Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to Meet 21st
Century Challenges (17-SEP-03, GAO-03-1168T).
GAO has sought to assist the Congress and the executive branch in
considering the actions needed to support the transition to a
more high-performing, results-oriented, and accountable federal
government. GAO provided perspectives on the federal government's
overall structure and the need for reorganization to improve
performance.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-03-1168T
ACCNO: A08510
TITLE: Results-Oriented Government: Shaping the Government to
Meet 21st Century Challenges
DATE: 09/17/2003
SUBJECT: Federal agencies
Federal agency reorganization
Productivity in government
Performance measures
Accountability
Human resources utilization
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-03-1168T
A
Test i mony Before the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency
Organization, Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives
For Release on Delivery Expected at 2: 00 p. m. EDT RESULTS- ORIENTED
Wednesday, September 17, 2003 GOVERNMENT
Shaping the Government to Meet 21st Century Challenges
Statement of David M. Walker Comptroller General of the United States
GAO- 03- 1168T
Chairwoman Davis and Members of the Subcommittee: I appreciate the
opportunity to address this vital topic: how can the federal government
meet the large and emerging challenges it faces and become more effective?
The federal government is in a period of profound transition and faces an
array of challenges and opportunities to enhance performance, ensure
accountability, and position the nation for the future. A number of
overarching trends, such as diffuse security threats and homeland security
needs, increasing global interdependency, the shift to knowledge- based
economies, and the looming fiscal challenges facing our nation drive the
need to reconsider the role of the federal government in the 21st century,
how the government should do business (including how it should be
structured), and in some instances who should do the government*s
business. The proposed Government Accountability and Streamlining Act of
2003 (H. R. 2743), introduced by Chairwoman Davis, recognizes the need to
address these critical issues.
The challenges we face are significant and require action by a variety of
parties. Through normal evolution and inertia over the years, we now have
a government that is weighed down by organizations with significant
performance and management problems as well as duplicative and overlapping
missions and functions. This situation is exacerbated by ways of doing
business that, in some cases, are better suited for the beginning of the
20th century than the 21st century. Given the changed circumstances and
stark fiscal realities, we simply cannot afford unnecessary, redundant, or
inefficient organizations, programs, or operations.
We need to begin by reexamining the base of government programs, policies,
and operations to make government more effective and relevant to a
changing society* a government that is as free as possible of outmoded
commitments and operations. This is true for at least two reasons. First,
as I will discuss briefly, known demographic and health care cost trends
drive a fiscal future that is* absent significant changes* clearly
unsustainable. Second* and this will be the main focus of this testimony*
whatever role the American people choose for the federal government, its
activities should be conducted in the most effective manner possible.
We now have both an opportunity and an obligation to take a look at what
the government should be doing and how it should go about doing its work.
Based on GAO*s recent experiences with restructuring, such a fundamental
reexamination of government missions, functions, and activities could
improve government effectiveness and efficiency and enhance accountability
by reducing the number of entities managed, thereby broadening spans of
control, reducing unnecessary overhead, increasing flexibility, and fully
integrating* rather than merely coordinating* related government
activities.
GAO has sought to assist the Congress and the executive branch in
considering the actions needed to support the transition to a more
highperforming, results- oriented, and accountable federal government. We
believe that it is crucial for both the Congress and the executive branch
to work together constructively and on a bipartisan basis in addressing a
range of *good government* issues.
My statement today will focus on six points: the impact of current
trends and increasing fiscal challenges, the need to reexamine how
departments and agencies are managing their programs and organizations,
the need to reassess how federal agencies do business, the importance
of strategic human capital management, GAO as an example of positive
change, and options for strengthening congressional oversight. This
testimony draws upon our wide- ranging, ongoing, and completed work on
government transformation, organization, management, human capital, and
budget issues. We conducted our work in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
Impact of Emerging Periodic reexamination and reevaluation of federal
agencies* activities has
Trends and Fiscal never been more important than it is today. The federal
government must address and adapt to major trends in our country and
around the world. At
Challenges the same time, our nation faces a serious, long- term fiscal
challenge.
Increased pressure also comes from world events: both from the recognition
that we cannot consider ourselves *safe* between two oceans* which has
increased demands for spending on homeland
security* and from the U. S. role in combating terrorism and an
increasingly interdependent world.
Our country*s transition into the 21st century is characterized by a
number of key trends, including:
the national and global response to terrorism and other threats to our
personal and national security;
the increasing interdependence of enterprises, economies, markets, civil
societies, and national governments, commonly referred to as
globalization;
the shift to market- oriented, knowledge- based economies; an aging
and more diverse U. S. population; rapid advances in science and
technology and the opportunities and
challenges created by these changes; challenges and opportunities to
maintain and improve the quality of life
for the nation, communities, families, and individuals; and the changing
and increasingly diverse nature of governance structures
and tools. As the nation and government policymakers grapple with the
challenges presented by these evolving trends, they do so in the context
of rapidly building fiscal pressures. GAO*s long- range budget simulations
show that this nation faces a large and growing structural deficit due
primarily to known demographic trends and rising health care costs. The
fiscal pressures created by the retirement of the baby boom generation and
rising health costs threaten to overwhelm the nation*s fiscal future. As
figure 1 shows, by 2040, absent reform or other major tax or spending
policy changes, projected federal revenues will likely be insufficient to
pay more than interest on publicly held debt. Further, our recent shift
from surpluses to deficits means the nation is moving into the future in a
weaker fiscal position.
Figure 1: Composition of Spending as a Share of GDP Assuming Discretionary
Spending Grows with GDP after 2003 and All Expiring Tax Provisions Are
Extended
50 Percentage of GDP
40 30 20 10
0 2003 2015 2030 2040
Fiscal year
Net interest Social Security Medicare and Medicaid All other spending
Source: GAO.
Notes: Although all expiring tax cuts are extended, revenue as a share of
gross domestic product (GDP) increases through 2013 due to (1) real
bracket creep, (2) more taxpayers becoming subject to the Alternative
Minimum Tax, and (3) increased revenue from tax- deferred retirement
accounts. After
2013, revenue as a share of GDP is held constant. This simulation assumes
that currently scheduled Social Security benefits are paid in full
throughout the simulation period.
