97-1028: Government Performance and Results Act:
Implementation and Issues of Possible Concern, 106th Congress

Genevieve J. Knezo

Specialist in Science and Technology
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Updated March 30, 1999

Background. The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, P.L. 103-62, also called "the Results Act," and GPRA, encourages greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in federal spending, and requires agencies to set goals and to use performance measures for management and, ultimately, for budgeting.~~ To give federal agencies time to develop implementation procedures, Congress phased in the law over a 7-year period and required pilot projects (see the attached timetable). The Office of Management and Budget (0MB) established interagency groups to share information and has modified Circular A-i i to require agencies to accelerate using performance measures in budgets and to give agencies precise instructions about developing strategic plans and performance plans. (The latest Circular A-il is dated July 1, 1998.) OMB's report to Congress on implementation of the pilot projects did not recommend any changes to the statute.~ In June 1997, the General Accounting Office (GAO) reported to Congress on agency readiness for full-scale implementation beyond the pilot project phase.~~ It concluded that federal agencies' implementation activities varied in quality, utility, and responsiveness to the law, but that it was possible for agencies to make improvements.

Agencies developed strategic plans in consultation with stakeholders and Congress. Final strategic plans

(1) a comprehensive mission statement...; (2) general goals and objectives... for the major functions and operations of the agency; (3) a description of how the goals and objectives are to be achieved, including... the operational processes, skills and technology, and the human, capital, information, ... resources; (4) a description of how the performance goals... shall be related to the general goals ...; (5) an identification of those key factors external to the agency and beyond its control that could significantly affect the achievement of the general goals and objectives; and (6) a description of the program evaluations used in establishing or revising general goals and objectives, with a schedule for future program evaluations.

 

Early in the 105th Congress, the House majority leadership created a team to help Congress interact with the agencies to implement the law, with oversight by the chairmen of the Appropriations Committee, the Budget Committee, and the Government Reform and Oversight Committee. Staff from those committees have met regularly with the 24 bicameral and bipartisan agency-specific congressional staff teams that were formed to consult with agencies and to review their strategic and performance plans and related activities. In response to P.L. 103-62, GAO has produced reports and testimony that deal with guidance to agencies about implementation, guidance to congressional staff about assessing agency implementation, specific reports on funding and research assessment, analyses of agencies' strategic plans and performance plans, and guidance about assessing performance plans.~

The law required agencies to transmit to 0MB annual plans and performance goals, beginning with the FYi 999 budget. 0MB submitted a government-wide performance plan to Congress as part of the FYi 999 budget; subsequently, annual agency performance plans have been delivered. In March 2000, agencies will provide Congress with performance reports comparing actual performance to goals. In March 2001, 0MB is supposed to report on the results of performance budgeting pilots and recommend whether or not performance budgets should be required statutorily. In May 1997, 0MB told Congress that it would postpone the performance budgeting pilots from the FYi 998 budget to begin with the FYi 999 budget because agencies were focusing on strategic and performance plans and their cost-accounting Systems were inadequate. However, as of March 1999, 0MB had not identified any agencies for performance budgeting pilots and appears unlikely to do so soon, even though 0MB had changed the reporting schedule so "the required alternative budget presentation on performance budgeting would... appear in the FY2OOO President's budget, rather than the FYi 999 budget. ~~L)5 This may raise serious questions about the feasibility of performance budgeting.

During the 1 04th and 105th Congresses, several committees held hearings dealing with implementation issues or with particular agencies' implementation of GPRA. House Majority Leader Armey testified before the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight on October 30, 1997, that at least 23 hearings were held on the Results Act since February 1997. The Chief Financial Officers Council,~~~ the National Academy of Public Administration, and the Congressional Institute~~ produced guidance and initiated congressional and executive branch staff training programs. The Office of Personnel Management has a "GPRA Interest Group," with a website on performance management.~~

