You are given two reports by the government agency.  

Report 1:
Concerned that the federal government was more focused on program activities and processes than the results to be achieved, Congress passed the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA). GPRA sought to focus federal agencies on performance by requiring agencies to develop long-term and annual goals, and measure and report on progress towards those goals annually. Based on our analyses of the act’s implementation, we concluded in March 2004 that GPRA’s requirements had laid a solid foundation for results-oriented management. At that time, we found that performance planning and measurement had slowly yet increasingly become a part of agencies’ cultures. For example, managers reported having significantly more performance measures in 2003 than in 1997, when GPRA took effect government-wide. However, the benefit of collecting performance information is fully realized only when that information is actually used by managers to make decisions aimed at improving results. Although our 2003 survey found greater reported availability of performance information than in 1997, it also showed managers’ use of that information for various management activities generally had remained unchanged. Based on those results, and in response to a request from Congress, in September 2005, we developed a framework intended to help agencies better incorporate performance information into their decision making. As shown in figure 1, we identified five leading practices that can promote the use of performance information for policy and program decisions; and four ways agency managers can use performance information to make program decisions aimed at improving results. Our September 2005 report also highlighted examples of how agencies had used performance information to improve results. For example, we described how the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration used performance information to identify, develop, and share effective strategies that increased national safety belt usage—which can decrease injuries and fatalities from traffic accidents— from 11 percent in 1985 to 80 percent in 2004. Subsequently, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) was enacted, which significantly expanded and enhanced the statutory framework for federal performance management. 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 cited the results of our 2007 survey of federal managers. That survey continued to show little change in managers’ use of performance information. 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. For example, GPRAMA requires certain agencies to designate a subset of their respective goals as their highest priorities—known as agency priority goals—and to measure and assess progress toward those goals at least quarterly through data-driven reviews. Our recent work and surveys suggest that data-driven reviews are having their intended effect. For example, in July 2015, we found that agencies reported that their reviews had positive effects on progress toward agency goals and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations, among other things. In addition, for those managers who were familiar with their agencies’ data-driven reviews, our 2013 and 2017 surveys showed that the more managers viewed their programs as being subject to a review, the more likely they were to report their agencies’ reviews were driving results and conducted in line with our leading practices. Recognizing the important role these reviews were playing in improving data-driven decision making, our management agenda for the presidential and congressional transition in 2017 included a key action to expand the use of data-driven reviews beyond agency priority goals to other agency goals. More broadly, our recent surveys of federal managers have continued to show that reported government-wide uses of performance information generally have not changed or in some cases have declined. As we found in September 2017, and as illustrated in figure 2, the 2017 update to our index suggests that government-wide use of performance information did not improve between 2013 and 2017. In addition, it is statistically significantly lower relative to our 2007 survey, when we created the index. Moreover, in looking at the government-wide results on the 11 individual survey questions that comprise the index, we found few statistically significant changes in 2017 when compared to (1) our 2013 survey or (2) the year each question was first introduced. For example, in comparing 2013 and 2017 results, two questions had results that were statistically significantly different: The percentage of managers who reported that employees who report to them pay attention to their agency’s use of performance information was statistically significantly higher (from 40 to 46 percent). The percentage of managers who reported using performance information to adopt new program approaches or change work processes was statistically significantly lower (from 54 to 47 percent). As we stated in our September 2017 report, the decline on the latter question was of particular concern as agencies were developing plans to improve their efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability, as called for by an April 2017 memorandum from OMB. In early 2017, the administration announced several efforts intended to improve government performance. OMB issued several memorandums detailing the administration’s plans to improve government performance by reorganizing the government, reducing the federal workforce, and reducing federal agency burden. As part of the reorganization efforts, OMB and agencies were to develop government-wide and agency reform plans, respectively, designed to leverage various GPRAMA provisions. For instance, the April 2017 memorandum mentioned above stated that OMB intends to monitor implementation of the reforms using, among other things, agency priority goals. While many agency-specific organizational improvements were included in the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget, released in February 2018, OMB published additional government-wide and agency reform proposals in June 2018. The President’s Management Agenda (PMA), released in March 2018, outlines a long-term vision for modernizing federal operations and improving the ability of agencies to achieve outcomes. To address the issues outlined in the PMA, the administration established a number of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals. CAP goals, required by GPRAMA, are to address issues in a limited number of policy areas requiring action across multiple agencies, or management improvements that are needed across the government. The PMA highlights several root causes for the challenges the federal government faces. Among them is that agencies do not consistently apply data-driven decision-making practices. The PMA states that smarter use of data and evidence is needed to orient decisions and accountability around service and results. To that end, in March 2018, the administration established the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP goal to improve the use of data in decision making to increase the federal government’s effectiveness. Over the past 25 years, various organizations, roles, and