The United States has had a long- range budget deficit problem for a
number of years, even during recent years in which we had significant
annual budget surpluses. Unfortunately, the days of surpluses are gone,
and our current and projected budget situation has worsened significantly.
The bottom line is that our projected budget deficits are not manageable
without significant changes in *status quo* programs, policies, processes,
and operations.
Doing nothing is simply not an option nor will marginal efforts be enough.
Tough, difficult choices will have to be made. Clearly, the federal
government must start to exercise more fiscal discipline on both the
spending side and the tax side. While many spending increases and tax cuts
may be popular, they may not all be prudent. However, there is not a
single solution to the problems we face, but a number of solutions are
needed. And, it will take the combined efforts of many parties over an
extended period to address these fiscal challenges successfully.
One needed improvement is streamlining and simplifying the federal
government*s organizational structure to make it more economical,
efficient, effective, flexible, responsive, and accountable. This includes
addressing both fragmentation of effort and duplicative, overlapping, and
conflicting government programs, policies, and operations. We need
governmental organizations that embrace modern management practices of the
21st century, including a strategic human capital management approach.
Streamlining the federal government to eliminate unnecessary redundancy
and inefficient operations will help address our growing fiscal problems.
It will not by itself solve the problem, but it certainly will help.
Need to Reexamine It is important to reexamine periodically whether
current programs and
How Departments and activities remain relevant, appropriate, and effective
in delivering the
government that Americans want, need, and can afford. This includes
Agencies Are Managing
assessing the sustainability of the programs over time as well as the
Their Programs and
effectiveness of a range of tools* such as grants, loan guarantees, tax
Organizations
incentives, regulation, and enforcement* that are used to achieve results.
Many federal programs* their goals, organizations, processes, and
infrastructures* were designed years ago to meet the demands as determined
at that time and within the technological capabilities of earlier eras. We
currently have 15 departments and numerous independent agencies. The
recent report of the Volcker Commission found that *fifty years have
passed since the last comprehensive reorganization of the government* and
that *the relationship of the federal government to the citizens it
services became vastly broader and deeper with each passing decade.* The
commission recommended a fundamental reorganization of the federal
government into a limited number of mission- related executive
departments to improve its capacity to design and implement public policy.
I believe that GAO*s past and present work supports the validity of this
finding. As a result, we should begin to take the steps necessary to make
this recommendation a reality. This hearing is one step toward doing so.
I believe that a number of events over the last few years, combined with a
greater understanding of broad trends, have fostered growing recognition
that fundamental change is necessary. This presents the Congress and the
executive branch with an opportunity to create highly effective,
performance- based organizations that can strengthen the nation*s ability
to meet the challenges of the 21st century and reach beyond our current
level of achievement. Many departments and agencies were created in a
different time and in response to problems and priorities very different
from today*s challenges. Some have achieved their one- time missions, yet
they are still in operation. Many have accumulated responsibilities beyond
their original purposes. Others have not been able to demonstrate how they
are making a difference in real and concrete terms. Still others have
overlapping or conflicting roles and responsibilities. Redundant,
unfocused, and uncoordinated programs waste scarce resources, confuse and
frustrate program customers, and limit overall program effectiveness.
Fundamental reexamination of federal agencies* roles, functions, and
structure is never easy. Reorganizing government can be an immensely
complex and politically charged activity. Those who would reorganize
government must make their rationale clear and build a consensus for
change if proposed reorganizations are to succeed. All key players must be
involved in the process* the Congress, the President, affected executive
branch agencies, their employees and unions, and other interested parties,
including the public.
In recent years, events have driven us to reassess several major
components of government. In response to the events of September 11, 2001,
the Department of Homeland Security was established. Seeing a pressing
need, the government moved expeditiously to form this new agency and thus
consolidate many disparate homeland security functions under a single
agency. However, the formation of the Department of Homeland Security is
still a work in progress. In January of this year, we
designated the implementation and transformation of the Department of
Homeland Security as high risk. 1 The size and complexity of the effort
and the challenges the department inherited will require sustained
attention
over time for the department to reach its full potential. Driven in part
by the events of September 11, 2001, the Federal Bureau of Investigation
(FBI) is also undergoing a major transformation, including a multiphase
reorganization, first announced in December 2001. The first phase is
designed to strengthen the FBI*s management structure, enhance
accountability, reduce executive span of control, and establish two new
1 U. S. General Accounting Office, Major Management Challenges and Program
Risks: Department of Homeland Security, GAO- 03- 102 (Washington, D. C.:
January 2003).
divisions for Records Management and Security. The second phase is
designed to build, among other things, a national terrorism response
capability that is larger and more mobile, agile, and flexible by shifting
resources from other areas within the FBI. In June of this year, 18 months
into the effort, we reported progress in several areas but noted that
major challenges remain. These challenges included the continued need for
a comprehensive transformation plan, an updated strategic plan, and a
human capital strategic plan. 2
The tragedy of Columbia has turned a spotlight on the weaknesses in the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration*s (NASA) organization and
culture. The recent report of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
made a number of very specific recommendations related to the NASA*s
organization. NASA now must take a hard look at its organizational
structure and culture. While NASA has undertaken numerous programs that
have greatly advanced scientific and technological knowledge, the agency
is at a critical juncture, and major management improvements are needed.
Earlier this year, we outlined several major management challenges at NASA
in human capital, contract, and financial management, some of which have
existed for years. 3 Improved performance has been a primary goal of
several other
restructuring efforts under way. For example, the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS) is in the midst of a long- term modernization. 4 In addition, the
Department of Defense (DOD) is in the process of transforming its business
operations, and the U. S. Postal Service faces the challenge of
transforming its business model for the 21st century. 5
2 U. S. General Accounting Office, FBI Reorganization: Progress Made in
Efforts to Transform but Major Challenges Continue, GAO- 03- 759T
(Washington, D. C.: June 18, 2003).
3 U. S. General Accounting Office, NASA: Major Management Challenges and
Program Risks, GAO- 03- 849T (Washington, D. C.: June 12, 2003). 4 U. S.
General Accounting Office, IRS Modernization: Continued Progress Necessary
for Improving Service to Taxpayers and Ensuring Compliance, GAO- 03- 796T
(Washington, D. C.: May 20, 2003).
