Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist Congressional and Executive Branch Decisionmaking

Published by the Government Accountability Office on 1997-02-12.

Below is a raw (and likely hideous) rendition of the original report. (PDF)

                          United States General Accounting Office

GAO                       Testimony
                          Before the Committee on Government Reform and
                          House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery
Expected at
10:00 a.m., EST
                          MANAGING FOR RESULTS
February 12, 1997

                          Using GPRA to Assist
                          Congressional and
                          Executive Branch
                          Statement of James F. Hinchman
                          Acting Comptroller General of the United States


Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Congressional and Executive Branch
               Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

               I am pleased to be here today to discuss how Congress can use the
               Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) as it seeks to reduce the
               cost and improve the performance of the federal government. There is a
               broad consensus within the federal government, and among students of its
               institutions, that part of the solution to the federal government’s fiscal
               problems must be better management of its programs and activities. The
               American people also are rightly demanding that government operate in a
               more efficient and businesslike manner. However, improving management
               in the federal sector will be no easy task, but GPRA can assist in
               accomplishing it.

               As its title indicates, GPRA’s focus is on results. In crafting GPRA, Congress
               recognized that congressional and executive branch decisionmaking had
               been severely handicapped by the absence in many agencies of the basic
               underpinnings of well-managed organizations. Our work has found
               numerous examples of management-related challenges stemming from
               unclear agency missions; the lack of results-oriented performance goals;
               the absence of well-conceived agency strategies to meet those goals; and
               the failure to gather and use accurate, reliable, and timely program
               performance and cost information to measure progress in achieving

               In recent years, Congress has put in place a statutory framework for
               addressing these long-standing challenges and helping Congress and the
               executive branch make the difficult trade-offs that the current budget
               environment demands. This framework includes as its essential elements
               the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act; information technology reform
               legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and the
               Clinger-Cohen Act; and GPRA. The CFO Act, as expanded and amended by
               the Government Management Reform Act (GMRA), spelled out an ambitious
               and long overdue agenda to address the lack of timely, reliable, useful, and
               consistent financial information in the federal government. The
               information technology reform legislation is directed at more effective
               management and use of information technology to better support
               agencies’ missions and improve program performance. GPRA—with its
               focus on clarifying missions, setting programmatic goals, and measuring
               performance towards those goals—is the centerpiece of this statutory

               Page 1                                                          GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Congressional and Executive Branch

In enacting this framework, Congress was seeking to create a more
focused, results-oriented management decisionmaking process within
both Congress and the executive branch. These laws each responded to a
need for accurate, reliable information for executive branch and
congressional decisionmaking, information that has been sadly lacking in
the past, as much of our work has demonstrated. Implemented together,
these laws provide a powerful framework for developing fully integrated
information about agencies’ missions and strategic priorities,
results-oriented performance goals that flow from those priorities,
performance data to show the achievement (or not) of those goals, the
relationship of information technology investments to the achievement of
performance goals, and accurate and audited financial information about
the costs of achieving mission outcomes.

As agreed with the Committee, today I will provide an overview of the
major management challenges that our work has shown agencies face. I
will then discuss how GPRA can be used to address those challenges and
better ensure that agencies are the focused, results-driven organizations
that today’s fiscal environment requires. I will conclude with some
suggestions for Congress to consider about how it can use GPRA to enhance
congressional oversight and decisionmaking. My statement is based on a
large body of work we have done on management and operational issues
across agencies and levels of government.1 This work includes our
Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
and Results Act, which draws on the experiences of leading public sector
organizations and suggests a path that agencies can take to implement
GPRA.2 My statement is also based on the work we are completing to meet
the requirement in GPRA that we report by June 1 of this year on the act’s
implementation and prospects for governmentwide compliance.

GPRA  seeks to shift the focus of federal management and decisionmaking
from a preoccupation with the number of tasks completed or services
provided to a more direct consideration of the results of programs—that
is, the real differences the tasks or services provided make in people’s
lives. As a starting point, GPRA requires executive agencies to
complete—no later than September 30 of this year—strategic plans in
which they define their missions, establish results-oriented goals, and
identify the strategies they will use to achieve those goals. GPRA requires

 Some of these products, along with other relevant GAO work, are listed in the “Related GAO
Products” section at the end of this statement.
 Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act
(GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

Page 2                                                                           GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                        Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                        Congressional and Executive Branch

                        agencies to consult with Congress and solicit the input of others as they
                        develop these plans. Next, beginning with fiscal year 1999, executive
                        agencies are to use their strategic plans to prepare annual performance
                        plans. These performance plans are to include annual goals linked to the
                        activities displayed in budget presentations as well as the indicators the
                        agency will use to measure performance against the results-oriented goals.
                        Agencies are subsequently to report each year on the extent to which
                        goals were met, provide an explanation if these goals were not met, and
                        present the actions needed to meet any unmet goals.

