPRA, and
they found that OMB was not micromanaging this process, which
gives them more ownership of the process.
GPRA also improves the transparency of government results
to the American public with more information and new types of
information being available.
Now, as I said, there are challenges and there are
significant ones that continue to remain: first of all, top
leadership commitment.
While one might expect an increase in agency leadership
commitment since GPRA was enacted, our governmentwide surveys
of Federal managers have not shown significant increases,
although I would note there is a significant difference in the
perceptions between the SES and non-SES managers. However,
OMB's recently demonstrated leadership in its review of
performance information from a budgetary perspective, using the
PART tool, is a step in the right direction. Our interviews
with senior political appointees of both the Clinton and the
current Bush administrations also reflect a commitment to
results-oriented management. This commitment clearly needs to
be demonstrated at lower levels in the organization.
A second challenge is in the use of performance information
to manage. The benefit of collecting performance information is
only fully realized when the information is actually used by
managers to bring about desired results. Federal managers
report mixed results in the use of information, and this is
illustrated on the upper chart here, which compares the use of
information on a number of dimensions over our three surveys.
As you can see, it has pretty much stayed level.
One point I would add, that is more on a positive note,
when we asked managers whether or not they were considering
strategic planning goals in their key management tasks, their
responses were much more favorable. The ranges went up to from
the high 60's to the high 70's percent, so there are some
favorable signs.
The human capital arena also presents some challenges. In
our survey, Federal managers reported that they were being held
accountable for program results, but did not feel they had the
decisionmaking authority they needed to accomplish agency
goals. Again, there was a distinctive difference in perceptions
between the SES and the non-SES managers.
We also noted that fewer than half the managers reported
receiving relevant training, and this is important in that we
found a correlation between having training and using
performance information.
Finally, in the human capital arena, managers also
perceived a lack of positive recognition for helping their
agencies achieve results.
Performance measurement continues to be a challenge. There
are challenges in setting outcome-oriented goals, measuring
performance and collecting useful data. Outcome-oriented
performance measures were especially difficult to establish for
programs in which a line of effort was not easily quantifiable.
Managers also identified difficulties in distinguishing between
the results produced by the Federal program and results caused
by external factors or non-Federal actors.
A fifth challenge is in the cross-cutting area. Cross-
cutting issues continue to be a challenge in GPRA
implementation. We found some improvement in addressing cross-
cutting efforts, but a great deal more is needed. OMB could use
the provision of GPRA that calls for developing a
governmentwide performance plan to better integrate expected
agency level performance across agency lines. The current
agency-by-agency focus of the budget does not provide the
integrated perspective on government performance envisioned by
GPRA.
A strategic plan for the Federal Government would be an
additional tool that would provide longer-range perspectives on
integration and priorities.
The final area that we identified as a challenge was
Congress' use of information. Our focus group members believe
that the reluctance of Congress to use performance information
when making decisions, especially appropriation decisions, was
a hindrance. However, we did find some indications of
congressional use, but clearly more use of performance
information could be made.
While there is concern among the agencies regarding
Congress' use of performance information, it is important to
make sure this information is useful. In other words, the
information presented amd its presentation must meet the needs
of the users, not only the Congress, but also the agencies
themselves as evidenced by this chart at my right.
The challenges that we have identified are not new. Most
have not changed significantly since we first reported on the
governmentwide implementation of GPRA. However, we have
frequently reported on approaches that agencies, Congress, and
OMB could use to address these challenges. These approaches
include strengthening the commitment of top leadership, taking
a governmentwide approach to cross-cutting issues, improving to
usefulness of performance information to managers, Congress and
the public, and improving the quality of performance
information.
Collectively, these approaches form the agenda that the
Federal agencies, OMB and the Congress will need to follow to
bring about a more sustained, governmentwide focus on results.
In our report, we made five recommendations to OMB to
address many of these challenges. I am pleased to report that
OMB has already started to take some steps to implement our
recommendations. We also identified two matters for
congressional consideration to improve governmentwide focus on
results, first changing the cycle of the agency strategic plans
and second, in addition to the governmentwide performance plan,
requiring a governmentwide strategic plan I am pleased to note
that you, Mr. Chairman, have introduced legislation on changing
the timing of the agency strategic plans.
Performance-based management as envisioned by GPRA requires
transforming organizational cultures to improve decisionmaking,
maximizing performance, and ensuring accountability. This
transformation is not an easy one and requires investments of
time and resources as well as sustained leadership, commitment
and attention. We have come a long way in this transformation,
but it is not yet complete.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I am
pleased to answer any questions.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Ms. Dalton. Thank you for a great
job in putting together a good report. It will serve as a
foundation as we look to strengthen GPRA.
Ms. Dalton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dalton follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.025
Mr. Platts. Mr. Breul.
STATEMENT OF JONATHAN D. BREUL, SENIOR FELLOW, IBM CENTER FOR
THE BUSINESS OF GOVERNMENT
Mr. Breul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The key elements of the Government Performance and Results
Act were actually first outlined in 1989 in the fiscal year
1990 budget during the last year of the Reagan administration.
In a chapter titled Government of the Future, the Office of
Management and Budget described the need for strategic
planning, monitoring of performance, an emphasis on results,
and greater managerial flexibility and accountability.
Today, the Federal Government is now in the 7th year of
governmentwide implementation of the performance-based,
results-oriented system of management envisioned by GPRA.
Agencies have made very substantial progress, and efforts
continue to significantly improve the use and value of
performance information. To a surprising and welcome extent, an
increasing number of departments and agency officials are
embracing results-based government.
The first issue you asked us to address is the effect of
GPRA over the last 10 years. The first and perhaps principal
effect of GPRA is that we now have a sensible, bipartisan
statutory framework for results-based management. Ten years ago
no laws existed that supported or required a comprehensive
governmentwide approach to performance-based management.
GPRA has also benefited from being part of a series of
important statutory reforms under way, thanks to this
committee, including, for example, the Chief Financial Officers
Act and efforts by the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory
Board to improve financial reporting. In addition, the
bipartisan nature of the reform gave it added strength.
GPRA was conceived by a Republican Senator, passed under a
Democratic committee chair, and signed by a Democratic
President. Recently, President Bush has made results a key
element of his management agenda.
Strategic planning is a second important effect of GPRA. At
the beginning of the 1990's, only a very small handful of
agencies did any strategic planning. Now, a decade later,
strategic planning is commonplace. Not only is it now required
at the department level, but in almost every bureau, agency and
activity throughout the government.
In the last 6 months, agencies completed a third round of
those strategic plans. Compared to the first round in 1997, the
plans have become slimmer, more attractive and much more
readable. Importantly, over time, they have become much less a
statement of vision and more of a 5 to 6-year operating plan.
Performance measurement is the third important effect of
GPRA. Ten years of experience with the act has greatly expanded
the supply of results-oriented information. Agencies have
improved the focus of their planning, they have strengthened
the quality of their performance information, and now are
producing useful baselines from which to assess future program
performance.
Under the Bush administration, interest in performance
measurement has accelerated. Use of the performance information
to influence resource allocation and program management
decisions is expanding as the Program Assessment Rating Tool
has been used to systematically evaluate programs.
The second matter you asked us to address are challenges
that agencies face. I would suggest that the first challenge is
program evaluation. GPRA has prompted a revival of interest in
program evaluation, in part because the statute for the first
time defines program evaluation on a governmentwide basis and
stipulates that it be addressed in an agency's strategic plans
as well as annual reports. Unfortunately, however, despite the
efforts to place a premium on evaluation, both the supply and
demand for it remain weak.
In the long run, sustaining a credible, performance-based
focus in budgeting is going to require significant improvements
in evaluation capacities and information across the Federal
agencies, as well as in third parties that implement Federal
programs. H.R. 3826 is a helpful step in this regard.
The second challenge agencies face is identifying the full
costs of their programs in the budget. In order to improve our
understanding of the true cost of a program, budget accounts
and activities should be charged consistently for the full
annual cost of the resources used. Because of the requirements
in law and other precedent, the existing budget reporting
structure includes all budget costs, but does not always link
those full costs to a program in one place.
An example of this problem are employee costs such as those
relating to retirement. Pensions for new employees and military
employees were reformed in the mid-1980's, with employers
paying their share of the accruing costs, yet costs for
employees hired under the earlier Civil Service Retirement
System have only partly been charged to programs. Similar
anomalies exist with capital costs, support services and
environmental costs.
A third challenge agencies face is developing integrated
reporting systems. At present, few agencies have automated
systems that routinely link information on costs and goals for
budget performance reporting. With the exception of the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration and possibly the
Department of Defense, there are no automated management
systems to provide a systematic framework for tracking costs
and goals from planning through enactment and on to execution.
GPRA reporting is still often a paper-intensive exercise
that focuses on statutory reporting to the Congress. Agencies
prepare their budget requests using capabilities that are not
linked to central automated systems. Many actually enter the
data in Excel spreadsheets, and annual budget requests to the
OMB and to the Budget Committees are, for the most part,
paperwork products.
Policy decisions, however, are made based on information,
and increasingly the challenge is no longer a scarcity of
information, but how to manage the flood of that information.
The challenge of using this information is one of making that
information routinely and systematically available to the
decisionmakers, whether they be at the program level or here in
Congress.
The fourth challenge facing agencies is performance
budgeting. Performance budgeting is the next logical step in
the implementation of GPRA. This year, for the first time, many
departments and nearly all major agencies developed a
performance budget for OMB and sent a performance budget
justification for fiscal year 2005 to their Appropriations
Committees.