5 U. S. General Accounting Office, U. S. Postal Service: Key Postal
Transformation Issues,
GAO- 03- 812T (Washington, D. C.: May 29, 2003) and U. S. General
Accounting Office,
Opportunities for Oversight and Improved Use of Taxpayer Funds: Examples
from Selected GAO Work, GAO- 03- 1006 (Washington, D. C.: Aug. 1, 2003).
These are some recent examples of building consensus and undertaking
restructuring to meet new or changed missions and goals. To a great
extent, these changes were driven by catastrophic events. Even with
dramatic events demonstrating the need for change, these reorganizations
and transformations will not be easy. It is likely to be even more
difficult to build consensus for reorganization and change when there is
not such an event driving it. However, current trends, poor performance,
and growing
fiscal pressures demand that we make the effort. We simply cannot afford
unnecessary redundancy and inefficiency in the government, especially in
light of impending fiscal challenges and taxpayers deserve better.
GAO*s work has documented the widespread fragmentation and overlap in both
federal missions and individual federal programs. As new needs are
identified, the common response has been to add new responsibilities and
roles within federal departments and agencies, perhaps targeted to a newly
identified clientele or involving a new program delivery approach. In the
worst- case scenario, new programs are layered onto existing programs that
have failed or performed poorly. Though our work also suggests that some
issues, such as security, may warrant the involvement of multiple agencies
or more than one approach, fragmentation and overlap often adversely
affect the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of the federal
government.
Last month, we issued a report, Opportunities for Oversight and Improved
Use of Taxpayer Funds: Examples from Selected GAO Work. 6 In this report,
we highlight opportunities for and specific examples of legislative and
administrative change that might yield budgetary savings. Several examples
clearly illustrate the need to take a hard look at our organizational
structures.
The responsibilities of the four major land management agencies* the
National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the Fish and
Wildlife Service within the Department of the Interior, and the Forest
Service within the Department of Agriculture (USDA)* have grown more
similar over time. Most notably, the Forest Service and BLM now provide
more noncommodity uses, including recreation and protection for fish and
wildlife, on their lands. In addition, managing
federal lands has become more complex. Managers have to reconcile
differences among a number of laws and regulations, and the authority for
these laws is dispersed among several federal agencies as well as 6 GAO-
03- 1006.
state and local agencies. These changes have coincided with two other
developments* the federal government*s increased focus on downsizing and
budget constraints and scientists* increased understanding of the
importance and functioning of natural systems, the boundaries of which may
not be consistent with existing jurisdictional and administrative
boundaries. Together, these changes and developments suggest a basis for
reexamining the processes and structures under which the federal land
management agencies operate.
Two basic strategies have been proposed to improve federal land
management: (1) streamlining the existing structure by coordinating and
integrating functions, systems, activities, programs, and field locations
and (2) reorganizing the structure by combining agencies. The two
strategies are not mutually exclusive. Some small steps have been taken.
For example, the Forest Service and BLM have colocated some offices or
shared space with other federal agencies. However, more needs to be done.
In 1987, the Congress passed the Stewart B. McKinney Act (Pub. L. No.
100- 77) to address the multiple needs of homeless people. The act
encompasses both existing and new programs. Over the years, some of the
original McKinney programs have been consolidated or eliminated, and some
new programs have been added. Today, homeless people
receive assistance through these programs as well as other federal
programs that are not authorized under the McKinney Act but are
nevertheless specifically targeted to serve the homeless population. In
February 1999, we reported that seven federal agencies administer 16
programs that serve the homeless population, with the Department of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) responsible for most of the funds. 7
Consolidating all of the homeless assistance programs under HUD could
increase administrative and operational efficiencies at the federal level
as well as reduce administrative and coordination burdens
for state and local governments, which also face fiscal challenges. Each
of the three military departments (Army, Navy, and Air Force)
operates its own health care system, providing medical care to active duty
personnel, their dependents, retirees, and survivors of military
personnel. To a large extent, these separate, costly systems perform many
of the same administrative, management, and operational
7 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeless: Coordination and Evaluation
of Programs Are Essential, GAO/ RCED- 99- 49 (Washington, D. C.: Feb. 26,
1999).
functions. Since 1949, numerous studies, the most recent completed in
2001, have reviewed whether a central entity should be created within DOD
to manage and administer the three health care systems. Most of these
studies encouraged some form of organizational consolidation. A DOD health
agency would consolidate the three military medical systems into one
centrally managed system, eliminating duplicative administrative,
management, and operational functions.
Similarly, there are potential benefits to be achieved by greater
coordination with the veterans health care system. In an effort to save
federal health care dollars, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) and
DOD have sought ways to work together to gain efficiencies. For example,
some local VA and DOD facilities have entered into joint venture
agreements, pooling resources to build a joint facility or capitalizing on
an existing facility. To ensure maximize use of federal
health care dollars, this area needs continued attention. A multitude of
agencies oversee food safety, with two agencies
accounting for most federal spending on, and regulatory responsibilities
for, food safety. The Food Safety and Inspection Service, under USDA, is
responsible for the safety of meat, poultry, eggs, and some egg products,
while the Food and Drug Administration, under the Department of Health and
Human Services, is responsible for the safety of most other foods.
The current food safety system emerged from a patchwork of often archaic
laws and grew into a structure that actually hampers efforts to address
existing and emerging food safety risks. Moreover, the current
regulatory framework concentrates on only a segment* primarily food
processing* of the continuum of activities that bring food from farm to
table. The threat of deliberate contamination of the food supply and
scientific and technical advances in the production of food, such as the
development of genetically modified foods, have further complicated the
responsibilities of the existing federal food safety structure. The food
safety system suffers from overlapping and duplicative inspections, poor
coordination, and inefficient allocation of resources. Consolidation of
the federal food safety agencies under a single, independent agency or
under a single department could improve both
the efficiency and effectiveness of the system. These examples illustrate
a few of the opportunities that exist to improve effectiveness and
efficiency by reexamining the government*s
organizational structure. As part of this reexamination, it is important
to ask the fundamental question of whether an existing program, policy, or
activity *fits* the work we face today and will face in the future. It is
important not to accept all existing activities as givens by subjecting
new proposals to greater scrutiny than existing ones undergo. However,
such a fundamental reexamination is not easy. Success will depend on
establishing clear goals, having all the key players actively involved,
and using a process that can help build consensus.