                        Under GPRA, virtually every executive agency must now ask itself some
Federal Effectiveness   basic questions: What is our mission? What are our goals, and how can we
Has Been Undermined     measure our performance? How will we achieve those goals? How will we
by Major Management     use performance information to make improvements? The questions that
                        must be addressed to implement GPRA are directly related to the most
Challenges              pressing management challenges that we have identified through our
                        work. These long-standing management challenges must be successfully
                        addressed if the federal government is to become more effective and
                        better managed.

Clarifying the Agency   Efforts to build an effective and efficient organization must begin with a
Mission                 clearly defined mission—a concrete sense of why the organization exists
                        and what it is to accomplish. Over the years, our work has identified
                        instances where an agency’s effectiveness was hampered by the lack of a
                        clearly defined mission.

                        For example, our work has shown that the Department of Energy (DOE)
                        needs to reevaluate its basic mission.3 DOE’s responsibilities and priorities
                        have changed dramatically over time. The DOE of today is a very different
                        organization from what it was in 1977 when as a newly created agency, its
                        mission was to respond to a perceived national energy crisis. Thus, while
                        energy research, conservation, and policymaking dominated early DOE
                        priorities, national defense and environmental cleanup now overshadow
                        those areas. Meanwhile, new mission areas in science and industrial
                        competitiveness have emerged and are pressing for priority attention. With
                        each new phase, DOE leadership brought a vastly different agenda
                        concerning DOE’s basic responsibilities and how the agency should be
                        managed. These shifts have contributed to uneven performance in many

                         Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges In Implementing GPRA In Science Agencies
                        (GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).

                        Page 3                                                                        GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                    Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                    Congressional and Executive Branch

                    mission areas. For example, during the time that DOE emphasized nuclear
                    weapons production, it gave little attention to the environmental
                    consequences. In part as a result, environmental cleanup will now cost
                    between $189 and $265 billion by DOE’s estimate.

                    DOE  is undertaking strategic planning efforts intended, among other things,
                    to ensure that it is identifying and addressing its critical mission areas and
                    setting priorities for its efforts. Sustained congressional involvement in
                    DOE’s planning efforts, and in the similar efforts under way at other
                    agencies, is vital both to ensure that missions are based in statute and to
                    identify cases where statutory requirements need to be modified or

                    While progress is needed in better defining the missions of individual
                    agencies, it is equally important to manage and coordinate federal program
                    efforts that cut across several agencies. Our work has shown that program
                    area after program area—such as federal land management, food safety,
                    and early childhood development—suffers from fragmented and
                    overlapping initiatives.4 Such unfocused efforts waste scarce funds,
                    confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall
                    effectiveness of the federal effort. As Congress provides input to agencies’
                    strategic plans, it can insist that agencies show how their programs are
                    aligned with related efforts in other agencies. Congress can also use the
                    planning process to seek opportunities to streamline government by
                    comparing the effectiveness of similar program efforts carried out by
                    different agencies.

Establishing        As successful organizations define their missions, they also establish
Results-Oriented    results-oriented performance goals that can be used to assess whether
Performance Goals   they are fulfilling their missions. We are finding that many agencies have a
                    difficult time moving from measuring program activities to establishing
                    results-oriented goals and managing to achieve those results.

                    The Small Business Administration (SBA) offers an example of goal-setting
                    and performance measurement efforts that could be better focused on
                    mission. SBA was created to help small businesses and strengthen the
                    overall economy by increasing business and job opportunities. However, it
                    had no results-oriented performance goals for its section 8(a) Minority

                     See, for example, Federal Land Management: Streamlining and Reorganization Issues
                    (GAO/T-RCED-96-209, June 27, 1996); Food Safety: A Unified, Risk-Based Food Safety System Needed
                    (GAO/T-RCED-94-223, May 25, 1994); and Early Childhood Programs: Multiple Programs and
                    Overlapping Target Groups (GAO/HEHS-95-4FS, Oct. 31, 1994).