responsibilities have been created by executive action or in law to provide leadership in federal performance management. At individual agencies and across the federal government, these organizations and officials have key responsibilities for improving performance, as outlined below. OMB: At least every four years, OMB is to coordinate with other agencies to develop CAP goals—such as the one described earlier on leveraging data as an asset—to improve the performance and management of the federal government. OMB is also required to coordinate with agencies to develop annual federal government performance plans to define, among other things, the level of performance to be achieved toward the CAP goals. Following GPRAMA’s enactment, OMB issued guidance for initial implementation, as required by the act, and continues to provide updated guidance in its annual Circular No. A-11, additional memorandums, and other means. Chief Operating Officer (COO): The deputy agency head, or equivalent, is designated as the COO, with overall responsibility for improving agency management and performance through, among other things, the use of performance information. President’s Management Council (PMC): The PMC is comprised of OMB’s Deputy Director for Management and the COOs of major departments and agencies, among other individuals. Its responsibilities include improving overall executive branch management and implementing the PMA. Performance Improvement Officer (PIO): Agency heads designate a senior executive as the PIO, who reports directly to the COO. The PIO is responsible for assisting the head of the agency and COO to ensure that agency goals are achieved through, among other things, the use of performance information. Performance Improvement Council (PIC): The PIC is charged with assisting OMB to improve the performance of the federal government. It is chaired by the Deputy Director for Management at OMB and includes PIOs from each of the 24 Chief Financial Officers 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 cross-cutting performance issues, and facilitate the exchange among agencies of practices that have led to performance improvements. Previously, the General Service Administration’s (GSA) Office of Executive Councils provided analytical, management, and administrative support for the PIC, the PMC, and other government-wide management councils. In January 2018, the office was abolished and its functions, staff, and authorities, along with those of the Unified Shared Services Management Office, were reallocated to GSA’s newly created Shared Solutions and Performance Improvement Office. As at the government-wide level—where, as described earlier, the use of performance information did not change from 2013 to 2017—managers’ reported use of performance information at most agencies also did not improve since 2013 (illustrated in figure 3). At the agency level, 3 of the 24 agencies had statistically significant changes in their index scores—1 increase (National Science Foundation) and 2 decreases (Social Security Administration and the Office of Personnel Management). Also, in 2017, 6 agencies had results that were statistically significantly different—4 higher and 2 lower—than the government-wide average (see sidebar). Throughout the report, we highlight two different types of statistically significant results—changes from our last survey in 2013 and differences from the 2017 government-wide average. The former indicates when an agency’s reported use of performance information or leading practices has measurably improved or declined. The latter indicates when it is statistically significantly higher or lower than the rest of government. These results suggest agencies have taken actions that led to improvements in their use of performance information. For example, when a result is a statistically significant increase since 2013, as with the National Science Foundation index score in 2017, this suggests that the agency has adopted practices that led to a measurable increase in the use of performance information by managers. When a result is statistically significantly higher than the government-wide average, like GSA’s 2017 index score, this suggests that the agency’s use of performance information is among the highest results when compared to the rest of government. These agencies could also have insights into practices that led to relatively high levels of performance information use. Finally, when a result is a statistically significant decrease since 2013, as with the Social Security Administration’s index score in 2017, or statistically significantly lower than the government-wide average, like the Department of Homeland Security’s 2017 index score, this suggests the agencies face challenges that are hampering their ability to use performance information. Appendix III provides each agency’s index scores from 2007, 2013, and 2017 to show changes between survey years. When we disaggregated the index and analyzed responses from the 11 questions that comprise the index—which could help pinpoint particular actions that improved the use of performance information—we similarly found relatively few changes in agencies’ recent results. Specifically, we identified 16 instances where agency responses on individual questions were statistically significantly different from 2013 to 2017—10 increases and 6 decreases. This represents about 6 percent of the total possible responses to the 11 survey questions from each of the agencies. In addition, we found 12 instances where an agency’s result on a question was statistically significantly higher (11) or lower (1) than the government-wide average in 2017. For example, the percentage of Social Security Administration (SSA) managers reporting that their peers use performance information to share effective approaches was statistically significantly higher than the government-wide average. Although SSA’s index score had a statistically significant decline in 2017 compared to 2013, the agency’s index score remains relatively high, as it has in prior years. The scope of our work has not allowed us to determine definitively what factors caused the decline in SSA’s index score and whether the decline is likely to continue, although its result on this particular question may indicate a continued strength. Each agency’s results on the 11 questions that comprise the index are presented in appendix I. The agencies’ respective statistically significant results are identified in figure 4. While some agencies had statistically significant improvements on individual questions, and could point to actions that led to improvements in their use of performance information, these improvements should be considered in relation to the range of agency results and the government- wide average. In figure 4, there are five agencies with statistically significant increases on responses to individual questions, where those results were not statistically significantly higher than the government-wide average (see arrows without plus signs for the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, and Justice; the Environmental Protection Agency; and the National Science Foundation). While these represent improvements, they should be considered in relation to the range of agency results and the government-wide average (provided in