The joint House/Senate majority leadership issued an interim report in September 1997 that assessed the quality of federal agencies' drafi strategic plans.~~ The ratings, averaging 29.9 out of a possible 100, indicated that most did not meet the six basic statutory requirements. (10) In November, the congressional majority leadership released a report evaluating the final strategic plans (The Results Act: It's the Law; the November 1997 Report)(11) It concluded that most agencies had improved their strategic plans, with reports receiving an average grade of 46 and ranging from 28 to 75. All plans were evaluated as being minimally compliant with the Results Act, although some "just barely comply." Problems included agency data systems that were inadequate for evaluating outputs and outcomes, incomplete statements of resources and strategies needed to achieve goals, and insufficient coordination with other agencies engaged in similar work. GAO's "capping" report on strategic plans said they "appear to provide a workable foundation..." but "continued progress is needed in how agencies. ..set... a strategic direction, coordinat[e]. . .crosscuffing programs, and ensur[eJ. . .the capacity to gather and use performance and cost data. ~~(12) The chairmen of several House committees wrote to 0MB requesting that agencies link FYi 999 budget requests to the goals the agencies had identified in their strategic plans.~~3~

Potential Issues of Concern. Legislation was introduced in the 105th Congress to change the GPRA framework established in 1993. H.R. 2883, passed by the House in 1998, would have amended the Results Act by requiring submission of an annual integrated governmental performance plan and another set of agency strategic plans by September 1998. Goals would have been linked to legal and statutory authorities; departments were to submit separate plans for component agencies; the plan was to describe efforts to solve major management problems, coordination activities, the full costs of programs covered by GPRA performance standards, and selective Inspector General audits of performance data. The bill, which the Administration opposed, would have required the Council on Environmental Quality to comply with the Results Act.~14~ S. 261, in the iosth Congress, and the current bill, S. 92, the Biennial Budgeting and Appropriations Act, would change to a biennial basis specified requirements for GPRA-related strategic and performance reports to coincide with a proposed biennial budget (S.Rept. 106-12). S. 296, the Federal Research Investment Act, permits the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and 0MB to fund a National Academy of Sciences' study to recommend processes for performance reporting for research and development (R&D), institutes special requirements for R&D performance reporting, and institutes procedures to terminate R&D programs rated unsuccessful using "Results Act"procedures. (S. 2217, with this same language passed the Senate in 1998; the House companion was H.R. 4514.). The provision allowing an NAS study, but without a specific appropriation of funds, was enacted as part of P.L. 105-276. (The NAS published a study in 1999, Evaluating Federal Research Programs, that recommends general guidelines to evaluate federal basic and applied research. During both the 1 04~ and 105th Congresses, authorization and appropriations committees called for appropriate agency implementation of GPRA overall or in regard to developing adequate performance measures for specific programs. The 105th Congress included performance measures provisions and requirements in at least 45 public laws (counting the nine component bills of P.L. 105-277 as separate measures) and in at least 78 legislative reports.(15)

Some believe that GPRA is being perceived improperly as a threat to "downsize government,II(16) and that it should be viewed instead as a tool to increase performance and accountability.~ The November 1997 majority leadership report recommended that congressional committees should focus more on the policy goals in the plans and take the following steps to ensure full compliance with the Results Act:

- view the submission of inadequate strategic plans... as an invitation to clarify that agency's mission and goals through reauthorizations, funding and legislative efforts;... engage in a committee-by-committee effort to determine whether the identified goals are the appropriate function of that agency, or of the federal government...; focus on some priority areas to seek improvements... expeditiously..., i.e. fighting a more effective war on illegal drugs, reforming the IRS, addressing the 25 GAO high risk areas for programs most apt to be vulnerable to waste, fraud and abuse...; insert increasing numbers of performance-based measurements in their legislative efforts; and anticipate upcoming financial audit reports as required by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990... and be prepared to actively demand better performance from agencies that fail their financial audits.(18)

Congressional expectations for performance plans were outlined in ajoint House/Senate majority leadership letter to 0MB, December 17, 1997.(19) Considerable attention during 1998 was directed to the content and quality of the agency performance plans. Congressional oversight teams, using criteria developed by GAO and the leadership, rated the initial performance plans for FYI 999 and, in June 1998, the House majority leadership issued a report rating and critiquing the plans. It concluded that the plans were "disappointing" and that the strategic plans did not lay a good foundation for performance plans; agencies did not deal with major management problems, lacked reliable data to verify and validate performance, and ofien did not give results-oriented performance measures; many performance measures were not linked to day-to-day activities; and agencies did not coordinate plans for similar activities. Effective implementation, it said, requires a "culture change"; congressional oversight must continue and executive branch leadership, specifically by 0MB, was crucial. House commiffee chairmen sent a letter to 0MB with recommendations for corrective action. (20) GAO assessed individual performance plans and produced several "capping" reports, one on the government-wide plan and the other on agency plans.(21)

In the l06th Congress attention could continue to be directed to the policy content of goals and measures and to examination of the use of performance goals and measures in budget, authorization, and appropriations activities. Congress could examine whether 0MB initiates the delayed performance budgeting pilot projects and the implications of not conducting pilots and whether agencies develop cost accounting systems that might be needed to ensure development of a foundation for performance budgeting. Other concerns include the costs and benefits of performance measurement systems; OMB policies about acceptable performance measurements; efforts to link Results Act implementation to everyday work of program managers; and steps that agencies could take to improve cross-agency coordination and utilization of "common" performance measures for similar functions.

