Changes to the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA): Overview of the New Framework of Products and Processes

Summary

On January 4, 2011, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) became law. The acronym “GPRA” in the act’s short title refers to the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA 1993), a law that GPRAMA substantially modified. When GPRA 1993 was enacted, it was regarded as a watershed for the federal government. For the first time, Congress established statutory requirements for most agencies to set goals, measure performance, and submit related plans and reports (hereafter, “products”) to Congress for its potential use.

After a four-year phase-in period for GPRA 1993 and 13 years of the law’s full implementation, GPRAMA makes substantial changes. Among other things, GPRAMA

continues three agency-level products from GPRA 1993, but with changes;

establishes new products and processes that focus on goal-setting and performance measurement in policy areas that cut across agencies;

brings attention to using goals and measures during policy implementation;

increases reporting on the Internet; and

requires individuals to be responsible for some goals and management tasks.

In making these changes, GPRAMA aligns the timing of many products to coincide with presidential terms and budget proposals. The law also includes more central roles for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), an entity that often seeks to advance the President’s policy preferences. GPRAMA also contains more specific requirements for consultations with Congress.

By design, many of GPRAMA’s products are required to be submitted to Congress for scrutiny and potential use. The law also provides opportunities for Congress and non-federal stakeholders to influence how agencies and OMB set goals and assess performance. This report provides an overview of GPRAMA’s products and processes. In addition, the report highlights potential issues for Congress. Related questions that Congress might consider include the following:

Are agencies’ and OMB’s consultations with Congress working well? Are agencies and OMB defining goals and assessing performance in ways that reflect underlying statutes and congressional intent?

Are the representations that agencies and OMB make about government performance perceived by Congress, federal personnel, and the public as credible and useful? What are the implications of evidence that is presented?

Are agencies and OMB implementing GPRAMA with desired levels of transparency and public participation?

Are agencies, OMB, and Congress focusing effectively on crosscutting policy areas to better coordinate efforts and reduce any unnecessary duplication?

Are agencies and OMB implementing GPRAMA in a responsive, effective manner? Is GPRAMA working well? If not, what might be done?

This report will be updated as events warrant.