To achieve this shift, GPRA requires federal agencies and programs to implement results-oriented management reforms, such as strategic planning, performance planning, and performance measurement and reporting. Overview of Results-Oriented Management Reforms in the Four Countries

During the past 10 to 15 years, each of the countries implemented results-oriented management reforms, such as requiring departments and agencies to define their program mission and goals, measure the progress they made in achieving their goals, and report on their actual progress made compared to goals. Studies Provided Key Performance Measurement Lessons

The government studies and performance reports we reviewed suggested a variety of performance measurement lessons learned for departments in the four countries. These lessons, discussed in detail below, focused on enhancing the usefulness of performance measurement systems to the recipients of the performance information for improving program performance and decisionmaking. These performance agreements focused on the program performance factors that were within the control of program managers. These reforms were aimed at providing departments with more flexibility to allocate resources and to adapt to changing priorities while controlling the growth of expenditures. Operating Budgets. (See table 4.2.) Investment Approaches Supported Results-Oriented Management Reforms

The experiences of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom in attempting to bring about a results-oriented management culture provide insights about investment approaches that U.S. agencies may wish to consider as they implement results-oriented management under GPRA. First, the countries had to invest significantly in accounting and performance information systems and training.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO reviewed the experiences of Australia, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom in implementing management reforms that U.S. federal agencies may wish to consider during their implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act.

What GAO Found

GAO found that: (1) the four countries' reform approaches included establishing and communicating a clear direction by defining agency missions and goals through strategic planning, linking annual objectives to missions and goals through operating plans, measuring output-oriented results, and reporting progress; (2) program outcomes were difficult to measure accurately because conditions beyond managers' control affected the outcomes; (3) key lessons learned focused on enhancing the usefulness of performance measures, making performance measures selective and balanced, including qualitative and quantitative information in performance measurement systems, and providing aggregate detailed information to upper management and program managers; (4) the countries held managers accountable for program results through published performance standards and public surveys, performance goal agreements, and reports to their parliaments; (5) to give managers more flexibility to achieve reforms, the countries eliminated central control of departments' operating expenditures and staffing levels and provided departments with more authority and incentives to manage resources within overall budget ceilings; and (6) changing the government culture in the four countries required that agencies be held accountable for program results.