detail in the agency summaries in appendix I). For example, in 2017, the percentage of managers at the Department of Agriculture who reported that upper management use performance information to inform decisions about program changes was statistically significantly higher than in 2013. However, the department’s 2017 result (37 percent) was relatively lower when compared to the maximum agency result on that question (60 percent). Appendix I presents the results on the index and the 11 questions that comprise it for each of the 24 agencies. When we compared government-wide and agency-level results on selected survey questions that reflect practices that promote the use of performance information, we found that results between 2013 and 2017 generally remained unchanged. As described earlier, there are 10 survey questions that both reflect the five leading practices identified in our past work and had statistically significant associations with higher index scores. As shown in figure 5, government-wide results on 2 of the 10 questions were statistically significantly different, both increases, from 2013 to 2017. Despite these two increases, the overall results suggest these practices are not widely followed government-wide. On most of the 10 questions, only about half (or fewer) of the managers reported their agencies were following them to a “great” or “very great” extent. When we analyzed agency-level responses to these 10 questions, we also found relatively few changes in recent results. Specifically, our analysis found 20 instances—16 increases and 4 decreases—where agencies’ responses on individual questions were statistically significantly different from 2013 to 2017. This represents about 8 percent of the total possible responses to the 10 survey questions from each of the agencies. In addition, we found 10 instances where an agency’s result on a question was statistically significantly higher (8) or lower (2) than the government-wide average in 2017. Each agency’s results on these 10 questions are presented in appendix I, and the statistically significant results are identified in figure 6. Those agencies with results on individual questions that are either statistically significantly higher than 2013, higher than the 2017 government-wide average, or both may have taken actions in line with our leading practices for promoting the use of performance information. For example, the National Science Foundation had both types of statistically significant results on a question about having sufficient information on the validity of their performance data. Here, the agency’s result increased 27 percentage points from 2013 to 2017. While the scope of our review does not allow us to definitively determine the reasons for the National Science Foundation’s higher results, they suggest the agency has taken recent actions that greatly improved the availability and accessibility of information on the validity of performance data. In both 2013 and 2017, our analyses found this particular question to be the strongest predictor of higher performance information use when we tested for associations between the questions that reflect leading practices and our index. Our 2017 survey results show that managers who reported their programs were subject to data-driven reviews also were more likely to report using performance information in decision making to a greater extent (see figure 7). For the 35 percent of managers who reported being familiar with data-driven reviews, those who reported their programs had been subject to data-driven reviews to a “great” or “very great” extent had index scores that were statistically significantly higher than those whose programs were subject to these reviews to a lesser extent. Similarly, we found that being subject to data-driven reviews to a greater extent was also related to greater reporting of agencies following practices that can promote the use of performance information. As figure 8 shows, managers who reported their programs were subject to these reviews to a “great” or “very great” extent more frequently reported that their agencies followed the five leading practices that promote the use of performance information, as measured by the 10 related survey questions associated with higher scores on the index. For example, of the estimated 48 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to data-driven reviews to a “great” or “very great” extent, 72 percent also reported that managers at their level (peers) effectively communicate performance information on a routine basis to a “great” or “very great” extent. Conversely, for the 24 percent of managers who reported their programs were subject to data-driven reviews to a “small” or “no” extent, only 30 percent reported that managers at their level do this to a “great” or “very great” extent. Our past work has found that the Executive Branch has taken steps to improve the use of performance information in decision making by senior leaders at federal agencies. However, our survey results indicate those steps have not led to similar improvements in use by managers at lower levels. Through its guidance to implement GPRAMA, OMB developed a framework for performance management in the federal government that involves agencies setting goals and priorities, measuring performance, and regularly reviewing and reporting on progress. This includes expectations for how agency senior leaders should use performance information to assess progress towards achieving agency priority goals through data-driven reviews, and strategic objectives through strategic reviews. For example, GPRAMA requires, and OMB’s guidance reinforces, that data-driven reviews should involve the agency head, Chief Operating Officer, Performance Improvement Officer, and other senior officials responsible for leading efforts to achieve each goal. OMB’s guidance also identifies ways in which agency leaders should use the results of those reviews to inform various decision-making activities, such as revising strategies, formulating budgets, and managing risks. Our past work also found that agencies made progress in implementing these reviews and using performance information. In July 2015, we found that agencies generally were conducting their data-driven reviews in line with GPRAMA requirements and our related leading practices, including that agency leaders used the reviews to drive performance improvement. In addition, in September 2017, we reported on selected agencies’ experiences in implementing strategic reviews and found that the reviews helped direct leadership attention to progress on strategic objectives. Despite those findings, our survey results continue to show that the reported use of performance information by federal managers has generally not improved, and actually declined at some agencies. This could be because of the two different groups of agency officials covered by our work. GPRAMA’s requirements, and the federal performance management framework established by OMB’s guidance, apply at the agency-wide level and generally involve senior leaders. Our past work reviewing implementation of the act therefore focused on improvements in the use of performance information by senior leaders at the agency- wide level. In contrast, our surveys covered random samples of mid- and upper-level managers within those agencies, including at lower organizational levels such as component agencies. Their responses indicate that the use of performance information more broadly within agencies—at lower organizational levels—generally has not improved over time. The exception to this was managers whose programs were subject to the data-driven reviews required by GPRAMA. As described above, those managers were more likely to report greater use of performance information in their agencies. This reinforces the value of the processes and practices put in place by GPRAMA. Our survey results suggest that limited actions have been taken to diffuse processes and practices related to the use of performance information to lower levels within federal agencies, where mid-level and senior managers make decisions about managing programs and operations. Although OMB staff agreed that diffusing processes and practices to lower levels could lead to improved use of performance information, they told us they have not directed agencies to do so for a few reasons. First, OMB staff expressed concerns about potentially imposing a “one-size-fits- all” approach on agencies. They stated that agencies are best positioned to improve their managers’ use of performance information, given their individual and unique missions and cultures, and the environments in which they operate. We agree that it makes sense for agencies to be able to tailor their approaches for those reasons. OMB’s existing guidance provides an overarching framework that recognizes the need for flexibility and for agencies to tailor their approaches. Moreover, given the long- standing and cross-cutting nature of this challenge, a government-wide approach also would provide a consistent focus on improving the use of performance information more extensively within agencies. OMB staff also told us that they believed it would go beyond their mandate to direct agencies to extend GPRAMA requirements to lower levels. GPRAMA requires OMB to provide guidance to agencies to implement its requirements, which only apply at the agency-wide level. As noted earlier, however, GPRAMA also requires OMB to develop cross- agency priority (CAP) goals to improve the performance and management of the federal government. The President’s Management Agenda established a CAP goal to leverage data as a strategic asset, in part, to improve the use of data for decision making and accountability throughout the federal government. This new CAP goal presents an opportunity for OMB and agencies to identify actions to expand the use of performance information in decision making throughout agencies. As of June 2018, the action plan for implementing the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP goal is limited. According to the President’s Management Agenda and initial CAP goal action plan, the goal primarily focuses on developing and implementing a long-term, enterprise-wide federal data strategy to better govern and leverage the federal government’s data. It is through this strategy that, among other things, the administration intends to improve the use of data for decision making and accountability. However, the strategy is under development and not expected to be released until January 2019, with a related plan to implement it expected in April 2019. The existing action plan, released in March 2018 and updated in June 2018, does not yet include specific steps needed to improve the use of data—including performance information—more extensively within agencies. According to the action plan for the goal, potential actions currently under consideration focus on establishing agency “learning agendas” that prioritize the development and use of data and other evidence for decision-making; building agency capacity to use data and other evidence; and improving the timeliness of performance information and other data, and making that information available to decision makers and the public. Although developing learning agendas and building capacity could help improve the use of performance information in agencies, improving availability of data may be less effective. For example, as our past survey results have shown, increasing the availability of performance information has not resulted in corresponding increases in its use in decision making. We recognize that the CAP goal was created in March 2018. Nonetheless, it is important that OMB and its fellow goal leaders develop the action plan and related federal data strategy consistent with all key requirements to better ensure successful implementation. The action plan does not yet include complete information related to the following GPRAMA requirements: performance goals that define the level of performance to be achieved each year for the CAP goal; the various federal agencies, organizations, programs, and other activities that contribute to the CAP goal; performance measures to assess overall progress towards the goal as well as the progress of each agency, program, and other activity contributing to the goal; and clearly defined quarterly targets. Consistent with GPRAMA, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government identifies information that agencies are required to include in their plans to help ensure they achieve their goals. The standards state that objectives—such as improving the use of data in decision making— should be clearly defined to enable the identification of risks. Objectives are to be defined in specific terms so they can be understood at all levels of the entity—in this case, government-wide as well as within individual agencies. This involves defining what is to be achieved, who is to achieve it, how it will be achieved, and the time frames for achievement. Ensuring that future updates to the new CAP goal’s action plan includes all required elements is particularly important, as our previous work has found that some past CAP goal teams did not meet all planning and reporting requirements. For example, in May 2016 we found that most of the CAP goal teams we reviewed had not established targets for all performance measures they were tracking. This limited the transparency of their efforts and the ability to track progress toward established goals. We recommended that OMB, working with the Performance Information Council (PIC), report on actions that CAP goal teams are taking, or plan to take, to develop such targets and performance measures. OMB staff generally agreed and, in July 2017, told us they were working, where possible, to assist the development of measures for CAP goals. However, the recommendation has not been addressed and OMB staff said the next opportunity to address it would be when the administration established new CAP goals (which took place in March 2018). Following the initial release of the new CAP goals, CAP goal teams are to more fully develop the related action plans through quarterly updates. Given the ongoing importance of meeting these planning and reporting requirements, we will continue to monitor the status of actions to address this recommendation as implementation of the new CAP goals proceeds. While the PIC, which is chaired by OMB, has contributed to efforts to enhance the use of performance information, our survey results identify additional opportunities to further those efforts. The PIC’s past efforts have included