Though the deadline for agencies to submit strategic plans under the Government Performance and Results Act was only a week ago, Office of Management and Budget reviewers are already into the act's second phase--reviewing agencies' performance plans for fiscal 1999--an OMB official told Congress Monday.
Under the Results Act, agencies were required to submit six-year strategic plans to Congress by Sept. 30. G. Edward DeSeve, acting deputy director for management at OMB, told the House Government Reform and Oversight Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology that 94 percent of agencies turned in their strategic plans on time.
Now, as OMB examiners review agencies' fiscal 1999 budget documents, they are also reviewing agencies' first annual performance plans, which will describe how they intend to put their strategic plans into action and measure their progress toward their goals. Then, in addition to its own performance plan, OMB will draft a governmentwide performance plan for fiscal 1999.
Even as OMB moves on to step two of the Results Act process, Congress is reviewing how well agencies did in the strategic planning phase. The House subcommittee, chaired by Rep. Stephen Horn, R-Calif., reviewed OMB's own strategic plan at a hearing Monday. Horn said he was concerned that OMB's plan does not demonstrate that the oversight office understands how difficult it will be to develop a governmentwide performance plan.
"I would anticipate considerable difficulty dealing with the volume, establishing common performance measures for similar programs, and producing a consolidated report," Horn said. "This is a task that looks as large as the annual budget consolidations, but must be accomplished without the years of experience. Recognition of the realities of this task seem to be missing from OMB's plan."
DeSeve said OMB recognizes the complexity of drafting a governmentwide performance plan, but noted that OMB's experience drafting budget documents each year will help it meet this requirement.
"We are still learning how to do this, and so changes will be made, improvements introduced and future plans will be better," DeSeve added.
In addition, Horn criticized as "nonsense" a statement made by John Koskinen, the previous deputy director for management, that every OMB employee is involved in management oversight. But DeSeve defended Koskinen's statement, saying that OMB budget examiners, who are now called "program examiners," must spend at least 10 percent of their time on management oversight.
The General Accounting Office applauded OMB's strategic plan as an improvement over earlier drafts, but criticized OMB for not addressing major management problems, such as IRS and Federal Aviation Administration computer modernization and management of the Department of Housing and Urban Development. DeSeve said specific "high-risk areas," including HUD, IRS and FAA mismanagement, would be included in OMB's performance plan.
DeSeve also said it would take time before OMB could begin addressing overlap and duplication among agencies' programs, because it must first meet the main requirements of the Results Act. He also cautioned that many duplicative programs exist because members of Congress created them to satisfy political constituents.
NEXT STORY: This Week on the Hill