Thompson Letter on GPRA - State
August 17, 1999
The Honorable Madeleine K. Albright
Secretary
Department of State
2201 C Street, NW
Washington, DC 20520
Dear Secretary Albright:
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 State Department 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 the State Department delivers the best possible results for the American people.
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 the State Department’s annual performance plan for fiscal year (FY) 2000. According to GAO, the plan provides only "a partial picture of (1) intended performance across the agency, (2) the strategies and resources that will be used to achieve the performance goals, and (3) how it will ensure the credibility of the information used to assess agency performance."
GAO does list major strengths in State’s FY 2000 plan. Those strengths are that the plan contains more results-oriented goals, strategies, and quantifiable measures; and includes baseline
and targets for each performance indicator. GAO found, however, that the plan had several key weaknesses. These weaknesses include the fact the plan does not provide a complete performance picture for all strategic goals, does not sufficiently describe how resources will help achieve goals, and does not describe efforts to verify and validate performance.
Need to implement audit recommendations on major management problems
Like many other agencies in the federal government, the State Department has been plagued by mismanagement. GAO and the State Department Inspector General have identified major management challenges and numerous programs that are at high risk to loss from waste, fraud, and abuse, many of which apply to State. I am particularly concerned with outstanding recommendations in areas such as information security, and personnel operations, and financial management.
The State Department must be prepared to act on the many substantive, constructive recommendations made to solve such problems. Enclosed, you will find a number of recommendations made by the IG and GAO to address major management problems at the State Department.
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 the State Department's FY 2000 performance plan, GAO evaluated the extent to which the plan contains specific performance goals to address the ten high-risk and other most serious management problems confronting State that GAO and your IG have identified. I was pleased to note that in some areas, such as financial management and agency reorganization, the plan included goals to address the problems. According to the GAO evaluation, however, which is detailed in an enclosure, State’s plan did not include goals or measures to address the security programs for overseas personnel and property or to improve the visa processing system.
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 resolve some of these major management challenges is inexcusable.
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 management problems facing the State Department? 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