Throughout the 20th century, efforts to structure the federal government
to address the economic and political concerns of the time met with
varying degrees of success. The first Hoover Commission, 8 which lasted
from 1947 through 1949, is considered by many to have been the most
successful of government restructuring efforts. The membership of the
commission was
bipartisan, including members from the administration and both houses of
the Congress. Half of the members were from outside government. The
commission had a clear vision, making reorganization proposals that
promoted what it referred to as *greater rationality* in the organization
and operation of government agencies, and enhanced the President*s role as
the manager of the government* principles that were understood and
accepted by both the White House and the Congress. 9 Former President
Hoover himself guided the creation of a citizens* committee to build
public support for the commission*s work. More than 70 percent of the
first
Hoover Commission*s recommendations were implemented, including 26
reorganization plans. According to the Congressional Research Service,
*the ease with which most of the reorganization plans became effective
reflected two factors: the existence of a consensus that the President
ought to be given deference and assistance by Congress in meeting his
managerial responsibilities, and the fact that most of the reorganization
plans were pretty straightforward proposals of an organizational
character.* 10
8 The commission*s formal name was the Commission on Organization of the
Executive Branch. Its membership was as follows: Former President Herbert
Hoover, Dean Acheson, Senator George Aiken, Representative Clarence Brown,
Arthur Flemming, James A. Forrestal, Joseph P. Kennedy, Representative
Carter Manasco, Senator John L. McClellan,
George Mead, James K. Pollock, and James Rowe. 9 Ronald C. Moe, The Hoover
Commissions Revisited (Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1982), 2. 10
Congressional Research Service, The President*s Reorganization Authority:
Review and Analysis (Washington, D. C.: Mar. 8, 2001).
History teaches lessons that are applicable today. Those who would
reorganize government must make their rationale clear and must build a
consensus for change before submitting specific proposals to the Congress
if these efforts are to succeed. To achieve substantive changes, it is
important that all players, particularly the Congress and the President,
agree on restructuring goals and establish processes to achieve their
objectives that provides needed transparency. The processes used may
vary depending on the significance of the changes sought. However, the
risk of failure is high if key players are not involved and no processes
for reaching consensus on specific reorganization proposals submitted to
the Congress for consideration are in place. Both having the right
processes and the right players are critical to success.
Restructuring existing programs is part of the solution to meeting the
challenges faced by our government. However, those decisions are not the
end of the story. Restructuring is not easy and takes time to fully
implement, even once consensus exists on specific proposals. This is why
we have designated the implementation and transformation of the Department
of Homeland Security as high risk. 11 In addition to the implementation
actions taken within the executive branch, congressional oversight
throughout the implementation will be crucial to ultimate success.
Need to Reassess How Regardless of the number and nature of federal
entities, the government*s
Federal Agencies Do goal should be to create high- performing
organizations. We need to look at
not only at what business we are in, but how we do business. Practices
that Business
were good 50 years ago may not make sense today. Old, outdated practices
and systems result in inefficiency and waste of resources that we cannot
afford.
Our work has identified opportunities to change how the government does
business. 12 The following three examples illustrate opportunities to
improve business practices and to make them more efficient and effective.
USDA*s meat and poultry inspection system is hampered by inflexible
legal requirements and relies on outdated inspection methods. Current 11
GAO- 03- 102. 12 GAO- 03- 1006.
law requires mandatory inspections that do not factor in risk. Inspectors
continue to largely rely on their sense of sight, smell, and touch in
making judgments about disease conditions, contamination, and sanitation.
Microbial testing for such things as salmonella, listeria, and
generic E. coli has increased but is still not sufficient. Legislative
revisions could allow USDA to emphasize risk- based inspections. Much of
the funding used to fulfill current, mandatory meat and poultry inspection
activities could be redirected to support more effective food safety
initiatives, such as increasing the frequency of inspections at high- risk
food plants.
Recently, GAO identified at least 21 different grant programs that can
be used by the nation*s first responders to address homeland security
needs. 13 Multiple, fragmented grant programs can create a confusing and
administratively burdensome process for state and local officials seeking
to use federal resources to meet pressing homeland security needs. In
addressing the fragmentation prompted by the current homeland security
grant system, the Congress has taken the initial step of bringing many of
these programs under the Department of Homeland Security. Additional
administrative and legislative steps, such as block grants, waivers,
performance partnerships, and grant waivers, might be considered. These
approaches could provide state and local governments with increased
flexibility while potentially improving
intergovernmental efficiency and homeland security program outcomes.
Better integration, including consolidation, of programs could yield
administrative efficiencies that result in savings or improved
performance. In taking any additional steps, it will be important to
ensure accountability for both performance and funding.
The U. S. overseas presence at more than 260 overseas posts consists of
more than 90,000 people (including dependents of federal workers). The
workforce has been estimated at as many as 60,000 employees, representing
over 30 agencies. The Department of State employs about a third of the U.
S. workforce overseas, and its embassies and consulates have become bases
for the operations of agencies involved in hundreds of activities. The
costs of overseas operations and related security requirements are
directly linked to the size of the overseas workforce. By reducing the
number of employees at posts where U. S. interests are a
13 U. S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming Federal
Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs, GAO- 03- 1146T (Washington, D.
C.: Sept. 3, 2003).
lower priority, consolidating functions, establishing regional centers, or
relocating personnel to the United States, the costs of overseas
operations could be significantly reduced. In August 2001, The President*s
Management Agenda noted that the U. S. overseas presence is costly,
increasingly complex, and of growing security concern. 14 It concluded
that the cost and security considerations demand that the overseas
staffing process be improved.
Creating high performing organizations will require a cultural
transformation in government agencies and new ways of doing business.
Hierarchical management approaches will need to yield to partnerial
approaches. Process- oriented ways of doing business will need to yield to
results- oriented ones. *Siloed* organizations will need to become more
horizontal and integrated to make the most of the knowledge, skills, and
abilities of their people. Internally focused agencies will need to focus
externally to meet the needs and expectations of their ultimate clients*
the American people. Major programs and operations need urgent attention
and transformation to ensure that the government functions as
economically, efficiently, and effectively as possible. Management reform
will be vitally important for agencies to transform their cultures to
address
the changing role of the government in the 21st century. The key to
effective public management in the 21st century is to ensure that
organizations have the characteristics and capabilities needed to
effectively influence and leverage partners, people, processes, and
technology to achieve results. As part of a continuing series of forums,
GAO will convene a forum in November that will focus specifically on the
implications of the public management environment in the 21st century for
federal agencies as they strive to become high performing organizations.
