For example, Treasury’s fiscal year 2000 performance report listed five IRS-wide measures that Treasury designated as key performance indicators related to the outcome. Delinquent Tax Collection

On the basis of information in Treasury’s 2000 performance report, we could not assess Treasury’s progress in improving its collection of delinquent taxes because none of the performance measures were linked to this outcome. However, some measures for the strategies and programs that are designed to achieve this outcome provide an incomplete measure of performance. Comparison of Treasury’s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance Plan With the Prior Year Report and Plan for Selected Key Outcomes

For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements or remaining weaknesses in Treasury’s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report in comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report, and (2) fiscal year 2002 performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. The strategic goals and objectives of IRS, FMS, Customs, and ATF were not always directly reflected in the broader departmental goals, limiting the reports’ usefulness in determining whether these agencies are making progress in meeting their strategic goals in general and these outcomes in particular. First, Treasury elevated its objective of Improve Customer Satisfaction to a strategic goal. Second, it added a strategic goal of Improve Employee Satisfaction. In addition, GAO has identified five major management challenges facing the Department of the Treasury. We found that Treasury’s performance report discussed the agency’s progress in resolving many of its challenges, but it did not discuss the agency’s progress in resolving the following challenge: Strategic Human Capital Management.
Why GAO Did This Study

This report reviews the Department of the Treasury's fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance report plan required by the Government Performance and Results Act.

What GAO Found

Specifically, GAO discusses Treasury's progress in addressing several key outcomes that are important to Treasury's mission. In general, GAO could not adequately determine Treasury's progress on five key outcomes because the fiscal year 2000 performance report lacked at least some measures needed to directly assess each of the outcomes. However, other information that GAO reviewed and GAO's past work suggest that Treasury may be at risk of not achieving these outcomes. In assessing Treasury's strategies, GAO identified shortcomings in its plans for each of the outcomes it reviewed. Chief among the limitations common to both the Treasury's fiscal year 1999 and 2000 performance reports was that the performance goals and measures of Treasury's agencies were not always directly reflected in the broader departmental goals, limiting the reports' usefulness in determining whether these agencies are making progress in meeting their strategic goals in general and the outcomes GAO reviewed in particular. Treasury improved the fiscal year 2000 report by elevating its objective of Improve Customer Satisfaction to a strategic goal and adding a strategic goal of Improve Employee Satisfaction. Treasury's performance report discussed the progress made in resolving many of its major management challenges, but it did not specifically discuss the agency's progress in resolving challenges related to strategic human capital management.