Finally, you asked us to comment on how the government can
continue to shift to a more results-oriented focus. The initial
years of implementing GPRA were focused on developing a
performance management framework accompanied by a growing
interest in the use of performance information. However, as I
suggested, systematic integration of performance into day-to-
day management and budget decisionmaking has not yet occurred.
Ultimately, agencies must routinely link information on
costs and goals. They need to involve program managers in
directing the setting of costs and performance goals, and then
they need to hold managers accountable for the results they
produce for systems of information that are transparent to
decisionmakers and the public.
Together, GPRA and the CFO Act have made the foundation for
performance budgeting by establishing the infrastructure in
agencies to improve the supply of information on performance
and costs. Sustained executive branch leadership and
congressional oversight will be required to build on this
foundation to make it useful and used.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Breul.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Breul follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.032
Mr. Platts. Mr. DeMaio.
STATEMENT OF CARL DeMAIO, PRESIDENT AND FOUNDER, THE
PERFORMANCE INSTITUTE
Mr. DeMaio. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ranking
Member Towns. I am Carl DeMaio from the Performance Institute.
We are pleased to be here this afternoon to comment on how
to evaluate the results of the Government Performance and
Results Act. We have spent 5 years since our founding looking
at performance-based management in government at the Federal,
State and local level, and the question we always ask is, how
do you instill and implement a performance-based management
system in government. It is not like in the private sector,
there are different rules, and hopefully some of the commentary
we share today will inform you and help you in your
deliberations on how to improve the Results Act.
First, the Government Performance and Results Act provides
all the statutory framework that Federal agencies need to
manage for results. We do not need to go and refine the
existing framework in terms of what it requires agencies to do.
It asks agencies to develop a long-range plan, to translate
that long-range plan into an annual plan, to set performance
measures, to look at results, and to figure out whether the
outcomes are being achieved, not just activities; and
ultimately it asks agencies to link this to their annual budget
request so Congress can deliberate over where the resources can
go to have the greatest impact.
So as a system or a framework for results-based management,
GPRA hits the nail on the head. And it has taken a while to
implement and there have been some bumps on the road, but the
statute itself is sound.
But as Ranking Member Towns pointed out correctly,
implementation of the statute in each agency has been uneven.
Some are taking it to heart and really implementing a
performance management system and generating improved
information for decisionmaking. Others, unfortunately, are
treating it as yet another requirement mandate and generating
reams of paper.
There are several hurdles to fulfilling GPRA's promise to
the American taxpayer. First, as has been noted, leadership.
Agencies have to commit to results-based management.
Second, the Federal Government has been slow to develop
meaningful outcome measures. In looking at the outcome measures
that have been set, most of them fall far short of taxpayer
value and what Congress intended to accomplish with various
programs. Many agencies resist outcome measurement because they
feel they have no control over the outcomes. Whether kids have
better reading and math and science scores or whether we have
some sort of public health improvement in America, the question
becomes, are we asking them to just measure things that they
control or things that they are asked to influence on behalf of
the American people.
Second, agencies are setting far too many performance
measures. When you add up the number of pages of GPRA
performance plans filled with performance measures, you come up
with a total of 16,000 pages produced by Federal agencies
annually filled with data and performance measures. Most of
these are measures of effort or activity, not results, and so
too many measures are being collected.
Third, there is no coordination among similar programs to
see how various Federal expenditures can be coordinated and we
can work with State and local government to achieve outcomes
for the American people.
Finally, when people ask, how do you lead performance-based
change in an agency, how do you make this real and relevant, we
always respond by suggesting they have to hijack three systems
within the agency.
First, hijack your budget. Require that Federal program
managers submit their budget to OMB and ultimately to Congress
using clear performance goals and measures of the agency as a
guide. If they do not show how their program contributes to the
outcome, then they should not receive funding.
Second, hijack your personnel system. Require that agencies
hire, recruit, retain and reward on the basis of contribution
to mission. We have to move from a pay system where everyone
talks about ``the salary increase'' to a pay system where they
talk about ``my salary increase because my contribution to
agency mission was recognized.''
Finally, hijack the grants and acquisition system. We have
to start moving toward a performance-based contracting, a
performance-based grants, and a performance-based partnership
system where resources are transferred on the basis of results
and our partners are held accountable.
All of these initiatives received a major shot in the arm
with the President's management agenda. The President's
management agenda does not supplant, does not replace, instead
it complements the Government Performance and Results Act in
two key ways.
First, it demands accountability and attention be paid by
agencies to measure, plan, and budget by results. It was an
important thing for the Office of Management and Budget and the
President to put their name behind GPRA finally. In the initial
years of GPRA, we did not see that level of leadership.
Second, integration. What the President's management agenda
does is, it looks at five elements of results-oriented
management: budget performance integration, strategic
management of human capital, improved financial management,
competition and streamlining, and e-government and says, how do
these, all five, capacities contribute to mission attainment.
So integration and accountability.
You heard mention of the PMA, GPRA and PART, and how do
they relate to each other. I have always summed it up this way:
GPRA was Congress' statutory challenge to the executive branch.
The PMA is this administration's response to, yes, we will be
accountable, yes, we will have integration. PART is the quality
control mechanism to evaluate the various plans and measures
generated by agencies.
In conclusion, what are some of the next steps to improve
the results of the so-called Results Act? First, I would sum it
up with Congress needs to be engaged. You must engage in the
review of these strategic plans and performance measures. What
do you think about the 16,000 pages of performance goals and
measures? Are there goals and measures on those 16,000 pages
that you believe are more informative that the American people
should focus on, that oversight hearings and authorization
hearings should focus on?
We urge you to have your agencies come forward with their
strategic plans and performance measures and evaluate them as
you reauthorize Federal programs; and you can take a page out
of the PART and look at 20 percent of Federal programs a year.
Second, Congress should institutionalize program review and
assessment. You do not have to endorse the PART, but you should
endorse OMB's aggressive review of program performance
information.
We strongly encourage passage of your legislation, Mr.
Platts, for the pure purpose we should have some sort of
assessment, whether it is PART or whatever the new
administration or next administration might want to call it,
but a systematic, methodological, and evidence-based way of
looking at performance measures and weeding out bad ones and
focusing on good ones.
Finally, we believe you should put a cop on the beat. We
are suggesting that Congress create a Congressional Office of
Program Performance that would give Congress its own capacity
for performance review. Congress would be able to use the COPP
office to sort through all of the reams of data and measures
and plans that congressional Members and congressional offices
are inundated with each year.
I have talked to many Members of Congress and committee
members that tell me they do not feel that they are at a
shortage of information, but what they are looking for is
quality information that can inform congressional
decisionmaking. Well, a COPP office can be that filter by which
Congress evaluates performance information.
A second important function of the COPP office would be to
peer-review any ratings or rankings that the OMB publishes each
year should your legislation pass, Mr. Platts.
Finally, we would suggest that the minority and the
majority of each Chamber be allowed to select up to 5 percent
of Federal programs for the COPP office to do its own
independent evaluation of each year. Congress needs to invest
in its own independent capacity for program review. This is
something that could be staffed by the General Accounting
Office and the CBO, but it is not just the purview of either
one of those subagencies. It has to be given its own charter
and its own focus.
In conclusion, these issues of performance evaluation of
Federal programs will only become more important in the coming
years. During this year's budget, we have seen the percentage
of nondefense discretionary funding fall to 18 percent, which
means that the dinner table for domestic programs is getting
smaller. It is harder to figure out where to put our scarce
resources.
If we can implement GPRA fully, Congress can have better
information, the American people can have better information as
to what works and what does not.
Ultimately, GPRA should be judged by its ability to deliver
three principles for the American people: improved performance,
enhanced accountability and expanded transparency. By
congressional engagement, you can improve implementation of the
Results Act and help us achieve those three principles.
[The prepared statement of Mr. DeMaio follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.037
Mr. Platts. We have been joined by Mrs. Maloney.
Mr. Keevey.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. KEEVEY, DIRECTOR, PERFORMANCE
CONSORTIUM, NATIONAL ACADEMY OF PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Keevey. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify at this hearing.
I am the director of the Performance Consortium at the
National Academy of Public Administration, and I have been a
manager and principal executive at both the Federal and State
levels of government. I have been a State budget director, a
State controller, and in the Federal Government I have served
as the Director of the Defense Finance and Accounting Service,
the Under Secretary for Financial Management for the Department
of Defense, and the Chief Financial Officer at the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development.
Over the course of 40 years in management, I have seen many
a budget system and a lot of new ideas come and go, and I have
seen my fair share of failed attempts to improve government
performance.
When I joined the Federal Government in 1994, GPRA had just
been initiated. I inquired then as to what it entailed and was
told that GPRA involved strategic planning and the
establishment of effective outcome performance measurements. My
response was, I have been there and I have tried that.
Four years later, as the CFO at HUD, I was developing the
Department's first strategic plan, and while I obviously
thought the endeavor had a lot of initiative behind it and had
a lot of momentum, I did not think it had enough traction to be
effective in the long run.
Fortunately, I was wrong in both of these instances because
there is no doubt in my mind that GPRA has made steady progress
during these past 10 years. Indeed, GPRA has been successful,
and I think will only get better as we move forward and better
integration is achieved with other results-oriented initiatives
already under way.
The GAO report is correct when it concludes that
``Significant progress has been made in installing a focus on
results in the Federal Government.'' Furthermore, projects
under way at the National Academy of Public Administration
confirm this view.
Prior to GPRA, many agencies made few attempts to link
budgets to results. There was no stated relationship between
agencies' strategic plans, if in fact they had one, and their
requests for funding. There was little or no interest in the
cost of programs, the cost of achieving objectives, and the
relationship between cost and performance. Then along came
GPRA. GPRA stimulated the process of planning, targeting and
reporting on what government was achieving.
