Thompson Letter on GPRA - AID
August 17, 1999
The Honorable J. Brady Anderson
Administrator
U.S. Agency for International Development
1300 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20523
Dear Administrator Anderson:
As you know, the Congress is focused on ensuring that the federal government delivers better results to its citizens and taxpayers. The Congress has enacted a statutory framework to achieve these results. This statutory framework includes the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA); financial management statutes, such as the Chief Financial Officers Act; and information resources management statutes, such as the Clinger-Cohen Act. Each of these reforms aims at achieving more efficient and effective performance throughout the federal government.
As part of our oversight agenda, the Committee has developed information on how effectively the Agency for International Development (USAID) is using the above statutory tools to improve performance in several key areas such as becoming more results-oriented and resolving long-standing problems of fraud, waste, and mismanagement. The purpose of this letter is to share with you the information we have developed and obtain your response to certain questions pertaining to it. With this dialog as a start, we hope to work with you on a continuing basis to ensure that USAID delivers the best possible results for the American people and the citizens of the world.
Performance plan assessment
The Congress continues to look closely at how well departments and agencies are implementing GPRA. At the request of this Committee and others, GAO recently completed an assessment of USAID’s annual performance plan for fiscal year (FY) 2000. According to GAO, the plan "should be useful to decisionmakers in that it provides a general overview of intended performance across the agency and a general discussion of the strategies and resources the agency will use to achieve its goals." GAO continued, however, by saying that "USAID needs to develop a clearer linkage between broad development goals and specific USAID country program goals and results."
The FY 2000 plan's major strengths are that it contains results-oriented goals and quantifiable performance measures, generally discusses strategies and resources for achieving intended performance, and discusses data limitations and external factors affecting results. GAO found that the FY 2000 plan had several key weaknesses. Those weaknesses include the fact that the plan does not develop clear linkage between agency and individual country goals and results, as mentioned above, and that it does not identify the full range of other agency and other donor programs that may contribute to achieving overall goals. In addition, AID continues to rely on weak financial and program results data.
Need to implement audit recommendations on major management problems
Like many other agencies in the federal government, USAID has been plagued by mismanagement. GAO identifies a number of major management challenges that affect USAID. I am particularly concerned with financial management at USAID.
Both the USAID IG and GAO have identified financial management as a major management challenge at the agency. In fact, according to the IG, only after making an understatement of $68 million on USAID’s financial statement did the agency acknowledge a problem with financial management and agree to work with the IG to ensure that financial statements are not materially overstated.
USAID must be prepared to act on the many substantive, constructive recommendations made to solve such problems. Attached, you will find a number of recommendations made by the IG and GAO to address major management problems at USAID.
Need for specific performance goals to address major management problems
I recognize that many high-risk and other major management problems are complex and will take time to resolve. However, it is essential that agency heads and other managers commit themselves to tangible steps that will eventually lead to solutions and that they accept accountability for following through on these commitments. One obvious way to do this is to establish specific and measurable goals in your annual GPRA performance plans. Indeed, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance implementing GPRA states:
Performance goals for management problems should be included in the annual plan, particularly for problems whose resolution is mission-critical, or which could potentially impede achievement of program goals . . .
In its review of USAID's FY 2000 performance plan, GAO evaluated the extent to which the plan contains specific performance goals to address serious management problems confronting USAID that GAO and your IG have identified. According to the GAO evaluation, which is detailed in an enclosure, "The plan also includes a strategic goal related to improving the management of USAID programs. USAID acknowledges the challenges it faces in improving its management information systems, and it notes that it will be implementing specific improvements over the next several years."
While an acknowledgment of major management challenges is a good first step, I am concerned about the absence or vagueness for goals in certain areas. Without specific and measurable performance goals, it is difficult if not impossible to assess progress in addressing major management problems and to hold agencies accountable. For the reasons stated above, the absence of goals to address information security, as well as USAID’s inability to link resources with the goal to implement a comprehensive information management system, demonstrates that USAID is not using GPRA to its fullest. I am encouraged by the extent to which USAID addresses data capacity weaknesses, and has goals to address the problem.
Congressional follow-up
With so many tax dollars being wasted, this Committee expects agencies to take every opportunity to use the many tools available to them, such as GPRA plans, to resolve major management problems. Furthermore, the GAO and your own IG exist to work in partnership with you to solve longstanding issues of waste, fraud, and abuse.
I hope that the information provided with this letter will stimulate you to make greater use of these tools and resources. In this regard, I ask that you review the enclosed information and respond to the following questions:
- Do you disagree with any of the GAO or IG recommendations described in the enclosures? If so, what is the basis for your disagreement?
- Where you agree with the recommendations, what specific actions are you taking to implement each one and how long will they take to complete?
- Do you disagree with any of the GAO or IG designations of major management problems facing USAID? If so, which ones and why?
- Where you agree with the problem designations, are you prepared to establish specific and measurable commitments to address each one of them in your next performance plan?
- If so, could you outline preliminarily what approach you plan to take for each problem?
- If you believe that any of these problems do not lend themselves to specific and measurable performance plan goals, please explain why. Please also explain what alternative steps you are taking to solve the problem.
I would appreciate your early attention to this letter. After receiving your response, I will ask Committee staff to arrange a meeting with your representatives to discuss it. My Governmental Affairs Committee staff contact is Robert Shea.
Sincerely,
Fred Thompson
Chairman
FT:rjs
Enclosures