This forum is intended to help identify key characteristics and
capabilities of high- performing organizations in this environment,
challenges facing federal agencies in transitioning into high- performing
organizations, and ways in which the Congress and the executive branch can
foster these transformation efforts.
14 GAO- 03- 1006.
Importance of Strategic human capital management should be a centerpiece
of any
Strategic Human serious change management initiative or any effort to
transform the
cultures of government agencies. It is a vital element to the success of
any Capital Management government restructuring efforts, whether within an
existing agency or across current agency boundaries. People are an
agency*s most important organizational asset. An organization*s people
define its character, affect its capacity to perform, and represent the
knowledge base of the organization. Human capital issues have been a focus
of this Congress and certainly this Subcommittee. They will require
continuing attention.
Since 2001, we have designated human capital as a governmentwide high
risk. The Congress and the executive branch have taken a number of steps
to address the federal government*s human capital shortfalls. However,
serious human capital challenges continue to erode the ability of many
agencies, and threaten the ability of others, to perform their missions
economically, efficiently, and effectively. A consistent strategic
approach to maximize government performance and ensure its accountability
is vital to
the success of any reorganization efforts as well as to transforming
existing agencies. A high- performing organization should focus on human
capital. Human capital approaches are aligned with accomplishing missions
and goals. Strategies are designed, implemented, and assessed based on
their ability to achieve results and contribute to an organization*s
mission. Leaders and managers stay alert to emerging demands and human
capital challenges. They reevaluate their human capital approaches through
the use of valid, reliable, and current data, including inventories of
employee skills and
competencies. Recruiting, hiring, professional development, and retention
strategies focus on ensuring that an agency has the needed talent to meet
organizational goals. Individual performance is clearly linked with
organizational performance. Effective performance management systems
provide a *line of sight* showing how unit, team, and individual
performance can contribute to overall organizational goals.
The first step in meeting the government*s human capital challenges is for
agency leaders to identify and make use of all the appropriate
administrative authorities available to them to manage their people both
effectively and equitably. The second step is for policymakers to purse
incremental legislative reforms. Most recently, the Congress has been
considering legislative proposals for the DOD.
As we have previously testified, agency- specific human capital reforms
should be enacted to the extent that the problems being addressed and the
solutions offered are specific to a particular agency (e. g., military
personnel reforms for DOD). In addition, targeted reforms should be
considered in situations in which additional testing or piloting is needed
for fundamental governmentwide reform.
Moving forward, we believe it would be preferable to employ a
governmentwide approach to address human capital issues and the need for
certain flexibilities that have broad- based application and serious
potential implications for the civil service system, in general, and for
the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), in particular. Some examples,
that have been pursed, include broadbanding, pay for performance,
reemployment, and pension offset waivers. As federal agencies compete for
resources, it is important to maintain a level playing field among
agencies.
However, whether through a governmentwide authority or agency- specific
legislation, in our view, such additional authorities should be put in
operation only when an agency has the institutional infrastructure in
place to use the new authorities effectively. This institutional
infrastructure includes, at a minimum, a human capital planning process
that integrates the agency*s human capital policies, strategies, and
programs with its program goals, mission, and desired outcomes; the
capabilities to develop and implement a new human capital system
effectively; and a modern, effective, and credible performance management
system that includes adequate safeguards, including reasonable
transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms, to ensure the
fair, effective, and nondiscriminatory implementation of the system.
GAO as an Example of Transforming an organization is not an easy endeavor.
It requires a
Positive Change comprehensive, strategic approach that takes leadership,
time, and
commitment. Because GAO is the agency that reviews others, we strive to
lead by example. To create a model federal agency and world- class
professional services organization, we have undertaken a comprehensive
transformation effort over the past few years. Our strategic plan, which
is developed in consultation with the Congress, is forward- looking and
built on the key trends emerging at the beginning of the 21st century that
were discussed earlier and relate to the United States and its position in
the world community.
We also have restructured our organization to align with our goals,
resulting in significant consolidation* going from 35 to 13 teams,
eliminating an extra organizational layer, and reducing the number of
field offices from 16 to 11. We have become more strategic, results-
oriented, partnerial, integrated, and externally focused. Our scope of
activities includes a range of oversight-, insight-, foresight- related
engagements. We have expanded and revised our product lines to better meet
client needs.
We also continue to provide certain legal and adjudicatory services, as
specified in our authorizing legislation. In addition, we have redefined
success in result- oriented terms and linked our institutional and
individual
performance measures. We have strengthened our client relations and
employed a *constructive engagement approach* with the entities we review.
The impact on our results has been dramatic. Client feedback reports show
significant improvement, and results for several of our key performance
indicators have almost doubled in only 4 years.
There are four lessons to be learned from our experiences. First, one
should not minimize how challenging it is for an organization to undertake
a comprehensive transformation. Second, transformation is multifaceted and
takes time. Our transformation began in 2000 and continues to be a
work in progress. Third, transformation must be based on the best, most
up- to- date management practices to reach its full potential. Fourth,
transformation requires continual management commitment, monitoring, and
oversight. Because of the 15- year terms for comptrollers general, GAO has
the advantage of stable, long- term leadership that many other agencies do
not have. However, our approach* based on best management
practices* can serve as a guide to others. We employed a strategic, not an
incremental, approach to transforming GAO. Our approach is based on a
regularly updated 6- year strategic plan for serving the Congress. GAO*s
strategic plan, which is currently being
updated, established clear goals and objectives. Three goals aimed at
providing Congress timely, quality service to: (1) address challenges to
the well- being and financial security of the American people, (2) respond
to changing security threats and the challenges of global interdependence,
and (3) transform the federal government*s role and how it does business.