At first, progress was slow. Despite leadership from OMB,
there was inconsistent achievement among agencies. Some took it
very seriously, others just hoped it would go away. Many
strategic plans were filled with a lot of good intentions, but
not a lot of sophistication. There were numerous measures that
showed workload and outputs, but not a lot of outcomes, and
very little connection between cost, work, results, and
budgetary requests.
Today, however, many managers and agencies routinely manage
for outcomes. Public benefits achieved and the related costs
are now the definition of outcome rather than simply workload
information. And the lexicon of performance management is now
the norm for senior agency managers and top executives.
There is no doubt in my mind that these very aggressive
goals set out by Congress in the GPRA legislation have been
achieved in most cases. But more needs to be done to further
enhance these achievements, particularly regarding the
development of more sophisticated outcome measures and the use
of information in making budgetary decisions.
One of the earliest issues government executives faced in
implementing GPRA was the development of meaningful performance
measures. Historically, governments at all levels tended to
focus on activities or outputs as the means to measure program
effectiveness or program success. Therefore, it was quite
natural in the early stages of GPRA that this trend would
continue. Developing outcome-oriented performance measures was
and still remains very difficult, but significant progress is
being made.
In government, budgets drive policy and control resource
allocation. To that end, we need to press forward on tools that
enhance program analysis and evaluation for GPRA to be
completely successful. Accepting that premise, I believe that
steps already undertaken by the Office of Management and Budget
to introduce the Program Assessment Rating Tool is a decision
that will lead toward a better results-oriented focus.
GPRA provides the overall framework for performance
management. However, the GPRA process must be connected to an
effective budgetary decisionmaking process such as PART or some
future iteration of PART.
My years of experience tell me that unless an instrument
like PART becomes an annual event, the fruits of the GPRA
process will not be fully realized. In my judgment, nothing
succeeds in forcing effective program management more than
effective and frequent program evaluation.
PART can certainly be improved. For example, OMB now needs
to select activities for evaluation that will facilitate cross-
cutting comparisons of programs that focus on the same outcome.
But in my opinion, GPRA and PART are perfect together. One
should not be a substitute for the other, but both are needed
to enhance performance management and to improve budgetary
decisionmaking.
Finally, the executive and the legislative branches need to
work together and more aggressively so that both GPRA and PART
or a similar tool are used in a complementary fashion by both
branches of government.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Keevey for your testimony.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Keevey follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.047
Mr. Platts. Ms. McGinnis.
STATEMENT OF PATRICIA McGINNIS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, THE COUNCIL
FOR EXCELLENCE IN GOVERNMENT
Ms. McGinnis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Towns.
The Council for Excellence in Government is made up of
leaders in the private sector who have served in government,
and our focus is squarely on improving the performance and
results of government and also increasing the participation and
confidence of citizens in their government. So it is all about
accountability.
We are very interested, obviously, in the Government
Performance and Results Act. In fact, I testified last year
before the full committee on GPRA and was very pleased to see
that you've included in your legislation one of our
recommendations that the timing of these reports coincide with
Presidential terms so this can be more of a routine policy
consideration.
There are a number of missing links in the way GPRA has
been implemented, and I compliment GAO and this report on both
pointing out the improvements and also identifying some of
those missing links. Most of the GAO report focuses on the
executive branch and using GPRA in the management of programs.
There is also some focus on the role of Congress, which we have
suggested for a long time. I thought, when I read it, it would
be very interesting if GAO would, in addition to interviewing
and surveying executive branch leaders, use some of those same
approaches with congressional leaders, committee members and
congressional staff to really get a good idea of the potential
for increasing the use of this work, the performance reports
and measures in the appropriations and authorization process,
in addition to the oversight process.
I want to talk about three issues which I think need some
additional attention. One is connecting the performance plans
and reports to high-stakes management and budget decisions, and
that has been discussed quite extensively by my colleagues.
Also the expansion of the use of rigorous program evaluation,
and Jonathan Breul alluded to that, and it is certainly
included in the GPRA legislation; and then reporting the
results to the public.
PART has gone a long way toward making a connection between
performance measurement and performance reporting and
budgeting, and that is terrific. In fact, including this
performance information in annual budgets makes a lot of sense.
I noticed in the GAO report that only 55 percent of Federal
managers report having outcome measures at this point, and even
though that is an improvement over time, there is still a long
way to go. If there were a very strong connection between these
measures and the budget, and also if these measures were
included in appropriations reports, for example, I think you
would see that number of 55 percent go up in a hurry if the
outcomes of budgeting and appropriations depended on the
quality of such measures.
On the rigorous evaluation--and this is really important
because what I am talking about is something that goes beyond
measuring performance of a program in a fairly short-term
timeframe--GPRA is terrific in talking about the importance of
program evaluation to decisionmaking, but we do not see that
has been emphasized over the 10 years that GPRA has been in
effect.
We have been working with OMB at the Council on their PART
guidance to include some stronger language about rigorous
evaluation of the net impact of different approaches that might
be included in a program, and I would actually encourage you,
in looking at your legislation, to consider adding some
language in terms of reviewing reports that would allude to
what I am talking about. And, of course, the gold standard for
rigorous evaluation is randomized controlled experiments where
you actually use randomization and you can determine the impact
of one approach as opposed to another, because that is the only
difference between the two population groups.
Of course, there are other methods that could be used, and
you choose the method depending on the timeframe and the nature
of the problem, etc. But this is really important in the long
run for us to actually move the needle on some of these tough
problems, and we have data and we are getting better data, but
I don't think the needle is moving fast enough for any of us.
In terms of public reporting, this is, I think, just a
tremendous weakness of the implementation of GPRA. There is a
wonderful requirement for annual public reports on results, and
I am sure that most people in this country would like to hear
on an annual basis how we are moving the needle on issues that
they care about, and so I thought I would take a look, before
coming over here, at some of those performance reports, just
thinking in my role as a citizen how this would look to me.
Here is one. It looks like a telephone book. I don't think
anyone who is not very sophisticated could get through this. I
am not going to name the agency because you would see the same
thing with almost any agency.
I did notice the improvement in one agency from this to
this, and that is good, but I think we need to get out of the
box here and think about reports that would actually be useful
to people who need these tools to hold government accountable.
How we do that? It is hard to legislate clear report writing. I
think Mr. DeMaio has a point when he urges focusing on a few
priorities.
I would suggest it would be wonderful if we had a
governmentwide performance report every year that took the top
priority items and told the American people where we are using
high-quality data in moving that needle and showed some trend
data; showed something about the challenges and talked about
strategies in the future. Again, this takes a serious
commitment to making that connection between performance and
how the American people can hold government accountable. But I
think if we could do this it would go a long way to advance the
use of this data and integrating it in a very strategic way.
Mr. Platts. When you held up the reports, I thought of the
general public using it, and that is just one. It takes me back
to my public administration class days when I was given the
assignment to go through one of those reports and make informed
commentary on the--getting down from 16,000 pages to something
more manageable.
[The prepared statement of Ms. McGinnis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.053
Mr. Platts. Next, we have Mr. Mercer.
When I referenced the ``father of GPRA,'' it was your work
as a staff member for Senator Roth when this legislation was
created. You certainly bring an important perspective as one
who was involved in the creation of this program and
requirement and a perspective on where we are 10 years later. I
appreciate your being here.
STATEMENT OF JOHN MERCER, GPRA & PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT
SERVICES
Mr. Mercer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Mr. Towns, for the
opportunity to be here and testify about the implementation of
the Government Performance and Results Act. I am going to hop
through my testimony, the full written testimony, which I
understand will be inserted in the record. I will just read
excerpts from it.
I am John Mercer, an independent consultant to government
agencies on performance planning, budgeting, and management.
Previously I served for 13 years on staff in the Congress, 5
years in the House and 8 as counsel to the Senate Governmental
Affairs Committee.
During my service on the Governmental Affairs Committee
from 1989 to 1997, my primary responsibility was development
and oversight of Federal management reforms. My involvement
with GPRA includes having proposed the idea for that law to
Senator Bill Roth, then having been asked by him to lead the
development of the legislation and to oversee its enactment and
initial implementation.
I will look at a few of the things that have happened over
the last 10 years. Some of the ways in which GPRA has had a
positive effect over the last 10 years in creating a
governmentwide focus on results include the steady improvement
in strategic and performance plans shows that Federal agencies
have become significantly more results-oriented in their long-
term and annual planning. In the best plans the relationship
between dollars and results is becoming increasingly
transparent and there is an increasing sense within agencies
that what GPRA requires is actually just good business practice
and ought to be done regardless of any law.
Turning to page 4, I will touch on some of the challenges
that agencies face. Some of the challenges that agencies face
in measuring performance and using performance information in
management decisions include the following: cascading the goals
and strategies of the departmental and bureau plans down
through all levels of organizational subunits, thereby linking
long-term goals to day-to-day activities; integrating the
budget with performance information at the program activity and
task level by implementing effective managerial cost accounting
systems to show full costs of programs and, ideally, the unit
costs of activities and outputs; getting timely, accurate
performance data to managers throughout the year so that they
can actually manage their programs for results; strengthening
the linkage between the agency's support functions and its
programs by ensuring that the support functions such as CFO,
CIO, HR, etc., measure how well they help the agency achieve
its programmatic goals; and last, ensuring the validity of the
reported results.