                    Page 4                                                                        GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                          Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                          Congressional and Executive Branch

                          Enterprise Development Program, even though Congress defined the
                          success of this program in its enabling legislation. This legislation defined
                          success as “the number of competitive firms that exit the program without
                          being unreasonably reliant on section 8(a) contracts and that are able to
                          compete on an equal basis in the mainstream of the American economy.”5
                          We and SBA’s Inspector General have pointed to the need for SBA to
                          measure the success of the program as defined by Congress.6 SBA officials
                          are now committed to gathering the information to track how many firms
                          leaving the program are not reliant on section 8(a) contracts—a major first
                          step in determining whether the program is helping small businesses as

                          The fundamental reason that establishing results-oriented goals is so
                          difficult is that, to set such goals, agencies must move beyond what they
                          control—that is, their activities—to focus on what they merely
                          influence—their results. Many federal services are delivered through third
                          parties, such as states and nonprofit organizations, that may have goals
                          that differ from those of the federal government. Moreover, in some
                          program areas, such as basic scientific research, it can take years before
                          the results, if any, of the federal effort become apparent. And even then, it
                          can be very difficult to identify the extent to which the federal effort led to
                          a given result. The consultation process is a vehicle for Congress and
                          agencies to use to reach an understanding of the challenges confronting
                          particular programs and agreement on what goals are appropriate given
                          those challenges.

Designing Strategies to   Congress rightfully expects that each agency’s plans and programs will
Meet Results-Oriented     make efficient use of budgetary resources and that, if reductions need to
Goals                     be made, those resources will be used in a way that maintains, to the
                          fullest extent possible, the agency’s ability to carry out its mission. Our
                          work has shown that many agencies are currently struggling to develop
                          coherent strategies for restructuring their organizations, workforces, and
                          operations to meet results-oriented goals.

                          This need for a coherent strategy is particularly true in the area of
                          information technology. The sound application and management of
                          information technology to support strategic goals must be an important
                          part of any serious attempt to improve agency mission performance, cut

                           102 Stat. 3856, Nov. 15, 1988.
                           Small Business: SBA Cannot Assess the Success of Its Minority Business Development Program
                          (GAO/T-RCED-94-278, July 27, 1994) and 8(a) Competitive Business Mix Requirements (SBA OIG Audit
                          Report No. 5-3-E-101-021, Sept. 29, 1995).

                          Page 5                                                                       GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                       Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                       Congressional and Executive Branch

                       costs, and enhance responsiveness to the public. The successful
                       implementation of information technology reform legislation—which
                       among other things, requires that agencies have a strategy that links
                       technology investments to achieving programmatic results—is critical to
                       ensuring the wise use of the billions of dollars the government is investing
                       in information systems.

                       More generally, we have found that agencies need to do a better job of
                       designing mission-based strategies to improve efficiency and reduce costs.
                       For example, we recently reported that the Department of State does not
                       have a comprehensive strategy to restructure its operations to adjust to
                       today’s needs.7 State’s vast network of embassies and consulates, together
                       with the way they are configured and operated, has remained largely
                       unchanged despite communications and transportation advances,
                       geopolitical changes, and new budget realities. State has not been able to
                       make hard choices about resource priorities for its wide range of locations
                       and functions, or to fundamentally rethink the way that it does business, in
                       order to reduce its operating costs.

Generating Program     Conclusions about what the government is accomplishing with the
Performance and Cost   taxpayers’ money cannot be drawn without adequate program
Information            performance and cost information. Viewing program performance in light
                       of program costs as envisioned by GPRA—for instance, by establishing the
                       unit cost per output or outcome achieved—can help Congress make
                       informed decisions. Unfortunately, program and cost information has not
                       always been present or reliable enough either to use in decisionmaking or
                       to provide the requisite public accountability for the use of taxpayers’
                       money. With successful implementation, the audited financial statements
                       required by the CFO Act, as expanded by GMRA, will provide congressional
                       and executive branch decisionmakers with the financial and program cost
                       information that they have not previously had. This information is to be
                       provided to decisionmakers in results-oriented reports on the
                       government’s program results and financial condition that, for the first
                       time, integrate budget, financial, and program information. These reports
                       are also to include cost information that enables users to relate costs to
                       outputs and outcomes.

