Each of these efforts established unique procedures for linking resources with results. Second, the concept of performance budgeting has and will likely continue to evolve. And, given the complexity and enormity of the federal budget process, performance budgeting at the federal level will need to encompass a variety of perspectives in its efforts to link resources with results. In performance budgeting terms, GPRA avoids the mechanistic approaches of previous efforts, notably PPBS and ZBB. Key Design Elements of GPRA Incorporate Lessons From the Past, but Implementation Challenges Remain

In its structure, focus, and approach, GPRA incorporates important lessons from past federal performance budgeting initiatives. For example, by requiring consultation between the executive and legislative branches on overall agency goals and missions, GPRA addresses past failures to link planning and goal setting processes with the congressional budget process; by requiring use of program activities in agency budget requests as the basis for performance planning and measurement, GPRA enhances prospects for effective links with the budget; and by emphasizing a range of performance measures that strive toward but do not initially demand outcomes, GPRA provides a realistic framework for the expectations and capabilities of performance measurement in the federal environment. This requirement is GPRA’s most fundamental change and perhaps its most significant challenge, because any effort to link resources and results must encompass some fundamental understanding of the goals of a particular program. Discussions with legislative and executive branch staff confirmed the above concerns and also suggested that these officials may be approaching strategic planning from fundamentally differing perspectives. GPRA Performance Planning and Measurement Requires Direct Linkage With the Budget

Where past initiatives tended to devise unique structures to capture performance information that ultimately proved difficult to link to congressional budget presentations, GPRA requires agencies to plan and measure performance using the same structures which form the basis for the agency’s budget request: program activities. Past initiatives struggled with performance reporting. As noted above past initiatives were generally attempted within a single annual budget cycle and tended to lack processes for addressing implementation problems. In contrast, GPRA defines a 7-year implementation time frame, from initial pilots to first governmentwide performance reports, and incorporates feedback mechanisms such as required evaluations of key concepts before governmentwide implementation. This constitutes a unique implementation environment when compared to past initiatives. Observations

While GPRA has incorporated critical lessons from the past, the Congress and the executive branch will face certain challenges in their efforts to connect resources to results in the federal government. The Congress and the executive branch must recognize the difficulties associated with devising a system that integrates performance and budget information.
Why GAO Did This Study

Pursuant to a legislative requirement, GAO reviewed the implementation of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), focusing on key design elements and approaches of GPRA as compared with those of past initiatives which also sought to link resources with results, a concept generally termed performance budgeting.

What GAO Found

GAO noted that: (1) in its overall structure, focus, and approach, GPRA incorporates critical lessons learned from previous efforts, but many of the same issues encountered in previous initiatives remain and will likely pose significant challenges if GPRA is to achieve its aim of better linking resource decisions to performance levels; (2) where past efforts failed to link executive branch performance planning and measurement with congressional resource allocation processes, GPRA requires explicit consultation between the executive and legislative branches on agency strategic plans; (3) past initiatives' experiences suggest that efforts to link resources with results must begin in the planning phase with some fundamental understanding about program goals; (4) where past initiatives devised unique performance information formats often unconnected to the structures used in congressional budget presentations, GPRA requires agencies to plan and measure performance using the "program activities" listed in their budget submissions; (5) where past initiatives were generally unprepared for the difficulties associated with measuring the outcomes of federal programs and often retreated to simple output or workload measures, GPRA states a preference for outcome measurement while recognizing the need to develop a range of measures; (6) GAO's discussions with selected legislative staff and agency officials revealed fundamental differences in perspectives and expectations that are often a necessary consequence of the system of separated powers; (7) past initiatives often foundered because no mechanism existed to reconcile or even to address these legitimate, but at times competing, views; (8) GPRA, through required consultations and formal, public documents, is intended to encourage an explicit and periodic exchange of views between the branches; (9) GPRA differs from prior initiatives in two important respects; (10) past performance budgeting initiatives were typically implemented governmentwide within a single annual budget cycle; (11) GPRA, in contrast, defines a multiyear and iterative governmentwide implementation process that incorporates pilot tests and formal evaluations of key concepts; (12) GPRA will face an operating environment unknown to its predecessors: persistent efforts to constrain spending; (13) past initiatives demonstrate that performance budgeting is an evolving concept that cannot be viewed in simple mechanistic terms; and (14) ultimately this goal of linking resources with results implies both risks and rewards.