prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.



Report 2: GPRAMA significantly enhances GPRA, the centerpiece of a statutory framework that Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve longstanding performance and management problems in the federal government and provide greater accountability for results  Congress passed GPRAMA in 2010 to address a number of persistent federal performance challenges, including focusing attention on crosscutting issues and enhancing the use and usefulness of performance information  OMB and agencies are to establish various government-wide and agency-specific performance goals, in line with GPRAMA requirements or OMB guidance  These include the following: Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: CAP goals are crosscutting and include outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of policy areas as well as goals for management improvements needed across the government  OMB is to coordinate with agencies to establish CAP goals at least every 4 years  OMB is also required to coordinate with agencies to develop annual federal government performance plans to, among other things, define the level of performance to be achieved toward the CAP goals  Strategic objectives: A strategic objective is the outcome or impact the agency is intending to achieve through its various programs and initiatives  Agencies establish strategic objectives in their strategic plans and may update the objectives during the annual update of performance plans  Agency priority goals (APG): At the agency level, every 2 years, GPRAMA requires that the heads of certain agencies, in consultation with OMB, identify a subset of agency performance goals as APGs  These goals are to reflect the agencies’ highest priorities  They should be informed by the CAP goals as well as consultations with relevant congressional committees and other interested parties  In a schedule established by GPRAMA, OMB and agencies are to develop and publish new CAP goals, APGs, and strategic plans (with updated strategic objectives) in February 2018  GPRAMA and related OMB guidance require agencies to regularly assess their progress in achieving goals and objectives through performance reviews  Data-driven reviews: Agency leaders and managers are to use regular meetings, at least quarterly, to review data and drive progress toward key performance goals and other management-improvement priorities  For each APG, GPRAMA requires agency leaders to conduct reviews at least quarterly to assess progress toward the goal, determine the risk of the goal not being met, and develop strategies to improve performance  Similarly, the Director of OMB, with relevant parties, is to review progress toward each CAP goal  Strategic reviews: OMB guidance directs agency leaders to annually assess progress toward achieving each strategic objective using a broad range of evidence  GPRAMA establishes certain senior leadership positions and a council, as described below  Chief Operating Officer (COO): The deputy agency head, or equivalent, is designated COO, with overall responsibility for improving agency management and performance  Performance Improvement Officer (PIO): Agency heads are to designate a senior executive within the agency as the PIO  The PIO reports directly to the COO and assists the agency head and COO with various performance management activities  Goal leaders: Goal leaders are responsible for developing strategies to achieve goals, managing execution, and regularly reviewing performance  GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and agency performance goals, including APGs  OMB guidance directs agencies to designate goal leaders for strategic objectives  Performance Improvement Council (PIC): The PIC is charged with assisting OMB to improve the performance of the federal government and achieve the CAP goals  The PIC is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB and includes agency PIOs from each of the 24 CFO Act agencies as well as other PIOs and individuals designated by the chair  Among its responsibilities, the PIC is to work to resolve government-wide or crosscutting performance issues, and facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies  GPRAMA includes several provisions related to providing the public and Congress with information, as described below  Performance gov: GPRAMA calls for a single, government-wide performance website to communicate government-wide and agency performance information  Among other things, the website— implemented by OMB as Performance gov—is to include (1) quarterly progress updates on CAP goals and APGs; (2) an inventory of all federal programs; and (3) agency strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports  Reporting burden: GPRAMA establishes a process to reexamine the usefulness of certain existing congressional reporting requirements  Specifically, GPRAMA requires an annual review (including congressional consultation), based on OMB guidance, of agencies’ reporting requirements to Congress  Additionally, OMB is to include in the budget a list of plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative and may submit legislation to eliminate or consolidate such plans or reports  In early 2017, the administration announced several efforts that are intended to improve government performance  The 2018 Budget Blueprint states that the President’s Management Agenda will seek to improve the federal government’s effectiveness by using evidence-based approaches, balancing flexibility with accountability to better achieve results, improving mission support functions, and developing and monitoring critical performance measures  In addition, OMB issued several memoranda detailing the administration’s plans to improve government performance by reorganizing the government, reducing the federal workforce, and reducing federal agency burden  A number of these efforts, which are to leverage GPRAMA and our past work, have the potential to further progress in addressing key governance challenges  As part of reorganization efforts, OMB and agencies are developing government-wide and agency reform plans, respectively, that are to leverage various GPRAMA provisions  For example, an April 2017 memorandum states that OMB intends to monitor implementation of the reform plans using CAP goals, APGs, annual strategic reviews, and Performance gov  The government-wide plan also is to include crosscutting reform proposals, such as merging agencies or programs that have similar missions  To that end, the memorandum states agencies should consider our reports, including our work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, as well as inspectors general reports  Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve, such as those related to ensuring public health, providing homeland security, and promoting economic development, require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector  For more than 2 decades, we have reported on agencies’ missed opportunities for improved collaboration through the effective implementation of GPRA and, more recently, GPRAMA  Our reports also have demonstrated that collaboration across agencies is critical to address issues of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication as well as many of the areas on our High-Risk List  Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: Since 2011, our annual reports have identified 133 crosscutting areas that require the coordinated effort of more than one federal organization, level of government, or sector  For instance, for the area of federal grant awards, we found in January 2017 that the National Park Service (NPS), Fish and Wildlife Service, Food and Nutrition Service, and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) had not established guidance and formal processes to ensure their grant-management staff review applications for potential duplication and overlap among grants in their agencies before awarding  We recommended that these agencies do so, and they agreed  As of August 2017, these agencies had taken several actions to address the recommendation  For example, the Department of the Interior (Interior) provided documentation showing that the Fish and Wildlife Service now requires discretionary grant applicants to provide a statement that addresses whether there is any overlap or duplication of proposed projects or activities to be funded by the grant  Fish and Wildlife also updated its guidance to grant awarding offices instructing them to perform a potential overlap and duplication review of all selected applicants prior to award  Our Action Tracker provides details on the status of actions from our annual reports  Within the 133 crosscutting areas, since 2011 we have identified 315 targeted actions where opportunities exist to better manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication, including 29 new actions in our most recent report issued in April 2017  We found that the executive branch and Congress addressed 145 (46 percent) of the 315 actions  For example, in November 2014, we recommended that the U S  Coast Guard and Consumer Product Safety Commission establish a formal approach to coordination (such as a memorandum of understanding) to facilitate information sharing; better leverage their resources; and address challenges, including those related to fragmentation and overlap that we identified  In response to this recommendation, the two agencies signed a formal policy document to govern their coordination in May 2015  This policy document outlined procedures for determining jurisdictional authority for recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items  Specifically, the procedures clarified that upon receiving notice of a possible defect, the agency receiving such notice shall determine whether the item properly falls within its jurisdiction, and if not, initiate discussions to determine the appropriate jurisdiction  These new procedures should help the agencies share information and leverage each other’s resources so they can better ensure that recreational boat-associated equipment and marine safety items are fully regulated  However, more work is needed on the remaining 170 actions (54 percent) that have not been fully addressed  For example, in July 2016, we reported that four federal agencies—the Departments of Defense, Education, Health and Human Services, and Justice—manage at least 10 efforts to collect data on sexual violence, which differ in target population, terminology, measurements, and methodology  We found that data collection efforts use 23 different terms to describe sexual violence  Data collection efforts also differed in how they categorized particular acts of sexual violence, the context in which data were collected, data sources, units of measurement, and time frames  We recommended that OMB convene an interagency forum to better manage fragmentation of efforts to collect sexual violence data  In commenting on that report, OMB stated it would consider implementing the action in the future but did not believe it was the most effective use of resources at that time, in part because the agencies were not far enough along in their research  In response, we stated that given the number of federal data collection efforts, the range of differences across them, and the potential for causing confusion, it would be beneficial for agencies to discuss these differences and determine whether they are, in fact, necessary  As of July 2017, OMB had not provided an update on the status of this recommendation  High-Risk List: Since the early 1990s, our high-risk program has focused attention on government operations with greater vulnerabilities to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement or that are in need of transformation to address economy, efficiency, or effectiveness challenges  As of February 2017, there were 34 high-risk areas covering a wide range of issues including human capital management, modernizing the U S  financial regulatory system, and ensuring the security of federal information systems and cyber critical infrastructure  Many of these high- risk areas require a coordinated response from more than one branch of government, agency, or sector  In the time between our 2015 and 2017 High-Risk Updates, many of these high-risk areas on our list demonstrated solid progress  During that period, 15 high-risk areas fully met at least one of the five criteria required for removal from the High-Risk List  In many cases, progress was possible through the joint efforts of Congress and leadership and staff in agencies  For example, Congress passed over a dozen laws following our 2015 High-Risk Update to help address high-risk issues  In addition, in 2017, we removed one high-risk area on managing terrorism-related information, because significant progress had been made to strengthen how intelligence on terrorism, homeland security, and law enforcement is shared among federal, state, local, tribal, international, and private sector partners  Despite this progress, continued oversight and attention is also warranted given the issue’s direct relevance to homeland security as well as the constant evolution of terrorist threats and changing technology  Our February 2017 High-Risk Update also highlighted a number of long- standing high-risk areas that require additional attention  We also added three new crosscutting areas to incorporate the management of federal programs that serve tribes and their members, the government’s environmental liabilities, and the 2020 decennial census  Based on our body of work on federal programs that serve tribes and their members, we concluded that federal agencies had (1) ineffectively administered Indian education and health care programs and (2) inefficiently fulfilled their responsibilities for managing the development of Indian energy resources  For example, we identified numerous challenges facing Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) and Bureau of Indian Affairs, and the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Indian Health Service (IHS), in administering education and health care services  We concluded that these challenges put the health and safety of American Indians served by these programs at risk  In May 2017, we issued two additional reports on accountability for school construction and safety at schools funded by BIE  Although these agencies have taken some actions to address recommendations we made related to Indian programs, about 50 recommendations have yet to be fully resolved  We are monitoring federal efforts to address the unresolved recommendations  We also are reviewing IHS’s workforce, and tribal nations’ management and use of their energy resources  Many of the crosscutting areas highlighted by our annual reports on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication and designated as high-risk would benefit from enhanced collaboration among the federal agencies involved in them  GPRAMA establishes a framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government performance  Our survey results and past work demonstrate that agencies continue to face difficulties when working together on crosscutting issues, but also that implementing certain GPRAMA requirements can have a positive effect on collaboration  An item related to coordination in our survey of federal managers is statistically significantly lower in 2017, relative to our previous survey in 2013 and our initial survey in 1997  In 2017, an estimated 43 percent of managers agreed that they use information obtained from performance measurement to a great or very great extent when coordinating program efforts with internal or external organizations (compared to an estimated 50 percent in 2013 and an estimated 57 percent in 1997)  Moreover, our past work has found that agencies face a variety of challenges when working across organizational boundaries to deliver programs and improve performance  For example, our work has found that interagency groups have, at times, encountered difficulty clarifying roles and responsibilities or developing shared outcomes and performance measures  In contrast, our past work demonstrates that implementing GPRAMA provisions can improve collaboration  For example, in May 2016, we found that OMB and the PIC updated the governance structure for CAP goals to include both agency-level and Executive Office of the President goal leaders and held regular, senior-level reviews on CAP goal progress  Moreover, CAP goal teams told us that the CAP goal designation increased leadership attention and improved interagency collaboration on their crosscutting issues  Furthermore, our prior work has found that priority goals and related data-driven reviews have also been used to help manage crosscutting issues and enhance collaboration  Various GPRAMA requirements are aimed at improving agencies’ coordination of efforts to address crosscutting issues  As with our 2013 survey, our 2017 survey continues to show that CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews—also called quarterly performance reviews (QPR)—are associated with reported higher levels of collaboration with internal and external stakeholders  For example, our 2017 survey data indicate that about half of federal managers (an estimated 54 percent) reported they were somewhat or very familiar with CAP goals  Among these individuals, those who viewed their programs as contributing to CAP goals to a great or very great extent (36 percent) were more likely to report collaborating outside their program to a great or very great extent to help achieve CAP goals (62 percent), as shown in figure 2  Our analysis shows a similar pattern exists for APGs and QPRs  Our past work also has highlighted ways in which OMB and agencies could better implement GPRAMA’s crosscutting provisions—many of which have been addressed  A continued focus on fully and effectively implementing these provisions will be important as OMB and agencies establish new CAP goals and APGs, and assess progress toward them through related QPRs  Cross-agency priority (CAP) goals: In May 2012 and June 2013, we found that OMB had not always identified relevant agencies and program activities as contributors to the initial set of CAP goals  OMB took actions in response to our recommendations to include relevant contributors  Our most recent review, in May 2016, found that all relevant contributors had been identified for a subsequent set of CAP goals  In that report, we also found that OMB and the PIC had improved implementation of the CAP goals, in part, by helping agencies build their capacity to contribute to implementing the goals  Appendix II summarizes our past recommendations related to GPRAMA and the actions agencies have taken to address them  Agency priority goals (APGs): In April 2013, we found that agencies did not fully explain the relationship between their APGs and crosscutting efforts  Identify contributors: Similar to OMB’s responsibilities with the CAP goals, agencies are to identify the various organizations and programs that contribute to each of their performance goals, including APGs  We found that agencies identified internal contributors for their APGs, but did not list external contributors in some cases  We recommended that the Director of OMB ensure that agencies adhere to OMB’s guidance for website updates by providing complete information about the organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities—both within and external to the agency— that contribute to each APG  In response, in April 2015, OMB asked agencies to identify organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, tax expenditures, and other activities contributing to their 2014-2015 APGs  Based on an analysis of the final quarterly updates for those APGs, published in December 2015, we found that agencies made progress in identifying external organizations and programs for their APGs  Describe how agency goals contribute to CAP goals: Agencies generally did not identify how their APGs contributed to CAP goals  We recommended that OMB direct agencies to describe in their performance plans how the agency’s performance goals—including APGs—contribute to any of the CAP goals as required by GPRAMA  In response, in July 2013, OMB updated its guidance directing agencies to include a list of the CAP goals to which the agency contributes and explain the agency’s contribution to them in their strategic plans, performance plans, and performance reports  Data-driven reviews: For their data-driven reviews of agency priority goals, agencies are to include, as appropriate, relevant personnel within and outside the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each goal  However, in February 2013, we found that most Performance Improvement Officers (PIO) we surveyed (16 of 24) indicated that there was little to no involvement in these reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals  We recommended that OMB and the PIC help agencies extend their QPRs to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their APGs  OMB staff told us that they generally concurred with the recommendation, but believed it would not always be appropriate to regularly include external representatives in agencies’ data-driven reviews, which they considered to be internal management meetings  In a subsequent review, we found in July 2015 that PIOs at 21 of the 22 agencies we surveyed said that their data-driven reviews had a positive effect on collaboration among officials from different offices or programs within the agency  Despite the positive effects, most agency PIOs (17) indicated that there continued to be little to no involvement in the reviews from external officials who contribute to achieving agency goals  In May 2016, OMB and PIC staff reported that, in response to our earlier recommendation, they were working with agencies to identify examples where agencies included representatives from outside organizations in data-driven reviews, and to identify promising practices based on those experiences  PIC staff told us they would disseminate any promising practices identified through the PIC Internal Reviews Working Group and other venues  In August 2017, OMB staff told us they plan to hold a summit with agencies later in the year to discuss implementing various performance management requirements, which could include agencies highlighting experiences and promising practices related to involving external officials in their data-driven reviews  We continue to believe data- driven reviews should include any relevant contributors from outside organizations and will continue to monitor progress  Despite the important role priority goals and related reviews can play in addressing crosscutting issues and enhancing collaboration, OMB recently removed the priority status of the current sets of priority goals  According to OMB staff, removing the priority designation from CAP goals and APGs returned them to regular performance goals, which are not subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of those reviews on Performance gov  In a June 2017 memorandum, OMB stated that CAP goals and APGs are intended to focus efforts toward achieving the priorities of current political leadership, and therefore reporting on the priority goals of the previous administration on Performance gov was discontinued for the remainder of the period covered by the goals (through September 30, 2017, the end of fiscal year 2017)  The memorandum further noted that agencies and teams working on those goals should continue working on the current goals where they align with the priorities of the current administration  Moreover, the memorandum states that agencies have flexibility in structuring their data-driven reviews, but they should continue such reviews focused on agency priorities  When asked about these actions, OMB staff told us that they believed they were working in line with the intentions of GPRAMA, which realigned the timing of goal setting with presidential terms, to better take into account changes in priorities  This is the first presidential transition since GPRAMA was enacted, and OMB staff told us they thought the act was unclear on how to handle priority goals during the changes in administrations and priorities  They stated that it was not practical to continue reporting on the priority goals of the prior administration as agencies worked to develop new strategic plans and priority goals for publication in February 2018  Hence, they told us OMB ended the current round of CAP goals and directed agencies to remove the priority designation from the APGs, returning them to regular performance goals  OMB staff further told us that although the guidance was published in a June 2017 memorandum, these decisions had been made and previously communicated to agencies during the transition in administrations  Therefore, reporting on the fiscal year 2014-2017 CAP goals, fiscal year 2016-2017 APGs, and related reviews stopped much earlier in the year, well before goal cycles were planned to be completed on September 30, 2017  OMB staff further stated that although the goals no longer had priority designations, work towards them largely continued in 2017  For example, one of the prior administration’s CAP goals was to modernize the federal permitting and review process for major infrastructure projects  OMB staff told us that they and agencies have continued many of the activities intended to achieve that goal, but they are no longer subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of these reviews on Performance gov  Moreover, they expect most of this work will continue towards a new and refocused CAP goal on infrastructure permitting modernization  OMB staff reaffirmed to us their intentions to resume implementation of CAP goals, APGs, and related data-driven reviews when the new planning and reporting cycle begins in February 2018  This is in line with stated plans to leverage various GPRAMA provisions to track progress of proposed government-wide and agency-specific reforms, as outlined in OMB’s April 2017 memorandum on the reform plans  In addition, OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance for implementing GPRAMA similarly focuses on continued implementation of the act  Additional aspects of GPRAMA implementation could similarly help improve the management of crosscutting issues  Strategic reviews: OMB’s 2012 guidance implementing GPRAMA established a process in which agencies, beginning in 2014, were to conduct leadership-driven, annual reviews of their progress toward achieving each strategic objective established in their strategic plans  As we found in July 2015, effectively implementing strategic reviews could help identify opportunities to reduce, eliminate, or better manage instances of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  Under OMB’s guidance, agencies are to identify the various organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities that contribute to each objective, both within and outside the agency  Where progress in achieving an objective is lagging, the reviews are intended to identify strategies for improvement, such as strengthening collaboration to better address crosscutting