Agencies are actually getting better at identifying
meaningful outcome-oriented goals and the annual performance
measures that support these long-term targets. This has been a
major issue of attention by GAO evaluators, as well as a
primary focus of OMB's PART assessments. However, unless these
top level goals cascade all of the way down through the
organization and connect to day-to-day activities, all the
agency really has is a wish list, we hope to achieve these
goals, and not a real plan.
If you will move ahead to page 6, I would like to talk
about continuing the shift toward a more results-oriented
focus. To continue this shift toward a more results-oriented
focus, I would like to address two things in particular that
need to happen. Program performance and results will have to
have real consequences, both for the programs themselves and
for the managers involved. Second, there needs to be a much
greater degree of congressional involvement in using the GPRA-
related performance plans and reports both in the
appropriations process and in conducting general oversight.
Having clear, complete and comprehensive performance plans
and reports is not an end in itself. Developing high-quality
plans will be seen as little more than a paperwork exercise if
the results from implementing those plans has no impact on
agency budgets, program structures and processes, or managerial
evaluations.
And then I would like to move to page 9 of my testimony.
Finally, Congress itself has a very important role to play
in ensuring a continued shift toward a more results-oriented
focus by the Federal Government. Congressional interest or lack
thereof in this subject sends a strong signal to agencies about
whether program performance and results matter. Agencies do
read these signals and react.
So far, Congress has generally not shown a great deal of
interest in the substance of agency plans or performance
reports or even suggested how to make them more useful.
Now if I may vent a little frustration here, back in the
early days of GPRA and developing it, I had hoped that the
Committees on Appropriation would become much more supportive
of agency efforts to integrate plans and budgets into program
performance budgets. I had hoped that they would welcome a
chance to examine and critique program goals, strategies and
results when deciding program funding levels.
I had also hoped that the authorizing committees would find
these plans and reports to be a font of interesting and useful
information. I had imagined real oversight hearings with
members referring to specific pages and items in the long-term
and annual plans and in the annual reports while drilling
agency officials over their strategies to achieve measurable
results or why past performance did not match the goals.
I had imagined committee and floor debates with members
arguing about how best to measure a program's performance, even
offering amendments to change the indicators of success or to
increase the target level of performance.
Despite my years of experience on Capitol Hill, I had
rather naively expected a more enthusiastic response to GPRA
plans and reports than we have seen so far.
In an effort to suggest how these GPRA plans and reports
and related analyses by GAO and OMB might be used to conduct
better agency oversight, I have developed a guide for Congress.
Because this guide is intended to help point in the direction
of more comprehensive and effective oversight, I call it the
COMPAS, the Congressional Oversight of Management and
Performance Accountability Scorecard [COMPAS]. I have included
it attached to my testimony for reference. It may serve as an
illustration of how congressional committees can become more
active in supporting a results-oriented Federal Government.
I should add that while it is cast as a scorecard, it is
really intended primarily to serve as a guide and suggestion as
to how issues should be covered in a real, comprehensive
oversight hearing.
In conclusion, I think that all too often programs and
funding levels have been justified on the basis of need and
good intentions, that is, how big the problem is and a general
conviction that the more we spend, the better we will address
it.
GPRA is essentially a statement that good intentions aren't
good enough anymore.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Mercer follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.069
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Mercer. And your closing
statement there, ``Good intentions aren't good enough
anymore,'' I think is really the focus here. We need to be
results-driven and not just intend to do good work but ensure
that we are doing good work. Good capsule summary of our
efforts.
Mr. Metzger.
STATEMENT OF CARL J. METZGER, DIRECTOR, GOVERNMENT RESULTS
CENTER
Mr. Metzger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
With respect to your questions regarding the effects of
GPRA, I commend the Congress for the well-conceived GPRA
framework that the Congress conceived, with John's help, your
management reform scrutiny, including the scoring and the use
of the GAO to provide indispensable guides and analyses that
have proven so helpful to agencies.
During the initial stage of 6.5 years, practitioners were
simply producing GPRA documents that addressed requirements in
a timely manner. It was apathy, cynicism or confusion.
Identifying outcomes seemed too difficult to many, but you are
well aware of those early problems.
Practitioners organized informal interagency working groups
to share their progress. Some top leaders but very few program
managers were engaged. Nevertheless, the period may be
characterized by stating there were pockets of results.
Progress and congressional scoring gained some top
leadership attention to GPRA compliance. Since that first cycle
culminating in the performance reports for fiscal year 1999,
the current stage of progressive implementation and management
has been marked primarily by the PMA budget and performance
integration and the PART to increase commitments from top
leaders and managers of programs.
PMA initiative owners coordinate and report quarterly. Over
400 programs have been PARTed. Top leadership is accountable
for results through performance agreements. Such agreements
have also been imposed on many lower level political appointees
and managers.
Commonly, departments and major independent agencies have
organized themselves for getting to Green in every initiative
by appointing a coordinator who is charged with planning
improvements and reporting quarterly on progress and status.
The GPRA required strategic plans be clearer, more succinct
and integrated for all components. Annual performance plans are
better aligned with strategic plans and now with the budget as
performance budgets. Annual reports are sensibly joined for
both performance and financial accountability.
Incorporating the program-specific PART has reinforced the
entire process. And this committee's legislative initiative to
require evaluations of all programs within every 5 years is
important.
Priorities may shift, of course, but by and large, GPRA's
process intent of transforming to a results-oriented government
has been institutionalized. This administration's broader
management and program-specific efforts may be characterized by
saying there has been a change from pockets of results
progress, to transforming results-oriented cultures in process.
There are still many weaknesses to overcome, but the
Clinton administration prepared the ground and started the
infrastructure. The Bush administration has laid a concrete
GPRA foundation. To be sure, challenges abound, not the least
of which is identifying outcome goals and strategies, measuring
outcome performance with the data that are valid, reliable,
timely, relevant and reasonable cost-of-collection and
monitoring and reporting through cost-minimized, effective,
enterprise-wide performance management systems.
Challenging, too, is making available performance and
results information that is useful to customers, stakeholders,
agency leaders, program managers and individual employees for
planning decisionmaking, execution and management.
Performance measurement development, especially outcome-
related, is still elusive for many kinds of agencies,
especially those in R&D, grantmaking and regulatory affairs as
was noted in the GAO report.
Yet interagency groups of planners, performance budgeters
and evaluators regularly meet to share lessons learned and
better practices in those challenged communities of practice;
emphasizing that performance information is helpful for budget
justification to OMB, alternative strategic tradeoffs between
sub-units for funds allocation, comparing sourcing costs or
overlapping services identification; and encouraging the
development of logic models and stakeholder participation,
consensus on strategic goals and measures and utilization of
reliable data and evaluation studies.
Those groups monitor the release of GAO reports and OMB
guidance such as evaluation studies or the 2006 PART, receiving
explanations on usage and foster agencies learning and growth.
For example, VA sharing about an external evaluation of
their Cardiac Care Program underscores evaluations for value
for other agencies at that meeting. And second, the VA sharing
their six-page, 2003 to 2008 Strategic Plan for Employees,
specifically for them, impressed other practitioners on
communicating effectively. It was a clear example for achieving
difficult-to-grasp employee alignment with an agency's
strategic plan, promoting multi-level understanding of the fit
of performance measures and PART reviews within their strategic
framework, seeding considerations of linking resources to
results and contributing to the use of performance information
in budget formulation and management decisions.
As to continuing the shift to a more results-oriented
focus, one factor that has never changed since the GPRA was
signed into law has been the paramount importance of top
leadership commitment to results-management as has been stated
by several on this panel. While such commitment today is still
not totally consistent, President Bush has made progress by
requiring performance agreements and reporting quarterly on
their status and progress on his initiatives.
It is true that some Federal managers continue to have
difficulty setting outcome-oriented goals, collecting useful
and timely data on results and linking institutional program
unit and individual performance measurement and reward systems.
However, many agencies, today, are transforming their
cultures to become more results-oriented. The challenge for
every agency is to work toward integrating planning, budgeting,
total costing, financial management, execution, technology and
evaluation into effective performance-management systems in
order to manage for results.
Only one agency to date, NASA, has reached the Green status
for budget and performance integration. They linked full cost
budgets to goals in a single integrated document and instituted
a management-information system. As with most agencies, they
assign coordinators responsible to work the agency to Green for
every management initiative. Multiple documents from fiscal
2003 and before are now one in fiscal 2004 and 2005 Integrated
Budget and Performance Documents, IBPD as they call them, with
marginal cost analyses, helping them to say if they gain
additionally, how much funding will result in so-and-so result.
The benefits of the NASA system are that it provides a
management dashboard; full views of major areas of investment
across their enterprises, themes and programs are available to
senior management, all employees and all working in the NASA
domain; and provides full transparency into cost, schedule,
management and performance status that permits an ability to
assess their collective progress against the performance plan.
While other agencies have not made as much integration
progress as NASA, many have focused on recently beginning and
developing results-driven systems and cultures. One example is
NOAA, another science agency. NOAA is transforming its culture
in a sea change manner by reorganizing itself to look anew for
fiscal year 2006 at all aspects of strategic and performance
planning, budget and performance integration, program
management and reporting. Their objective is to instill in
agency employees a sense that performance matters, that GPRA is
in front of everybody, important to and including every
employee as a contributor to the agency's strategic goals.
Another agency, Farm Service Agency of the USDA, has been
designated as a budget-and-performance management-system pilot
for the entire Department of Agriculture. They have chosen to
start with the basics of strategic-planning consensus with
customers and stakeholders for moving toward a performance-
based, results-driven culture in order to serve their
customers, 2.2 million registered farmers and ranchers.