Our fourth goal is to be a model federal agency and a world- class
professional organization. Our strategic plan provides a firm foundation
from which to identify priorities and opportunities for eliminating
redundancies and improving operations. It is the basis for our workforce
planning. It also sets the stage for maximizing our effectiveness and
efficiency. Our strategic planning process provides for updates with each
new Congress, ongoing analysis of emerging conditions and trends,
extensive consultations with congressional clients and outside experts,
and assessments of our internal capabilities and needs. Our strategic plan
formed the basis for a major organizational realignment. This realignment
focused the organization on our goals and resulted in significant
streamlining. The process employed to accomplish the realignment required
time, energy, and commitment from GAO*s senior leadership. Input was
sought from GAO executives and employees at all levels throughout the
process. Extensive communications with GAO staff and key congressional
stakeholders were maintained on an ongoing basis. The result has been a
more agile, effective, responsive, and accountable organization that has
been able to effectively respond to the many new challenges presented to
it.
People are an organization*s most important asset. Modern, effective, and
credible human capital policies are critical to the successful functioning
of any enterprise. This has been the case at GAO. In 2000, we sought and
received certain narrowly tailored human capital authorities, including
early out and buyout authorities. We have used these authorities
responsibly to strategically reshape GAO. In addition, we have implemented
a comprehensive recruiting program, instituted a competency- based
performance management system, made significant investments in training
and staff development, and continued to refine our staffing process to
maximize resource utilization. We continually seek to refine and improve
our human capital practices. Recently, I have sought additional
flexibilities for GAO to ensure quality service to the Congress; continue
leading by example in government transformation; and continue to attract,
retain, motivate, and reward a quality and high- performing workforce. I
appreciated the support from you Chairwoman Davis and the Subcommittee on
this request.
Continual communication with GAO staff is a critical feature of our human
capital strategy. Among other things, we periodically survey staff on a
wide range of human capital and organizational issues. I am pleased to
report that the results of our latest comprehensive survey, completed last
month, continued to demonstrate remarkably positive results.
Finally, we are continually evaluating, reengineering, and refining our
work processes to reflect the best management practices to ensure the most
effective and efficient service delivery. For example, we have employed
two new management strategies within the organization* risk
management and matrix management. GAO*s risk management approach allows
management to identify and involve internal stakeholders with needed
subject matter expertise throughout an engagement to transcend traditional
organizational boundaries, maximize institutional value, and minimize
related risks. GAO*s matrix management approach maximizes our value to the
Congress by leveraging the knowledge, skills, and experience of all
employees to ensure the highest quality products and services and to help
the Congress address the challenging, complex, changing, and
multidimensional problems facing the nation. As part of this effort, we
continually strive to provide GAO*s people with necessary tools,
technology, and training, and a world- class working environment.
GAO*s transformation can provide lessons about what can be accomplished.
To measure ourselves, we use a balanced scorecard, measuring client
service, results, and employees. On all three dimensions, we are reporting
very positive results. To illustrate, in fiscal year 2002, GAO*s efforts
helped the Congress and government leaders achieve $37.7 billion in
financial benefits* an $88 return on every dollar invested in
GAO, up from $19.7 billion and $58 return in fiscal 1998. The return on
the public*s investment in GAO extends beyond dollar savings to
improvements in how the government serves its citizens. The results in
2002 are in part
attributed to work we have done to transform GAO using a strategic,
comprehensive approach.
Similar benefits can be achieved in other governmental organizations.
Building on GAO*s experience, a comprehensive approach grounded in a sound
strategic plan and appropriate organizational alignment, and based
on the best management practices, including human capital management, can
yield optimal results in terms of effectiveness and efficiency. Successful
transformation is not easy. It will take strong, committed, and persistent
leadership, and it will take time. We are still working on it, but we are
ahead of schedule and are pleased with our progress.
Options for The challenges facing our nation are many and difficult.
Clearly, there is a
Strengthening need to reexamine how the federal government is organized
both in the
executive and legislative branches. We need to reassess how the federal
Congressional
government does business. Fundamental questions need to be asked about
Oversight
what the federal government should be doing and who should be doing it,
given past changes and 21st century challenges. Clearly any major
organizational change is both complex and controversial. In considering
government restructuring and changes in business practices, it is
important
to focus not just on the present but on the future trends and challenges.
Identifying goals for addressing these trends and challenges can provide a
framework for achieving the needed consensus. In fact, the effects of any
changes will be felt more in the future than they are today. Because the
world is not static and never will be, it is vital to take the long view,
positioning the government to meet challenges throughout the 21st century.
There is no easy answer to the challenges federal departments and agencies
face in transforming themselves. Multiple actions are required. This is
illustrated by the examples I have provided today. As the Congress moves
forward, it will be important to keep three things in focus: goals,
players, and processes. Clear goals are essential. Defining clear goals
forces decision makers to reach a shared understanding of what really
needs to be fixed in government, what the federal role ought to be, how to
balance differing objectives, and what steps need to be taken to create
not just short- term progress but long- term success. All key players must
be engaged if viable solutions are to be achieved* this means the Congress
and the President, as well as other parties with vested interests.
Excluding key players increases the risk of failure. Finally, the process
used must be tailored to the task at hand. Straightforward changes, such
as the consolidation of agency payment operations, may call for agency-
centered processes, requiring minimal involvement by the Congress or
others. Other changes, such as revamping the U. S. food safety system,
will require a process that involves key congressional stakeholders and
administration officials as well as others, ranging from food processors
to consumers. Even more ambitious changes like reorganizing the executive
branch or rationalizing the existing federal infrastructure will likely
require
commission approaches similar to the Hoover Commission that I discussed
previously.
On September 24, 2002, GAO convened a forum to identify and discuss useful
practices and lessons learned from major private and public sector
organizational mergers, acquisitions, and transformations that federal
agencies could implement to transform their cultures successfully. 15
While there is no one right way to manage a successful merger,
acquisition, or transformation, the experiences of both successful and
unsuccessful
15 U. S. General Accounting Office, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and
Transformation: Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and
Other Federal Agencies, GAO- 03- 293SP (Washington, D. C.: Nov. 14, 2002),
and Results- Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and
Organizational Transformations,
GAO- 03- 669 (Washington, D. C. July 2, 2003).
efforts suggest that there are practices that are key to their success.
These key practices should be considered as federal agencies seek to
transform their cultures in response to governance challenges. These
practices include the following.
Ensure that top leadership drives the transformation. Establish a
coherent mission and integrated strategic goals to guide the
transformation.
Focus on a key set of principles and priorities at the outset of the
transformation.