Timetable for Implementation of GPRA

Inception of Pilot Projects--October 1993. At least ten agencies were to be designated as pilot projects for performance plans and reports (FY1994, 1995, and 1996). Twenty-one agencies and 53 programs were picked as first-round pilots. Six more agencies and 18 programs were picked in a second round. Atter more changes beginning in January 1995, there were 75 ongoing pilot projects as of June 1995. Agencies doing pilot projects also developed performance plans for FYi 995. FYi 996 plans were due April 14, 1995. The last event in the performance pilot project phase -- submission to 0MB of program performance reports for FYi 996-- was due by March 31,1997.

Managerial Waiver Pilots--October 1994. At least five agencies (selected from those with ongoing pilots) were to be designated as pilot projects for managerial accountability and flexibility waivers (FYi 995 and 1996). 0MB says that those will not be conducted, since management changes have been made already, precluding testing of waivers.

OMB Report--May 1, 1997.0MB reported to the President and Congress on the results of the pilot projects; it did not recommend changes in the law.

GAO Report--June 1, 1997. GAO reported on agency readiness to begin full implementation.

Performance Plans to OMB--September 1997. Agencies were to provide 0MB with annual plans setting performance goals for FYI 999, to be linked to strategic goals and, with some exceptions, are to be expressed in an "objective, quantifiable, and measurable" form. (Thereafter, submissions are to recur for each fiscal year.)

Strategic Plans--September 30, 1997. Each agency was to have completed a 5-year strategic plan and

submitted it to 0MB and Congress. Such plans required consultation with Congress and consideration of stakeholders' views and are to be updated at least every 3 years.

Performance Budgeting Pilots--October 1997. At least five agencies were to be designated as performance budgeting pilots for FY1998 and FY1999; agencies are to present the different levels of performance that would result from different budgeted amounts. OMB wrote a letter to Congress in May 1997 requesting postponement so that the performance budgeting pilots would begin in FY1999 for FY1999 and FY2000. As of March 1999, OMB has not named any agencies to conduct performance budgeting pilot projects, raising questions about the feasibility of performance budgeting.

 

Performance Plans--February 1998. OMB submitted to Congress a federal government-wide performance plan (based on agency plans) as part of the President's FY1999 budget. This is to recur for each fiscal year thereafter. Most agencies provided Congress and the public with copies of their annual performance plans after the government-wide performance plan was presented.

 

Performance Reports--March 31, 2000. Agencies are to submit annual performance reports for FY1999 to the President and Congress. These are to compare actual performance with stated goals, to explain why performance goals were not met, and to give future plans and a schedule for meeting each goal. The submission is to recur for each fiscal year thereafter. Performance data for FY1999 are to be included. For each subsequent year, agencies are to include performance data for the year covered by the report and the three preceding years.

 

OMB Recommendation on Performance Budgeting -- March 2001 OMB is to report to the President and Congress on the results of all the performance budgeting pilots and is to recommend whether or not performance budgeting should be required and if changes are recommended for the GPRA statute.

 

Footnotes

1. (back)See CRS Report 97-70, Government Performance and Results Act, P.L. 103-62 Implementation Through Fall 1996 and Issues for the 105th Congress, by Genevieve J. Knezo; and CRS Report 97-382, Government Performance and Results Act.' Implications for Congressional Oversight, by Frederick M. Kaiser and Virginia A. McMurtry.

2. (back)Office of Management and Budget, The Government Performance and Results Act, Report to the President and the Congress From the Director of the Office ofManagement and Budget, Washington, 19 May 1997, 31 pp., plus attachments.

3. (back) General Accounting Office, ihe Government Performance and Results Act, 1997 Government-wide Implementation Will Be Uneven, Report to Congressional Committees, June 1997, GAO/GGD-97-109, 115 pp.