Much like NOAA and FSA, virtually all Government agencies
are in different stages in their cultural transformation to
manage for results. In the years ahead, the Government would
profit by not only integrating and pulling everything together,
but as GAO suggests, managing toward a succinct transparent
Government-wide strategic plan that presents the Federal
Government's broad strategic goals, performance measures and
targeted results.
At present, evaluations and scoring are only performed for
the President's Selected Management and Program Initiatives,
plus annually selected programs through the PART process. But
what we recommend is the development of a performance
management maturity model against which agencies would assess
their process maturity.
A good example for adaptation may be found in GAO's just
published Executive Guide for IT Investment Management
Framework. The framework suggests assessing and improving
process maturity of five increasing mature stages and 13
processes critical for success in IT investment management.
A similar framework for a performance management enterprise
maturity model would be helpful. Any Government entity's level
of maturity as a government performance management enterprise
could be assessed in accord with the model so that tactics
could be fashioned to reach the next stage of improvement.
Mr. Chairman, thank you, I hope this testimony will assist
you in your continuing effective Government management reform.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Metzger follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.084
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Metzger.
And thanks to each of you for your oral testimonies here
today as well as your written testimonies and, certainly, the
wealth of experience and knowledge that you have shared with
us.
As we get into questions--I wanted to be flexible in giving
each of you the time you needed for your opening statements--if
we can try to be as succinct as possible, because I want each
of you to have the opportunity to respond to questions. And
given the number of you, the more succinct, the more questions
and issues we can address.
I would like to start with kind of a broad question to each
of you. It concerns your familiarity with the strategic plans
of the various departments and agencies. If you had to pick
just one that you think is the best example, or one of the best
examples in using GPRA which really embraced it and ran with
it, to the benefit of the services being provided, and those
receiving services from whatever department or agency?
And also if there is one you think is the worst example of
what not to do and how GPRA is not being understood and
embraced?
You all, or any one of you, are free to respond to the best
example or the worst example? Who would like to go?
Mr. Keevey. In addition to NASA, I think Labor has produced
a very good report, and I think Education has done a pretty
good job.
Mr. Breul. I would agree. I think NASA is one of the
stellar examples, particularly with all of the changes that
have been going on there and the challenges they are facing.
They have done an extraordinary job of being clear and crisp
and taking that plan and cascading it down through all of their
operations.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Metzger touched on that connecting to the
budgeting and actually having a plan. Anyone want to take a
shot at the worst?
Ms. Dalton. I don't think I want to take a shot at the
worst.
What we found was that all of them are improving. Some of
the better ones, I think, have been mentioned here. I would
also add the Department of Transportation into that category.
They initially were one of the leaders and have continued to be
a leader in strategic planning and overall performance planning
and management.
Mr. Mercer. I won't put this in the category of saying that
it is the worst because that implies that I looked at all of
them.
I will tell you one that was not very good and the reason I
am willing to tell you is that it was not very good until
recently when they hired me to help them improve it.
With that caveat, SBA did not have a very good plan, and
OMB told them that. And OMB was right. And they had to do a
performance plan based on it and integrate it with the budget.
In late summer, they scrambled to revise it, and it was a very
painful process, trying to do it very quickly and forcing them
really back to square one, trying to define the outcomes that
they actually do contribute to. Because an entity like SBA, you
can imagine the grandiose kind of rhetoric about how, ``We are
going to,'' and in truth forcing them through this discipline
saying, ``No, we don't really help all small businesses. We
help those that come to us and how do we know we are helping
them compared to the rest of them?''
Going through that and then devising strategies, now they
are significantly better. They still have a good ways to go.
They are working at it, and they know it and have made it a
priority. But I would say that as of earlier in the summer,
they did not a have very good plan.
Mr. Platts. And that is--given their mission of guiding
businesses, and if that agency doesn't do its own good
strategic plan, what example are they setting for the
businesses they are seeking to help, guide and develop?
Mr. Mercer. There is a certain irony in them telling
people, ``You ought to have a good business plan if you want to
succeed.''
But again, it's a problem that a lot of agencies have when
they sit down and just off the top of their head think, what
are we trying to accomplish? And the goals become very lofty
and you can imagine the soaring rhetoric. And then when you get
down to actually setting targets, it tends to be activity. So
when you say, wait a minute, you are doing a lot of activity,
but the goal, how do you measure that?
And in truth, sometimes you have to lower your goal to what
you really do have an impact on and not all small businesses,
because all small businesses do not come to SBA for help. And
how do you know which ones? And so you start developing
measures based on what percentage of startups and small
businesses under a certain size actually succeed 3 years later.
OK. We are going to say, ``Anyone who comes in the door that we
help ought to be able to beat that target,'' you know, things
like that.
Mr. Platts. Definitive analysis. And now that we know you
are on the hook of helping to refine their plan, we know their
next one will be in great shape.
Mr. Mercer. There is more work to be done.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Metzger.
Mr. Metzger. Just commenting on your initial query, any
department or agency undergoing change drastically, such as
Homeland Security, would be challenging for the planning
effort.
Those departments, such as Treasury or Transportation, who
have been downsized by sending components over to DHS, those,
too, are challenged by their planning efforts. So those will be
troublesome to do.
But as I suggested, referring to the results-oriented
culture aspect of things, what we see is where agencies enter
in and say, ``We want to engage our program managers along with
representatives of line offices or functional offices,'' and
they really go into it, because in the managers of program
case, they are getting scored on the PART process and that
engages them to a greater extent than ever before.
But it takes that kind of almost grassroots approach to say
where we are strategically, where are we going in our
milestones and targets to go toward that 5-year or in the NASA
case, 25-year horizon, and to work toward that and see it as a
total cultural change.
Mr. Platts. And I will turn to Mr. Towns.
That comment about grassroots is how I see the partnership
between PART and GPRA, going from that strategic long-term plan
and into the grassroots, how you are doing it and why they
complement each other well.
Mr. Towns.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Let me begin with you Ms. McGinnis. You said something I
thought was very interesting, the term of office should
coincide with that. Is the reason you wanted that to happen was
because of being sensitive to the political shifts, or is it a
better structure for the managerial priorities? I mean, that
point is not clear to me.
Ms. McGinnis. If we are talking about having goals and
priorities and measures that are connected to the budget and
reflect the overall policy priorities, I think it has to be
connected to the leadership of the executive branch of
Government.
And so having it on that 4-year cycle and requiring the
first plan--I mean, you give a year to make the transition,
establish the priorities, etc., but, yes, I think it is because
of this importance of connection to policymaking and budget,
absolutely, regardless of who is in office. This is not a
political statement. It is really just a statement of what good
strategic planning should look like.
Mr. DeMaio. And Mr. Towns, I would go a step further and
say that Congress needs that same right or opportunity to
engage, in that congressional committees should be looking and
scrutinizing individual program performance measures.
The question of what is a good strategic plan for an
agency, that is the 10,000-foot level. We don't authorize
agencies or departments. We authorize programs, and that is
where the PART really gets the measures down to a program
level.
We feel Congress should engage at the program level,
because it authorizes programs, and have the same sort of
opportunity to influence those plans.
GPRA doesn't take politics out of budgeting. It is an
inherently political process. The Federal budget process is
inherently political. It is not economic.
But with GPRA, we have an opportunity to insert performance
into that political process. And so whether it is the
administration having to basically come up with their policies
in that first year of the term and then measure it or Congress,
when it receives the measures, having to say, ``Yes, we accept
them and we will hold the administration accountable using this
measuring stick,'' or, ``We are going to refine it,'' both
branches must engage using their existing tools. And one is the
appointments process at the beginning, to do strategic
planning, and the other is right of review over agency program
budgets.
Mr. Breul. What has happened recently because of the
current statutory formulation, there is sort of a cicadian
rhythm to the strategic plans. They are required to be revised
at least every 3 years.
And so what happened most recently was that the deadline
fell with the fall of 2000 during a Presidential election, and
that caused career officials some anxiety. But there is always
suspicion by an incoming and outgoing administration that
somehow there is a little bit of tilt in the way the plan might
be structured.
So the wisdom that is prevailing at this point is that it
will be helpful to schedule those strategic plans at the
midpoint of a Presidential term so the new administration would
be in and have some familiarity with the programs and could do
a structuring of it and still have some opportunity to use that
plan before the next election. And it would take it outside the
immediate calendar years of a Presidential election.
Mr. Towns. I want to go to you.
Mr. Mercer. Since the issue of the timing of the strategic
plan cycle came up, Jonathan Breul just mentioned that the
planning ought to be mid-term. I would agree with that because
the legislation, Mr. Chairman, that you have developed, I
understand the concept.
And when the new administration comes in 1 year later after
they have been in for a number of months and a new plan is
developed, realistically, you don't get a lot of the people
appointed in that first year who are actually going to be the
political leadership who would have to sign off on these plans.
It may be that it should be after they have been in for 2
years because a lot of them will have been in just a year. And
once they come in, they are not going to want to be confirmed
and then a month later the plan is due and are they going to
sign off on it.
So we have to think about that. I don't know if it is 2
years or 1 year or something in between or 1 year but then some
flexibility. I still like the idea of a 5-year plan revised
every 4 years and somehow made consistent with the Presidential
election cycle so an administration comes in and can rightfully
feel that they can overhaul the plan and nobody is scrambling
at the end, shortly before a Presidential election to get a
strategic plan out the door. Working through the practicality
of it has to be worked on.
Mr. Towns. Ms. McGinnis, what role should OMB play in this,
if any?
Ms. McGinnis. In what?
Mr. Towns. In oversight of agencies in terms of the
planning. Should OMB play any kind of role in this at all in
terms of the coordinating?