hosting various working groups and learning events for agency officials to provide performance management guidance, and developing resources with relevant practices. For example, the PIC created a working group focused on agency performance reviews, which was used to share recommendations for how agencies can implement reviews, along with a guide with practices for effectively implementing strategic reviews. In January 2018, staff supporting the PIC joined with staff from another GSA office to create a new group called Fed2Fed Solutions. This group consults with agencies and provides tailored support, such as data analysis and performance management training for agency officials, to help them address specific challenges related to organizational transformation, data-driven decision making, and other management improvement efforts. Our survey results identify useful information related to potential promising practices and challenges that OMB and the PIC could use to inform efforts to enhance the use of performance information more extensively within agencies (e.g., at lower levels). As was previously described, the PIC has responsibilities to (1) facilitate the exchange among agencies of proven practices, and (2) work to resolve government- wide or cross-cutting performance issues, such as challenges. Our analyses of 2017 survey results identified instances where agencies may have found effective ways to enhance the use of performance information by agency leaders and managers in decision making, as well as instances where agencies (and their managers) face challenges in doing so. Specifically, based on analyses of our survey responses, we identified 14 agencies that may have insights into specific practices that led to recent improvements in managers’ use of performance information, or ways that they maintain relatively high levels of use by their managers when compared to the rest of the government. Figure 9 summarizes the agencies identified earlier in the report that had statistically significant increases, or results higher than the government-wide average, on our index or individual survey questions. As the figure shows, several agencies had statistically significant results across all three sets of analyses and therefore may have greater insights to offer: the General Services Administration, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the National Science Foundation. In addition, our analyses identified nine agencies where results suggest managers face challenges that have hampered their ability to use performance information. Figure 10 summarizes the agencies identified earlier in the report that had statistically significant decreases, or results lower than the government-wide average, on our index or individual survey questions. As the figure shows, the Office of Personnel Management had statistically significant decreases in all three sets of analyses. Four agencies—the Departments of the Treasury and Veterans Affairs, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and the Social Security Administration—were common to both of the figures above. That is, they had results that indicate they may have insights on some aspects of using performance information and face challenges in other aspects. As was mentioned earlier, to provide proper context, these results should be considered in relation to the range of agency results and the government- wide average (provided in detail in the agency summaries in appendix I). Given the prioritization of other activities, such as the recent creation of the Fed2Fed Solutions program, the PIC has not yet undertaken a systematic approach that could improve the use of performance information by managers at lower levels within agencies. Such an approach would involve identifying and sharing practices that have led to improved use, as well as identifying common or cross-cutting challenges that have hampered such use. The results of our analyses could help the PIC do so, and in a more targeted manner. By identifying and sharing proven practices, the PIC could further ensure that agency leaders and managers are aware of effective or proven ways they can use performance information to inform their decisions across the spectrum of activities they manage within their agencies. Those proven practices also may help agency leaders and managers resolve any identified challenges. Furthermore, in September 2017, we found that, for the estimated 35 percent of managers who reported familiarity with data-driven reviews, the more they viewed their programs being subject to a review, the more likely they were to report the reviews were driving results and were conducted in line with our leading practices for using performance information. Despite the reported benefits of and results achieved through data-driven reviews, they were not necessarily widespread. As noted above, GPRAMA requires agencies to conduct such reviews for agency priority goals, which represent a small subset of goals, and they are required at the departmental level. These reasons may explain why most managers reported they were not familiar with the reviews. As a result, we recommended that OMB should work with the PIC to identify and share among agencies practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews. OMB staff agreed with our recommendation but have yet to address it. In June 2018, OMB updated its annual guidance to agencies to explicitly encourage them to expand data-driven reviews to include other goals, priorities, and management areas as applicable to improve organizational performance. However, as of June 2018, OMB and the PIC have yet to take any steps to identify and share practices for expanding the use of these reviews in line with our recommendation. Given the additional analyses we conducted for this report—which show that being subject to data-driven reviews is related to greater reported use of performance information and leading practices that promote such use—we continue to believe these further actions would help agencies implement these reviews more extensively. We reiterate the importance of the September 2017 recommendation and will continue to monitor OMB’s progress to address it. For more than 20 years, our work has highlighted weaknesses in the use of performance information in federal decision making. While the Executive Branch has taken some actions in recent years, such as establishing a framework for performance management across the federal government, our survey results underscore that more needs to be done to improve the use of performance information more extensively within agencies and government-wide. The President’s Management Agenda and its related CAP goal to leverage data as a strategic asset present an opportunity to do so, as it aims to improve data-driven decision making. As OMB and its fellow goal leaders more fully develop the action plan for achieving this goal, providing additional details for its plans to improve data-driven decision making would help provide assurance that it can be achieved. As part of those initiatives, our survey results could provide a useful guide for targeting efforts. Officials at each agency could use these results to identify areas for additional analysis and potential actions that could help improve the use of performance information across the agency