                       The Department of Defense (DOD) provides an example of persistent
                       management problems—among the most severe in government—that

                         State Department: Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions (GAO/NSIAD-96-124, Aug. 29,

                       Page 6                                                                         GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                        Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                        Congressional and Executive Branch

                        leave an agency without the most basic financial information.8 Without
                        this information, DOD is unable to properly manage its vast resources,
                        including a budget of over $250 billion in fiscal year 1996 and over $1
                        trillion in assets worldwide. For example, critical cost data is absent for
                        almost all of DOD’s noncash assets, such as inventories, equipment,
                        aircraft, and missiles. The DOD’s financial management problems are the
                        products of years of neglect, and building a workable financial
                        management structure in DOD is a correspondingly long-term project.
                        These problems have been candidly acknowledged by the Chief Financial
                        Officer and other DOD leaders. As part of their implementation of the
                        requirements of the CFO Act, they are taking some encouraging steps
                        toward addressing DOD’s financial management deficiencies.

                        When it passed GPRA, Congress clearly understood that most agencies
Leading Organizations   would need to make fundamental management changes to properly
Provide a Roadmap       implement this law and that these changes would not come quickly or
for Effective           easily. As a result, Congress included a pilot phase in GPRA for fiscal years
                        1994 through 1996. During this phase, selected agencies were to gain
Implementation of       experience in the annual goal-setting and performance measurement
GPRA                    requirements of the act and provide lessons for other agencies. About 70
                        federal organizations, including components of most cabinet departments
                        and major independent agencies, participated in this pilot phase.

                        In addition, at the request of this Committee and the Senate Governmental
                        Affairs Committee, we undertook a number of studies intended to help
                        agencies implement GPRA. For example, we were asked to study leading
                        foreign and state governments that were successfully pursuing
                        management reform initiatives consistent with GPRA and thereby becoming
                        more results-oriented.9 We further were asked whether the experiences of
                        these and other public sector organizations could yield worthwhile lessons
                        for agencies as they attempt to implement GPRA. Our June 1996 Executive
                        Guide is our response to that request. The Executive Guide identifies a set
                        of key steps and associated practices that leading federal and other public
                        sector organizations have used to successfully implement reform efforts
                        consistent with GPRA. Accompanying the discussion of each practice is a
                        case illustration of a federal agency that has made progress in
                        incorporating that practice into its operations.

                         See, for example, DOD Accounting Systems: Efforts to Improve System for Navy Need Overall
                        Structure (GAO/AIMD-96-99, Sept. 30, 1996).
                         Managing for Results: Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms
                        (GAO/GGD-95-120, May 2, 1995) and Managing for Results: State Experiences Provide Insights for
                        Federal Management Reforms (GAO/GGD-95-22, Dec. 21, 1994).

                        Page 7                                                                         GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Congressional and Executive Branch

Taken together, the key steps and practices drawn from the organizations
we studied provide a useful framework to assist Congress and the
executive branch as they work to implement GPRA. Although each of the
leading organizations we studied set its agenda for management reform
according to its own environment, needs, and capabilities, they all
commonly took three key steps. These steps were to (1) define mission
and desired outcomes or results, (2) measure performance to gauge
progress, and (3) use performance information as a basis for
decisionmaking. In taking these steps, leading organizations also found
that certain leadership practices, such as devolving operational authority
and creating incentives for managers and staff to focus on results, were
central to making the changes needed for the organizations to become
more results-oriented. The key steps and associated practices are
illustrated in the following figure.

Page 8                                                      GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                                          Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                                          Congressional and Executive Branch

Figure 1: Key Steps and Critical Practices for Implementing GPRA

                                         Step 1:
                                         Define Mission and
                                         Desired Outcomes
                                         1. Involve stakeholders
                                         2. Assess environment
                                         3. Align activities,
                                            core processes,
                                            and resources

           Step 3:                                                              Step 2:
           Use Performance                  Reinforce GPRA Implementation       Measure Performance
                                            Practices:                          Practices:
           Practices:                       9. Devolve decisionmaking           4. Produce measures at
           6. Identify performance              with accountability                each organizational
                                            10. Create incentives
              gaps                          11. Build expertise                    level that
           7. Report information            12. Integrate management               demonstrate results,
           8. Use information                   reforms                            are limited to the vital
                                                                                   respond to multiple
                                                                                   priorities, and
                                                                                   link to responsible
                                                                                5. Collect data

                                          Source: Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act
                                          (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

                                          Page 9                                                                      GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Congressional and Executive Branch

The experiences of public sector organizations that have implemented
public management reforms consistent with GPRA show that, while
performance improvements are possible, it takes time for agencies to
discard old approaches to management and accountability that focus on
activities and to make the transition to a broader focus on results. In fact,
at this early stage in the implementation process, we are finding that the
agencies making the most progress in implementing GPRA are those that
recognize they still have many implementation challenges to solve, while
those making the least progress tend to see little difference between the
requirements of GPRA and the way they have traditionally done business.