Ms. McGinnis. I think so. I think I would point to the PART
process as an example of a very constructive role for OMB. OMB
traditionally--the budget side of OMB is the strong, powerful
side of OMB. To get budget examiners who are putting the budget
together, working with their agency counterparts and their
leaders in OMB to focus on management and performance requires
some process to do that, because they are not naturally going
to have the time or the information to do that.
So making this a routine way of thinking that you are
actually going to construct these budgets based in some part on
how the programs are doing, how much they are improving--and I
would say that the budget decisions are not all going to be to
punish programs that aren't, you know, aren't moving the needle
in the right direction and reward ones who are. It has to be
much more strategic and thoughtful if a program is intended for
a very purpose but it is not making a difference.
And I think that is true of a lot of our domestic programs,
to be honest. Then let's take a hard look at it. Let's try to
figure out what the right measures are and look at some long-
term evaluation and try to come up with some changes in that
program that might require some additional investment but that
will begin to show some results.
I think OMB has a big role to play in this. But the role of
OMB--and I think the PART changes the perspective of OMB--is
not to be the sort of green eye shades putting the budget
together and the agency to be feared throughout the Government,
but a constructive partner in trying to achieve a higher level
of performance. So I think this PART review is important, and
it should be integrated totally into the budget process.
Mr. Towns. Thank you.
I yield back.
Mr. Platts. As we look to strengthen as we go forward after
10 years, what do you think is going to be most helpful and
most critical as we go forward? Is it having a mandatory
Government-wide strategic plan as is suggested?
Is it continuing to enhance the education of the actual
managers and how to develop their GPRA plans and then use those
in their agencies?
Is it the PART process in that we make it statutory so the
managers know that more grassroots review is going to be
permanent as GPRA is?
Does one of those or something else jump out as the next
critical step as we try to enhance what GPRA is doing?
Mr. DeMaio. The overall issue is you will find that things
that are used will be improved.
If you use the performance information that is generated
under the Government Performance and Results Act, it will
improve. Managers will develop capacities. They will start
improving the way it is presented to Congress. They will start
using it to drive decisionmaking. You use it. That is No. 1.
And I think the PART has been a good tool in that it
stimulates OMB's use because you have to sit down before your
budget examiner at least once every 5 years, and you are going
to be asked questions. And it is on a program level. It is not
pie-in-the-sky GPRA strategic planning. It is on a program
level.
If Congress had a similar capacity, can you imagine if you
had something like a COPP office that you really did 20 percent
of its own programs based upon 5 percent from the majority and
minority in the House and 5 percent from the majority and
minority in the Senate. And they were doing 20 percent. They
were peer reviewing OMB's 20 percent which could be the
administration's priority programs.
You would have programs being used--that information would
be used on a quite regular basis. And they would recognize that
we better put our best foot forward and have answers to these
questions.
So your use is needed. Anything that facilitates
congressional use because certainly, as Pat had mentioned,
facilitates the budget side of OMB using performance
information. Anything that facilitates your use like a COPP
office or some sort of requirement that performance measures be
included in Appropriations Committee print or what-not, those
things would be very helpful in the next 10 years in improving
the quality of information.
Ms. Dalton. I would say that there are two things, and one
is following up on Carl's comments about the use of the
information. However, it may not be another level of review,
but how do you make the information that we have available more
useful to those people that need to use it?
Ms. McGinnis showed us the big fat books. We have a system
of performance information and we have a lot of information,
but how do we extract that information and put it into a form
that you as a Member of Congress can find useful for your
purposes, how agency managers can, how OMB can?
I think that it is really important to extract the
information, and present it in a way that is easy to use for
the users. The American public isn't going to look through that
thick book. They might look at a one-page summary or depiction
of agency performance.
The second thing that is needed is a Government-wide plan
or some other mechanism that cuts across our current
structures, whether it is the budget structures or the agency
structures. We have programs, for example, that are helping in
our education goals and all these programs are not in the
Education Department. They are in Agriculture. They are in
Labor. They are in Health and Human Services. So we need to
break down those barriers.
Mr. Keevey. The whole issue of cross-cut analysis is
important, lots of programs going toward the same outcomes
located in different areas that may be competing for resources
when one is more effective than the other.
Mr. Platts. Looking at economic development as one.
Mr. Keevey. I think that is more aptly done in a budget
analysis or program review or budgetary review process as
opposed to an overall strategic plan.
Second, there are lots of programs--and if I could pick one
for example, and that is the whole intergovernmental flow of
dollars, grant-in-aid programs, where it is very difficult to
measure the performance because most of the dollars are being
spent at a State level or a local level. The Federal Government
may be providing a large part of it or they may be providing a
small part of it, but there needs to be a better mechanism to
get information and common indicators.
We are structuring a panel next month to look at that. And
I was talking with the folks at the Education Department, and I
didn't realize this. They are actually going to each of the
education departments throughout the States and trying to
develop some common understanding and agreement on terms and
measurements so that when we put information out about the
performance of certain educational programs, they will have
good dialog and information arriving from the States. I think
that is one example where it is now difficult to measure the
performance of grant programs where we can make a lot of
improvements.
Third point, there is a lot of talk about the discretionary
programs. But I don't think the defense programs are exempt
from this kind of analysis also. We talk about the small pie,
needing more concentration to allocate resources from the
domestic programs, but the same rigor is applicable to the
defense expenditures, their half of the discretionary budget,
and need to be focused for the same kind of analysis.
Mr. DeMaio. Could I carry that on the entitlement?
Mr. Platts. Mr. Breul is next, and I am trying to go in
order as the individual has indicated by their interest.
Mr. Breul. I think we have to look at those products that
Pat McGinnis showed us and use them to understand that GPRA at
this point is a reporting exercise. People see it in terms of a
bound book, what I would call shelf work.
I have almost become famous in the Government Accounts
Association and the Mercatus Center, for a test I have been
using on the plans. They asked me to review many of them, and I
put them on a kitchen scale. Most weigh well over 3 pounds.
That is simply unacceptable. You have to get them down to a
much briefer and understandable fashion.
Mr. Platts. Which goes to the comment as far as it actually
being used and the likelihood of it being acted upon.
Mr. Breul. A printed document is not going to be used these
days. We have to force it into the way agencies conduct their
day-to-day management, personnel evaluations, the way
appropriations and authorization committees undertake their
work and make the data routinely available whether it is
through the Internet and other systems so it is available in
ways that are useful for folks in whatever their line of
business.
Ms. McGinnis. That is a hard question, because we have all
been trying to figure out where the leverage is. I agree that
if we could think of something that would incentivize the
appropriators to use this information, that would be my No. 1--
--
Mr. Platts. Mr. Towns and I would like to know what that
incentive is and encourage our colleagues to do that.
Ms. McGinnis. Here is what I would say if I could say one
thing: I like the idea of an annual Government-wide report that
doesn't just--in fact, it shouldn't be a published document.
Could be a dashboard or a Web application. But that should
include and should look more like a corporate annual report,
very small. It should include a critical few high-priority
goals and measures and the results of some rigorous evaluation.
If we had that every year, I think that discipline would
encourage managers, would encourage the kind of strategic
thinking and action that we are looking for around performance
in the executive branch and perhaps also in the Congress if the
public, if the constituents had access to such a usable set of
information.
And if it were a Web application, it could actually be
updated and people could always go and look and see how their
favorite--or how the things they are interested in are doing.
And in fact, you could imagine a Web application that could
allow people to tailor their own. They could decide what goals
and priorities they are interested in and build their own sort
of State of the Nation set of indicators and measures. I think
that would be very different than what we are doing now.
Mr. DeMaio. I wanted to clarify one thing, and it doesn't
link up to the appropriations issue. GPRA applies to all
programs except for, in a few small cases, for national
security. The important things that agencies have not gotten in
terms of measures on are the entitlement programs, and they
feel it is not their responsibility.
Like SSA, should we measure retirement security or should
we talk about how quickly we cut the check? Should we talk
about a strong agriculture system at FSA or how quickly we cut
the check?
And the question in my mind has always been, you are
administering the law. Part of your responsibility is telling
the Congress whether the law is having an impact in terms of
outcome. So it is all programs.
The reason why I focus on non-defense discretionary is
because that is where you get the appropriators. That is what
they are in charge of. Most of the Government's budget is on
auto pilot. In the defense area, we know armed services plays a
large role in where that money goes. So the appropriators' pot
is what I am trying to focus on in terms of helping them inform
their decisionmaking.
This year in the budget, we did something to drive some
sort of transparency in terms of how OMB is using it, and that
is, we took their rankings of failed programs versus good
programs. And we said, what was the increase that OMB
recommended or the President recommended for a good program
versus a bad program?
And you know what, there is correlation. As a taxpayer, I
am pleased with how they are using that to drive budget. Had
someone been able to create a similar structure where you take
the President's rankings or if we have a COPP system, the
Office of Program Performance, what rankings they came up with
and correlate it to spending levels as approved by the
appropriators, if you had the sort of public transparency and
if this report card was published every year when you got your
taxes and you could go online and look at how your Member of
Congress voted, I think you might see appropriators starting to
look at the performance goals and measures.
So you are not going to get some magic potion to finally
get those committees to say, ``Yes, we are going to go over to
House Government Reform, and we are going to talk to you about
how to do GPRA.'' What you do is engage the public, and that
pressure and that transparency drives behavior.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Towns, did you have other questions?
Mr. Towns. Back to you again, Ms. McGinnis. You mentioned
that we should use GPRA and PART in a complementary manner.
Could you go into that?
Ms. McGinnis. I think they do complement each other because
GPRA is creating the framework of a plan where you are setting
your goals and your priorities and your measures and then PART
provides the discipline in that framework to actually ask
managers to focus on what their measures are and how they are
doing on those measures and to integrate that into the budget
process. I think they are completely complementary.