4. (back) See GAO's webpage http://www.gao.gov .

5. (back) Letter from Franklin D. Raines, Director, 0MB, to The Honorable Fred Thompson, Chairman, Committee on Government Affairs, U.S. Senate, 20 May 1997.

6. (back) Available at http://i,ula. financenet. ~ov: 80/financenet/fed/cfo/~pra/~nra. htm.

7 CRS Product: Government Performance and Related Issues of Possible Concern)

8. (back~Available at [http>//www. opm. gov/perform].

9 (back)House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Towards a Smaller, Smarter; Common Sense Government: Results Act; It Mailers Now: An Interim Report; Issued by House Majority Leader Dick Armey; Senator Larry Craig, Chairman, Senate Republican Policy Committee; and Chairman Dan Burton, September 1997, 16 pp.

10. (hack)Some say the plans were unfairly judged on factors not required in the law. In the report, Members and congressional staff rated plans on 10 factors. Factors 8 and 9 were not specifically mentioned in the law or 0MB circular, but appear to have been included based on GAO and majority leadership interpretation. Factors included "(1) Mission statement, (2) general (strategic) goals and objectives, (3) strategies to achieve general goals and objectives, (4) relationship between general goals and annual performance goals, (5) external factors, (6) program evaluations, (7)... coordination of cross-cutting functions, (8) data capacity, 9)... major management problems/high-risk areas, and (10) congressional and stakeholder consultations.

11. (back)Issued by House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Senator Larry Craig, Chairman, Senate Republican Policy Committee, Chairman Dan Burton, House Government Reform and Oversight Committee, Chairman Bob Livingston, House Appropriations Committee, and Chairman John Kasich, House Budget Committee, available at http://freedom,house.gov/results .

12. (back)GAO, Managing for Results Agencies'Annual Perjormance Plans Can Help Address Strategic Planning Challenges, GAO/GGD-98-44, January 1998, 3.

13. (back)House Science Committee, Agencies Told to Link Budget Requests to Goals, Press release, 14 November 1997.

14. (back)See Government Performance and Results Act: Proposed Amendments, by Frederic A. Kaiser and Virginia McMurtry, CRS Report 98-224 G, 17 March 1998, 6 p.

15. (back)See CRS Report 97-1059, Government Performance and Results Act: Performance-related Requirements Included in Laws and in Committee Report Language During the 104th Congress, by Genevieve J. Knezo and William Heniff~ and Genevieve J. Knezo and Virginia A. McMurtry, "Performance Measures Provisions in the 105th Congress," January 7, 1999, 49 p. (CRS general distribution memo). Available from the House Committee on Government Reform at http://w'vw.house.~ov/reform/~ress/99 Ol 5.htm and on the home page of the House Majority Leader at http :1/freedom. house. gov/results/releases/pr990 I Os. asp.

16. ~ack)See for instance reports by Angela Antonelli linking poor GPRA performance to proposals to abolish the Departments of Commerce and Energy, at [www://heritage. org/heritage/I ibrary/backgrounder/J.

17. (back)See for instance: Patrick Lester, "Armey Blasts Agency Results Act Implementation: Kasich Says Agency Budgets Will Be Cut," 0MB Watch, 5 November 1997.

CRS Product: Government Performance and Related Areas of Possible Concern, I

19. (back)Signed by Reps. Armey, Livingston, Kasich and Burton, and Senators Craig, Stevens, Domenici, and Thompson. Available at http ://freedom. house. ~ov/results/rain es/asp.

20. (back~The report is Towards a Smaller; Smarter; Common Sense Government: Seeking Honest Infotination for Better Decisions, Agency Perforn~ance Plans, June 1998. The letter was dated June 9, 1998. Both are available at http://freedom.house.gov/results .

21. (back)For individual plans see: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/gpra/gpra.htm. The published GAQ reports are: Managingfor Results: An Agenda To Improve the Usefulness ofAgencies'Annual Performance Plans, GGD/AIMD-98-228, 8 September 1998, 39 pp. plus appendices, The Results Act: Assessment of the Government wide Performance Plan for Fiscal Year 1999, AIMD/GGD 98-159, 8 September 1998, 31 pp. plus appendices, and Agency Performance Plans: Examples of Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers, GAO/GGD/AIM)-99-69, Feb.26, 1999.