Successful organizations generally find that the significant improvements
in performance envisioned by GPRA require major changes in how they do
business, including adjustments in policies, organizational structures,
program content, and core business processes. Our Executive Guide
provides some illustrations. The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) traditionally carried out its mission by concentrating its efforts on
post-natural-disaster assistance. However, spurred by intense external
criticism, FEMA stepped back and asked itself the fundamental mission
question: What is our purpose? FEMA concluded that its mission was to
help to mitigate the effects of disasters before they take place rather than
just respond to a disaster after it occurs. As a result, FEMA expanded its
efforts. For example, it now works with local governments to strengthen
building codes so that buildings are better able to withstand disasters, and
it has launched an effort to increase the number of flood insurance
policyholders to help individuals recover from disasters.

The experiences of the GPRA pilot agencies and other federal efforts
consistent with GPRA show that improvements in performance—sometimes
substantial ones—are possible when an organization adopts a disciplined
approach to defining its mission and desired results, measuring its
performance, and using information to make decisions. For example, as
highlighted in our Executive Guide, the Veterans Health Administration
improved services to veterans by more rigorously assessing the results of
the medical care it provides to the nation’s veterans. In particular, the
Veterans Health Administration reported that it used performance
information to target the most important improvement opportunities and
thereby lowered the mortality rate for cardiac procedures by an average
13 percent over the last 8 years. As another example of reexamining a
mission, the Coast Guard shifted the focus of its marine safety program
from regulation to one that includes education. This change contributed to

Page 10                                                        GAO/T-GGD-97-43
                  Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
                  Congressional and Executive Branch

                  a significant decline in the towing industry fatality rate—from 91 per
                  100,000 industry employees in 1990 to 27 per 100,000 in 1995.

                  Congress can use GPRA as the centerpiece of a statutory framework to
GPRA Can Assist   provide the vital information it needs to better make decisions. The
Congressional     congressional consultations on agencies’ strategic plans—which in many
Decisionmaking    cases are beginning now—provide an important opportunity for Congress
                  and the executive branch to work together to ensure that missions are
                  focused, goals are results-oriented and clearly established, and strategies
                  and funding expectations are appropriate and reasonable. The experiences
                  of leading organizations suggest that planning efforts that have such
                  characteristics can become driving forces in improving the effectiveness
                  and efficiency of program operations. The GPRA strategic planning process
                  thus provides Congress with a potentially powerful vehicle for clarifying
                  its expectations for agencies and expanding the focus on results expected
                  from funding decisions.

                  In testimony before this Committee and the Senate Governmental Affairs
                  Committee last March, the former Comptroller General suggested several
                  key GPRA-related questions that Congress could ask agencies to help
                  support congressional decisionmaking. These questions centered on
                  determining how well agencies are measuring outcomes and how GPRA
                  performance goals and information are being used to drive daily
                  operations.10 These and similar questions directly related to the
                  management challenges that I have discussed today can elicit important
                  information needed for the making of more informed congressional
                  decisions. The key steps and practices for effective implementation of
                  GPRA identified in our Executive Guide suggest additional topics for
                  Congress to pursue to ensure that agencies become results-oriented
                  organizations that generate the information Congress and citizens need to
                  assess whether the results are satisfactory.

                  Over the longer term, we have advocated that congressional committees of
                  jurisdiction hold annual or at least biennial comprehensive oversight on
                  each department and major independent agency. The plans and reports
                  that agencies are to develop under GPRA and the audited financial
                  statements that are to be prepared under the CFO Act, as expanded by
                  GMRA, should serve as the basis for those hearings. In addition, broad
                  accountability reports, which for the first time would present in one place

                   Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong Congressional Role
                  (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).

                  Page 11                                                                       GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Congressional and Executive Branch

a full range of financial, program performance, and management
information, could be used to shape those hearings.

