June 19, 2001
Thompson Assesses Performance of Federal
Agencies
"If we can’t do better than this, we might as well hang
it up and consign the Results Act to the scrap heap of failed
management ‘reforms.’"
Washington, DC - Senate Governmental Affairs Committee
Ranking Member Fred Thompson (R-TN) testified today before the
House Subcommittee on Government Efficiency regarding the status
of performance management in the federal government. Thompson
categorized performance reports’ shortcomings in four
different areas: the inability to assess an agency’s
performance; the inability to compare programs across
government; poor or inadequate data on performance; and an
unwillingness among agencies to set goals to resolve
long-standing problems in federal programs.
Senator Thompson told the Subcommittee, "While the FY
2000 reports submitted this year show modest improvement over
the FY 1999 versions, I think both rounds of performance reports
suffer from major shortcomings that prevent them from being
nearly as informative and useful as they need to be." He
continued, "Obviously, the Results Act hasn’t come close
to reaching its potential as a tool to improve government
performance."
Thompson discussed some specific details about the 2000
Performance Reports, drawing comparisons between good and bad
reports, and highlighting several agencies that showed marked
improvement. HHS, for instance, reported that FDA made
significant progress in getting the public prompt access to safe
and effective drugs. Although GAO found performance data was
unavailable for most of FDA's goals last year, this year’s
report shows that FDA met or exceeded most of its performance
targets. Thompson also singled out the Labor Department for
praise, pointing out that this year's report shows significant
progress in transitioning individuals from welfare dependency to
self-sufficiency,.
However, Thompson also gave numerous examples of poor, and
even deceptive, reporting. Thompson criticized reporting by the
Energy Department, especially in cases where the reported
performance did not match actual performance. For example,
although Energy reported meeting a measure to complete cleanup
at two sites, it noted that additional work remained to be done
at one of those sites. Thompson also criticized the Defense
Department, which reported performance that "did not always
hold up to scrutiny." For instance, in its report, Defense
states that it met its target cycle time for average major
defense acquisition programs. Unfortunately, DOD’s cycle time
was actually 2 months longer in 2000 than it was in the previous
year.
Thompson ended his testimony before the House Subcommittee on
an optimistic note: "I’m very encouraged that our leaders
in the Executive Branch are committed to turning things around.
OMB Director Mitch Daniels reaffirmed recently that making real
use of the Results Act is a top priority for the Administration.
I will continue to do everything I can to make this a reality. I
challenge my colleagues to do likewise."
Pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act
(Public Law 103-62), agencies are required to report to Congress
and the American people each year on the extent to which they
are achieving their annual goals. The stated purpose for the
Results Act was "to improve the efficiency and
effectiveness of Federal programs by establishing a system to
set goals for program performance and to measure results."
Results are to be reported to Congress by March 31st
of each year.
# # #
|