challenges, or using evidence to identify and implement more effective program designs  If successfully implemented in a way that is open, inclusive, and transparent—to Congress, delivery partners, and a full range of stakeholders—this approach could help decision makers assess the relative contributions of various programs to a given objective  Successful strategic reviews could also help decision makers identify and assess the interplay of public policy tools that are being used to ensure that those tools are effective and mutually reinforcing, and that results are being efficiently achieved  In July 2017, OMB released guidance which updated the status of the 2017 strategic reviews  Because agencies are currently developing new strategic goals and objectives, OMB stated that agencies may forego the reporting and categorization requirements for any current strategic objectives that an agency determines will be substantively different or no longer aligned with the current administration’s policy, legislative, regulatory, or budgetary priorities  In addition, OMB stated that while there will be no formal meetings between OMB and the agencies to discuss findings and related progress from the 2017 strategic reviews, it expects that agencies will continue to conduct strategic reviews or assess progress made toward strategic goals and objectives aligned with administration policy  Furthermore, OMB stated that during this transition year, updates of progress on agency strategic objectives will only be published in the agency’s annual performance report and will not be reported to Performance gov  Full reporting through Performance gov is to resume after new agency strategic plans are published in February 2018  Agencies are to include a progress update for strategic objectives as part of their progress update in their fiscal year 2017 annual performance reports  Agencies also must address next steps for performance improvement as part of their fiscal year 2019 annual performance plans  Program inventories: GPRAMA requires OMB to publish a list of all federal programs, along with related budget and performance information, on a central government-wide website  Such a list could help decision makers and the public fully understand what the federal government does, how it does it, and how well it is doing  An inventory of federal programs could also be a critical tool to help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the federal government  Agencies developed initial program inventories in May 2013, but since then have not updated or more fully implemented these inventories  In October 2014, we found several issues limited the completeness, comparability, and usefulness of the May 2013 program inventories  OMB and agencies did not take a systematic approach to developing comprehensive inventories  For example, OMB’s guidance in Circular No  A-11 presented five possible approaches agencies could take to define their programs and noted that agencies could use one or more of those approaches in doing so  We found that because the agencies used inconsistent approaches to define their programs, the comparability of programs was limited within agencies as well as government-wide  In addition, we found that the inventories had limited usefulness for decision making, as they did not consistently provide the program and related budget and performance information required by GPRAMA  Moreover, we found that agencies did not solicit feedback on their inventories from external stakeholders—which can include Congress, state and local governments, third party service providers, and the public  Doing so would have provided OMB and agencies an opportunity to ensure they were presenting useful information for stakeholder decision making  We concluded that the ability to tag and sort information about programs through a more dynamic, web-based presentation could make the inventory more useful  In October 2014, we made several recommendations to OMB to update relevant guidance to help develop a more coherent picture of all federal programs and to better ensure relevant information is useful for decision makers  For example, we recommended that OMB revise its guidance to direct agencies to consult with relevant congressional committees and stakeholders on their approach to defining and identifying programs when developing or updating their inventories  OMB staff generally agreed with these recommendations, but have not yet taken any actions to implement them  OMB’s guidance for the program inventory has largely remained unchanged since 2014, when OMB postponed further development of the program inventory and eliminated portions of the guidance  For example, the guidance no longer describes, or provides directions for agencies to meet, GPRAMA’s requirements for presenting related budget or performance information for each program  OMB decided to postpone implementing a planned May 2014 update to the program inventory in order to coordinate with the implementation of the public spending reporting required by the Digital Accountability and Transparency Act of 2014 (DATA Act)  OMB subsequently stated that it would not begin implementing the program inventory until after the DATA Act was implemented in May 2017, despite requirements for regular updates to the program inventory to reflect current budget and performance information  The DATA Act is now being implemented, but OMB has postponed resuming the development of the program inventory  In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they are now considering how to align GPRAMA’s program inventory provisions with future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA)  This was reflected in OMB’s July 2017 update to its guidance, which states that OMB is working with agencies to determine the right strategy to merge the implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements to the extent possible to avoid duplicating efforts  For example, PMIAA requires OMB to coordinate with agency Program Management Improvement Officers to conduct portfolio reviews of agency programs to assess the quality and effectiveness of program management  GPRAMA requires OMB to issue guidance for implementing the program inventory requirements, among other things  Moreover, federal internal control standards state that organizations should clearly define what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement  As described above, OMB’s current guidance for the program inventory lacks some of those details—such as describing and providing direction to meet GPRAMA’s requirements for budget and performance information—in part because OMB is working with agencies to determine a strategy for implementation  Ensuring all GPRAMA requirements are covered and taking action on our past recommendations would help OMB improve its guidance to more fully implement the program inventory and improve its usefulness  To that end, in a report issued earlier this month, we identified a series of iterative steps that OMB could use in directing agencies to develop a useful inventory, as described in figure 3  A useful inventory would consist of all programs identified, information about each program, and the organizational structure of the programs  Our work showed that the principles and practices of information architecture—a discipline focused on organizing and structuring information—offer an approach for developing such an inventory to support a variety of uses, including increased transparency for federal programs  Such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help OMB ensure the inventory is implemented in line with GPRAMA requirements and meets the needs of decision makers and the public, among others  OMB’s guidance also lacks specific time frames, with associated milestones for resuming implementation of the program inventory requirements  As part of PMIAA’s requirements, OMB is to issue standards, policies, and guidelines for program and project management for agencies by December 2017  OMB staff told us that, within a year after that, they expect to issue further guidance on moving forward with resuming the program inventory  However, that general time frame was not reflected in the July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance  Providing specific time frames and associated milestones would bring the program inventory guidance in line with other portions of OMB’s guidance for implementing GPRAMA requirements, which contains a timeline of various performance planning and reporting requirements, including specific dates for meeting those requirements and related descriptions of required actions  For example, OMB’s July 2017 guidance identifies over 30 actions agencies should take between June 2017 and December 2018 to implement various GPRAMA provision  More specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation by allowing them to know what actions they would be expected to take and by when  Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones also would help ensure that external stakeholders are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories  Effectively implementing various GPRAMA tools could help inform assessments of the performance of tax expenditures, which are reductions in tax liabilities that result from preferential provisions (figure 4)  In fiscal year 2016, tax expenditures represented an estimated $1 4 trillion in forgone revenue, an amount greater than total discretionary spending that year  Despite the magnitude of these investments, our work has also shown that little has been done to determine how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their stated purposes and how their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs with similar goals  GPRAMA requires OMB to identify tax expenditures that contribute to the CAP goals  In addition, OMB guidance directs agencies to identify tax expenditures that contribute to their strategic objectives and APGs  However, our past work reviewing GPRAMA implementation found that OMB and agencies rarely identified tax expenditures as contributors to these goals  Fully implementing our recommendation to identify how tax expenditures contribute to various goals could help the federal government establish a process for evaluating the performance of tax expenditures  To that end, in May 2017, we provided the Director of OMB with three priority recommendations that require attention: Develop framework for reviewing performance: In June 1994, and again in September 2005, we recommended that OMB develop a framework for reviewing tax expenditure performance  We explained that the framework should (1) outline leadership responsibilities and coordination among agencies with related responsibilities, (2) set a review schedule, (3) identify review methods and ways to address the lack of credible tax expenditure performance information, and (4) identify resources needed for tax expenditure reviews  Since their initial efforts in 1997 and 1999 to outline a framework for evaluating tax expenditures and preliminary performance measures, OMB and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) have ceased to make progress and retreated from setting a schedule for evaluating tax expenditures  Inventory tax expenditures: In October 2014, we found that OMB had not included tax expenditures in the federal program inventory, and therefore was missing an opportunity to increase the transparency of tax expenditures and the outcomes to which they contribute  We recommended that OMB should designate tax expenditures as a program type in relevant guidance, and develop, in coordination with the Secretary of the Treasury, a tax expenditure inventory that identifies each tax expenditure and provides a description of how the tax expenditure is defined, its purpose, and related budget and performance information  OMB staff said they neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommended actions  As noted earlier, OMB has not resumed updates to the program inventory  Therefore, OMB had not taken any actions in response to this recommendation, according to OMB staff as of July 2017  Identify contributions to agency goals: In July 2016, we found that agencies had made limited progress identifying tax expenditures’ contribution to agency goals, as directed by OMB guidance  As of January 2016, 7 of the 24 CFO Act agencies identified tax expenditures as contributing to their missions or goals  The 11 tax expenditure they identified—out of the 169 tax expenditures included in the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2017—represented approximately $31 9 billion of the $1 2 trillion in estimated forgone revenues for fiscal year 2015  (See figure 5 ) To help address this issue, we recommended that OMB, in collaboration with the Department of the Treasury, work with agencies to identify which tax expenditures contribute to their agency goals, as appropriate  In particular, we recommended that they identify which specific tax expenditures contribute to specific strategic objectives and APGs  In July 2017, OMB staff said they had taken no actions to address the recommendation  Our July 2016 report also identified options for policymakers to further incorporate tax expenditures into federal budgeting processes, several of which options align with the recommendations discussed above  These options could help achieve various benefits, but we also reported that policymakers would need to consider challenges and tradeoffs in deciding whether or how to implement them  For example, one option was to require that all tax expenditures, or some subset of them, expire after a finite period  This option could result in greater oversight, requiring policymakers to explicitly decide whether to extend more or all tax expenditures  One consideration with this option is that it could lead to frequent changes in the tax code, such as from extended or expired tax expenditures, which can create uncertainty and make tax planning more difficult  Our previous work has shown that using performance information in decision making is essential to improving results  Performance information can be used across a range of management activities, such as setting priorities, allocating resources, or identifying problems to be addressed  However, our work continues to show that agencies can better use performance information in decision making, as shown in the example in the text box below  Department of Justice (DOJ) Could Better Analyze Performance Information to Reduce Backlog in Immigration Courts In June 2017, we found that the case backlog—cases pending from previous years that remain open at the start of a new fiscal year—at DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) courts more than doubled from fiscal years 2006 through 2015  Stakeholders identified various factors that potentially contributed to the backlog, including continuances—temporary case adjournments until a different day or time  Our analysis of continuance records showed that the use of continuances increased by 23 percent from fiscal years 2006 through 2015  We found that EOIR collects continuance data but does not systematically assess them  Systematically analyzing the use of continuances could provide EOIR officials with valuable information about challenges the immigration courts may be experiencing, such as with operational issues like courtroom technology malfunctions, or areas that may merit additional guidance for immigration judges  Further, using this information to potentially address operational challenges could help that office meet its goals for completing cases in a timely manner  We recommended that the Director of EOIR systematically analyze immigration court continuance data to identify and address any operational challenges faced by courts or areas for additional guidance or training  EIOR agreed with this recommendation  EOIR stated that it supports conducting additional analysis of immigration court continuance data and recognizes that additional guidance or training regarding continuances may be beneficial to ensure that immigration judges use continuances appropriately in support of EOIR’s mission to adjudicate immigration cases in a careful and timely manner  We will monitor EOIR’s progress in taking these actions  Our 2017 survey of federal managers shows little change in their reported use of performance information  Using a set of survey questions, we previously developed an index that reflects the extent to which managers reported that their agencies used performance information for various management activities and decision making  The index suggests that government-wide use of performance information did not change significantly between 2013 and 2017, and it is statistically significantly lower relative to our 2007 survey, when we created the index  Figure 6 shows the questions included in the index and the government-wide results  In regard to individual survey items, in 2017 federal managers reported no changes or decreases in their use of performance information when compared to our last survey and when those survey items were first introduced  These results are generally consistent with our last few surveys  For example, in 2008 we found that there had been little change in federal managers’ reported use of performance information government-wide from 1997 to our 2007 survey  Citing those results, the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that agencies were not consistently using performance information to improve their management and results  The report further stated that provisions in GPRAMA are intended to address those findings and increase the use of performance information to improve performance and results  However, five items that were highlighted in our 2008 statement on the 2007 survey results generally show no improvement when compared to the 2017 results, as shown in figure 7  The one exception is for managers’ reported use of performance information to refine program performance measures  While this item was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007—an estimated 46 percent to 53 percent—the 2017 result (43 percent) is a statistically significant decrease relative to 2013 and is not statistically different from the 2007 results  Another item, the use of performance information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes, also was statistically significantly lower in 2017 (47 percent) when compared to 2007 and 2013 (53 and 54 percent, respectively)  This is of particular concern as agencies are developing their reform plans  Moreover, when compared to our 1997 survey, the 2017 results show four of the five items are statistically significantly lower, and the remaining item—allocating resources—has not changed  Similarly, we found there was no improvement in 2017 for more recent survey items on other uses of performance information compared to the years in which they were introduced, as shown in figure 8  Although one item, on the use of performance information to develop program strategy, was statistically significantly higher in 2013 relative to 2007 (an estimated 58 and 51 percent, respectively), the 2017 result (53 percent) does not represent a statistically significant change from either of those years  Another item, on the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities, is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013, when it was introduced (from 44 to 33 percent in 2017)  This is especially concerning because streamlining and reducing duplication are to be key parts of agencies’ reform plans  There is one area in the survey where we saw improvement: an estimated 46 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that employees who report to them pay attention to their agency’s use of performance information in management decision making  That is statistically significantly higher relative to 2013 (40 percent), as well as when compared to when the item was introduced in 2007 (37 percent)  For a new and related item in the 2017 survey that asked managers the amount of attention their employees pay to the use of performance information in decision making when compared to 3 years ago, we found an estimated 48 percent reported that employees pay about the same 33 percent reported that employees pay somewhat or a great deal more attention  In September 2005, we identified five practices that agencies can apply to enhance the use of performance information in their decision making and improve results: demonstrating management commitment; communicating performance information frequently and efficiently; improving the usefulness of performance information, such as by ensuring the accessibility of the information; developing the capacity to use performance information; and aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures  Many of the requirements put in place by GPRAMA reinforce the importance of these practices  Our 2017 survey of federal managers includes a number of items related to these practices  However, the 2017 results suggest that managers have not effectively adopted them  In the following sections, we examine several of the practices to enhance the use of performance information and their related survey items further  In doing so, we also highlight a subset of six survey items related to these practices that, while separate from those in our use of performance information index, we found in September 2014 to have a statistically significant and positive relationship with it  The commitment of agency leaders to results-oriented management is critical to increased use of performance information for policy and program decisions  GPRAMA requires top leadership involvement in performance management, including leading data-driven performance reviews  However, we have previously reported that improvements are needed to strengthen leadership’s commitment to use performance information, as discussed in the text box below  Department of Defense Should Strengthen Leadership Responsibilities for Using Performance Information In January 2005, we designated the Department of Defense’s (DOD) approach to business transformation as high-risk because DOD had not taken the necessary steps to achieve and sustain business reform on a broad, strategic, department-wide, and integrated basis  In the February 2017 update to our High-Risk List, we found that DOD had taken some positive steps to improve its business transformation efforts continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement, and leading regular DOD performance reviews regarding transformation goals and associated metrics and ensuring that business function leaders attend these reviews to facilitate problem solving  In July 2017, DOD officials told us that the department’s performance reviews have been put on hold until after the new Agency Strategic Plan is issued  We will review DOD’s updated Agency Strategic Plan when it is issued (expected in February 2018, as required by GPRAMA) to see if it addresses continuing to hold business function leaders accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying strategies for improvement  We will continue to monitor the status of these actions  GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D C : Feb  15, 2017)  Results from our 2017 survey show no statistically significant difference relative to 2013 in managers’ perceptions of leaders’ and supervisors’ attention and commitment to the use of performance information  (See figure 9 ) Three items are statistically significantly different from the years when they were introduced  Two items increased between 1997 and 2017: changes by management to my program(s) are based on results-oriented information (from an estimated 16 to 25 percent), and the individual I report to periodically reviews with me the outcomes of my program(s) (from 42 to 54 percent)  For the third item, top leadership demonstrates a strong commitment to using performance information to guide decision making, results decreased from 49 percent in 2007 to 42 percent in 2017  New items in the 2017 survey show some improvement in management commitment to the use of performance information in decision making  An estimated 36 percent of federal managers reported that, when compared to 3 years ago, the individual they report to pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 46 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention  Additionally, an estimated 21 percent of federal managers said that, when compared to 3 years ago, the head of their agency pays somewhat or a great deal more attention to the use of performance information in decision making, while 33 percent said they pay about the same amount of attention  Communicating performance information frequently and effectively throughout an agency can help to achieve the agency’s goals  GPRAMA includes requirements for communicating performance information, such as reporting progress updates for APGs at least quarterly  However, our prior work has found that some agencies could continue to improve in the communication of performance information, as illustrated by the example in the text box below  Department of Education (Education) Could Better Share Effective Practices across States in Grant Program Education awards 21st Century Community Learning Centers grants to states, which in turn competitively award funds to local organizations that use them to offer academic enrichment and other activities to improve students’ academic and behavioral outcomes  In April 2017, we found that states are experiencing substantial difficulty in sustaining their programs after 21st Century funding ends  We further found that Education was missing opportunities in its monitoring efforts to collect information on states’ strategies and practices for program sustainability—information that could be useful for sharing promising practices across states  We recommended that Education use the information it collects from its monitoring visits and ongoing interactions with states to share effective practices across states for sustaining their 21st Century programs once program funding ends  Education neither agreed nor disagreed with the recommendation but outlined steps it is taking to address it  We will continue to monitor progress on the implementation of this recommendation  There is no difference for two survey items on federal managers communicating performance information relative to 2013 or since those items were introduced in 2007  In 2017, we estimate that 44 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis  In addition, 34 percent agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level use performance information to share effective program approaches with others  Our 2017 survey data also indicate that agencies may not be effectively communicating to their employees about contributions to CAP goals or progress toward achieving APGs  Of the estimated 54 percent of federal managers who indicated they were familiar with CAP goals, 23 percent reported that their agency has communicated to its employees on those goals to a great or very great extent  Of the 74 percent of federal managers who indicated familiarity with APGs, 44 percent reported that their agency has communicated on