Consistent with GMRA, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked
with six agencies to pilot the development of consolidated accountability
reports for fiscal year 1995. By integrating the separate reporting
requirements of GPRA, the CFO Act, and other specified acts, the
accountability reports are intended to show the degree to which an agency
met its goals, at what cost, and whether the agency was well run. We have
endorsed the concept of an integrated accountability report and are
pleased that OMB has expanded the pilot efforts to allow additional
agencies to produce reports for fiscal year 1996. These reports have the
potential to provide Congress with comprehensive “report cards” on the
degree to which agencies are making wise and effective use of tax dollars.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, GPRA, the CFO Act, and the information
technology reform legislation can be extremely valuable tools to help
Congress and agencies address long-standing managerial problems that
have been a source of frustration to everyone. Sustained congressional
attention to this statutory framework, in a variety of formal and informal
settings, is needed to underscore for agencies the importance that
Congress places on the successful implementation of these laws. In
particular, Congress needs to continue to send the unmistakable message
that it is serious about GPRA, intends to use it as a basis for
decisionmaking, and looks forward to being actively involved in the
consultation process. Strong bipartisan support will enhance that
message. Both Congress and the executive branch have a vested interest in
successfully implementing GPRA. Successful implementation will provide
Congress and the agencies with the management framework and the
information needed to focus on program results, make the hard financial
decisions dictated by the current fiscal environment, and improve the
capability of the federal government to deliver services with the
effectiveness and the efficiency the American people deserve and rightly

This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to respond to
any questions you or other Members of the Committee may have.

Page 12                                                    GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Managing for Results: Using GPRA to Assist
Congressional and Executive Branch

Page 13                                      GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Related GAO Products

              Community Development: Status of Urban Empowerment Zones
              (GAO/RCED-97-21, Dec. 20, 1996).

              Information Technology Investment: Agencies Can Improve Performance,
              Reduce Costs, and Minimize Risks (GAO/AIMD-96-64, Sept. 30, 1996).

              State Department: Options for Addressing Possible Budget Reductions
              (GAO/NSIAD-96-124, Aug. 29, 1996).

              Federal Downsizing: Better Workforce and Strategic Planning Could Have
              Made Buyouts More Effective (GAO/GGD-96-62, Aug. 26, 1996).

              Information Management Reform: Effective Implementation Is Essential
              for Improving Federal Performance (GAO/T-AIMD-96-132, July 17, 1996).

              Managing for Results: Key Steps and Challenges In Implementing GPRA In
              Science Agencies (GAO/T-GGD/RCED-96-214, July 10, 1996).

              Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance
              and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).

              Addressing the Deficit: Updating the Budgetary Implications of Selected
              GAOWork (GAO/OCG-96-5, June 28, 1996).

              Budget and Financial Management: Progress and Agenda for the Future
              (GAO/T-AIMD-96-80, Apr. 23, 1996).

              Budget Issues: Deficit Reduction and the Long Term (GAO/T-AIMD-96-66,
              Mar. 13, 1996).

              Managing for Results: Achieving GPRA’s Objectives Requires Strong
              Congressional Role (GAO/T-GGD-96-79, Mar. 6, 1996).

              GPRA   Performance Reports (GAO/GGD-96-66R, Feb. 14, 1996).

              Transforming the Civil Service: Building The Workforce of the Future,
              Results of A GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 20, 1995).

              Financial Management: Continued Momentum Essential to Achieve CFO
              Act Goals (GAO/T-AIMD-96-10, Dec. 14, 1995).

              Page 14                                                       GAO/T-GGD-97-43
           Related GAO Products

           Deficit Reduction: Opportunities to Address Long-Standing Government
           Performance Issues (GAO/T-OCG-95-6, Sept. 13, 1995).

           Economic Development Programs (GAO/RCED-95-251R, July 28, 1995).

           Financial Management: Momentum Must Be Sustained to Achieve the
           Reform Goals of the Chief Financial Officers Act (GAO/T-AIMD-95-204, July 25,

           Managing for Results: Status of the Government Performance and Results
           Act (GAO/T-GGD-95-193, June 27, 1995).

           Government Restructuring: Identifying Potential Duplication in Federal
           Missions and Approaches (GAO/T-AIMD-95-161, June 7, 1995).

           Government Reorganization: Issues and Principles (GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-166,
           May 17, 1995).

           Department of Energy: Need to Reevaluate Its Role and Missions
           (GAO/T-RCED-95-85, Jan. 18, 1995).

           Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic
           Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).

           Food Safety: A Unified, Risk-Based Food Safety System Needed
           (GAO/T-RCED-94-223, May 25, 1994).

(410111)   Page 15                                                       GAO/T-GGD-97-43
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.
Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the
following address, accompanied by a check or money order
made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when
necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address
are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office
P.O. Box 6015
Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

or visit:

Room 1100
700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)
U.S. General Accounting Office
Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000
or by using fax number (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and
testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any
list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a
touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on
how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,
send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:


or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:


United States                       Bulk Rate
General Accounting Office      Postage & Fees Paid
Washington, D.C. 20548-0001           GAO
                                 Permit No. G100
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested