Foreign Markets for U.S. Products and Services

State reported it achieved performance targets for all seven indicators outlined in the performance plan for 2000. Conclusions

Weaknesses in State’s fiscal year 2000 performance report made it difficult to determine the department’s progress toward achieving the key outcomes. These weaknesses are rooted in performance goals and indicators established in its performance plan for 2000, which was prepared in 1998 and which we have criticized in a prior report. State has taken a major step toward implementing GPRA requirements by producing a fiscal year 2002 plan that is superior to earlier efforts. In its future performance report, State will need to focus its efforts on reporting on all indicators in the plan and, if targets are not achieved, providing clear explanations of the reasons why and what actions State plans to achieve the targets in the future.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO reviewed the Department of State's fiscal year 2000 performance report and its fiscal year 2002 performance plan.

What GAO Found

Weaknesses in State's fiscal year 2000 performance report made it difficult to determine the department's progress toward achieving such key outcomes as eliminating the threat from weapons of mass destruction and expanding foreign markets for U.S. products and services. These weaknesses are rooted in performance goals and indicators established in State's performance plan for 2000, which GAO criticized in an earlier report. State has taken a major step toward implementing Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requirements by producing a fiscal year 2002 plan that is superior to earlier efforts. State will need to focus on reporting on all indicators in the plan and, if targets are not achieved, clearly explain why and what actions it plans to achieve the targets in the future.