Mr. Towns. Ms. Dalton, I want to hear from you on that.
Thank you, Ms. McGinnis.
Ms. Dalton. I would agree with Ms. McGinnis that they are
integrated in that GPRA provides the base performance
information and the PART process uses that information and
tries to make those links with performance in making resource
decisions.
PART is really a tool. It is a means, a mechanism, to use
the information that is generated through the whole performance
measurement GPRA process and translate it into some of the
decisionmaking processes in the executive branch. PART provides
a systematic look at the information and a targeted way to look
at information for decisionmaking.
Mr. Metzger. I just would like to make that emphasis on the
comment before. Early GPRA, one of our problems was engaging
managers of programs. I believe GPRA and PART are essential
together for that reason, that PART, being program specific,
engaged lower levels of the department or agency than typically
was true previously with the GPRA's strategic plans,
performance plans.
They seem to be more upper stratosphere by having the PART
or something similar in the future. To engage the managers of
programs, you get strength to the entire process.
I would like to second, also, Ms. McGinnis' point about the
Government-wide strategic plan and report. I believe it is very
helpful to any enterprise, be it private or public, to think
broadly about the enterprise as a whole, consider the various
components, functions, mission, etc., of that enterprise,
analyze those things but always thinking about the entire
organization, its strengths, weaknesses, so that you can
pinpoint exactly what has to be improved, maybe even fixed
because it is totally broken.
And with this kind of approach, that is why I suggested the
performance management maturity model consideration in that you
look at your components of what it takes to manage for results
through a system. You analyze what is preferred. You help
agencies target toward various levels of maturity, and in that
entire process, you are going to gain improvements. Just like
in the original question about what would be preferred as
changes, probably the best answer is all of those things have
to be attended to. And we have to prioritize them. But we have
to really address them all and consider them all in how the
Government as a whole operates so that we can improve its
parts.
Ms. McGinnis. Can I clarify one thing because--and this is
a bit of a difference. I would suggest an annual Government-
wide performance report, not necessarily the plan. And it is
sort of interesting, but--and I know the administration has
responded, saying that the budget is the plan.
I sort of like the idea of asking for a report if the plans
are there, if the budget is there. And on these critical few
priorities and measures, I think that is going to get us closer
to what we want in terms of public accountability than starting
with an elaborate government plan which I fear would look like
this or the budget document.
Ms. Dalton. I would just followup, where we have talked
about a Government-wide plan, that currently is required under
the Government Performance and Results Act. It has never been
fully implemented. It was produced one time in 1999 and
subsequently has been characterized that the plan has been the
budget.
The issue really is, the budget is structured by agency and
by account and doesn't integrate across these lines. Certainly,
Ms. McGinnis' idea of a performance report naturally would flow
from a plan. A report, on how we did has to be a part of the
whole process.
Mr. Keevey. I have a lot of sympathy for the approach or
the comments coming back from OMB. The Federal Government is a
very, very complex organization.
Mr. Towns. You are being kind.
Mr. Keevey. It does a lot of things. To suggest that we
could concentrate in a particular year on a priority or two and
focus on that, I think is difficult because the priority in one
person's mind is not a priority in the other person's mind.
So the organization is complex. There are elements in the
budget, albeit it has lots of volumes, there are components of
the budget that could be pulled together perhaps in a better
fashion and put out in a separate document that would hit the
areas we are talking about, that is, give the overall strategic
needs of the Government.
But to suggest that it could be compressed so as to focus
on certain priorities 1 year versus another year, I would argue
that may not do justice to what the Federal Government is all
about because it is so complex and has so many competing
priorities that you may want to be a little bit more cautious
about that.
Mr. Towns. Mr. Mercer.
Mr. Mercer. I share Mr. Keevey's concerns about trying to
do something on a Government-wide basis. It would either be a
massive document that nobody would use; or so generalized that
the information may not be useful; or so selective that it
would be political to make the administration look good,
picking and choosing specific indicators.
And we do get a lot of information that comes out about
where the Nation is, the health, education, at a large level
every year. I don't know to what extent something really large
would be useful. If it would be useful, then certainly.
There may be another approach, and I will offer it as a
suggestion. If you are asking what is it that the public would
be interested in, the public might be more interested in
knowing about specific programs or agencies that they relate
to, whether they are a veteran or somebody that is a community
service organization that is interested in housing or education
or whatever. And it is great to have these large documents.
Realistically, I think what you want is to make it easy for
the public to find pieces of information relating to programs
or agencies that they are interested in. And one way to do that
might be to include every year in the 1040 instructions that go
out, two or three pages that just lists Web sites. I know not
everybody has a computer or Internet service, but you can't
mail everybody lots of reports. So realistically, that approach
makes it easy for the public to see, at the time they are
sitting down to prepare their taxes, where they can look if
they are interested in a particular program, agency, to see
what they are getting for their money. And that is how you
would cast it.
You know, this is where you could go to--and if you are
interested in the National Park Service because you take your
kids every summer to the parks and you look down and see the
National Park Service Web site, and here is the link to the
plans.
You would have to make it easy. You would have to make it
easy for them to follow, but just knowing where we are going
with e-government and that sort of thing, I think a focus on
that--and the easy way to do it would be to print the list of
these sites in a document that everybody gets every year and
looks at when they are doing their taxes and says, here is
where you can look to see what you are getting for your money
in particular aspects that might be of interest to you. That is
a thought as to how to make the public connect to something
like this.
Mr. Towns. Good point. Thank you again.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Towns. Two other areas before we
wrap up.
Ms. Dalton, you talked about human resource management and
your perspective. If you want to expand on it and others as
well, on how developing strategic plans is actually being used
from human-resource management and matching, what are their
mission and goals and what are they supposed to be doing? How
are they actually filling their human capital needs in
achieving those goals?
Ms. Dalton. One of the things in developing a strategic
plan, the agencies need to and the Government needs to be
looking at is, how are we going to achieve our goals? And the
key is the people and having the right skills and mix.
As you are developing your goals, you need to be looking at
your people, the agency's people and saying, do I have the
right skills to achieve these goals? If not, what kind of
training do I need or how do I acquire that talent? And we need
to be looking at that.
There are a couple of things that can be done. Obviously,
training and development needs to be focused on. Clearly, we
need to look at how we translate the goals that are identified
at the organizational level down to the subcomponents and
ultimately down to the individual, a cascading of those goals
down so that each person can take ownership and say, I am
responsible for this, do I have the skills, do I have the
knowledge to do this or is there somebody around that can help
me accomplish these goals? There are a couple of things that
need to be done.
Mr. Platts. In your opinion, is that match occurring as the
norm or is it more the exception when we are really seeing the
use of strategic planning matching that with human resources?
And I use an example. Our next hearing is in a couple of
weeks with the SEC. As they are meeting the new challenges of
Sarbanes-Oxley and have a lot of positions they are filling,
their strategic plan is in the works, but it seems we are
getting the cart ahead of the horse. Is that common in
departments, in your opinion?
Ms. Dalton. I think it is common and probably more so in
departments that are undergoing change, because often, their
skill needs are going to be different. What they had and what
they need are going to be different. And there is going to have
to be a transition period.
What strategic planning does if you are doing it properly,
you look at your means and strategies. And it forces an agency
to focus on those resource issues and say, hey, do I have these
things needed to accomplish organizational goals; and if not,
what do I need to do to acquire them? What goes hand-in-hand
with a strategic plan for an organization is also a human
capital strategic plan to be sure that everything matches up.
So one of the things I would be looking at in the SEC is,
do they have a strategic plan? Do they have a human capital
strategic plan? Have those been integrated? And because they
are faced with challenges that need to be addressed now as
opposed to later, they may have to develop the plans
simultaneously. However, they need to be working in an
integrated fashion so that there is discussion from the various
groups and, often, overlap between the groups.
Mr. Breul. This is an important area, a linchpin to making
all this work. It is one we are just seeing progress on in
significant ways right now.
Senior executive standards for the SES have been locked in
with this expectation now, so there is a cycle of evaluations
that are actually starting to come through with performance
measures and strategic plans reflected in those SES standards.
The enactment of the Homeland Security Department and the
flexibilities given the Defense Department and NASA are based
on performance-based human-resource systems, and that will
begin to make adjustments that will make pay, recognition and a
whole bunch of factors performance-sensitive. And that
performance will tie back to the mission goals. So we are
beginning to see some very significant progress and activity in
this area.
Mr. Platts. Yes.
Mr. DeMaio. One of the items I testified before Chairwoman
Davis' Subcommittee on Civil Service was exactly on the need to
codify in statute the requirement that agencies develop a
human-capital plan. This Administration has made that an
initiative that each agency develop a strategic human-capital
plan, but that could go away if there is a new administration
or the current Administration decides to take it in a different
direction. So I think Congress could play a key role in
codifying that as a statute.
There are two agencies that I would point out besides NASA
that are doing a remarkable job in developing strategic human-
capital plans, and that is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
and the Internal Revenue Service, which has done a lot to match
its work force changes over a long period of time with
recruitment, retention and reward systems. So this committee
could look at those two as best-practice models.
Mr. Keevey. I agree that work force planning is critical,
performance measurements are critical and one has to press
forward with them.
On a day-to-day basis in running an organization in running
a governmental entity, things, however are pretty basic. You
have to reward the good people who are performing. You have to
have a system that can get people into the Government and
retain the people in the Government to give them worthwhile
jobs, proper management, proper training, proper pay. Nothing
has changed in the traditional way of managing a good
organization. They are a key strategy and puts the overall
emphasis on it.
From my years of experience, the weakness always comes back
to, you don't have the training for the people or a reward
system so that the high-performers are getting the rewards and
those people who are not performing are moved our of the
Government and moved into other organizations perhaps to where
their skills and talents better suit them. And that is the way
to make the Government perform better in my judgment.
Mr. Platts. The final question I have is on the PART
process and as we are looking at legislation to codify that
approach, not necessarily the PART itself but that type of
review. Is your opinion on the role of GAO and the IG--one of
the concerns raised--and while we acknowledge that politics is
part of the process here--but is there a role for GAO or the IG
community to, in essence, perform an oversight on a certain
percentage of each PART review that is done each year to kind
of look at what was done and the information that was gathered
and then the conclusions that were reached and then give an
opinion on that information? Is that redundant, or do you think
that would be helpful for GAO or IG's?
Ms. Dalton.
Ms. Dalton. As you know, Mr. Chairman, we did review the
whole PART process in 2004, the initial process. And that is a
role that we can continue to play in looking at the overall
process. One of the things that we looked at in our review is,
how is GAO's work reflected in the PART assessment? And I think
that could be a continuing role.
Ms. McGinnis. As part of our role, we produce an incredible
amount of work every year on a wide number of programs and
areas and how is that being reflected in the process. I think
that is how we can probably most efficiently use our resources.
Mr. Platts. Thus far, in your view, how has your
information been used in the 400 or so programs?
Ms. Dalton. In the review of the 2004 work, we saw it was
being reflected. In fact a GAO evaluation was considered one of
the evaluation tools that OMB expected to be reflected in the
PART assessments.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Breul.
Mr. Breul. Mr. Chairman, I come to this question having, to
up until 2 years ago, spent the last 20 years in the Office of
Management and Budget working on these matters. I think it
needs to be recognized that the resource allocation process is
inherently political. There are priorities and policies
reflected there, and there are judgments of every kind of
personal and political nature. Indeed, a President ought to
have the prerogative, as the Budget and Accounting Act lays
out, to put together the budget he or she feels is appropriate
for the Nation and the program put forward.
That said, the Constitution is very clear that the
President proposes, and it is the Congress that actually
disposes and enacts appropriations. So there is a very open and
clear give-and-take. I don't think it would be appropriate,
however, to get the GAO or the IGs involved in sort of the mosh
pit of the budget process within the President's
decisionmaking, particularly given the fact that it is all laid
out as clearly as it is on CD-ROMs, published materials and the
rest, with all the frameworks that have been used to evaluate
these programs. The judgments and scores and justifications
have made it about as transparent as it has ever been, and I
think that is to the good. But, again, to put the GAO in the
midst of that would be an awkward matter for both parties.
Once the budget is out, it is fair game for the public and
everybody to see what has been proposed and to make their own
judgments as well.
Mr. Platts. Mr. DeMaio.
Mr. DeMaio. With the COPP proposal, we believe Congress
should do a review, and we decided not to propose GAO as the
agency to do this. GAO and IGs are inputs into the PART
process. The evaluations that they conduct can be used. PART is
not an evaluation. It summarizes what we do and do not know
about a program's performance. Just like when OMB publishes its
revenue estimates or its cost estimates, CBO peer reviews that
and publishes sometimes a contrary revenue or cost estimate.
Congress desperately needs the capacity to have its own shop
that says here is what we do or do not know about the
performance of this program, and we disagree with the
administration or we concur.
I would say a COPP office, something like it that could be
overseen by this committee and the Budget Committee, and maybe
there is a role for appropriations there, to look at what do we
know and not know, and maybe GAO and IG reports are input that
office looks at, amongst other peer-reviewed and other third-
party evaluations, but PART is not an evaluation in and of
itself. PART is a framework for sorting through all of the tons
of information, and Congress and committees want that. They are
not at a lack for information, they are at a lack for quality
information to drive decisions.
Mr. Keevey. Just an observation. The budget is one thing
and the appropriation acts are something else. The gap between
what the President proposes based upon program analysis by OMB,
PART analysis--not that there is not political judgment there--
then it gets into the congressional arena where we have a
combination and more information on programs is important. So
if you use the data, for example, that OMB has put together and
then add the political judgment to it, I think that is where it
comes together. I don't think you necessarily need another
entity to critique in some detail a PART analysis or the
analysis that comes through in the budget, but to take that
information, weigh it, bring it together with your
congressional oversight and come out with an appropriation act.
I would be curious to see what the big gap is between what
the budget is proposing and what ultimately gets factored into
the appropriation act. There may be some gaps as you go through
it.
Mr. Mercer. With respect to the IGs, I don't know what
their thinking would be today. My only clue was what their
thinking was several years ago when I worked with a lot of them
when I was with the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
From what I recall, this is not at all the kind of thing
that the IGs would welcome, looking at the credibility of a
process within OMB. We had a hard time getting them interested
in looking at management kinds of issues. They did not want to
be seen as rendering management-related advice to the agencies.
They basically wanted to look for problems and blow the whistle
and yell foul. It was really pulling teeth.
I can remember the meeting where the chairman of the
committee at that time, Senator Glenn, got a politely hostile
reaction from a room full of IGs when he told them he would be
expecting them to look at the agency's management systems and
advising them how to improve it.
That may have changed since then, but I would think about
the best I could comfortably ask IGs to do would be to go in
and audit the performance information. That is a huge role for
them. They do financial audits; but performance audits,
verifying the actual results, outputs, activities and outcomes
that are reported by the agencies agency-wide is a huge task.
And if we are going to ask people to use this information, the
reported results have to be credible, especially if you want to
get it to managers throughout the year to actually manage for
results. That is a huge task. Since it is internal to the
agency, they are probably more comfortable doing something like
that.
Mr. Platts. So if the IG is involved, it is a straight
objective review.
Mr. Mercer. Right; and something internal to the agency,
not I am going to evaluate the process at OMB and its
credibility of the review there. I don't think that is
something that they would welcome.
Mr. Platts. Given that the IG budgets remain part of that
department's or agency's decisionmaking process and they are
not independent, that complicates their challenge.
Mr. Metzger.
Mr. Metzger. The IGs are, through their semiannual reports,
are being engaged in analyzing performance aspects of their
agencies today.
Mr. Platts. Mr. Towns, did you have any other questions?
Mr. Towns. I have one last question for Ms. Dalton. If GPRA
or PART is used to grade programs without the constructive
involvement of the Congress and other stakeholders, they might
easily be used as a partisan tool to accomplish ideological
objectives. Is there any way we can avoid this?
Ms. Dalton. If strategic planning and GPRA are used
properly, it requires the engagement of Congress and all
stakeholders. What an agency is doing has to reflect not only
the desires of the executive branch, but also what its
oversight committees, its authorizing committees, want it to do
and where those priorities should be reflected. So, yes,
Congress has to be and should be engaged in the process to
really reach its full potential.
I think we have some engagement in some areas. We certainly
have a lot of areas where we need to improve that engagement.
One of the things that we have recommended in our report on the
strategic plans that the agencies are developing is, as Ms.
McGinnis also recommended, that the planning cycle be more in
line with the Presidential term so a new strategic plan would
be issued 12-18 months after the new President comes in.
However, we also say that the agencies need to consult with
the Congress at the beginning of each congressional term,
because it is very important that congressional views be
reflected in agency strategic planning and subsequently in
their performance planning.
Mr. Towns. Mr. DeMaio, do you have any comments on that.
Mr. DeMaio. Our proposal to engage Congress through a COPP
would allow the minority of the Senate and the House to provide
a list of programs that they would like the COPP office to
review. And they could also flag programs that they think OMB
has not reviewed appropriately and ask for an independent
evaluation.
The other thing is to highlight what Jonathan noted, the
PART is transparent. If you disagree with a score, you can go
back and see it is evidenced based. If you say no, they do not
have a good mission statement, if OMB's examiner says no, they
do not have a good mission statement based on statute, they
have to attach the mission statement. We encourage the public
to review these PARTs. We have even created a Web site,
www.transparentgovernment.org, where they can download their
own version of the PART and look at the program of their
choice.
But Congress would have, as part of the COPP office, the
ability to do this more routinely. It has capacity, and I would
suggest that the minority in both Chambers and the majority in
both Chambers be allowed equal representation in terms of what
programs to evaluate.
Mr. Towns. Thank you, and I yield back.
Mr. Platts. Thank you, Mr. Towns.
I thank each of you for your participation here today. You
bring a wealth of knowledge to this issue. As we go forward the
rest of this year and the years to come with our oversight
responsibilities with GPRA, and if we are successful in
enacting legislation regarding PART or a variation of that, we
will continue to look to each of you for your expertise as to
what we are doing right and what we are doing wrong and how we
can continue to partner with the executive branch and the
private sector and, in the end, have good results for all
American taxpayers for funds they are sending this way.
I would also like to thank the staff on both sides for the
hearing, and especially Dan Daly, counsel. This is his last day
officially with our subcommittee. He is moving over to Chairman
Putnam's Technology Subcommittee, so he is not moving
physically very far, through the wall from where our office is.
Dan has been great for the last 15 months. As I came in as the
new chairman, he provided great counsel to the committee, and
to Chairman Horn prior to his retirement. We wish you well in
your new position. Because you will not be too far, I am sure
we will continue to pick your brain in the months to come.
Mr. Towns. I would like to associate myself with the
remarks made. We have enjoyed working with you, Dan, and wish
you the best in your new assignment.
Mr. Platts. We will hold the record open for 2 weeks for
any additional information that you want to submit, and I once
again thank everybody for their participation. This hearing
stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5196.089