progress toward achieving those goals to great or very great extent  Our prior work has shown that agencies should consider users’ differing needs—for accessibility, accuracy, completeness, consistency, ease of use, timeliness, and validity, among others things—to ensure that performance information will be both useful and used  GPRAMA introduced several requirements that could help to address aspects of usefulness, such as requiring agencies to disclose more information about the accuracy and validity of their performance data and actions to address limitations to the data  However, agencies face challenges in ensuring their performance information is useful, with one instance from our past work described in the text box below  The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Could Improve Usefulness of Information in Planned Grantee Portal EPA monitors performance reports and program-specific data from grantees to ensure that grants achieve environmental and other program results  However, in July 2016, we found that EPA’s 2014 internal analysis of its grants management business processes identified improvements that, if implemented into EPA’s planned web-based portal, could improve the accessibility and usefulness of information in grantee performance reports for EPA, grantees, and other users  We recommended, among other actions, that EPA incorporate expanded search capability features, such as keyword searches, into its proposed web- based portal for collecting and accessing performance reports to improve their accessibility  EPA agreed with our recommendation but stated that it is a long- term initiative, subject to the agency’s budget process and replacement of its existing grants management system  As of May 2017, EPA officials said that they have not begun work on the web-based portal project, which is subject to the availability of funds  Federal managers generally responded similarly in 2017 on a variety of survey items related to usefulness, relative to earlier surveys  On a broadly worded item, less than half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that agency managers at their level take steps to ensure that performance information is useful and appropriate  At an estimated 43 percent in 2017, this represents no statistically significant change compared to our last surveys in 2013 or 2007, when the item was introduced  Responses to four survey items indicate no changes in hindrances related to the usefulness of performance information  There is no statistically significant change in managers reporting hindrances compared to 1997 or 2013, as shown in figure 10  In addition, there was a statistically significant increase when compared to 2013 on only one of six items about managers’ views on the usefulness of performance information, as shown in figure 11  As the figure shows, approximately one-third to half of managers agreed to a great or very great extent on each item related to the usefulness of performance information  Although less than half of managers reported having sufficient information on validity of performance data used to make decisions, this represents a statistically significant increase to an estimated 42 percent in 2017 compared to 36 percent in 2013, and from 28 percent in 2000, when this item was introduced  This is a notable improvement because our September 2014 report found that the strongest driver of the use of performance information was whether federal managers had confidence in its validity  Our analysis suggests that easy access to performance information is related to the effective communication of performance information  Of the estimated 49 percent of federal managers in 2017 who agreed to a great or very great extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 63 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent  Conversely, of the 20 percent that agreed to a small or no extent that performance information is easily accessible to managers at their level, 12 percent also agreed that agency managers at their level effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a great or very great extent  Our prior work has shown that building capacity—including analytical tools and staff expertise—is critical to using performance information in a meaningful manner  GPRAMA lays out specific requirements that reinforce the importance of staff capacity to use performance information  GPRAMA directed the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to take certain actions to support agency hiring and training of performance management staff  Specifically, by January 2012, OPM was to identify skills and competencies needed by government personnel for setting goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance information for improving government efficiency and effectiveness  By January 2013, OPM was to incorporate these skills and competencies into relevant position classifications and to work with each agency to incorporate the identified skills into employee training  In April 2013, we found that OPM had completed its work on the first two responsibilities and taken steps to work with agencies to incorporate performance management staff competencies into training  However, OPM did not assess competency gaps among agency performance management staff to inform its work  Without this information, OPM, working with the PIC, was not well-positioned to focus on the most- needed resources and help other agencies use them  We recommended that the Director of OPM, in coordination with the PIC and the Chief Learning Officer Council, work with agencies to take the following three actions: 1  Identify competency areas needing improvement within agencies  2  Identify agency training that focuses on needed performance management competencies  3  Share information about available agency training on competency areas needing improvement  In July 2017, PIC staff stated they have not focused on identifying competency areas because the competencies do not resonate strongly with the performance community  Instead, staff said they identified a need for introductory training on performance management, which they have developed and piloted  They said that they are not sure when they will implement the training, since the PIC is reviewing priorities with its new executive director  We continue to believe that identifying the competency areas would be useful, and will monitor the PIC’s efforts to identify and share training  The need for performance management training is further highlighted by our survey results  Our 2017 survey shows no statistically significant change in managers’ responses about the availability of training on various performance management activities relative to 2013, including the use of performance information to make decisions  However, the response to each of the six questions related to specific training is statistically significantly higher relative to the year in which it was introduced, as shown in figure 12  Similarly, in 2017 there was no statistically significant change on four survey items related to agencies’ analysis and evaluation tools and staff’s skills and competencies when compared to 2013 or when these items were introduced  We estimate that in 2017 29 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing in resources to improve the agencies’ capacity to use performance information; 28 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies were investing the resources needed to ensure that performance data are of sufficient quality; 33 percent of managers reported that they agreed to a great or very great extent that their agencies have sufficient analytical tools for managers at their levels to collect, analyze, and use performance information; and 33 percent of managers reported that they agree to a great or very great extent that the programs they are involved with have sufficient staff with the knowledge and skills needed to analyze performance information  Performance reviews can serve as a strategy to bring leadership and other responsible parties together to review performance information and identify important opportunities to drive performance improvements  Our prior work has examined how different types of performance reviews—strategic reviews, data-driven reviews, and retrospective regulatory reviews—can contribute to agencies assessing progress toward desired results  Strategic reviews: As previously mentioned, in implementing GPRAMA, OMB established a review process in which agencies are to annually assess their progress in achieving each strategic objective in their strategic plans, known as strategic reviews  Given the long-term and complex nature of many outcomes, the strategic review should be informed by a variety of evidence regarding the implementation of strategies and their effectiveness in achieving outcomes  OMB’s guidance states that the strategic review process should consider multiple perspectives and sources of evidence to understand the progress made on each strategic objective  It further states that the results of these reviews should inform many of the decision-making processes at the agency, as well as decision making by the agency’s stakeholders, in areas such as long-term strategy, budget formulation, and risk management  In 2017, agencies are completing their fourth round of these reviews  Our prior work has identified ways in which agencies can effectively conduct these reviews and leverage the results that come from them  In July 2015, we identified seven practices federal agencies can employ to facilitate effective strategic reviews  (See sidebar ) In addition, earlier this month we reported on selected agencies’ experiences in implementing these reviews  Specifically, we found that (1) strategic reviews helped direct leadership attention to progress on strategic objectives, (2) agencies used existing management and performance processes to conduct the reviews, and (3) agencies refined their reviews by capturing lessons learned  Data-driven reviews: GPRAMA requires agencies to review progress toward APGs at least once a quarter  The Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs report accompanying the bill that would become GPRAMA stated that this approach is aimed at increasing the use of performance information to improve performance and results  In February 2013, we identified nine leading practices to promote successful data-driven performance reviews in the federal government  (See sidebar ) In July 2015, we found that most of the 24 CFO Act agencies were conducting their reviews in line with GPRAMA requirements and our leading practices  Moreover, agencies reported that their data-driven performance reviews had positive effects on progress toward agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold officials accountable for progress, and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations  Our 2017 survey shows that federal managers remain largely unfamiliar with their agency’s data-driven performance reviews, also known as quarterly performance reviews (QPRs)  An estimated 35 percent of managers reported familiarity with their agency’s QPRs  Survey results show that a greater percentage of Senior Executive Service (SES) managers than non-SES managers reported that they were familiar with QPRs  Approximately 50 percent of SES managers reported being somewhat or very familiar with QPRs; 34 percent of non-SES reported the same  However, for the estimated 35 percent of managers who reported familiarity with QPRs, the more they viewed their programs being subject to a QPR, the more likely they were to report their agency’s QPRs were driving results and conducted in line with our leading practices  Figure 13 shows several illustrative examples of these survey items  For example, of the estimated 48 percent of federal managers who reported their programs being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent, 83 percent also reported their agencies use QPRs to identify problems or opportunities associated with agency performance goals  Conversely, for the 24 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to QPRs to a small or no extent, 22 percent also reported the reviews were used for these purposes to a great or very great extent  Being subject to a QPR is also positively related to viewing QPRs as having led to similar meetings at lower levels  An estimated 62 percent of federal managers who reported being subject to QPRs to a great or very great extent also reported their agencies have similar meetings at lower levels to a great or very great extent  An estimated 16 percent of federal managers subject to QPRs to a small or no extent reported the same  Despite the reported benefits of and results achieved through QPRs, as found by our past work and survey data, these reviews are not necessarily widespread  GPRAMA requires agencies to conduct QPRs for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals—generally 2 to 8 priority goals at each designated agency, with approximately 100 total government-wide  Moreover, these required reviews are at the department (or major independent agency) level  These reasons may explain why most managers reported they were not familiar with the reviews  As was described previously, our 2017 survey data show that the reported use of performance information in decision making generally has not improved and in some cases is lower than it was 20 years ago  Survey data also show that managers generally have not reported increases in their employment of practices that further promote the use of performance information in decision making  This suggests that agencies could increase the use of performance information in decision making and the likelihood of achieving desired results by going beyond the specific GPRAMA requirements and expanding their use of data-driven performance reviews—in line with leading practices—to more broadly cover other agency-wide performance goals, as well as goals at lower levels within the agency  For example, such reviews at the program level could help inform the previously mentioned portfolio reviews required by the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA)  We have already suggested expanding reviews to other performance goals  Our management agenda for the presidential and congressional transition includes a key action to expand the use of data-driven performance reviews to assess progress toward meeting agency performance goals  Our prior work has stated that although GPRAMA’s requirements apply at the agency-wide level, they can also serve as leading practices at other organizational levels, such as component agencies, offices, programs, and projects  In addition, federal internal control standards call for the design of appropriate control activities, such as top-level reviews of actual performance and reviews by management at the functional or activity level  The standards also recommend that management design control activities at the appropriate levels in the organizational structure  The July 2017 update to OMB’s guidance states that agency leaders, including various chief officer positions, are to conduct frequent data- driven reviews to drive improvements on various management functions  For example, the agency Chief Human Capital Officer is to conduct quarterly data-driven reviews (known as HRStat) to monitor the progress of human capital goals and measures contained in the human capital operating plan  Beyond these management areas, OMB’s guidance also states that agencies may expand quarterly progress reviews beyond APGs to include other goals and priorities  However, OMB’s guidance does not identify practices for agencies to expand the use of these reviews to other goals, such as other agency-wide performance goals or those at lower levels within the agency  As mentioned previously, one of the responsibilities of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) is to facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements within specific programs, agencies, or across agencies  By working with the PIC to identify and share among agencies practices to expand the use of data- driven reviews, OMB could help agencies increase the use of performance information in decision making and achieve results  Retrospective regulatory reviews: In retrospective reviews, agencies evaluate how existing regulations are working in practice and whether they are achieving expected outcomes  GPRAMA requires agencies to identify and assess how their various program activities and other activities, including regulations, contribute to APGs  However, in April 2014, we found that agencies reported mixed experiences linking retrospective analyses to APGs  We recommended that OMB strengthen these reviews by issuing guidance for agencies to take actions to ensure that contributions made by regulations toward achieving APGs are properly considered, and improve how retrospective regulatory reviews can be used to help inform assessments of progress toward these APGs  OMB staff agreed with this recommendation and stated that the agency was working on strategies to help facilitate agencies’ ability to use retrospective reviews to inform APGs  To that end, in April 2017, OMB issued guidance to agencies that, among other things, emphasized the importance of performance measures related to evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs  OMB included explicit references to section 6 of Executive Order 13563, which directed agencies’ efforts to conduct retrospective regulatory reviews  Specifically, the updated guidance encourages agencies to establish and report “meaningful performance indicators and goals for the purpose of evaluating and improving the net benefits of their respective regulatory programs ” The guidance further states that agencies’ efforts to improve such net benefits may be conducted as part of developing agency strategic and performance plans and priority goals  In July 2017, OMB confirmed that the updated guidance was issued, in part, to address our April 2014 recommendation  For several years, OMB has encouraged agencies to expand their use of evidence—performance measures, program evaluation results, and other relevant data analytics and research studies—in budget, management, and policy decisions with the goal of improving government effectiveness  In particular, OMB has encouraged agencies to strengthen their program evaluations—systematic studies that use research methods to address specific questions about program performance  Evaluation is closely related to performance measurement and reporting  Evaluations can be designed to better isolate the causal impact of programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in order to assess a program’s effectiveness  Thus, an evaluation study can provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually, explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or assessing whether one approach is more effective than another  Despite the valuable insights and information that program evaluations can provide, we continue to find that most federal managers lack access to or awareness of such studies  Our 2017 survey shows that an estimated 40 percent of managers reported that an evaluation had been completed within the past 5 years of any program, operation, or project in which they were involved—comparable to the results in our 2013 survey, when questions about program evaluations were added  In recent years, OMB has encouraged agencies to explore evidence-based tools to strengthen agency and grantee evaluation capacity, consider the effectiveness of their programs, and foster innovation rooted in research and rigorous evaluation  During the past 2 years, we examined several of those tools, as described below  Pay for success: Also known as social impact bonds, pay for success is a contracting mechanism under which investors provide the capital the government uses to provide a social service  The government specifies performance outcomes in pay for success contracts and generally includes a requirement that a program’s impact be independently evaluated  The evaluators also are to regularly review performance data, while those managing and investing in a project focus on performance and accountability, as shown in the figure 14  In September 2015, we found that the federal government’s involvement in pay for success had been limited  In addition, a formal mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success did not exist  We concluded that, given the evolving nature of pay for success, a mechanism for federal agencies to collaborate would increase access to leading practices  We therefore recommended that OMB establish a formal means for federal agencies to collaborate on pay for success  OMB concurred and, in February 2016, announced that it had developed the Pay for Success Interagency Learning Network with representatives from 10 federal agencies to share lessons, hone policy, and strengthen implementation  Tiered evidence grants: Tiered evidence grants seek to incorporate evidence of effectiveness into grant making  Federal agencies establish tiers of grant funding based on the level of evidence grantees provide on their approaches to deliver social, educational, health, or other services  (See figure 15 ) Smaller awards are used to test new and innovative approaches, while larger awards are used to scale up approaches that have strong evidence of effectiveness  This creates incentives for grantees to use approaches supported by evidence and helps them build the capacity to conduct evaluations  In September 2016, we found that interagency collaboration had helped federal agencies that administer tiered evidence grants address challenges and share lessons learned  At that time, such collaborative efforts relied on informal networks  We recommended that OMB establish a formal means for agencies to collaborate on tiered evidence grants  OMB had no comment on the recommendation  In July 2017, OMB staff told us that they had established an interagency working group and other mechanisms to facilitate collaboration and disseminate information on tiered evidence grants  Performance partnerships: Performance partnerships allow federal agencies to provide grant recipients flexibility in how they use funding across two or more programs along with additional flexibilities  In exchange, the recipient commits to improve and assess progress toward agreed-upon outcomes  Figure 16 provides an overview of the performance partnership model  In April 2017, we examined two performance partnership initiatives authorized by Congress: the Environmental Protection Agency’s Performance Partnership Grants and the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, which allows funding from multiple programs across multiple agencies to be combined into pilot programs serving disconnected youth  For the Performance Partnership Pilots for Disconnected Youth, we found that the agencies involved in the initiative had not fully identified the key financial and staff resources each agency would need to contribute over the lifetime of the initiative in line with leading practices for interagency collaboration  This was because agencies primarily had been focused on meeting near-term needs to support design and implementation  We also found that agencies had not developed criteria to help determine whether, how, and when to implement the flexibilities tested by the pilots in a broader context  (This is known as scalability ) Officials involved in the pilots told us it was too early in pilot implementation to determine such criteria  However, by not identifying these criteria while designing the pilots, they were risking not collecting needed data during pilot implementation  We recommended that OMB coordinate with federal agencies to identify (1) agency resource contributions needed for the lifetime of the pilots and (2) criteria and related data for assessing scalability  OMB neither agreed nor disagreed with these recommendations  We continue to monitor progress on these recommendations  In 2003, we identified nine key practices for effective performance management that collectively create a “line of sight” between individual performance and organizational success  (See sidebar on next page ) Our recent work and the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers highlight areas where agencies have made progress but could take additional action to better reflect several of these practices, thereby better instilling results-oriented cultures  Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals: Our 2003 report found that high-performing organizations use their performance management systems to help individuals see the connection between their daily activities and organizational goals  The executive branch has taken several steps to link individual and organizational results  For example, in October 2000, OPM issued guidance to link SES performance expectations with GPRA-required goals  In January 2012, OPM and OMB released a government-wide SES performance appraisal system that provided agencies with a standard framework to manage the performance of SES members  However, our work continues to identify areas for improvement  Goal leaders and deputy goal leaders are responsible for achieving APGs, but our July 2014 review found that the performance plans for a sample of goal and deputy goal leaders generally did not link their individual performance and the broader goal  We recommended that OMB ensure that those plans demonstrate a clear connection with APGs  OMB staff generally agreed with our recommendation  In July 2017, OMB staff stated that components of both OMB and OPM guidance support accountability for agency priority goals  Despite this, we continue to believe that ensuring an explicit connection in performance plans to APGs will improve accountability, and that additional action is needed to do so  In May 2016, we found that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) had not aligned Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinators’ performance expectations with its organizational goals for implementing the National Disaster Recovery Framework  We concluded that without this linkage, FEMA could not evaluate how effectively the coordinators performed in implementing the framework  We recommended that FEMA align performance expectations consistent with leading practices  The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendation  In July 2017, FEMA stated that it is preparing the Field Leader Manual, which will define the core competencies and duties of coordinators  We will continue to monitor FEMA’s actions to implement this recommendation  Our 2017 survey also shows that this linkage could be improved for other federal employees  An estimated 58 percent of federal managers reported using performance information to a great or very great extent in setting expectations for employees they manage or supervise  The 2017 responses do not represent a statistically significant change when compared to our last survey in 2013 (62 percent) or to 1997 (61 percent), the year this survey item was introduced  Address organizational priorities: Our prior work showed that, by requiring and tracking follow-up actions on performance gaps, high- performing organizations underscore the importance of holding individuals accountable for making progress on their priorities  Our past and 2017 surveys have identified differences in responses between SES and non-SES managers reporting being held accountable for results  For example, in 2017, our survey results indicate that there was a statistically significant difference between SES and non-SES managers reporting to a great or very great extent that they were held accountable for results of the programs for which they are responsible  However, our 2017 survey shows no change compared to our last survey in either SES or non-SES managers reporting they were held accountable for results  There are statistically significant increases when compared to 1997, when these survey items were introduced  For example, an estimated 79 percent of SES managers and 64 percent of non-SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for results of the programs for which they are responsible in 2017  This does not represent a statistically significant change from our 2013 survey (80 percent and 67 percent, respectively), but it is statistically significantly higher than the 62 percent of SES managers and 54 percent of non-SES managers in 1997  (See figure 17 ) Similarly, as shown in figure 18, an estimated 71 percent of SES managers reported being held accountable to a great or very great extent for accomplishing agency strategic goals in 2017  This represents no statistical change since 2013 (73 percent), but it is a statistically significant increase compared to when this item was introduced in 2003 (61 percent)  Additionally, as figure 18 shows, a gap between being held accountable for strategic goals and having the decision-making authority needed to help accomplish those goals has nearly closed, due to an increase in the latter survey item  The estimated 69 percent of SES managers who reported having such authority to a great or very great extent in 2017 is a statistically significant increase relative to both 2013 (61 percent) and 1997 (51 percent)  As noted earlier, GPRAMA requires goal leaders for CAP goals and APGs  Our past work has generally found that they are in place  GPRAMA also requires agencies to identify an agency official responsible for resolving major management challenges, which can help ensure accountability  (See sidebar ) However, in June 2016 we found that 17 of the 24 CFO Act agencies had not identified an agency official responsible for resolving each of their challenges, partly because OMB guidance was not clear that major management challenges should be identified in agency performance plans  We recommended that the 17 agencies identify such officials in their performance plans, and that OMB clarify its guidance  OMB revised its guidance accordingly in July 2016, and, as of July 2017, 7 of the 17 agencies had identified officials responsible for resolving major management challenges  Link pay to individual and organizational performance: High- performing organizations seek to create pay, incentive, and reward systems that clearly link employee knowledge, skills, and contributions to organizational results  Our work has found that agencies have made progress in this area  For example, in July 2013, we found that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) lacked mechanisms to monitor how supervisors used its performance management system to recognize and reward performance  To help enhance the credibility of SEC’s performance management system, we recommended that it create mechanisms to monitor how supervisors use the performance management system  In a subsequent (December 2016) report, we found that, in response to our recommendation, SEC began monitoring how supervisors provide feedback, recognize and reward staff, and address poor performance  However, federal managers generally reported no change on three items related to recognizing and rewarding employee performance since our last survey in 2013 (figure 19)
Report 2:  Further, in 3 years, its investment returns fell either within the top 5 percent of returns (1996, 2009) or bottom 5 percent (1998)  In 8 of the 22 years, CSPF’s annual return was within the middle 50 percent of its TUCS peer group  The TUCS data we analyzed also included median portfolio allocations for the group of CSPF’s peers  Table 2 compares CSPF’s asset allocations for selected asset categories to the median allocations of its TUCS comparator group  In 1996, compared to the TUCS medians, CSPF had relatively lower proportions of its assets in both equities and fixed income and a relatively higher proportion in real estate  Twenty years later (2016), CSPF had relatively higher proportions of its assets in both equities and fixed income (about 15 and 7 percentage points, respectively) than the respective medians for its peer group  However, the relatively large difference between CSPF’s 2016 equity allocation and the median allocation of its peer group may be a result of the peers moving into different asset classes  For example, there is a relatively large difference, in the other direction, in the allocation to alternative investments (see table 2)  We did not identify an alternative asset category in CSPF’s asset reports for 2016, but the TUCS comparator group median asset allocation in that year is 11 8 percent of assets  Similar to our findings when comparing the returns on CSPF’s investments to a customized peer group of other large institutional funds, the annual returns on CSPF’s investments in recent decades have also generally been in line with the annual returns for a group of similar multiemployer pension plans  To create a group of comparable plans, we selected plans that had a similar degree of “maturity” to CSPF in 2000, as such plans may face similar cash flow challenges to those facing CSPF  This comparator group ultimately consisted of 15 plans in addition to CSPF  Relative to less mature plans, mature plans generally have a greater proportion of liabilities attributable to retired participants receiving benefit payments and a lower proportion attributable to active participants (i e , workers) earning benefits  Mature plans may have limited capacity to make up for insufficient investment returns through employer contributions  Similar to the comparison against other large institutional fund returns based on TUCS data, our comparison against other mature multiemployer plan returns based on Form 5500 data shows that CSPF’s annual returns fluctuate relative to the median annual return for the mature plan comparator group (see fig  18)  For example, in 12 of the 15 years, CSPF’s annual return was in the highest or lowest 25 percent of returns (7 times high and 5 times low)  In 3 of the 15 years analyzed, CSPF’s annual return fell within the middle 50 percent of the peer group  Overall, from 2000 to 2014, CSPF’s annual return was above the group median return in 9 of the 15 years—and lower than the median return in the other 6 years  Relative to its peers, CSPF’s annual returns performed worst during economic downturns and best in years coming out of such downturns  CSPF’s annual investment return was in the bottom 10 percent of returns in 2001, 2002, and 2008  Alternatively, its annual return was in the top 10 percent of returns from 2003 to 2006, in 2009, and in 2012  Additionally, the dollar-weighted average annual return for CSPF over the 2000 through 2014 period was roughly the same as the median for the mature plan comparison group  Specifically, the dollar-weighted average annual return over this period for CSPF was roughly 4 9 percent, while the median dollar-weighted average annual return over this period among the comparison plans with continuous data was 4 8 percent  Our analysis of investment returns for mature plans compares investment returns for a set of peers that includes only multiemployer defined benefit plans  However, as with the comparison against other large institutional funds, the comparisons against other mature plans are not measures of over- or under-performance relative to an index or benchmark  Similarly, as with the earlier comparison, the analysis does not account for variations in the levels of investment risk taken by the plans  Our analysis of Form 5500 data shows CSPF’s investment fees and administrative expenses were in line with other large multiemployer plans  Plan investment fees and administrative expenses are often paid from plan assets so many plans seek to keep these fees and expenses low  Additionally, investment fees are likely to be related to the value of assets under management, and plans with greater asset values tend to be able to negotiate more advantageous fee rates  According to a pension consultant and a DOL publication, investment management fees are typically a large defined benefit plan’s largest category of expense, but a pension plan also incurs a number of lesser expenses related to administering the plan  Administrative expenses (other than investment fees) may include those for: audit and bookkeeping/accounting services; legal services to the plan (opinions, litigation and advice); administrative services provided by contractors; plan staff salaries and expenses; plan overhead and supplies; and other miscellaneous expenses  These administrative expenses relate to plan operations beyond the management of the assets, including the day-to-day expenses for basic administrative services such as participant services and record keeping  Furthermore, some of these expenses can vary based on the number of participants in the plan  To compare CSPF’s fees and expenses against similarly sized plans, we tallied various investment fee-related and other administrative expenses and compared CSPF to a group of multiemployer defined benefit plans that were among the 19 largest plans in terms of assets as of January 1, 2014  According to CSPF’s 2014 Form 5500, CSPF spent about $46 5 million on investment fees (or $47 6 million in 2016 dollars) and had about $17 4 billion in assets (or $17 8 billion in 2016 dollars) as of the end of the year—resulting in an investment fee expense ratio of about 27 basis points, or 0 27 percent  Over the 2000 to 2014 period, CSPF’s average annual investment fee expense ratio was 34 basis points (0 34 percent) while the median of the averages for our large plan comparison group was 37 basis points (0 37 percent)  While CSPF’s average investment fee expense ratio was below the median for its comparison group over the period we examined, the relationship of CSPF’s annual ratio to the annual median changed over time  CSPF’s annual investment-fee expense ratio was consistently at or above the median from 2000 through 2006, but was below the median thereafter  In addition, CSPF’s average investment fee expenses over the period that followed 2006 were 26 percent less than the average over the period before 2007  (They averaged 39 basis points, or 0 39 percent, from 2000 through 2006 and 29 basis points, or 0 29 percent, from 2007 through 2014 ) Two events may have contributed to this change  First, CSPF introduced the passively-managed accounts beginning in 2003—as noted earlier, and CSPF moved certain assets to those accounts in an effort to reduce fees  Second, the change back to a single named fiduciary, which was suggested as an expense saving move, occurred in the middle of the 2007 to 2014 period analyzed  Figure 19 illustrates how CSPF’s investment fee expense ratio compares to other large plans  Our analysis uses investment fee data reported in the Form 5500 that does not include details about the sources of the fees  Investment fees may be sensitive to a plan’s particular investment strategy and the way assets are allocated  For example, with CSPF, a named fiduciary has responsibility for executing the investment strategy and allocations  According to a representative from Northern Trust—the current named fiduciary—CSPF pays a fee of about 5 basis points for named fiduciary services, and this, combined with investment management fees, is in line with investment fees for other clients (though the overall fees depend on the types of asset allocations and investment strategies)  Figure 20 shows how CSPF’s administrative (or non-investment) expenses compare to those of other large plans on a per participant basis  According to CSPF’s 2014 Form 5500, CSPF spent about $38 million on administrative expenses ($39 million in 2016 dollars)—the third most among the 20 peer plans  However, when these expenses are expressed relative to the number of plan participants, CSPF had per participant expenses of $98 in 2014, which is about 16 percent less than the median of the large comparator group, $117  Over the period studied, CSPF’s administrative expenses per participant were at or above the large comparator median in 3 years (2001, 2004, and 2005), but lower than the median in all other years of the 2000 to 2014 period  CSPF’s administrative expenses were also in line with a broader group of comparators  For example, PBGC reported on 2014 administrative expenses of a population of large multiemployer plans (plans with more than 5,000 participants)  By closely replicating the methodology of that study, we found CSPF’s expenses of $98 per participant in 2014 fell below the median expense rate of $124 dollars per participant but above the lowest quartile of this group of large multiemployer plans  In comparing administrative expenses as a percentage of benefits paid, we found CSPF’s administrative expenses were among the lowest 5 percent of this group of large multiemployer plans  We performed a similar comparison against the peer group of large plans  CSPF had the lowest administrative expense rate among the large plan peer group in 2014, paying administrative expenses at a rate of 1 4 percent of benefits paid  In addition, CSPF’s annual administrative expenses as a percentage of benefits were below the median of our peer group of large plans in all years we reviewed  Our analysis of administrative expenses is highly summarized and does not account for possibly unique sources of administrative expenses  Plans may have unique organizational structures and attribute expenses differently  For example, one plan may contract a significant portion of administrative duties with a third-party, while another plan may administer the plan in-house  According to an actuary we interviewed, most multiemployer plans are administered by a third-party, but the plan’s in- house staff will still retain a number of duties  Additionally, the amount of individual administrative expenses could vary significantly by plan depending on the importance of the related administrative function in the plan’s organization  We provided a draft of the report to the U S  Department of Labor, U S  Department of the Treasury, and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation for review and comment  We received technical comments from the U S  Department of Labor and the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which we incorporated as appropriate  The U S  Department of the Treasury provided no comments  We will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, Director of the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and other interested parties  This report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Charles Jeszeck at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao gov or Frank Todisco at (202) 512-2700 or todiscof@gao gov  Mr  Todisco meets the qualification standards of the American Academy of Actuaries to address the actuarial issues contained in this report  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix IV  Our objectives were to review: (1) what is known about the factors that contributed to the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund’s (CSPF) critical financial condition; (2) what has been CSPF’s investment policy, and the process for setting and executing it, since the consent decree was established; and (3) how has CSPF performed over time, particularly compared to similar pension plans  For all objectives, we reviewed relevant federal laws and regulations, literature, and documentation the U S  Department of Labor (DOL) and CSPF officials provided, including reports prepared by the court- appointed independent special counsel  We interviewed knowledgeable industry stakeholders, participant advocates, CSPF officials, International Brotherhood of Teamsters officials and members, and federal officials— including officials from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), DOL, and the U S  Department of the Treasury (Treasury)  To describe the major factors that led to CSPF’s critical financial condition, we conducted semi-structured interviews and reviewed CSPF documentation, relevant scholarly materials, trade and industry articles, government reports, conference papers, research publications, and working papers  We also collected actuarial, financial, and other data on current and historical measures of plan assets, liabilities, investment performance, and other factors, and performed our own analyses of these data  The data and documentation collected were generally from the plan or agencies that oversee pensions  We determined the information to be generally reliable for the purposes of our objectives  To describe CSPF’s investment policy and the process by which it was set and executed we (1) reviewed CSPF’s investment policy statements, court orders and consent decree amendments, and other documentation provided by CSPF officials; (2) interviewed CSPF officials, including pension plan staff, the board of trustees, and the investment advisor, and representatives of the named fiduciary serving the plan at the time of our review; and (3) summarized certain aspects of CSPF’s assets using year- end performance reports prepared by the named fiduciaries  To describe how CSPF has performed over time compared to similar pension plans, we analyzed investment and fee data from DOL’s Form 5500, the government’s primary source of pension information  We also examined CSPF’s investment returns in comparison to a customized Wilshire Associates’ (Wilshire) Trust Universe Comparison Service (TUCS) benchmark of trusts with $3 billion or more in assets  CSPF provided these data and the data are included in the independent special counsel reports  Wilshire provided supplemental data using the same benchmark specifications  We reviewed three types of documentation provided by CSPF for changes in named fiduciaries; changes in investment policy, strategy, and asset allocation; major issues that affected funding; and how these issues affected CSPF’s investment strategy and policy  Select independent special counsel reports  CSPF officials provided 4th quarter reports for each year from 1982 through 2002 and available quarterly reports from 2003 through 2007  We downloaded all available quarterly reports from 2008 through 2017 from CSPF’s website  Select board of trustee meeting minutes  We requested board of trustee meeting minutes from 1983, 1994-95, 1998-2005, 2007-2010, and 2016 so we could review trustee discussions from the first full year the plan was covered by the 1982 consent decree, the most recent full year; periods that included a recession and/or when the plan’s assets performed poorly; and periods that preceded a change or reappointment of the named fiduciary  CSPF officials selected portions of the trustee meeting minutes from those years that pertained to the following topics: named fiduciary reports concerning investment performance; discussions relating to the amortization extension the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) granted to the plan and the contribution rate increases the plan required of participating employers in an effort to comply with funding targets required as condition of the IRS-approved amortization extension; major amendments to the plan; significant reports concerning the plan’s financial condition; amendments to the consent decree; discussions relating to any inquiries or issues DOL raised; discussions of named fiduciary appointments or resignations; discussions of particularly significant contributing employer delinquencies, bankruptcies, and settlements; and discussions relating to the independent special counsel  In addition to the board of trustee meeting minutes, CSPF officials provided select documentation on similar topics a former secretary of the board of trustees retained (1995 through 2008)  Select correspondence between CSPF and DOL  CSPF officials provided select correspondence with DOL from 1987 through 2017 relating to DOL’s oversight of the plan  CSPF officials said they provided all records of those communications that related to significant, substantive, and nonroutine issues  The correspondence excluded other documents, such as periodic reports concerning asset rebalancing and correspondence related to fairly noncontroversial motions to the consent decree  In addition, DOL provided documentation throughout the course of our engagement, including documentation it provided between September and October 2017 that it had not previously identified as being relevant to our review  We completed an on-site file review at DOL in September 2017, and DOL sent us additional electronic documentation in September and October 2017  Overall, we reviewed extensive documentation from DOL—spanning over 10,000 pages of paper-based and electronic files— and spent substantial time cataloging and categorizing it  However, DOL officials reported that certain documentation related to CSPF was no longer available because it had only been retained for the time specified in the records retention policy of the relevant office  We conducted 23 semi-structured interviews with federal agency officials and other stakeholders, including affected parties, and persons knowledgeable about unions, participants and retirees, the trucking industry, collective bargaining agreements, and multiemployer pension plans  We also interviewed three stakeholders with actuarial expertise to specifically understand actuarial standards and procedures  We selected knowledgeable stakeholders based on review of literature and prior GAO work, and recommendations from other stakeholders  We judgmentally selected stakeholders whose expertise coincided with the scope of our objectives and who would be able to provide a broad range of perspectives  In our semi-structured interviews we asked about key factors affecting the plan, the broader regulatory and financial environment in which multiemployer plans operate, and solvency options for plans like CSPF  We reviewed CSPF’s investment policy statements after CSPF entered into a consent decree in 1982, most of which are documented in the consent decree or other court orders  Seven of the investment policy statements were developed by named fiduciaries in consultation with the plan’s board of trustees and four were developed by the trustees  (See fig  21 ) From each investment policy statement, we compiled relevant information on: (1) investment philosophy and plan characteristics considered in developing it, (2) investment return benchmarks, (3) asset allocation, and (4) strategies and assets  See table 3 for select asset allocation information  To describe how CSPF’s investment policy was executed, we compiled information from performance reports prepared by named fiduciaries  We reported CSPF’s asset allocation generally based on the aggregate asset allocation categories CSPF’s named fiduciaries assigned in those reports  CSPF provided these reports for the end of each year 1984 through 2016—except 1992 and 1995, for which it provided reports as of the end of November  Information we compiled included the plan’s: account breakdown (i e , assets in named fiduciary and passively- asset allocation; and investment assets withdrawn to pay benefits and administrative expenses  When possible, we checked the information from year-end performance reports against that in other sources  Specifically, to ensure we captured the vast majority of the plan’s assets in our asset summary we compared the total amount of plan assets named fiduciaries reported with Net Assets reported in CSPF’s Form 5500 filings, available from 1982 through 2016  We generally found these totals to be similar for each year—in most years the difference was about or under 1 percent  Also, named fiduciary performance reports included information on withdrawals from investment assets to meet pension and administrative expense obligations as of the end of each year, except for 1995 and 1999-present  For 1995 through 2016, we compiled this information from independent special counsel reports  For years in which we had overlapping information, 1996 through 1998, we found the reported totals were similar—no more than about 0 6 percent difference in each of those years  Based on our review we believe that the differences were insignificant to our overall analysis and did not impact our findings  To determine investment returns, investment fees, and administrative expenses for CSPF and related comparator group multiemployer defined benefit plans, we analyzed electronic Form 5500 information, the primary, federal source of private pension data  We analyzed information from 2000 through 2014, the most current and complete year at the time we performed our analysis  We began our analysis with 2000 data as data on investment returns and plan fees is primarily found in the Schedule H  Schedule H information was first collected in 1999  But we begin our analysis with 2000 data as electronic data became more reliable the year after the schedule was introduced  We have previously reported on the problems associated with the electronic data of the Form 5500  To mitigate problems associated with the data, we used Form 5500 research data from PBGC  PBGC analysts routinely and systematically correct the raw 5500 data submitted by plans, and PBGC’s Form 5500 research data are thought to be the most accurate electronic versions  Although we did not independently audit the veracity of the PBGC data, we took steps to assess the reliability of the data and determined the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes  For example, we performed computer analyses of the data and identified inconsistencies and other indications of error and took steps to correct inconsistencies or errors  A second analyst checked all computer analyses  Funded status is a comparison of plan assets to plan liabilities  One measure of funded status is the funded percentage, which is calculated by dividing plan assets by plan liabilities  Another measure of funded status is the dollar amount of difference between plan assets and plan liabilities; the excess of plan liabilities over plan assets is the unfunded liability (or surplus if assets exceed liabilities)  In this report, we measured funded status using the Actuarial Value of Assets and the Actuarial Accrued Liability, which are the basic measures used to determine the annual required minimum contribution for multiemployer plans under ERISA  We chose these measures because of the consistent availability of data for these measures  There are other ways to measure plan assets and plan liabilities  The Actuarial Value of Assets can be a “smoothed” value that differs from the market value of plan assets  The Actuarial Accrued Liability depends on the choice of actuarial cost method and discount rate, and on whether it is determined on an ongoing plan basis or a plan close-out basis  While different measures of plan assets and liabilities will produce different measures of funded status at any particular point in time, we found that our use of the Actuarial Value of Assets and the Actuarial Accrued Liability was sufficient for our purposes, which included examining the plan’s progress relative to statutory funding standards as well as its trend over time  We developed multiple comparison groups for our analysis  The general rationale behind these comparator groups is to identify plans with similar fundamental characteristics, such as plan size or plan maturity, for purposes of investment return and fee and expense comparisons  We created the following two comparator groups: 1  Large plans (in terms of assets)  We ordered multiemployer defined benefit plans by descending 2014 plan assets (line 2a of the 2014 of the Schedule MB)  Because one of our key analyses of the data involves comparing investment returns across plans, we also limited the comparable plans to those that share a common plan year to CSPF (specifically if they have the same plan year-end of December 31)  We selected the 20 plans that had the largest plan asset values  This includes CSPF, which was the second largest multiemployer plan as of the beginning of 2014  Because these comparator plans are among the largest, they should have similar cost advantages  For example, for investment management services, they should have similar advantages in obtaining lower fees and thus garner greater net returns due to the more favorable fee structures  2  Mature plans (in terms of retiree liability proportions)  We ordered multiemployer defined benefit plans by their similarity to CSPF’s ratio of retiree to total liabilities as of the beginning of calendar year 2000  The ratio of retiree to total liabilities is defined as line 2(b)1(3) of the 2000 Schedule B divided by total liabilities of line 2(b)4(3) of the 2000 Schedule B  To compare retiree to total liability ratios, we created a variable for the absolute value of the difference between CSPF’s ratio and that of a given plan  We ordered the plans by ascending differences in the ratios (excluding any with missing differences)  CSPF was the top plan because its difference is zero by definition  Because one of our key analyses of the data involved comparing investment returns across plans, we also limited the comparable plans to those that shared a common plan year with CSPF (specifically if they have the same plan year-end of December 31)  Of the plans that had the same plan year as CSPF and assets over $300 million, we selected the 20 plans (including CSPF) that had the smallest absolute difference from CSPF in the retiree-to-total liability ratio  Plans with a high ratio of liabilities attributable to retirees will have a relatively large portion of future benefit payments attributable to those that are older and retired  By selecting plans that were similarly mature to CSPF (and had $300 million in assets as of the beginning of 2000), we identified plans that may have had a similar basis for their plan investments, similar cash flow characteristics, or similar potential deviations between time-weighted and dollar-weighted average investment returns over time (see section below entitled “Calculation of Average Investment Return over Multiple Years”)  That is, these plans should have roughly similar cost advantages and similar considerations in their investment objectives such as the balance of cash flows into and out of the fund and the plans’ investment horizons  Similarity in the balance of cash flows is important because it helps to mitigate the influence of plan maturity on the weighted average investment return over multiple years  The year 2000 was used to select the group because the primary purpose of this group is comparison of investment returns for plans that are similarly situated at the beginning of the period being analyzed  Our calculation of investment returns is based on the investment return calculation expressed in the Form 5500 instructions for the Schedule MB  Specifically the instructions of the 2014 Schedule MB state: Enter the estimated rate of return on the current value of plan assets for the 1-year period ending on the valuation date  (The current value is the same as the fair market value—see line 1b(1) instructions ) For this purpose, the rate of return is determined by using the formula 2I/(A + B – I), where I is the dollar amount of the investment return, A is the current value of the assets 1 year ago, and B is the current value of the assets on the current valuation date  Enter rates to the nearest  1 percent  If entering a negative number, enter a minus sign (“ - “) to the left of the number  After preliminary analysis of the variable and consultation with a GAO senior actuary, we determined that Form 5500, Schedule H contains all the information necessary to derive the calculation for years prior to 2008—as far back as 1999 when the Schedule H first came into existence  Additionally, we made adjustments for the timing of cash flows, to the extent indicated by the data  For example, employer and employee contributions that were considered receivable at the end of the prior year and thus included in the Schedule MB calculation were instead included in the year when the plan received the cash for the contribution  Thus, our calculation of annual rate of return is expressed as line items of the 2014 Schedule H to be: 2 * / [[{item1(f)a} – {item 1(b)1(a)} - {item 1(b)2(a)} - {item 1j(a)}] + [{item1(f)b} – {item 1(b)1(b)} - {item 1(b)2(b)} - {item 1j(b)}] – [{item 2d} - {item 2a(3)} – {item 2c}]] Or expressed with expository names as: (2 * (TLINCOME - TOTLCON - OTHERINCOMEW)) / ((TASSTSBY - (ERCONBOY + EECONBOY + OTHER_LIAB_BOY_AMT)) + (TASSTSEY - (ERCONEOY + EECONEOY + OTHER_LIAB_EOY_AMT)) - (TLINCOME - TOTLCON - OTHERINCOMEW)) For purposes of data reliability and validation of our results, we ran permutations of the calculation to see how, if at all, certain items could influence the calculation  In two permutations, we changed the timing of net asset transfers to or from other plans  (This occurs when, for example, there is a plan merger ) A senior actuary determined whether the calculations with/without net asset transfers affected our calculation  If the timing of the net transfer caused the investment return calculation to vary by more than 0 1 percent, we excluded the data for that particular plan in that particular year  We also ran another calculation that did not include “other” income so we could estimate the impact of not adjusting for such information  Historical average investment returns over multiple years can be calculated in at least two different ways  One measure is the “time- weighted” average return, calculated as a geometric average of the annual returns during the period  A time-weighted average measures average investment performance without regard to the order of the annual returns or the impact of different plan circumstances over time  Another measure is the “dollar-weighted” average return–also known as the “internal rate of return” (and also referred to as the “cash flow weighted” return in this report)—which reflects the impact of the plan’s cash flow pattern  The dollar-weighted average return is the rate that, when applied over time to the asset value at the beginning of the period and to each year’s net cash flow into or out of the plan over the period, reproduces the asset value at the end of the period  We calculated dollar-weighted average returns (along with some time- weighted returns for comparison), for both CSPF and for the multiemployer system as a whole, as discussed in the report  We used a market value of plan assets for this purpose  The dollar-weighted average captures the impact of negative cash flow on average investment return  For example, with negative cash flow, investment results in an earlier year can have a bigger impact than investment results in a later year because more money is at stake in the earlier year  Using the same beginning-of-period asset value, and subsequent annual net cash flows into or out of the plan, used in calculating the dollar- weighted average return, we also performed a hypothetical calculation of what CSPF’s end-of-period asset value would have been if the plan had earned 7 5 percent per year instead of its actual return  Conceptually, there are multiple ways to express investment fees, but our analysis used the following two methods for calculating them: Investment fee ratio  Investment fees [line 2i(3) of the 2014 Schedule H] divided by end-of-year net assets [line 1l(b) of the 2014 Schedule H] less receivables [line 1b(1)(b); line 1b(2)(b); and line 1b(3)(b) of the 2014 Schedule H]  Investment fees per participant  Investment fees [line 2i(3) of the 2014 Schedule H] divided by total (end-of-year) participants [line 6f of the 2014 main form]  We define administrative expenses as all other expenses besides investment fees  In part, we used this definition of administrative expenses as it represents the expenses that remain after excluding investment fees  In addition, according to a PBGC analyst, this is the unit of analysis that they also used in their study of administrative expenses  Administrative expense to benefits paid  This is administrative expenses (professional, contract and other) divided by benefits paid  For administrative expenses we derived the value by taking total expenses less investment fees   For benefits paid, we used the 2014 Schedule H, line 2e(1), “Benefit payment and payments to provide benefits directly to participants or beneficiaries, including direct rollovers ” However, if the benefit payment value for such payments is missing or zero, we used the 2014 Schedule H, line 2e(4) “Total Benefit Payments” since the plan may be expressing their benefit payments on another line  Administrative expense per participant  Administrative expenses (professional, contract and other) divided by total (end-of-year) participants   For administrative expenses we derived the value by taking total expenses [line 2i(5) of the 2014 Schedule H] less investment fees [line 2i(3) of the 2014 Schedule H]  PBGC Study on Administrative Expenses PBGC has reported on administrative expenses and included various breakouts of these data in past data book supplements  The calculations of administrative expenses in this report are similar to those used by PBGC  Certain differences may exist because our calculation did not include certain multiemployer plans that reported missing data  Additionally, our population of multiemployer plans included only those plans exclusively associated with defined benefit features  The table below compares our results for plans with 5,000 or more participants, which is a subset of plans analyzed in the PBGC study  Our results used a sample that includes three fewer plans than the PBGC study, but our distributional results were within one-tenth percent for the administrative expense ratio and within $5 of the administrative expenses per participant (see table 4)  Comparing the administrative expenses across reports using other statistics such as the minimum, maximum and standard deviation shows similar results for the PBGC and our analysis (see table 5)  The mean administrative expenses per participant differ by $2 47  This difference is 1 5 percent lower than the PBGC estimate and could be a result of the difference in sample size  We also performed additional analyses as summarized below  We compared CSPF’s annual returns against plans that have the largest assets among multiemployer defined benefit plans (with the same plan year as CSPF) and CSPF’s results against these plans were broadly similar to results for the mature plans (see fig  22)  We compared CSPF’s administrative expenses as a percentage of benefit paid against other large plans  As noted in this report, CSPF has the lowest relative administrative expenses among the comparators in 2014 with administrative expenses at 1 4 percent of benefits (see fig  23)  In addition, CSPF’s administrative expenses as a percentage of benefits were consistently below the median  For our analysis of Wilshire TUCS data, we used two sources of data  Data from 1999 through 2016 was provided by CSPF  CSPF provided reports of their TUCS custom comparison group, master trusts with greater than $3 billion in assets  These data also included the year-end return results for the total fund (also known as the combined fund) as well as returns by subcategory such as a specific named fiduciary or fund  For example, subcategories listed for year-end 2006 included the results for both named fiduciaries (Goldman Sachs and Northern Trust) as well as the passively-managed accounts (then known as the CSSS fund)  The custom comparison groups for the 1999 through 2016 data were determined each year in early-February of the year following the December 31 return results for the prior year  Thus, over time more master trusts were added (or subtracted) depending on the level of assets for the master trusts in that year  For example, the return results for year- end 1999 are determined as of February 10, 2000 and the group of master trusts with more than $3 billion contains 62 observations  The number of trusts in the custom group of master trusts with more than $3 billion generally grew over time with the number peaking with the return results for year-end 2014 (determined as of February 9, 2015), which contains 124 observations  The TUCS data from 1995 through 1998 was provided by Wilshire  The comparison group for these data were not selected each year, but, instead, selected retrospectively  For example, the comparison group of master trusts with more than $3 billion from 1995 through 1998 was selected as of January 9, 2017  There were 99 reported observations in 1995 and 132 observations in 1998  In addition, the 1995 through 1998 TUCS data did not include specific returns for CSPF  We were able to find the annual year-end return in the December (i e  year-end) management report, which for these years was provided by the named fiduciary, Morgan Stanley  Below is a list of selected events that have affected the Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (CSPF) as identified through a review of relevant documentation and interviews with stakeholders and agency officials  It is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the events that have impacted CSPF, nor is it intended to include comprehensive descriptions of each event  On September 22, 1982, the Department of Labor (DOL) entered into a court-enforceable consent decree with the Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Fund (CSPF) to help ensure the plan’s assets were managed for the sole benefit of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries as required by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA)  The consent decree has been amended several times and currently remains in effect, as amended, under the jurisdiction of the Federal Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division  Below is a description of the key parties to and their primary responsibilities under the consent decree  The consent decree defines roles and responsibilities for its parties, including the court, the court-appointed independent special counsel, DOL, the plan and its Board of Trustees, and the independent asset manager, which is called the named fiduciary  The primary role of the court is to oversee and enforce the consent decree  Specifically, the court: appointed an independent special counsel to assist it in administering has approval over the appointment of named fiduciaries and trustees; has approval over the appointment of investment managers of the may, for good cause shown, remove a named fiduciary after 60 days’ notice provided to the named fiduciary and DOL; and may, upon request by the plan, dissolve the consent decree absent good cause shown by DOL why the consent decree should continue in effect  The court-appointed independent special counsel is intended to serve the court by assisting in identifying and resolving issues that arise in connection with the plan’s compliance with the consent decree and Part 4 of Title I of ERISA, and to report on the plan to the court  Specifically, the independent special counsel: has full authority to examine the plan’s activities and oversee and report on the plan’s performance of the undertakings of the consent decree; may, with court approval, employ attorneys, accountants, investigators, and others reasonably necessary and appropriate to aid him in the exercise of his responsibilities; has full access to all documents, books, records, personnel, files, and information of whatever type or description in the possession, custody, or control of the plan; may attend meetings of the plan, including meetings of the board of trustees and any meetings at which plan-related matters are discussed or considered; can petition the court to compel the plan to cooperate with the independent special counsel in the performance of his duties and responsibilities; may consult with DOL, the Internal Revenue Service, and other agencies, as appropriate, but must provide access to DOL upon its request to any documents prepared by the independent special counsel within the exercise of his power; is required to file quarterly reports, as well as any other reports the independent special counsel deems necessary or appropriate, with the court, and provide copies to DOL and the plan; may have other powers, duties, and responsibilities that the court may later determine are appropriate; and cannot be discharged or terminated during the duration of the consent decree except for leave of court, and upon the termination, discharge, death, incapacity, or resignation of an independent special counsel, the court will appoint a successor  Under the consent decree, DOL has an oversight role and may object to certain proposed plan changes  Specifically, DOL: may request and review certain reports provided by the plan and any documents prepared by the independent special counsel in the exercise of his authority; may object to the appointment of proposed trustees, named fiduciaries, investment managers of the passively-managed accounts, and asset custodians; receives notice of proposed changes to the plan’s investment policy statements from the plan; and may object to the dissolution of the consent decree  The plan must operate in full compliance with the consent decree, with ERISA, and with any conditions contained in determination letters it receives from the Internal Revenue Service  Specifically, CSPF, its board of trustees, and its internal audit staff must meet certain requirements  is required to use an independent asset manager known as the named fiduciary; must rebid the named fiduciary role at least once within every 6 years, with the option to extend the appointment for 1 calendar year; may remove a named fiduciary without cause shown on 6 months’ written notice to the named fiduciary and DOL; must cooperate with the independent special counsel in the performance of his duties and responsibilities and with DOL in its continuing investigation and enforcement responsibilities under ERISA; is required to recommend to the court three replacement candidates, agreeable to DOL, to replace an outgoing independent special counsel; and is required to maintain a qualified internal audit staff to monitor its affairs  is required to appoint, subject to court approval, the investment managers of the passively-managed accounts; is prohibited from authorizing any future acquisitions, investments, or dispositions of plan assets on a direct or indirect basis unless specifically allowed by the consent decree; and is required to comply with ERISA fiduciary duties, such as monitoring the performance of the assets of the plan, under Part 4 of Title I of ERISA  is required to review benefit administration, administrative expenditures, and the allocation of plan receipts to investments and administration; and is required to prepare monthly reports setting forth any findings and recommendations, in cooperation with the executive director of the plan, and make copies available to the independent special counsel and, upon request, to DOL and the court  The independent asset managers, known as named fiduciaries, are appointed by the plan’s trustees, subject to court approval, and have exclusive responsibility and authority to manage and control all assets of the plan allocated to them  Specifically, the named fiduciaries: may allocate plan assets among different types of investments and have exclusive authority to appoint, replace, and remove those have responsibility and authority to monitor the performance of their are required to develop, in consultation with the Board of Trustees, and implement investment policy statements for the assets they manage, giving appropriate regards to CSPF’s actuarial requirements  In addition to the individual named above David Lehrer (Assistant Director), Charles J  Ford, (Analyst-in-Charge), Laurel Beedon, Jessica Moscovitch, Layla Moughari, Joseph Silvestri, Anjali Tekchandani, Margaret J  Weber, Adam Wendel, and Miranda J  Wickham made key contributions to this report  Also contributing to this report were Susan Aschoff, Deborah K  Bland, Helen Desaulniers, Laura Hoffrey, Jennifer Gregory, Sheila McCoy, Mimi Nguyen, Jessica Orr, Monica P  Savoy, and Seyda Wentworth  Central States Pension Fund: Department of Labor Activities under the Consent Decree and Federal Law  GAO-18-105  Washington, D C : June 4, 2018  High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While Substantial Efforts Needed on Others  GAO-17-317  Washington, D C : February 15, 2017  Pension Plan Valuation: Views on Using Multiple Measures to Offer a More Complete Financial Picture  GAO-14-264  Washington, D C : September 30, 2014  Private Pensions: Clarity of Required Reports and Disclosures Could Be Improved  GAO-14-92  Washington, D C : November 21, 2013  Private Pensions: Timely Action Needed to Address Impending Multiemployer Plan Insolvencies  GAO-13-240  Washington, D C : March 28, 2013  Private Pensions: Multiemployer Plans and PBGC Face Urgent Challenges  GAO-13-428T  Washington, D C : March 5, 2013  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation: Redesigned Premium Structure Could Better Align Rates with Risk from Plan Sponsors  GAO-13-58  Washington, D C : November 7, 2012  Private Pensions: Changes Needed to Better Protect Multiemployer Pension Benefits  GAO-11-79  Washington, D C : October 18, 2010  Private Pensions: Long-standing Challenges Remain for Multiemployer Pension Plans  GAO-10-708T  Washington, D C : May 27, 2010  The Department of Labor’s Oversight of the Management of the Teamsters’ Central States Pension and Health and Welfare Funds  GAO/HRD-85-73  Washington, D C : July 18, 1985  Investigation to Reform Teamsters’ Central States Pension Fund Found Inadequate  HRD-82-13  Washington, D C : April 28, 1982 

ground_truth: USPS is required to prefund its share of health benefits costs for its retirees. To do so, USPS is required to make payments into the RHB Fund, which is administered by OPM. However, USPS has not made any payments to the fund since fiscal year 2010. At the end of fiscal year 2017, USPS had missed $38.2 billion in payments, leaving the fund 44 percent funded. Pursuant to law, beginning in fiscal year 2017, OPM started drawing from the fund to cover USPS's share of postal retirees' health benefits premiums. GAO was asked to review issues related to the sustainability of the RHB Fund. This report examines (1) the financial outlook for the RHB Fund and (2) policy approaches for postal retiree health benefits, among other topics. GAO evaluated financial projections for the RHB Fund from OPM. GAO reviewed laws and regulations and identified policy approaches primarily by identifying legislative proposals, and literature on actions of companies and state governments to address retiree health benefits. These approaches are not exhaustive or mutually exclusive. GAO also interviewed experts in retiree health benefits and postal stakeholders, chosen on the basis of relevant publications and prior GAO work, and interviewed and obtained written responses from OPM and USPS officials. The financial outlook of the Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHB Fund) is poor. At the end of fiscal year 2017, the fund's assets declined to $49.8 billion and unfunded liabilities rose to $62.2 billion. Based on Office of Personnel Management (OPM) projections requested by GAO, the fund is on track to be depleted in fiscal year 2030 if the United States Postal Service (USPS) continues to make no payments into the fund. Annual payments of $1 billion or $2 billion into the fund would extend the projected depletion date by 2 to 5 years (see figure). USPS has said that its required payments to the fund are unaffordable relative to its current financial situation and outlook. For the past 11 years USPS has incurred large operating losses that it expects will continue. Additionally, USPS has stated that its opportunities for revenue generation and cost-cutting are limited. USPS reported that it did not make required fund payments in 2017 in order to preserve liquidity and cover operational costs. If the fund becomes depleted, USPS would be required by law to make the payments necessary to cover its share of health benefits premiums for current postal retirees. Current law does not address what would happen if the fund becomes depleted and USPS does not make payments to cover those premiums. Depletion of the fund could affect postal retirees as well as USPS, customers, and other stakeholders, including the federal government. About 500,000 postal retirees receive health benefits and OPM expects that number to remain about the same through 2035. GAO identified three categories of policy approaches for postal retiree health benefits, based on legislative proposals and pertinent literature. First, some approaches, such as generally requiring eligible postal retirees to participate in Medicare, would shift costs to the federal government. Second, some approaches would reduce benefits or increase costs to postal retirees and/or employees. Third, some approaches would change how benefits are financed (see table). All of these approaches have different potential effects and would require congressional action. Thus, it is up to Congress to consider the merits of different approaches and determine the most appropriate action to take. It would be preferable to take action when careful consideration is possible, rather than wait until lack of adequate funding could disrupt postal retiree health benefits. Congress should consider passing legislation to put postal retiree health benefits on a more sustainable financial footing. USPS agreed that congressional action is needed and offered views on some policy approaches discussed in this report.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.

Report 1: Postal retiree health benefits are provided as part of the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP)  FEHBP covers federal employees and retirees, including postal and nonpostal retirees, who receive health insurance from companies that contract with OPM  Retiree participation is voluntary; in fiscal year 2018, about 500,000 postal retirees have participated in FEHBP  Funding requirements for postal retiree health benefits are established by law, which divides responsibility among USPS, the federal government, and postal retirees  USPS is responsible for a specific percentage of premiums, the federal government is responsible for paying a prorated share, and retirees are responsible for the rest  The funding requirements for these benefits changed in 2006  Before then, a “pay-as- you-go” system governed USPS’s payments, which required USPS to pay its share of premiums for current postal retirees  The 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) required USPS to start fully “prefunding” retiree health benefits  This meant that USPS was required to make annual prefunding payments to a newly established fund to build up funds to cover USPS’s share of future postal retiree health benefit costs  PAEA also established the RHB Fund as a new fund in the U S  Treasury for USPS to deposit money into, and specified that beginning in fiscal year 2017, the fund would be used by OPM to pay USPS’s share of postal retiree premiums for health benefits  Under PAEA, the first 10 years of prefunding payments were fixed—ranging from $5 4 billion to $5 8 billion annually from fiscal years 2007 to 2016  From fiscal years 2007 through 2016, USPS was also required to continue “pay-as-you-go” payments for its share of premiums for current retirees  The permanent schedule for USPS payments to prefund postal retiree health benefits under PAEA started in fiscal year 2017  We have reported that USPS’s financial condition continues to deteriorate and its outlook is bleak  We have separately issued reports and testimonies that examined USPS’s financial condition, including its liabilities, and identified strategies and options for USPS and Congress to reduce postal costs, generate revenue, and restructure the funding of USPS’s pension and retiree health benefits  Looking forward, we have reported that USPS is facing unsustainable financial challenges as First- Class Mail volume continues to decline  USPS has recently reported that its revenue generation options are constrained, including by the price cap on market-dominant mail, and that any cost-cutting opportunities within its control are “relatively limited and dwindling ” USPS stated that the opportunity for further cost savings within its control will not come close to filling its financial gap  With respect to actions taken by companies and state governments, we have previously reported on the long-term trend for these organizations to eliminate or reduce retiree health benefits  Factors contributing to this decline include financial challenges for companies and states, current and expected retiree health benefit costs, and the legal ability to change retiree health benefit programs  The RHB Fund is on an unsustainable path and is projected to be depleted in 12 years under the status quo  USPS has missed approximately $38 billion in payments to the fund since fiscal year 2010, and the fund’s balance is declining  Beginning in fiscal year 2017, OPM started drawing from the fund to pay USPS’s share of premiums for postal retirees’ health benefits  OPM’s payments in that year exceeded the fund’s income from interest, and OPM projects that, based on the status quo, future payments will continue to exceed the fund’s income from interest  As long as USPS continues to miss its annual payments—which were nearly $4 3 billion in fiscal year 2017 and are $4 5 billion in fiscal year 2018—the fund is on track to be depleted in fiscal year 2030 based on OPM projections requested by us (see fig  1)  We reported similar results in our December 2012 report on postal retiree health benefits  At our request, OPM conducted a sensitivity analysis in which alternative projections were made that assumed USPS made payments to the fund of $1 billion per year or $2 billion per year; these alternative projections extended the fund’s projected depletion date from fiscal year 2030 to fiscal years 2032 or 2035, respectively (see fig  2)  OPM estimates the number of postal retirees eligible for federal retiree health benefits will remain near the current level of 500,000 through fiscal year 2035  The outlook for the RHB Fund is poor as USPS has inadequate resources to cover its required payments to the RHB Fund and, in our view, based on past practices and USPS statements, appears unlikely to make partial payments  USPS has repeatedly testified that its required payments to the RHB Fund are “unaffordable” relative to its current financial situation and outlook  In this regard, USPS accumulated net losses of more than $65 billion in the last 11 years and has budgeted for a net loss of about $5 billion in fiscal year 2018  Further, USPS reached its statutory borrowing limit of $15 billion in 2012  Although USPS accumulated liquid assets (cash and cash equivalents) of about $10 5 billion at the end of fiscal year 2017, it did not make $6 9 billion in required payments for retiree health and pension benefits  According to USPS officials, USPS did not make these payments in order to preserve liquidity and cover operational costs  If the RHB Fund is depleted, PAEA requires USPS to fill the resulting financial gap by resuming “pay-as-you-go” payments for its share of retiree health premiums that are currently being paid by the fund  However, PAEA does not address how funding will be provided or whether benefits will be provided if the fund becomes depleted and USPS does not make payments to cover its share of premiums  OPM and USPS have identified the following issues should the fund be depleted: According to OPM: (1) The RHB Fund is the initial funding source for USPS’s share of postal retirees’ health insurance premiums as long as money remains in the fund  (2) If the fund is depleted, then USPS becomes the funding source responsible for paying USPS’s share of these premiums  (3) Regardless of whether funds are available to pay USPS’s share of premiums, postal retirees are statutorily entitled to remain enrolled in their FEHBP plans  (4) Therefore, if the fund is depleted and USPS does not pay its share of premiums, the providers of these FEHBP plans would be underpaid  According to USPS: (1) Current law does not appear to contemplate a situation in which USPS itself is unable to make payments to the RHB Fund after the fund is depleted  (2) The law does not condition postal retirees’ eligibility for health benefits upon the fund or the payment of government contributions by USPS and the federal government  (3) Therefore, USPS stated it is reasonable to expect that postal retirees would remain eligible for health coverage even if USPS is unable to make payments to the RHB Fund after it is depleted  Regarding who would pay for their health coverage at this point, USPS stated that ultimately, it would be up to Congress to legislate a resolution to the funding issue  As the above projections show, the RHB Fund could be depleted in as little as 12 years—and USPS may be unable to cover its share of retiree health insurance premiums should its financial condition remain precarious  Depletion of the fund could affect postal retirees—who have provided a vital service to the nation—as well as USPS, postal customers and other stakeholders, including the federal government  Survey data we reviewed indicate that most companies do not offer retiree health benefits and that the number of companies providing such benefits is decreasing over time  For example, the percentage of all private and public organizations (e g , state or local governments) with more than 200 employees that offer employee health benefits and that also offer retiree health benefits is estimated to have declined from 40 percent in 1999 to 25 percent in 2017, according to annual surveys conducted by the Henry J  Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research & Educational Trust (Kaiser/HRET)  Focusing specifically on the results for private for-profit companies, the 2017 Kaiser/HRET survey estimated that only 11 percent of companies with at least 200 employees that offered health benefits to active employees also offered retiree health benefits in 2017, the smallest percentage since comparable data were measured in 2012  The 2017 Kaiser/HRET survey also estimated that the percentage of companies offering retiree health benefits was greater among companies with at least 5,000 employees (35 percent) than those with 1,000 to 4,999 employees (18 percent) and those with 200 to 999 employees (9 percent) (see fig  3)  Surveys sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) have estimated similar trends for private sector establishments with at least 1,000 employees and with 100-999 employees  According to the AHRQ surveys, an estimated 25 percent of private sector establishments with at least 1,000 employees offered health insurance coverage to retirees age 65 and older in 2016, down from 41 percent in 2003  For retirees under 65, an estimated 32 percent offered such coverage in 2016, down from 42 percent in 2003 (see fig  4)  Based on reports we reviewed and experts we interviewed, many companies that have retained their retiree health benefits have done so by making changes to control costs, including tightening eligibility and restructuring benefits  Depending on the company, the changes have applied to new hires, current employees, or retirees  Specific changes have included the following: Tightening eligibility: Some companies have made new employees and/or employees hired after a given date ineligible to receive retiree health benefits, while other companies have increased the minimum age and/or length of service requirements for eligibility, according to reports and experts we interviewed  Restructuring benefits: Many companies have restructured retiree health benefits to reduce the level of the benefit, to shift costs to retirees, and to change how the benefits are provided  For example, some companies have shifted from an approach under which a company pays a percentage of premiums for a selected health benefit plan, to an approach under which a company pays a fixed dollar amount that employees may put toward health care costs  The 2017 Kaiser/HRET survey estimated that 30 percent of private and public organizations with 200 or more employees that offer retiree health benefits provide a fixed dollar amount that the retiree can use to purchase a retiree health plan they choose  Experts on retiree health benefits that we interviewed told us such companies often shift costs to retirees by maintaining defined contributions at the same level over time, even as overall health care costs increase  Based on multiple reports and experts, nearly all state governments continue to offer retiree health benefits to at least some state government retirees but generally have shifted some costs from the state to retirees and/or active employees in various ways  For example, in 2016, the Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D  and Catherine T  MacArthur Foundation reported on the following recent changes at the state level related to eligibility for retiree health benefits, benefit levels, and aspects of how the benefits coordinate with Medicare: Tightening eligibility or limiting benefit levels: Most states varied eligibility for retiree health benefits based on factors such as age and years of service, and varied benefit levels based on factors such as date of hire, date of retirement, or vesting eligibility; some states varied benefit levels based on years of service  Between 2000 and 2015, more than a dozen states changed the minimum age or the number of state service years required for retirees to be eligible for health benefits  During that timeframe, at least 10 states adopted formulas for prorating benefits that required different premium-sharing amounts based on years of service, or altered existing prorating formulas, bringing the total to 31 states that used prorating in 2015  At least 5 states stopped making any contributions to health premiums for certain retirees  Medicare coordination: Thirty-five states provided employer- sponsored Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part D plans, known as Employer Group Waiver Plans, to provide health or prescription drug benefit coverage for Medicare-eligible retirees since these options were authorized in 2003  According to the report, “These cost- saving programs provide states with financial subsidies from the federal Medicare program to provide Medicare plus wraparound benefits ” We identified eight potential policy approaches to address the financial sustainability of postal retiree health benefits, primarily based on a review of legislative proposals and pertinent literature on actions that were taken by private companies and state governments and are discussed above  These approaches fall into three categories: (1) approaches that shift costs to the federal government; (2) approaches that reduce benefits or increase costs to postal retirees and/or postal employees; and (3) approaches that change how the benefits are financed  These eight approaches are not mutually exclusive, nor are they an exhaustive list of possible approaches  Each approach could include a range of specific options; thus, even if successfully implemented, no one approach would necessarily be sufficient to make postal retiree health benefits financially sustainable  Although our discussion of the various policy approaches specifically addresses postal retiree health benefits, most approaches could address federal retiree health benefits more broadly, as both postal and non-postal federal employees participate in the same federal health benefits program  All approaches we identified have different potential effects and would require congressional action because current law establishes certain requirements for postal retiree health benefit plans, including basic rules for benefits, enrollment, and participation, and how benefits are to be paid for  Because the RHB Fund has a large and growing financial gap, any approach that would have a significant financial impact could affect the federal government, postal retirees, postal employees, USPS, and customers to varying degrees  Medicare Integration: Various legislative proposals have been made to increase postal retirees’ participation in Medicare—a shift that would decrease USPS’s costs but increase Medicare’s costs, according to analyses by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO)  These proposals would establish a program within FEHBP for active postal employees and postal retirees  Under these bills, Medicare-eligible postal retirees enrolled in this program would generally also be required to be enrolled in Medicare Parts A, B, and D  According to CBO analyses, the bills would have resulted in USPS savings, in part because increased participation in Medicare would shift primary responsibility for covering certain health care services to Medicare for those who enroll  As we have previously reported, the primary policy decision for Congress to make is whether to increase postal retirees’ use of Medicare  Supplemental federal appropriations: If the RHB Fund becomes depleted and USPS does not fill the financial gap, supplemental federal appropriations could be an alternative if Congress wants benefits to continue at the same level  As previously noted, OPM officials told us that regardless of whether funds are available to pay USPS’s share of premiums, postal retirees are statutorily entitled to remain enrolled in their FEHBP plans  However, supplemental federal appropriations for postal retiree health benefits could increase the federal budget deficit  In addition, supplemental appropriations for postal retiree health benefits would be inconsistent with USPS functioning as a self-financing entity that covers its costs with revenue it generates  Tighten eligibility or reduce or eliminate retiree health benefits: As some companies and state governments have done, eligibility restrictions could be tightened for postal retiree health benefits, or other actions could reduce the level of benefits or even eliminate benefits, such as making new hires ineligible to receive retiree health benefits  The effects would depend on the specific changes and whether they were made to apply to current retirees, current employees, or future hires  Depending on the extent of the changes, this approach would reduce USPS’s liability for postal retiree health benefits and thereby reduce its unfunded liability  Increase premium payments by postal retirees and/or postal employees: As some companies and state governments have done, premium payments for postal retiree health benefits by postal retirees and/or postal employees could be increased  For example, as others have reported, some companies and state governments have required retirees to pay 100 percent of the health insurance premium for their retiree health benefits  Similarly, a larger share of retiree health premiums could be borne by postal retirees or postal employees could be required to pay for retiree health benefits before they retire  Such changes would require changes to current law that allocates specific financial responsibility for payments among USPS, the federal government, and retirees participating in FEHBP, as active postal employees make no payment for retiree health benefits under current law  The expenses of the RHB Fund could be decreased by these approaches that shift costs to postal retirees, postal employees, or both  Depending on how much of the costs are shifted, the additional costs could increase the challenge for retirees to ensure their accumulated resources last throughout retirement, or for postal employees to save for retirement  Further, as we have reported, rising health care costs can increase the overall amount individuals may need to save to ensure they have an adequate income once they retire  Change the federal contribution to a fixed subsidy: As some companies and state governments have done, postal retiree health benefits could be shifted to a structure with a fixed amount subsidizing the benefit  This amount could be adjusted over time; any adjustments might or might not keep up with costs  Depending on the initial size of the fixed subsidy and any adjustments over time, this approach could reduce the expenses of the RHB Fund and USPS’s required payments  RHB Fund expenses could be reduced over time if the fixed subsidy increases less than postal retiree health premiums  This approach would require changes to current law and regulations that prescribe the federal government’s financial contribution to FEHBP  For example, CBO recently identified one option to change FEHBP’s statutory structure from a premium-sharing structure that is required by law to fixed subsidies for health benefits  Under this option, the fixed subsidies would grow at the rate of inflation rather than at the average rate of growth for FEHBP premiums; CBO stated this change would be expected to slow the growth of federal contributions to FEHBP  A fixed subsidy for retiree health benefits could increase incentives for retirees to make less costly decisions with respect to health care  However, this approach could result in greater cost exposure for retirees, who may face difficult decisions regarding their health care, particularly if their financial resources are limited  As we have reported, individuals face the risk that rising and unpredictable health care or long-term care costs may lead them to draw down their retirement savings faster than expected  Establish a non-federal voluntary employees’ beneficiary association (VEBA) for postal retiree health benefits: As some companies have done to provide retiree health benefits separately from the employer, a VEBA outside the federal government could be established to manage postal retiree health benefits  This approach means that postal retiree health benefits would be provided through the VEBA instead of through the OPM-administered FEHBP  The non-federal VEBA would administer the postal retiree health benefits program, including determining the specific benefits that would be provided and the level of contributions from the VEBA members—who could include retirees and employees—and the investing of its assets  Such an approach would require determining the VEBA’s governance structure, funding sources, level of funding, type of investments, and associated market risks  One issue could be determining the source and level of initial funding for a new VEBA for postal retiree health benefits, such as whether initial funding would come from the RHB Fund, the Treasury, or both  Other issues could be what funds would be provided to the VEBA going forward, including the source(s) and level of funding, and what the benefit levels would be  If the entire RHB Fund were transferred into a VEBA, the current level of benefits would ultimately not be sustainable unless further funding is provided from one or more sources, such as from USPS, retirees, active employees, or the federal government  Thus, trade-offs would involve what level of benefits would be provided, who would bear the costs, and what might happen if VEBA assets decline or become depleted  Reduce the required level of prefunding: Proposed legislation includes an 80 percent funding target for postal retiree health benefits instead of the 100 percent target established by current law  This would reduce USPS’s required payments to the RHB Fund but could increase costs for future postal ratepayers and increase the risk that USPS may not be able to pay for these costs  As previously discussed in this report, state governments either do not prefund their retiree health benefits or generally have a low level of prefunding  We have expressed concern about a proposed 80 percent funding target for postal retiree health benefits that would have the effect of carrying a permanent unfunded liability equal to roughly 20 percent of USPS’s liability, which could be a significant amount  As we previously reported, an alternative could be to build in a schedule to achieve 100 percent funding in a later time period after the 80 percent level is achieved  Although USPS payments with an 80 percent funding target would reduce USPS’s required payments, fully funded benefits protect against an inability to make payments later, make promised benefits less vulnerable to cuts, and protect USPS’s long-term viability  Further, reducing the funding target is unlikely to have any effect as long as USPS continues to make no payments to the RHB Fund, as discussed earlier  We continue to believe that as long as USPS is required by law to pay its share of retiree health benefits premiums, it is important for USPS to prefund its retiree health benefit liability to the maximum extent that its finances permit  We recognize that multiple options exist to prefund benefits and amortize unfunded liability and that no prefunding approach will be viable unless USPS can make the payments and maintain liquidity  As we have reported, making affordable prefunding payments would protect the viability of USPS by not saddling it with bills later on, when employees are already retired and no longer helping it to generate revenue; making payments can also make the promised benefits more secure  We also have reported that deferring payments can pass costs from current to future postal ratepayers  To the extent prefunding is postponed by using a lower funding target, larger payments will be required later, when they likely would be supported by lower levels of profitable First-Class Mail volume  Outside investment: Proposed legislation would initially require 25 percent of the RHB Fund to be invested in index funds modeled after those used for federal Thrift Savings Plan investments  The objective of investing RHB Fund assets outside of U S  Treasury securities would be to seek a greater rate of return on these assets in an attempt to reduce unfunded liabilities and the amount of required prefunding payments  Such outside investment would require legislation because current law limits RHB Fund assets to U S  Treasury securities that are backed by the full faith and credit of the federal government  A higher rate of return on RHB Fund assets could reduce long-term funding needs  However, there are other considerations  For example, we have reported that if fund assets were invested in non-Treasury securities, the fund may experience losses in a market downturn and would thus have reduced assets available for health care  Assuming there would be no explicit federal guarantee of the value of the invested assets, we stated that USPS is not well positioned to deal with a potentially significant decline in their value, given its significant operating losses and continuing decline in mail volume  We also reported that the impact of any asset losses could be magnified because a market downturn that negatively affects asset value could be associated with a more general economic downturn that negatively affects USPS mail volume and revenues  About a half million postal retirees receive retiree health benefits  Postal retirees have provided a vital service to the nation, and resolving a key aspect of their future situation warrants congressional action  Failure to address the poor financial outlook of the RHB Fund could pose serious consequences for these retirees as well as USPS, postal customers, and other stakeholders, including the federal government  It is reasonable to believe that USPS will not be able to fill the financial gap once the RHB fund is depleted—a situation that could occur in as little as 12 years under the status quo  There is no certainty on what actions should be taken to address this problem  However, we have identified multiple approaches that could be used, individually or in combination, that Congress could consider to help address the financial shortfall in this area  All of these approaches have different potential effects, and it is up to Congress to consider the merits of the approaches and determine the most appropriate action to take  It would be preferable to take action when careful consideration is possible, rather than wait until lack of adequate funding could disrupt postal retiree health benefits  Congress should consider passing legislation to put postal retiree health benefits on a more sustainable financial footing  We provided a draft of this report to OPM and USPS for their review and comment  OPM provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  USPS provided a written response, which is reproduced in appendix II of this report  In its written response, USPS stated that it concurred with our matter for congressional consideration that congressional action is necessary to achieve a financially sustainable Postal Service Retiree Health Benefits Fund (RHB Fund)  However, USPS said our discussion of potential policy approaches for postal retiree health benefits would benefit from additional context and balance  USPS also put forth additional information for three of the potential policy approaches highlighted in our report  Our report presents a high-level overview of eight potential policy approaches  It was not designed to be a comprehensive catalog of possible options with an analysis of the various considerations relevant to each  With regard to the Medicare integration approach, USPS stated that increased Medicare participation by postal retirees is not limited to the “full Medicare integration option,” as represented in our report and identified variations of such an approach  USPS said readers would benefit from a fuller picture of Medicare integration practices, stating that among employers that continue to provide retiree health benefits, full Medicare integration is a uniform best practice  USPS cited a 2014 report that said Medicare integration is the most common arrangement for employer-provided retiree health benefits, adding that retiree health benefits for Medicare-eligible employees are assumed to be merely supplemental to Medicare as a matter of course  Our report discussed Medicare integration by state governments, but did not present recent data on the percentage of private companies that coordinate their retiree health benefits with Medicare because such data are not publicly available  Additionally, USPS said our report framed the issue of Medicare integration as “solely” a tradeoff between USPS and Medicare costs while there are other factors to consider, such as the relative benefits to USPS compared to the overall cost for the Medicare program  As we noted in our report, the eight potential policy approaches were not designed to be mutually exclusive, nor an exhaustive list of possible approaches  Additionally, we recognize there are various factors related to this approach, but that the primary one is whether to increase postal retirees’ use of Medicare which would lead to further increasing Medicare costs  Second, USPS said it believed our statements about approaches for changing the level of prefunding for retiree health benefits below the 100 percent level were misplaced, citing “universally accepted practices” for other entities to “pay-as-you-go” (i e , not prefund at all), or to prefund at much lower levels  We have reported on such funding levels in the past as well  However, a proposed 80 percent funding target for postal retiree health benefits would have the effect of carrying a permanent unfunded liability equal to roughly 20 percent of USPS’s liability, which could be a significant amount  As we previously reported, an alternative could be to build in a schedule to achieve 100 percent funding in a later time period after the 80 percent level is achieved  As our report also explained, although USPS payments with an 80 percent funding target would reduce USPS’s required payments, fully funded benefits protect against an inability to make payments later, make promised benefits less vulnerable to cuts, and protect USPS’s long-term viability  Finally, USPS said that our statements about potential risks associated with investment of assets outside the U S  Treasury seem disproportionate given USPS’s view that diversification of assets set aside for retiree health benefits is “universally accepted” as a best practice  We recognize that a higher rate of return on RHB Fund assets could reduce long-term funding needs for the RHB Fund  However, there are considerations specific to USPS  For example, assuming there would be no explicit federal guarantee of the value of the invested assets, we stated that USPS is not well positioned to deal with a potentially significant decline in their value, given its significant operating losses and continuing decline in mail volume  We also noted that, as we have previously reported, the impact of any asset losses could be magnified because a market downturn that negatively affects asset value could be associated with a more general economic downturn that also negatively affects USPS mail volume and revenues  In summary, we believe our report presents a balanced description of a wide range of possible policy options; it does not endorse or recommend any particular option for Congress  As we concluded, all of these approaches have different potential effects, and the information we present, as well as the additional views presented by USPS, provide critical information for congressional decision-makers to assess as they consider the merits of the approaches and determine the most appropriate action to take  As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the report date  At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate congressional committees; the Postmaster General; and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management  In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-2834 or rectanusl@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff that made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  End of year net funded status (unfunded) (55 0) Missed USPS payments to the fund (53 5) (52 0) (48 6) (46 2) (47 8) (48 3) (48 9) (54 8) (52 1) payments due on Sept  30, 2017, of $955 million for the amortization of USPS’s unfunded liability for postal retiree health benefits, and $3 3 billion for the “normal costs” of retiree health benefits  The “normal cost” is the annual expected growth in liability attributable to an additional year of employees’ service  In addition to the individual named above, Derrick Collins (Assistant Director); Kenneth John (Analyst-in-Charge); Amy Abramowitz; Taiyshawna Battle; William Colwell; Swati Deo; John Dicken; Leia Dickerson; William Hadley; James Leonard; Emei Li; Thanh Lu; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Joshua Parr; Malika Rice; Matthew Rosenberg; Amy Rosewarne; Frank Todisco; and Crystal Wesco made key contributions to this report 


Report 2:  One of those items—managers agreeing to a great or very great extent that employees in their agency receive positive recognition for helping the agency to accomplish its strategic goals—had a statistically significant increase between 1997 and 2017 (from an estimated 26 percent to 46 percent)  Make meaningful distinctions in performance: Effective performance management requires the organization’s leadership to meaningfully distinguish between acceptable and outstanding performance of individuals and to appropriately reward those who perform at the highest level  For example, in January 2015, we found disparities in performance ratings for SES among agencies  Across the 24 CFO Act agencies, the percent of SES rated at the highest level ranged from about 22 percent to 95 percent in fiscal year 2013  To help address these disparities, we recommended that the Director of OPM consider the need to refine the performance certifications guidelines addressing distinctions in performance  To address this recommendation, OPM informed us, in June 2015, that it had convened a cross-agency working group that developed a standard template for agencies to complete and post on a website to more transparently justify their SES ratings distributions  In May 2016, we found that about 74 percent of non-SES employees under a five-level appraisal system—the most commonly used system— were rated in the top two of five performance categories in 2013  We explored this issue further in our December 2016 review of human capital challenges at the Veterans Health Administration (VHA), which illustrates the importance of making meaningful distinctions in performance for non- SES employees  We found that in fiscal year 2014, about 73 percent of VHA employees were rated in the top two of five performance categories  This may have been due, in part, to a policy that did not require standards to be defined for each level of performance  We recommended that VHA ensure that meaningful distinctions are being made in employee performance ratings by reviewing and revising performance management policies consistent with leading practices, among other actions  The Department of Veterans Affairs partially concurred with our recommendation  In May 2017, the department stated that it had begun piloting a new performance management process and would analyze results at the end of fiscal year 2017  One key aspect of connecting daily operations to results is aligning program performance measures to agency-wide goals and objectives  However, in 2017, an estimated 50 percent of federal managers agreed to a great or very great extent that managers at their level took steps to create such an alignment  There has been no statistically significant change since this item was introduced in 2007  In addition, GPRAMA calls for agencies to develop a balanced set of performance measures, which reinforces the need for agencies to have a variety of measures across program areas  Our 2017 survey shows that managers have not reported any difference in the availability of performance measures for their programs when compared to the 2013 results  However, the 2017 result (an estimated 87 percent) represents a statistically significant increase when compared to 1997 (76 percent)  When asked about the availability of certain types of performance measures, three of the five types (outcome, output, and efficiency) were statistically significantly higher in 2017 when compared to our initial 1997 survey  However, when comparing 2017 results to those in 2013, two of the five types (output and quality) showed a statistically significant decrease, and the other types did not change  These are illustrated in figure 20  Beyond the survey results, our work has found that some agencies had not developed or used outcome measures, but have taken steps to do so  Agencies have been responsible for measuring program outcomes since GPRA was enacted in 1993  The text box below describes two illustrative examples from our past work  Examples of Agencies That Did Not Develop or Use Outcome Measures Patient access to electronic health information: In March 2017, we found that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) had invested over $35 billion since 2009 to enhance patient access to electronic health information, among other things  HHS had not developed outcome measures to gauge the effectiveness of these efforts, which meant the department did not have information to determine whether the efforts were contributing to its overall goals  We recommended that HHS develop relevant outcome measures and HHS concurred  Safety interventions: According to the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), between 2011 and 2015, over 4,000 people died in crashes involving motor carriers each year  GAO, Motor Carriers: Better Information Needed to Assess Effectiveness and Efficiency of Safety Interventions, GAO-17-49 (Washington, D C : Oct  27, 2016)  Further OMB actions could also help agencies make progress in measuring the performance of different program types  In our June 2013 report on initial GPRAMA implementation, we found that agencies experienced common issues in measuring the performance of various types of programs, such as contracts and grants  We recommended that OMB work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to examine those difficulties  Although they took some actions, OMB and the PIC have not yet developed a comprehensive and detailed approach to address these issues  We concluded that, without such an approach, it would be difficult for the PIC and agencies to fully understand these measurement issues and develop a crosscutting approach to help address them  In August 2017, OMB staff stated that efforts related to the future implementation of the Program Management Improvement Accountability Act (PMIAA) could help address this recommendation  As highlighted in table 1, our work continues to show why it is important for OMB and the PIC to take actions to more fully address our recommendation  Congress has passed legislation to increase the transparency and accessibility of federal performance and financial data  For example, GPRAMA modernized agency reporting requirements to ensure that they make timely, relevant data available to inform decision making by Congress and agency officials as well as improve transparency for the public  Results of our 2017 survey, however, show the need for improvements in the public availability of agency performance information  An estimated 17 percent of managers reported that their agency’s performance information is easily accessible to the public to a great or very great extent, the same percentage as in 2013  Moreover, of the 87 percent of managers that reported there are performance measures for the programs they are involved in, 25 percent reported that they use information obtained from performance measurement when informing the public about how programs are performing to a great or very great extent  This is not statistically different from the 30 percent estimated in 2013  The DATA Act, enacted in 2014, built on previous transparency legislation by expanding what federal agencies are required to report regarding their spending  The act significantly increases the types of data that must be reported, requires government-wide data standards, and regular reviews of data quality to help improve the transparency and accountability of federal spending data  OMB provides websites and guidance to make agency performance and financial information available to the public; however, our prior work has identified a number of areas related to Performance gov and the DATA Act where OMB action is needed to improve the transparency and accessibility of this information  Performance gov: Since 2013, our work has identified a number of issues with Performance gov, the website intended to serve as a central source of information on the federal government’s goals and performance  Over time, we have recommended that OMB take a number of specific actions to improve the website  For example, in June 2013, we found that the website offered an inconsistent user experience and presented accessibility and navigation challenges  To clarify the purpose of the website and enhance its usability, we recommended that OMB take steps to systematically collect customer input  In August 2016, we reported that OMB was not meeting all of the reporting requirements for Performance gov, and did not have a plan to develop and improve the website  We recommended that OMB ensure that information presented on Performance gov consistently complies with reporting requirements and develop a plan for the website that includes, among other things, a customer outreach plan  OMB agreed with these recommendations and, in July 2017, OMB staff informed us that they will be partnering with a vendor to redesign Performance gov to improve the accessibility of information on the website  To inform this redesign, OMB staff said that they will consider our previous recommendations and plan to engage a wide group of stakeholders, including Congress, agency staff, and interested members of the public and outside organizations  OMB staff anticipated releasing updated agency reporting guidance in the fall of 2017 and the redesigned website in February 2018  Under GPRAMA, OMB is required to make available, through Performance gov, quarterly updates on progress toward CAP goals and APGs  As described earlier, in June 2017 OMB announced that reporting to Performance gov has been discontinued through the end of fiscal year 2017 as agencies develop new priority goals  However, Performance gov does not state that it will not be updated, nor does it provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals  OMB’s guidance states that agencies should report the results of progress on their previous APGs in their annual performance reports for fiscal year 2017  Moreover, OMB staff told us that the existing updates on Performance gov for CAP goals, last updated in December 2016, represent the final updates on those goals, although they are not labeled as such on the website  As a result, those interested in progress updates and reported results for the previous priority goals may not know where they will be able to find this information, limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results for decision makers and the public  DATA Act: The DATA Act requires federal agencies to disclose their spending and link this to program activities so that policymakers and the public can more effectively track federal spending  The act has the potential to improve the accuracy and transparency of federal spending information and increase its usefulness for government decision making and oversight  Since the DATA Act became law, OMB and Treasury have taken significant steps to make more complete and accurate federal spending data available  These have included standardizing data element definitions to make it easier to compare different federal agencies’ financial information, and issuing guidance to help agencies submit required data  In May 2017, federal agencies started to report data under the standardized definitions developed under the act  We have made a number of recommendations to address challenges that could affect the consistency and quality of the data  Addressing these recommendations could help ensure that financial data are provided to the public in a transparent and useful manner  For example, in January 2016, we found some standardized data element definitions were imprecise or ambiguous, which could result in inconsistent or potentially misleading reporting  We recommended that OMB provide agencies with additional guidance to address potential issues with the clarity, consistency, and quality of reported data  OMB released guidance in May and November 2016, but in April 2017 we found that additional guidance was needed to help agencies implement certain data definitions to produce data that would be consistent and comparable across agencies  We are in the process of examining the quality of the data that was submitted by agencies in May 2017 and was made available to the public on an early version of the USAspending gov website  We expect to issue the results of this work in fall 2017  Our past work also identified a number of actions agencies need to take to make performance information more transparent  Increasing the accessibility of this information could enhance oversight and accountability of agency performance and results  CAP goals: In May 2016, we found that while selected CAP goal teams were working to develop performance measures to track progress, they were not consistently reporting on their efforts to develop these measures  We recommended that OMB report on Performance gov the actions that CAP goal teams are taking to develop performance measures and quarterly targets to help ensure that measures are aligned with major activities, and ensure that it is possible to track teams’ progress toward establishing measures  While OMB agreed with this recommendation, it did not address it before reporting on the CAP goals was discontinued, as discussed earlier  Customer service standards: As we described earlier, in 2017, an estimated 48 percent of federal managers that indicated they have performance measures for the programs they are involved in also agreed to a great or very great extent that they have customer service performance measures  There has been no statistically significant change relative to our last survey in 2013, or the initial survey in 1997  Relatedly, in October 2014, we reviewed customer service standards at five federal agencies  Customer service standards inform customers about what they have a right to expect when they request services, and the standards should include goals for the quality and timeliness of a service an agency provides to its customers  They should also be easily available to the public so that customers know what to expect, when to expect it, and from whom  In our review of standards at five agencies, however, we found that only Customs and Border Protection had standards that were easily available to the public  We recommended the other four agencies—the United States Forest Service, Federal Student Aid, the National Park Service (NPS), and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA)—make their standards more easily accessible to the public  As of July 2017, only VBA had done so  Major management challenges: In June 2016, we found that 14 of the 24 CFO Act agencies did not describe their major management challenges in their performance plans, as required by GPRAMA  Furthermore, 22 of the 24 agencies reviewed did not report complete performance information for each of their major management challenges, including performance goals, milestones, indicators, and planned actions that they have developed to address such challenges  As a result, it was not always transparent what these agencies considered to be their major management challenges or how they planned to resolve these challenges  We recommended that the 22 agencies describe their major management challenges in their agency performance plans and include goals, measures, milestones, and information on planned actions and responsible officials  As of August 2017, 8 agencies—the U S  Agency for International Development, Small Business Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, OPM, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and the Departments of Education, State, and Veterans Affairs—had fully implemented our recommendations; the other 14 agencies had not  Quality of performance information: In September 2015, we found that six selected agencies reported limited information on the actions they are taking to ensure the quality of their performance information for selected APGs, as required by GPRAMA  We recommended that all six of the agencies work with OMB to fully report this information  In response, the Department of Homeland Security and NASA described how they ensure reliable performance information is reported to external audiences  As of June 2017, the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, the Interior, and Labor had not yet taken actions to address this recommendation by providing more specific explanations of how they ensure reliable performance information is reported for their APGs  Unnecessary reports: GPRAMA requires that OMB guide an annual review of agencies’ plans and reports for Congress and include in the President’s budget a list of those plans and reports determined to be outdated or duplicative  However, in July 2017, we found that OMB did not implement the report review process on an annual basis, as required  We also found that OMB published the list of agency plans and reports on Performance gov, rather than in the President’s annual budget, where they may be more visible and useful to congressional decision makers and others  Therefore, we recommended that OMB instruct agencies to identify outdated or duplicative reports on an annual basis and submit or reference the list of identified plans and reports with the President’s annual budget  OMB agreed with these recommendations  In July 2017, OMB stated it would include a list of report modification proposals in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget as required by GPRAMA  For all of the unimplemented recommendations described above, we will continue to monitor agencies’ actions  In addition to providing access to performance and financial information, federal agencies can directly engage and collaborate with citizens, nonprofits, academic institutions, and other levels of government using open innovation strategies  Open innovation involves using various tools and approaches to harness the ideas, expertise, and resources of those outside an organization to address an issue or achieve specific goals  In October 2016, we found that in recent years agencies had frequently used five open innovation strategies—singularly or in combination—to collaborate with citizens and encourage their participation in agency initiatives  (See figure 21 ) Our October 2016 report found that agencies can use these strategies for a variety of purposes  To develop new ideas, solutions to specific problems, or new products: For example, from April 2015 to November 2016, the Department of Energy held a prize competition to create more efficient devices that would double the energy captured from ocean waves  According to the competition’s website, the winning team achieved a five-fold improvement  To enhance collaboration and agency capacity by leveraging external resources, knowledge, and expertise: For example, every 2 years since 2009, the Federal Highway Administration has regularly engaged stakeholders to identify and implement innovative ideas that have measurably improved the execution of highway construction projects  To collect the perspectives and preferences of a broad group of citizens and external stakeholders: For example, the Food and Drug Administration used in-person and online dialogue to engage outside stakeholders in the development of an online platform designed to make key datasets easily accessible to the public  Subsequently, in June 2017, we found that OMB, the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), and the General Services Administration (GSA) developed resources to support the use of open innovation strategies by federal agencies  These resources included guidance, staff to assist agencies in implementing initiatives, and websites to improve access to relevant information  For example, GSA developed a step-by-step implementation guide, program management team, and website to help agency staff carry out prize competitions and challenges  Agencies have also developed their own resources, including guidance, staff positions, and websites, to reach specific audiences and to provide tailored support for open innovation strategies they use frequently  For example, NASA’s Solve website provides a central location for the public to find the agency’s challenges and citizen science projects, as well as links to relevant resources  We also evaluated key government-wide guidance for the five strategies listed above to determine the extent to which the guidance reflects leading practices for effectively implementing open innovation initiatives  We identified these practices in our October 2016 report  We found that the guidance for each strategy reflected these practices to differing extents, as shown in figure 22  We made 22 recommendations to GSA, OMB, and OSTP to enhance the guidance  GSA and OMB generally agreed with these recommendations and OSTP neither agreed nor disagreed  We will monitor their progress toward implementing these recommendations  GPRAMA provides important tools that can help decision makers better achieve results and address the federal government’s significant and long-standing governance challenges  Although OMB and agencies have made progress in improving implementation of the act over the years, our work has highlighted numerous opportunities for further improvements  In 2017, OMB removed the priority designation of CAP goals and APGs  For those goals, this action stopped related data-driven reviews and quarterly updates of progress on Performance gov until new priority goals are published next year  What OMB considers to be the final results of CAP goals for fiscal years 2014 to 2017 already are on Performance gov (although not labeled as such)  In addition, agencies may report on their former APGs in their annual fiscal year 2017 performance reports  However, Performance gov does not state that it will not be updated or provide the location of the final progress updates for these goals, limiting transparency and its value to the public  OMB has stated its plans to restart implementation of those provisions in February 2018, with the start of a new goal cycle  We believe it is critical for OMB to do so, given the important role those tools play in addressing key governance challenges and the results we have seen in better managing crosscutting areas and driving performance improvements across the government  In addition, OMB has postponed implementation of the federal program inventory  To date, the inventory has only been developed once, in 2013, despite requirements for regular updates to reflect current budget and performance information  OMB has given a variety of reasons for the delays over the past 4 years—most recently, to determine the right strategy to merge implementation of the DATA Act and PMIAA with GPRAMA’s program inventory requirements  Although OMB staff told us that they expect to issue guidance by the end of 2018 to resume implementation of the program inventory requirements, they have not provided more specific time frames and milestones related to the program inventory requirements  Doing so would help agencies prepare for resumed implementation  Moreover, publicly disclosing planned implementation time frames and associated milestones would help ensure that interested stakeholders, such as federal decision makers and the public, are prepared to engage with agencies as they develop and update their program inventories, which in turn could help ensure the inventories meet stakeholders’ needs  A well-developed inventory would provide key program, budget, and performance information in one place to help federal decision makers better understand the federal investment and results in given policy areas, and better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication  Information architecture offers one approach to developing an inventory  As OMB determines a strategy for implementing the program inventory and develops its guidance, considering such a systematic approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help it ensure the inventory meets GPRAMA requirements as well as the needs of decision makers and the public  Moreover, such an approach could also help OMB implement our past recommendations related to the program inventory, which are intended to ensure the inventory provides more complete information and is useful to various stakeholders  Our survey of federal managers continues to generally show no improvement in their reported use of performance information in decision making, nor in the employment of practices that can enhance such use  One area where our survey data and past work show promise is through the use of regular, leadership-driven reviews of performance data at agencies, especially when conducted in line with related leading practices  However, GPRAMA only requires these data-driven reviews for APGs, which represent a small subset of goals, both within individual agencies as well as