The Government Performance and Results Act: Lessons for State and Local Governments.

• Author: Ashbaugh, Sam

The Government Performance and Results Act sought to address a broad range of concerns about federal government accountability and performance. This article provides an overview of the Act, its relation to previous federal reform efforts, and discusses how state and local governments can learn from the federal experience.

Performance measurement is increasingly seen as a way to improve resource allocation decisions for government at all levels. Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) in 1993 to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs by establishing a system to establish goals for program performance and to measure the results. A driving force behind the initiative was the belief that a lack of precise goals and performance information on the results of programs was hindering federal managers from optimizing resource utilization. The lack of information also frustrated congressional policymaking, spending decisions, and oversight.

While GPRA was initially received with the same skepticism as previous management reform initiatives in the federal government (Exhibit 1), its proponents quickly sought to demonstrate how the Act avoided some of the problems that plagued earlier reform efforts.

While each of the previous federal initiatives have been regarded as falling short of achieving their intended goals, as part of its analysis of GPRA implementation, the General Accounting Office (GAO) has stated that it is important to recognize that each of the initiatives have provided a significant contribution to the reform movement. In particular, several common themes are critical to the success of the Act: 1) such as attempts to link planning and budgeting must include executive and legislative branch collaboration, and 2) the idea that performance measurement/ budgeting is continuously evolving. [1] This article will describe the motivating factors for the GPRA legislation, provide an overview of its provisions, discuss its divergence from prior reform efforts, and attempt to provide state and local officials with ideas to design and implement their own initiatives based on the experience of the federal government.

Purpose/Goal

The GPRA law was enacted in August 1993 with bipartisan support. One of its intended purposes was to improve citizen confidence in government by holding agencies accountable for program results. This in itself was a radical change for agencies, managers, and staff accustomed to focusing on measuring inputs and merely describing their programs and activities. The Act also sought to encourage reform through a series of pilot projects focused on setting goals, measuring performance, and reporting the progress against goals. Promoting a focus on results, improving the quality of services, and measuring customer/citizen satisfaction with government services were important elements of the Act. Other purposes include improving the delivery of services by not only requiring that managers establish plans for meeting their goals/objectives, but also by providing feedback to managers regarding actual program results and quality. A final and important goal was to enhance decision-making processes by disseminating inform ation related to the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs, in addition to agency progress in meeting its objectives.

GPRA Requirements

GPRA forced a fundamental shift in the focus of federal government agencies--traditional concerns such as staffing and activity levels were de-emphasized and the new focus was on achieving results. From the broad purposes stated above, the Act established a system of interrelated plans and reports that were designed to provide the basis for linking resources and results, with most of the specific requirements and new concepts subject to pilot projects prior to widespread implementation. All agencies of the federal government, defined as cabinet departments and other concerns of the government, including independent agencies and government corporations, are bound by the Act. The only major entities excluded from its provisions were the legislative and judicial branches and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). In addition, the Act established separate requirements for the U.S. Postal Service. [2]

Strategic Plans. The basic element of the Act was the requirement of a strategic plan for each agency. Not only did each federal agency have to develop a five-year strategic plan, but also ensure its relevance by revising/updating the original plan at least every three years. Since the original plan was intended to provide the framework for future plans/revisions, agencies were directed to include the following elements: a comprehensive mission statement; a description of general goals and objectives, along with a plan for achieving them; an identification of any specific external factors that could impact the ability of the agency to achieve its goals and objectives; and a description of program evaluations used to establish/revise agency goals/objectives and a timeframe for future evaluations. In addition, the Act required that stakeholders and customers be consulted to provide input during the development of the strategic plan.

Performance Plans. In addition to the strategic plan, agencies were required to develop annual performance plans, which establish specific program goals, identify the resources required to meet those goals, and then link the strategic plan...