Critical Planning Challenges Remain to Be Addressed

Although all of the strategic plans that we reviewed contained at least some discussion of each element required by the Results Act, we found that critical planning challenges remain. A Clearly Articulated Strategic Direction

We found that the strategic plans often lacked clear articulation of the agencies’ strategic direction, a sense of what they were trying to achieve, and how they would achieve it. Another weakness of agencies’ strategic plans was incomplete and underdeveloped strategies for achieving long-term strategic goals and objectives. Coordinated Crosscutting Program Efforts

program efforts are mutually reinforcing. We have found that uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort. This suggests that federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned and complementary. Our work has shown that the performance planning and measurement stage of the Results Act’s implementation will offer a structured framework to address crosscutting issues. Reliable Data Systems and Analytic Capacity

Our previous work has shown that for agencies to set realistic goals, they need to have reliable data during their planning efforts. They also need reliable data, later, as they gauge the progress they are making toward achieving those goals. However, our work has found serious shortcomings in agencies’ ability to generate reliable and timely data to measure their progress in achieving goals and to provide the analytic capacity to use those data. Under the Results Act, strategic plans are to contain discussions of how agencies used and planned to use program evaluations that are to provide feedback on how well an agency’s activities and programs contributed to the achievement of its goals and to assess the reasonableness and appropriateness of those goals. Our guide to facilitate congressional decisionmakers’ use of agencies’ performance plans is organized around three core questions that correspond to the Act’s requirements for performance plans. The answers to the questions are intended to facilitate a complete assessment of agencies’ performance plans and address concerns that are likely to be common across a variety of congressional users. In summary, Mr. Chairman, although agencies have generally met the statutory requirements of the Results Act in their first cycle of strategic planning, federal strategic planning—and Results Act implementation in general—is still very much a work in progress. The annual performance plans offer the opportunity for Congress and the agencies together to sustain the momentum of the implementation of the Results Act and of performance-based management. Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act (GAO/GGD-96-118, June 1996).
Why GAO Did This Study

GAO discussed its assessment of the strategic plans that executive agencies produced last September under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and the current stage of the Results Act's implementation, annual performance planning and measurement, focusing on: (1) the extent to which agencies' strategic plans met statutory requirements; (2) critical planning challenges that remain to be addressed; and (3) a discussion of how GAO's recent congressional guide for agencies' annual performance plans can facilitate congressional use of those plans and thereby advance the implementation of the Results Act.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) the Results Act requires that strategic plans include six broad elements-mission statements, general goals and objectives, approaches (or strategies) for achieving goals, a description of the relationship between general goals and annual performance goals, key external factors, and a description of the actual use and planned use of program evaluations; (2) although all of the strategic plans that GAO reviewed contained at least some discussion of each element required by the Results Act, GAO found that critical planning challenges remain; (3) the strategic plans often lacked clear articulation of the agencies' strategic direction, a sense of what they were trying to achieve, and how they would achieve it; (4) a focus on results, as envisioned by the Results Act, implies that federal programs that contribute to the same or similar results should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent and, as appropriate, program efforts are mutually reinforcing; (5) uncoordinated program efforts can waste scarce funds, confuse and frustrate program customers, and limit the overall effectiveness of the federal effort; (6) this suggests that federal agencies are to look beyond their organizational boundaries and coordinate with other agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned and complementary; (7) GAO's previous work has shown that for agencies to set realistic goals, they need to have reliable data during their planning efforts; (8) they also need reliable data, later, as they gauge the progress they are making toward achieving those goals; (9) GAO found serious shortcomings in agencies' ability to generate reliable and timely data to measure their progress in achieving goals and to provide the analytic capacity to use those data; (10) GAO developed a guide to assist the congressional consultations on the development of agencies' strategic plans; (11) the guide is organized around three core questions that correspond to the Act's requirements for performance plans; (12) the answers to the questions are intended to facilitate a complete assessment of agencies' performance plans and address concerns that are likely to be common across a variety of congressional users; and (13) although agencies have generally met the statutory requirements of the Results Act in their first cycle of strategic planning, federal strategic planning; and Results Act's implementation in general-is still very much a work in progress.