across the government  This is probably why most federal managers were not familiar with the reviews  Identifying and sharing practices for expanding the use of those reviews—such as for additional agency-wide performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could significantly enhance the use of performance information and drive to better and greater results  We are making the following four recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should update Performance gov to explain that quarterly reporting on the fiscal year 2014 through 2017 CAP goals and fiscal year 2016 and 2017 APGs was suspended, and provide the location of final progress updates for these goals  (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB should revise and publicly issue OMB guidance— through an update to its Circular No  A-11, a memorandum, or other means—to provide time frames and associated milestones for implementing the federal program inventory  (Recommendation 2) The Director of OMB should consider—as OMB determines its strategy for resumed implementation of the federal program inventory—using a systematic approach, such as the information architecture framework, to help ensure that GPRAMA requirements and our past recommendations for the inventory are addressed  (Recommendation 3) The Director of OMB should work with the Performance Improvement Council to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews beyond APGs, such as for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies, that have led to performance improvements  (Recommendation 4) We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment  In comments provided orally and via email, OMB staff agreed with the recommendations in this report  OMB staff also asked us to (1) consider revising the draft title of the report, to better reflect progress in GPRAMA implementation, and (2) clarify our recommendations on issuing guidance for implementing the federal program inventory and expanding the use of data-driven performance reviews, by describing possible actions that could be taken to implement them  We agreed and made revisions accordingly  We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and other interested parties  This report will also be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of our report  Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III  The GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) includes a statutory provision for us to periodically evaluate implementation of the act  Since 2012, we have issued over 30 products in response to this provision; this is the third summary report  This report assesses how implementation of GPRAMA has affected the federal government’s progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing crosscutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used in decision making, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government  We reviewed relevant statutory requirements, related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, and our recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the four key governance challenges included in our reporting objectives  Specifically, since our last summary report in September 2015, we examined various aspects of GPRAMA implementation in 12 products that covered 35 agencies, including the 24 agencies covered under the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended (identified in table 2)  We interviewed OMB and Performance Improvement Council staff to obtain (1) their perspectives on GPRAMA implementation and progress on the four governance challenges, and (2) updates on the status of our past recommendations  We also received updates from other agencies on the status of our past recommendations to them related to GPRAMA implementation  To supplement this review, we administered our periodic survey of federal managers on organizational performance and management issues from November 2016 through March 2017  This survey is comparable to five previous surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013  We selected a stratified random sample of 4,395 people from a population of approximately 153,779 mid-level and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch agencies covered by the CFO Act, as shown in table 2  We obtained the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Enterprise Human Resources Integration (EHRI) database as of September 30, 2015, which was the most recent fiscal year data available at the time  We used file designators indicating performance of managerial and supervisory functions  In reporting survey data, we use the term “government-wide” and the phrases “across the government” or “overall” to refer to the 24 CFO Act executive branch agencies  We use the terms “federal managers” and “managers” to collectively refer to both managers and supervisors  We designed the questionnaire to obtain the observations and perceptions of respondents on various aspects of results-oriented management topics  These topics include the presence and use of performance measures, any hindrances to measuring performance and using performance information, agency climate, and program evaluation use  To assess implementation of GPRAMA, the questionnaire included questions to collect respondents’ views on various provisions of GPRAMA, such as cross-agency priority goals, agency priority goals, and related quarterly performance reviews  Similar to the five previous surveys, the sample was stratified by agency and by whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the Senior Executive Service (SES)  The management levels covered general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15 and career SES or equivalent  Stratifying the sample in this way ensured that the population from which we sampled covered at least 90 percent of all mid- to upper-level managers and supervisors at the departments and agencies we surveyed  Most of the items on the questionnaire were closed-ended, meaning that depending on the particular item, respondents could choose one or more response categories or rate the strength of their perception on a 5-point extent scale ranging from “no extent” to “very great extent ” On most items, respondents also had an option of choosing the response category “no basis to judge/not applicable ” A few items had other options, such as “yes,” “no,” or “do not know,” or a 3-point familiarity scale (“not familiar,” “somewhat familiar,” and “very familiar”)  We asked many of the items on the questionnaire in our earlier surveys, though we introduced a number of new items in 2013, including the sections about GPRAMA and program evaluations  For 2017, we added a new question on use of performance information (question 12) and a new question on program evaluation (question 24)  Before administering the survey, questions were reviewed by our staff, including subject matter experts, a survey specialist, and a research methodologist  We also conducted pretests of the new questions with federal managers in several of the 24 CFO Act agencies  We changed the wording of subquestions or added clarifying examples based on pretester feedback  To administer the survey, we e-mailed managers in the sample to notify them of the survey’s availability on our website and we included instructions on how to access and complete the survey  To follow up with managers in the sample who did not respond to the initial notice, we emailed or called multiple times to encourage survey participation or provide technical assistance, as appropriate  Similar to our last survey, we worked with OPM to obtain the names of the managers and supervisors in our sample, except for those within selected subcomponents whose names were withheld from the EHRI database  Since Foreign Service officials from the Department of State (State) are not in the EHRI database, we drew a sample for that group with the assistance from State  We worked with officials at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) to gain access to these individuals to maintain continuity of the population of managers surveyed from previous years  The Department of Justice (DOJ) was concerned about providing identifying information (e g , names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers) of federal agents to us, so we administered the current survey to DOJ managers in our sample through DOJ officials  To identify the sample of managers whose names were withheld from the EHRI database, we provided DOJ with the last four digits of Social Security numbers, the subcomponent, duty location, and pay grade information  To ensure that DOJ managers received the same survey administration process as the rest of the managers in our sample to the extent possible, we provided DOJ with text for the survey activation and reminder e-mails similar to ones we emailed to managers at other agencies  DOJ administered the survey to these managers and emailed them one reminder to complete the survey  To help determine the reliability and accuracy of the EHRI data elements used to draw our sample of federal managers, we checked the data for reasonableness and the presence of any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness and reviewed past analyses of the reliability of this database  For example, we identified cases where the managers’ names were withheld and contacted OPM to discuss this issue  We also checked the names of the managers in our selected sample provided by OPM with the applicable agency contacts to verify these managers were still employed with the agency  We noted discrepancies when they occurred and excluded them from our population of interest, as applicable  On the basis of these procedures, we believe the data we used from the EHRI database are sufficiently reliable for the purpose of the survey  Of the 4,395 managers selected for the 2017 survey, we found that 388 of the sampled managers had retired, separated, or otherwise left the agency or had some other reason that excluded them from the population of interest  These exclusions included managers that the agency could not locate, and therefore we were unable to request that they participate in the survey  We received usable questionnaires from 2,726 sample respondents, for a weighted response rate of about 67 percent of the remaining eligible sample  The weighted response rate across 23 of the 24 agencies ranged from 57 percent to 82 percent, while DOJ had a weighted response rate of 36 percent  See the supplemental material for each agency’s response rate  We conducted a nonresponse bias analysis using information from the survey and sampling frame as available  The analysis confirmed discrepancies in the tendency to respond to the survey related to agency and SES status  The analysis also revealed some differences in response propensity by age and GS level; however, the direction and magnitude of the differences on these factors were not consistent across agencies or strata  Our data may be subject to bias from unmeasured sources for which we cannot control  Results, and in particular estimates from agencies with low response rates such as DOJ, should be interpreted with caution because these estimates are associated with a higher level of uncertainty  The overall survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers as described above  The responses of each eligible sample member who provided a usable questionnaire were weighted in the analyses to statistically account for all members of the population  All results are subject to some uncertainty or sampling error as well as nonsampling error, including the potential for nonresponse bias as noted above  Because we followed a probability procedure based on random selections, our sample is only one of a large number of samples that we might have drawn  The magnitude of sampling error will vary across the particular surveys, groups, or items being compared because we (1) used complex survey designs that differed in the underlying sample sizes, usable sample respondents, and associated variances of estimates, and (2) conducted different types of statistical analyses  For example, the 2000 and 2007 surveys were designed to produce agency-level estimates and had effective sample sizes of 2,510 and 2,943, respectively  However, the 1997 and 2003 surveys were designed to obtain government-wide estimates only, and their sample sizes were 905 and 503, respectively  Consequently, in some instances, a difference of a certain magnitude may be statistically significant  In other instances, depending on the nature of the comparison being made, a difference of equal or even greater magnitude may not achieve statistical significance  Because each sample could have provided different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of our particular sample’s results as a 95 percent confidence interval  This is the interval that would contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples we could have drawn  The percentage estimates presented in this report based on our sample for the 2017 survey have 95 percent confidence intervals within plus or minus 5 5 percentage points of the estimate itself, unless otherwise noted  We also note in this report when we are 95 percent confident that changes from 1997 or 2013 relative to 2017 are statistically significant  Online supplemental material shows the questions asked on the survey along with the percentage estimates and associated 95 percent confidence intervals for each item for each agency and government-wide  In a few instances, we report estimates with larger margins of error because we deemed them reliable representations of given findings due to the statistical significance of larger differences between comparison groups  In all cases, we report the applicable margins of error  In addition to sampling errors, the practical difficulties of conducting any survey may also introduce other types of errors, commonly referred to as nonsampling errors  For example, difficulties in how a particular question is interpreted, in the sources of information available to respondents, or in how the data were entered into a database or analyzed can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results  With this survey, we took a number of steps to minimize these nonsampling errors  For example, our staff with subject matter expertise designed the questionnaire in collaboration with our survey specialists  As noted earlier, the new questions added to the survey were pretested to ensure they were relevant and clearly stated  When the data were analyzed, a second independent analyst on our staff verified the analysis programs to ensure the accuracy of the code and the appropriateness of the methods used for the computer-generated analysis  Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered their answers directly into the electronic questionnaire, thereby eliminating the need to have the data keyed into a database, thus avoiding a source of data entry error  To supplement descriptive analysis of the survey questions, we generated an index to gauge government-wide use of performance information  The index, which was identical to one we reported in 2014, averaged manager’s responses to 11 questions deemed to relate to the concept of performance information use  The index runs from 1 (corresponding to an average value of “to no extent”) to 5 (corresponding to an average value of “to a very great extent”)  We used Cronbach’s alpha to assess the internal consistency of the scale  Our government- wide index score weights each agency’s contribution equally, and provides a relative measure of the use of performance information over time rather than an absolute indicator of the government-wide level of use of performance information  We conducted this performance audit from January 2016 to September 2017 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives  The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have taken some actions to address our recommendations related to implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA); however, the majority of recommendations remain open  Since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011, we have made 100 recommendations in 18 reports to OMB and agencies aimed at improving the act’s implementation (table 3)  Of those 100, OMB and the agencies have implemented 42 recommendations  Fifty-eight recommendations require additional action  Nearly half (47) of our recommendations are directed to OMB  For the 23 recommendations that OMB has implemented, many represent revisions to guidance to better reflect GPRAMA’s requirements or to enhance implementation  Many of the 24 recommendations to OMB that are not implemented deal with long-standing or complex challenges, on which OMB has taken limited action to date  Of those, we have designated 3 as priorities for OMB to address  Agencies have also taken some action on our recommendations, implementing 19 of the 53 recommendations we have made  The following tables present each of the 100 recommendations along with a summary of actions taken to address it  Tables 4 and 5 provide information about our recommendations to OMB that are implemented and not implemented, respectively  Tables 6 and 7 provide information about our recommendations to other agencies that are implemented and not implemented, respectively  In addition to the above contact, Benjamin T  Licht (Assistant Director) and Shannon Finnegan (Assistant Director) supervised this review and the development of the resulting report  Leah Q  Nash (Assistant Director), Elizabeth Fan (Analyst-in-Charge), and Adam Miles (Analyst-in- Charge) supervised the development and administration of the Federal Managers Survey and the resulting supplemental material  Peter Beck, Valerie Caracelli, Karin Fangman, Steven Flint, Robert Gebhart, Ricky Harrison Jr , John Hussey, Jill Lacey, Won Lee, Krista Loose, Meredith Moles, Anna Maria Ortiz, Steven Putansu, Alan Rozzi, Cindy Saunders, Stephanie Shipman, Shane Spencer, Andrew J  Stephens, and Brian Wanlass also made key contributions  Ann Czapiewski and Donna Miller developed the graphics for this report  John Ahern, Divya Bali, Jeff DeMarco, Alexandra Edwards, Ellen Grady, Jyoti Gupta, Erinn L  Sauer, and Katherine Wulff verified the information presented in this report  Managing for Results: Implementation of GPRA Modernization Act Has Yielded Mixed Progress in Addressing Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-15-819  Washington, D C : September 30, 2015  Managing For Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Supplemental Material for GAO-17-775: 2017 Survey of Federal Managers on Organizational Performance and Management Issues  GAO-17-776SP  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Program Evaluation: Annual Agency-wide Plans Could Enhance Leadership Support for Program Evaluations  GAO-17-743  Washington, D C : September 29, 2017  Managing for Results: Agencies’ Trends in the Use of Performance Information to Make Decisions  GAO-14-747  Washington, D C : September 26, 2014  Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges  GAO-13-518  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Managing for Results: 2013 Federal Managers Survey on Organizational Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-13-518  GAO-13-519SP  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making  GAO-13-570  Washington, D C : June 26, 2013  Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve Results  GAO-08-1026T  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Government Performance: 2007 Federal Managers Survey on Performance and Management Issues, an E-supplement to GAO-08-1026T  GAO-08-1036SP  Washington, D C : July 24, 2008  Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving Greater Results  GAO-04-38  Washington, D C : March 10, 2004  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views on Key Management Issues Vary Widely Across Agencies  GAO-01-592  Washington, D C : May 25, 2001  Managing for Results: Federal Managers’ Views Show Need for Ensuring Top Leadership Skills  GAO-01-127  Washington, D C : October 20, 2000  The Government Performance and Results Act: 1997 Governmentwide Implementation Will Be Uneven  GAO/GGD-97-109  Washington, D C : June 2, 1997  Federal Programs: Information Architecture Offers a Potential Approach for Inventory Development  GAO-17-739  Washington, D C : September 28, 2017  Managing for Results: Selected Agencies’ Experiences in Implementing Strategic Reviews  GAO-17-740R  Washington, D C : September 7, 2017  Federal Reports: OMB and Agencies Should More Fully Implement the Process to Streamline Reporting Requirements  GAO-17-616  Washington, D C : July 14, 2017  Open Innovation: Executive Branch Developed Resources to Support Implementation, but Guidance Could Better Reflect Leading Practices  GAO-17-507  Washington, D C : June 8, 2017  Performance Partnerships: Agencies Need to Better Identify Resource Contributions to Sustain Disconnected Youth Pilot Programs and Data to Assess Pilot Results  GAO-17-208  Washington, D C : April 18, 2017  Open Innovation: Practices to Engage Citizens and Effectively Implement Federal Initiatives  GAO-17-14  Washington, D C : October 13, 2016  Tiered Evidence Grants: Opportunities Exist to Share Lessons from Early Implementation and Inform Future Federal Efforts  GAO-16-818  Washington, D C : September 21, 2016  Performance gov: Long-Term Strategy Needed to Improve Website Usability  GAO-16-693  Washington, D C : August 30, 2016  Tax Expenditures: Opportunities Exist to Use Budgeting and Agency Performance Processes to Increase Oversight  GAO-16-622  Washington, D C : July 7, 2016  Managing for Results: Agencies Need to Fully Identify and Report Major Management Challenges and Actions to Resolve them in their Agency Performance Plans  GAO-16-510  Washington, D C : June 15, 2016  Managing for Results: OMB Improved Implementation of Cross-Agency Priority Goals, But Could Be More Transparent About Measuring Progress  GAO-16-509  Washington, D C : May 20, 2016  Managing for Results: Greater Transparency Needed in Public Reporting on the Quality of Performance Information for Selected Agencies’ Priority Goals  GAO-15-788  Washington, D C : September 10, 2015  Pay for Success: Collaboration among Federal Agencies Would Be Helpful as Governments Explore New Financing Mechanisms  GAO-15-646  Washington, D C : September 9, 2015  Managing for Results: Practices for Effective Agency Strategic Reviews  GAO-15-602  Washington, D C : July 29, 2015  Managing for Results: Agencies Report Positive Effects of Data-Driven Reviews on Performance but Some Should Strengthen Practices  GAO-15-579  Washington, D C : July 7, 2015  Program Evaluation: Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, and Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity  GAO-15-25  Washington, D C : November 13, 2014  Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Inconsistent Definitions and Information Limit the Usefulness of Federal Program Inventories  GAO-15-83  Washington, D C : October 31, 2014  Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts to Improve Customer Service  GAO-15-84  Washington, D C : October 24, 2014  Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance  GAO-14-639  Washington, D C : July 22, 2014  Managing for Results: OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency Goals  GAO-14-526  Washington, D C : June 10, 2014  Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance Collaboration in Interagency Groups  GAO-14-220  Washington, D C : February 14, 2014  Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued Development of Performance gov  GAO-13-517  Washington, D C : June 6, 2013  Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act  GAO-13-174  Washington, D C : April 19, 2013  Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed  GAO-13-356  Washington, D C : April 16, 2013  Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies  GAO-13-228  Washington, D C : February 27, 2013  Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making  GAO-12-621SP  Washington, D C : June 15, 2012  Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act  GAO-12-620R  Washington, D C : May 31, 2012  Managing for Results: Opportunities for Congress to Address Government Performance Issues  GAO-12-215R  Washington, D C : December 9, 2011 

ground_truth: Full implementation of GPRAMA could facilitate efforts to reform the federal government and make it more effective. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to review the act's implementation. This report assesses how GPRAMA implementation has affected the federal government's progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing cross-cutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed statutory requirements, OMB guidance, and GAO's recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the key governance challenges. GAO also interviewed OMB staff and surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,395 federal managers from 24 agencies on various performance and management topics. With a 67 percent response rate, the survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have made some progress in more fully implementing the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), but GAO's work and 2017 survey of federal managers highlight numerous areas where improvements are needed. Cross-cutting issues: Various GPRAMA provisions are aimed at addressing cross-cutting issues, such as cross-agency and agency priority goals and related data-driven reviews of progress towards those goals. To ensure alignment with the current administration's priorities, OMB's 2017 guidance removed the priority status of those goals, which stopped quarterly data-driven reviews and related public progress reports until new goals are published. OMB plans to resume implementation of these provisions in February 2018. GPRAMA also requires OMB and agencies to implement an inventory of federal programs, which could help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In October 2014, GAO found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory. Since then, OMB has postponed updating the inventory, citing among other reasons the passage of subsequent laws. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory and specific time frames for doing so. A systematic approach to developing the inventory could help ensure it provides useful information for decision makers and the public. Performance information: Survey results show federal managers generally reported no improvements in their use of performance information in decision making for various management activities, or practices that can enhance such use, since GAO's 2013 survey. For example, the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities (an estimated 33 percent in 2017) is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013 (44 percent). In contrast, managers who were familiar with and whose programs were subject to quarterly data-driven reviews reported that those reviews were used to make progress toward agency priority goals. Identifying and sharing practices to expand the use of such reviews—for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could lead to increased use of performance information. Daily operations: Agencies have made progress in developing results-oriented cultures but need to take additional actions. GAO's past work found that high-performing organizations use performance management systems to help individuals connect their daily activities to organizational goals. In 2017, about half of federal managers reported using performance information when setting expectations with employees (no change from GAO's last survey in 2013). Transparent and open government: GAO's past work identified a number of needed improvements to Performance.gov, the central government-wide website required by GPRAMA. The site is to provide quarterly updates on priority goals in effect through September 2017, but those updates stopped in December 2016. According to OMB, the existing information for cross-agency priority goals is the final update, and agencies should publish final updates on their priority goals in annual performance reports. Performance.gov does not provide users with this information, thereby limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results. In addition to following through on plans to resume implementation of key GPRAMA provisions, GAO recommends that OMB (1) consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory, (2) revise guidance to provide specific time frames for inventory implementation, (3) identify and share practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews, and (4) update Performance.gov to explain that reporting on priority goals was suspended and provide the location of final progress updates. OMB staff agreed with these recommendations.