Set implementation goals and a timeline to build momentum and show
progress from day one. Dedicate an implementation team to manage the
transformation process. Use the performance management system to define
responsibility and
ensure accountability for change. Establish a communication strategy to
create shared expectations and
report related progress. Involve employees to obtain their ideas and
gain their sense of
ownership of the transformation. Build a world- class organization.
Eliminating redundancy and improving federal operations are critical to
meeting the challenges we are facing at the beginning of the 21st century.
Chairwoman Davis has introduced the Government Accountability and
Streamlining Act of 2003. This bill is aimed at stopping the creation of
any
additional unnecessary redundancy. As it considers this proposal, the
Congress may also want to consider other options, such as reinstituting
some form of budget controls, granting the President executive
reorganization authority, establishing special commissions, and enhancing
oversight. The Congress may want to consider giving federal department and
agencies additional tools to assist in the transformations that they
undertake, including creating chief operating officer positions in
selected departments and agencies and human capital reforms. As I have
emphasized, multiple approaches are needed to address not only future but
also existing redundancy and inefficiency in federal operations. Each of
the following seven tools has merit depending on the situation.
Government Accountability and Streamlining Act of 2003. This proposal
would require GAO to prepare statements for bills and resolutions reported
by congressional committees and subcommittees on whether the
responsibilities of any proposed new federal entities, programs, or
functions are redundant. While I appreciate the respect for our work shown
by this proposal, I also think it is important that we be practical in
designing such a mandate. This kind of evaluation is very resource
intensive, and there are currently no agreed- upon criteria for
determining whether an activity is actually duplicative or redundant. Each
year, there are hundreds of bills proposed by committees alone. Though not
all bills would have potential redundancy implications, the number might
be significant and could affect our other work for the Congress. An
alternative might be to provide the Chair of the House Committee on
Government Reform and its Senate counterpart with the
authority to request such an evaluation for any bill before it goes to the
floor. At a minimum, some way to limit the number of bills analyzed would
be necessary.
Reinstitution of budget controls. The appropriations caps and *pay- go*
requirements* which expired in 2002* limited the expansion and creation of
new government programs and activities. Such controls
could be beneficial given our current and future fiscal challenges. In
addition, the reconciliation process could be used more to force tradeoffs
as well as a reexamination of existing programs.
Executive reorganization authority. Earlier this year, the House
Committee on Government Reform held hearings on reinstating the
President*s executive reorganization authority. Though a bill has not yet
been introduced, this authority could provide a useful tool in reexamining
the federal government*s organizational structure. Essentially, it would
reinstate the authority of the President to submit government
restructuring plans to the Congress and obtain expedited review. Such
authority can better enable the President to propose government
organization designs that would be more efficient and effective in meeting
existing and emerging challenges. But it is important to achieve consensus
on identified problems, needs, and solutions. The Congress has a vital
role in this process. As I testified at the April 2003 hearing, some
expedited congressional consideration may
be appropriate for specific issues. 16 However, the Congress may want to
consider different tracks for proposals that encompass significant policy
changes versus those that focus more narrowly on specific government
operations.
Special commissions. In the past, there have been special commissions
chartered to examine and make recommendations on difficult structural
issues. The most successful had both executive and bipartisan legislative
branch support. For example, the first Hoover Commission had more than 70
percent of its recommendations implemented, including 26 of 35
reorganization plans. More recently, the Base Realignment and Closure
process was used successfully to reduce unneeded defense assets. Provided
there is a clear statement of goals and the process to be used, such
commissions can provide an effective means of examining issues in depth
and formulating recommendations for the consideration of the Congress.
Enhanced oversight. A management and oversight process that is narrowly
focused or one that considers only incremental changes, while beneficial,
will not allow the government to reach its full performance potential. The
government is composed of organizations, programs, and functions that are
overlapping, fragmented, and interdependent.
Structuring management and oversight only according to preexisting
boundaries, whether they be executive departments or congressional
committee structures, limits the full potential of any review. The
importance of seeing the overall picture cannot be overestimated. It is
important to be asking the right questions.
The traditional oversight that the Congress provides to individual
organizations, programs, and activities has an important role in
eliminating redundancy and inefficiencies. There are important benefits to
be achieved through focused oversight if the right questions are asked
about program design and management. Five key questions for program
oversight are as follows:
Does the program duplicate or even work at cross- purposes with related
programs and tools?
16 U. S. General Accounting Office, Executive Reauthorization Authority:
Balancing Executive and Congressional Roles in Shaping the Federal
Government*s Structure, GAO03- 624T (Washington, D. C.: Apr. 3, 2003).
Is the program targeted properly? Is the program financially
sustainable and are there opportunities for
instituting appropriate cost- sharing and recovery mechanisms? Can the
program be made more efficient through reengineering or
streamlining processes or restructuring organizational roles and
responsibilities?
Are there clear goals, measures, and data with which to track progress
built into its planning and reporting systems?
Chief operating officer (COO). Transformation of a large organization is
a difficult undertaking, especially in government. Success depends on
committed, top- level leadership and sustained attention to management
issues. A COO could provide the sustained management attention essential
for addressing key infrastructure and stewardship issues and could
facilitate the transformation process. Establishing a COO in selected
federal agencies could provide a number of benefits. A COO would be the
focal point for elevating attention on management issues and
transformational change, integrating various key management and
transformation efforts, and instituting accountability for addressing
management issues and leading transformational change. A COO would provide
a single organizational position for key management functions,
such as human capital, financial management, information technology,
acquisition management, and performance management as well as for
transformational change initiatives. To be successful, in many cases, a
COO will need to be among an agency*s top leadership (e. g., deputy
secretary or under secretary). However, consistent with the desire to
integrate responsibilities, the creation of a senior management position
needs to be considered with careful regard to existing positions and
responsibilities so that it does not result in unnecessary *layering* at
an
agency. Consideration also should be given to providing a term
appointment, such as a 5* 7 year term. A term appointment would provide
sustained leadership. No matter how the positions are structured, it is
critical that the people appointed to these positions have a proven track
records in similar positions and be vested with sufficient authority to
achieve results. To further clarify expectations and responsibilities, the
COO should be subject to a clearly defined, resultsoriented performance
contract with appropriate incentives, rewards, and accountability
mechanisms. For selected agencies, a COO should be
subject to a Senate confirmation. In creating such a position, the
Congress might consider making certain subordinate positions, such as the
chief financial officer, not subject to Senate confirmation.