and at lower levels. Similarly, OMB and the PIC could use the results to identify broader issues in need of government-wide attention. It will also be important, however, for OMB and the PIC to go beyond this analysis and work with agencies to identify and share proven practices for increasing the use of performance information at lower levels within agencies, as well as challenges that may be hampering agencies’ ability to do so. We are making the following two recommendations to OMB: The Director of OMB should direct the leaders of the Leveraging Data as a Strategic Asset CAP Goal to ensure future updates to the action plan, and the resulting federal data strategy, provide additional details on improving the use of data, including performance information, more extensively within federal agencies. The action plan should identify performance goals; contributing agencies, organizations, programs, and other activities; those responsible for leading implementation within these contributors; planned actions; time frames; and means to assess progress. (Recommendation 1) The Director of OMB, in coordination with the PIC, should prioritize efforts to identify and share among agencies proven practices for increasing, and challenges that hamper, the use of performance information in decision making more extensively within agencies. At a minimum, this effort should involve the agencies that our survey suggests may offer such insights. (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of Management and Budget for review and comment. We also provided a draft of the report to the heads of each of the 24 federal agencies covered by our survey. OMB had no comments, and informed us that it would assess our recommendations and consider how best to respond. We are sending copies of this report to congressional requesters, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, the heads of each of the 24 agencies, 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 mcneilt@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 IV. (USDA) (Goverment-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Commerce) (Goverment-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Goverment-wide) (DOD) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Education) (Goverment-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (Energy) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (HHS) (Goverment-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DHS) (Goverment-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (HUD) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Interior) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DOJ) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DOL) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (State) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (DOT) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Treasury) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (VA) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Goverment-wide) (USAID) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (EPA) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (GSA) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (NASA) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (NSF) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (NRC) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (OPM) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (SBA) (Government-wide) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” (Government-wide) (SSA) 10. The individual I report to 11. Employees that report to me 0 Percent of managers reporting “Great” or “Very Great” This report responds to a request that we analyze agency-level results from our 2017 survey of federal managers at the 24 agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended, to determine the extent agencies are using performance information. This report assesses the extent to which: 1. the reported use of performance information and related leading practices at 24 agencies has changed compared to our prior survey in 2013; 2. being subject to data-driven reviews related to managers’ reported use of performance information and leading practices; and 3. the Executive Branch has taken actions to enhance agencies’ use of performance information in various decision-making activities. From November 2016 through March 2017, we administered our online survey to a stratified random sample of 4,395 individuals from a population of 153,779 mid- and upper-level civilian managers and supervisors at the 24 CFO Act agencies. The management levels covered general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules at levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15, and career Senior Executive Service (SES) or equivalent. We obtained the sample from the Office of Personnel Management’s Enterprise Human Resources Integration database as of September 30, 2015—the most recent fiscal year data available at the time. The sample was stratified by agency and whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the SES. To help determine the reliability and accuracy of the database elements used to draw our sample of federal managers for the 2017 survey, we checked the data for reasonableness and the presence of any obvious or potential errors in accuracy and completeness and reviewed our past analyses of the reliability of this database. We concluded in our September 2017 report that the data used to draw our sample were sufficiently reliable for the purpose of the survey. For the 2017 survey, we received usable questionnaires from about 67 percent of the eligible sample. The weighted response rate at each agency generally ranged from 57 percent to 82 percent, except the Department of Justice, which had a weighted response rate of 36 percent. The overall survey results are generalizable to the population of managers government-wide and at each individual agency. To assess the potential bias from agencies with lower response rates, 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 the Department of Justice, should be interpreted with caution. However, the survey’s results are comparable to five previous surveys we conducted in 1997, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2013. To address the first objective, we used data from our 2017 survey to update agency scores on our use of performance information index. This index, which was last updated using data from our 2013 survey, averages managers’ responses on 11 questions related to the use of performance information for various management activities and decision making. Using 2017 survey data, we conducted statistical analyses to ensure these 11 questions were still positively correlated. That analysis confirmed that no negative correlations existed and therefore no changes to the index were needed. Figure 11 shows the questions that comprise the index. After calculating agency index scores for 2017, we compared them to previous results from 2007 and 2013, and to the government-wide average for 2017, to identify any statistically significant differences. We focus on statistically significant results because these indicate that observed relationships between variables and differences between groups are likely to be valid, after accounting for the effects of sampling and other sources of survey error. For each of the 11 questions that comprise the index, we identified individual agency results, excluding missing and no basis to judge responses, and determined when they were statistically significantly different from (1) the agency’s results on the same question in 2013, or (2) the government-wide average results on the question in 2017. In this report, we analyzed and summarized the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers. Due to the limited scope of the engagement, we did not conduct additional audit work to determine what may have caused statistically significant changes between our 2017 and past survey results. To further address this objective we completed several statistical analyses that allowed us to assess the association between the index and 22 survey questions that we determined relate to leading practices we previously found promote the use of performance information. See figure 12 for the 22 specific questions related to these five practices that we included in the analysis. When we individually tested these 22 survey questions (bivariate regression), we found that each was statistically significantly and positively related to the index in 2017. This means that each question, when tested in isolation from other factors, was associated with higher scores on the index. However, when all 22 questions were tested together (multivariate regression), we found that 5 questions continued to be positively and significantly associated with the index in 2017, after controlling for other factors. To conduct this multivariate analysis, we began with a base model that treated differences in managers’ views of agency performance management use as a function of the agency where they worked. We found, however, that a model based on agency alone had little predictive power (R-squared of 0.04). We next examined whether managers’ responses to these questions reflecting practices that promote the use of performance information related to their perceptions of agency use of performance information, independent of agency. The results of this analysis are presented in table 1 below. Each coefficient reflects the increase in our index associated with a one-unit increase in the value of a particular survey question. Our final multivariate regression model had an R-squared of 0.67, suggesting that the variables in this model explain approximately 67 percent of the variation in the use index. We also tested this model controlling for whether a respondent was a member of the SES and found similar results. As shown above in table 1, five questions related to three of the leading practices that promote agencies’ use of performance information were statistically significant in 2017. These results suggest that, when controlling for other factors, certain specific efforts to increase agency use of performance information—such as providing information on the validity of performance data—may have a higher return and lead to higher index scores. With respect to aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures, we found that each increase in terms of the extent to which individuals felt that managers aligned performance measures with agencywide goals and objectives was associated with a 0.08 increase in their score on the use index. In terms of improving the usefulness of performance information, we found that having information on the validity of performance data for decision making was the strongest predictor in our model (0.18). As measured here, taking steps to ensure the performance information is useful and appropriate was associated with almost as large a change in a managers’ index score (0.16). In terms of developing agency capacity to use performance information, we found that having sufficient analytical tools to collect, analyze, and use performance information (0.07), and providing or paying for training that would help link their programs to achievement of agency strategic goals (0.10), were also statistically significantly related to a manager’s reported use of performance information. When we combined these results with what we previously found through a similar analysis of 2013 survey results in September 2014, we identified 10 questions that have had a statistically significant association with higher index scores. This reinforces the importance of the five leading practices to promote the use of performance information. For each of these questions, which are outlined in figure 13 below, we determined when agency results were statistically significantly different from 2013 results or the 2017 government-wide average. For the second objective, we examined, based on the extent they responded their programs had been subject to agency data-driven reviews, differences in managers’ use index scores and responses on questions related to practices that promote the use of performance information. We grouped managers based on the extent they reported their programs had been subject to these reviews, from “no extent” through “very great extent.” We then calculated the average index scores for the managers in each of those five categories. We also examined differences in how managers responded to the 10 questions reflecting practices that can promote the use of performance information based on the extent they reported their programs had been subject to data-driven reviews. We grouped managers into three categories based on the extent they reported their programs had been subject to these reviews (no-small extent, moderate extent, great-very great extent). We then compared how these groups responded to the ten questions. For the third objective, we reviewed our past work that assessed Executive Branch activities to enhance the use of performance information; various resources (i.e., guidance, guides, and playbooks) developed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) that could support agencies’ use of performance information; and the President’s Management Agenda, and related materials with information on cross-agency efforts to improve the use of data in federal decision making. Lastly, for the third objective we also interviewed OMB and PIC staff about any actions they have taken, or planned to take, to further support the use of performance information across the federal government. We conducted this performance audit from October 2017 to September 2018 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. In addition to the above contact, Benjamin T. Licht (Assistant Director) and Adam Miles (Analyst-in-Charge) supervised this review and the development of the resulting report. Arpita Chattopadhyay, Caitlin Cusati, Meredith Moles, Dae Park, Amanda Prichard, Steven Putansu, Alan Rozzi, Shane Spencer, and Khristi Wilkins also made key contributions. Robert Robinson developed the graphics for this report. Alexandra Edwards, Jeff DeMarco, Mark Kehoe, Ulyana Panchishin, and Daniel Webb verified the information presented in this report. Results of the Periodic Surveys on Organizational Performance and Management Issues Managing for Results: Further Progress Made in Implementing the GPRA Modernization Act, but Additional Actions Needed to Address Pressing Governance Challenges. GAO-17-775. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2017. 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.