Governmentwide human capital reforms. There are a number of reforms that
might be considered. As I have previously testified, Congress should
consider providing governmentwide authority to
implement broadbanding, other pay for performance systems, and other
authorities whereby whole agencies are allowed to use additional
authorities after OPM has certified that they have the institutional
infrastructures in place to use them effectively and fairly. In addition
to requiring a human capital strategic plan from each agency, the Congress
should establish statutory principles for standards that an agency must
have in place before OPM can grant additional pay flexibilities.
Additional efforts should be taken to move the Senior Executive Service to
an approach wherein pay and rewards are more closely tied to performance.
Further, the Congress might consider establishing a
governmentwide fund where agencies, based on a sound business case, could
apply to OPM for funds to be used to modernize their performance
management systems and ensure that those systems have adequate safeguards
to prevent abuse. The governmentwide fund would
provide for targeted investments needed to prepare agencies to use their
performance management systems as strategic tools to achieve
organizational results and drive organizational change.
Government leaders are responsible and accountable for making needed
changes to position the federal government to meet current and future
challenges and to take advantage of emerging opportunities. In meeting
this responsibility, leaders must take advantage of every tool that is
available to them. Each of the seven tools that I have discussed has
unique characteristics and benefits that can be highly effective depending
on the goals to be achieved.
Concluding Remarks In view of the trends and fiscal challenges facing the
nation, there is a need to consider the proper role of the federal
government, how the government should be structured, how the government
should do business, and in some instances who should do the government*s
business. We cannot afford unnecessary redundancy and inefficient
operations, and taxpayers deserve better. The federal government*s large
and growing fiscal gap means that doing nothing is simply not an option.
Tough choices will have to be made
by elected officials. The Congress and the administration will need to use
every tool at their disposal to address these challenges. In addressing
these
challenges, it will be important to set clear goals, involve all key
players, and establish viable processes that will lead to positive and
sustainable results. We in GAO take our responsibility to assist the
Congress in these crucial efforts very seriously.
(450256)
GAO*s Mission The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities
and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal
government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds;
evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses,
recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed
oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO*s commitment to good
government is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity,
and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO
documents at no cost is
through the Internet. GAO*s Web site (www. gao. gov) contains abstracts
and fulltext GAO Reports and
files of current reports and testimony and an expanding archive of older
Testimony
products. The Web site features a search engine to help you locate
documents using key words and phrases. You can print these documents in
their entirety, including charts and other graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as *Today*s Reports,* on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full- text document files.
To have GAO e- mail this
list to you every afternoon, go to www. gao. gov and select *Subscribe to
e- mail alerts* under the *Order GAO Products* heading. Order by Mail or
Phone The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are
$2 each. A check
or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of Documents. GAO
also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more copies mailed to
a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should be sent to:
U. S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington, D. C.
20548 To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512- 6000 TDD: (202) 512- 2537 Fax:
(202) 512- 6061
To Report Fraud, Contact:
Waste, and Abuse in Web site: www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm E-
mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov Federal Programs
Automated answering system: (800) 424- 5454 or (202) 512- 7470 Public
Affairs Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@ gao. gov (202) 512-
4800 U. S. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D. C. 20548
a
GAO United States General Accounting Office
Through normal evolution and inertia over the years, the United States now
has a government that is weighed down by organizations with significant
performance and management problems as well as duplicative and overlapping
missions and functions. This situation is exacerbated by ways of doing
business that, in some cases, are better suited for the beginning of
the 20 th century than the 21 st century. Given the changed circumstances
and stark fiscal realities, the nation simply cannot afford unnecessary,
redundant, or inefficient organizations, programs, or operations.
Periodic reexamination and reevaluation of federal agencies* activities
have never been more important than they are today. The federal government
must address and adapt to major trends in the nation and around the world.
At the same time, our nation faces serious, long- term fiscal challenges.
Fundamental reexamination of federal agencies* roles, functions, and
structure is never easy. Reorganizing government can be an immensely
complex and politically charged activity. Those who would reorganize
government must make their rationale clear and build a consensus for
change if proposed reorganizations are to succeed. All key players must be
involved in the process* the Congress, the President, affected executive
branch agencies, their employees and unions, and other interested parties,
including the public. Regardless of the number and nature of federal
entities, the government*s goal should be to create high- performing
organizations. The federal government needs to look not only at what
business it is in, but how it does business. Practices that were good 50
years ago may not make sense today. Old, outdated practices and systems
result in inefficiency and waste of
resources that the nation cannot afford. Management reform will be vitally
important to agencies in transforming their cultures to address the
changing role of the government in the 21 st century.
Strategic human capital management should be a centerpiece of any serious
change management initiative or any effort to transform the cultures of
government agencies. It is a vital element to the success of any
government restructuring efforts, whether within an existing agency or
across current agency boundaries. People are an agency*s most important
organizational asset. An organization*s people define its character,
affect its capacity to perform, and represent the knowledge base of the
organization. GAO has sought to assist the Congress and the executive
branch
in considering the actions needed to support the transition to a more
high- performing, results- oriented,
and accountable federal government. At the Subcommittee*s request, GAO
provided perspectives on the federal government*s overall structure and
the need for reorganization to improve
performance. We did not make recommendations in this testimony. However,
we suggested a range of options that the Congress could use to eliminate
redundancy and improve federal operations to meet the challenges the
federal government faces at the beginning of the 21 st century. www. gao.
gov/ cgi- bin/ getrpt? GAO- 03- 1168T. To view the full product, including
the scope
and methodology, click on the link above. For more information, contact
Patricia A. Dalton at (202) 512- 6737 or daltonp@ gao. gov. Highlights of
GAO- 03- 1168T, a report to
the Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization, Committee on
Government Reform, House of Representatives
September 17, 2003
RESULTS- ORIENTED GOVERNMENT
Shaping the Government to Meet 21st Century Challenges
Page 1 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 2 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 3 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 4 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 5 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 6 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 7 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 8 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 9 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 10 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 11 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 12 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 13 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 14 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 15 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 16 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 17 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 18 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 19 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 20 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 21 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 22 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 23 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 24 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 25 GAO- 03- 1168T
Page 26 GAO- 03- 1168T
This is a work of the U. S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
*** End of document. ***