 

 Report 2:
Implementing Telework: The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 (the Act) establishes telework implementation requirements for agencies, including, for example, that each agency designate a Telework Managing Officer and that each agency incorporate telework into its continuity of operations plans. The Act does not mention telework specifically in the context of space planning. The Act also requires the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to assess whether agencies have met agency- established telework outcome goals such as real estate savings. It also requires OPM to submit reports that include executive agencies’ goals for increasing telework participation to the extent practicable, assist each agency with developing qualitative- and quantitative- teleworking measures and goals, and track telework eligibility and participation rates across the government. According to OPM telework information from fiscal year 2012 through fiscal year 2015, the percentage of federal workers eligible to telework remained stable at about 45 percent, on average. However, during the same period, the percentage of eligible employees who participated in telework increased from 29 percent to 46 percent. Figure 1 shows the frequency of telework across the federal government from fiscal years 2012 through 2015 by type of telework. Reducing Space: OMB issued the National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property and the Reduce the Footprint policy in 2015, which require all CFO Act agencies to improve the efficiency of real property use, control costs, and reduce holdings. These OMB initiatives also required agencies to develop Five-Year Real Property Efficiency Plans annually; develop office space standards that specify maximum square footage identify reduction targets for office space in square feet; and freeze the footprint (i.e., not increase square footage of office space). OMB’s National Strategy noted that employee telework has changed the dynamic of the federal real property portfolio and resulted in a need for less space. OMB’s Reduce the Footprint guidance memo states that agencies’ 5-year plans should include an explanation of actions the agency is taking to increase space efficiency, including cost-effective alternatives to acquisition of additional office space, such as consolidation, colocation, teleworking, and “hoteling.” Federal statute also requires that agencies consider whether space needs can be met using alternative workplace arrangements when deciding whether to acquire new space. GSA defines mobility as an overarching term describing the ability of employees, enabled by information technology (IT) and workplace policies to perform work both within and outside the agency worksite. Under this definition, mobility includes telework, desk-sharing, site work, and travel. Agencies can strategically use telework—one form of mobility—combined with desk-sharing and hoteling to reduce space needs and increase efficiency. This allows agencies to plan for fewer workstations than the number of employees. Other space efficiency strategies such as smaller workstations (e.g., reduced space standards), reconfigured office space (e.g., open-office plans instead of private offices), and mobile technology (e.g., laptops, Wi-Fi throughout the office, and smart phones) can be combined with telework and used as planning tools to reduce office space, use space more efficiently, and potentially cut costs. GSA, in a 2010 publication, described a continuum of three different scenarios for the ways agencies may use mobility, including telework. These scenarios range from limited mobility not leveraged for space planning to extensive mobility leveraged for space planning to reduce and use office space more efficiently: (1) No space changes: Some employees telework at least 2 scheduled days per week but retain assigned workstations with no changes to the existing space configuration. (2) No space reduction but different space allocation: Most employees telework at least 2 scheduled days per week and keep assigned workstations. Workstations are smaller and more densely organized; and space freed up by smaller workstations can be used for collaborative work spaces. (3) Space reduction and different space allocation: Nearly all employees telework at least 3 scheduled days per week and participate in hoteling (i.e., unassigned workstations), and workstations are also smaller and more densely organized. In this scenario, according to GSA, an agency can redesign its office and potentially reduce space by up to 30 percent. The key factors in distinguishing these scenarios illustrated in figure 2 below include the: level of employee participation in telework; changes to physical office spaces (e.g., smaller and more densely organized workstations and more emphasis on collaborative workspaces); and extent to which employees have assigned workstations or participate in desk-sharing. Under federal statute, GSA has a role in promulgating rules and developing guidance promoting the efficient use of real property. For example, the GSA Administrator may provide guidance, assistance, and oversight to client agencies regarding the establishment and operation of alternative workplace arrangements, which include leveraging telework to reduce space needs. GSA also directly assists client agencies with identifying and prioritizing opportunities to improve and implement real- property efficiency measures. In reviewing planning documents, policies, and survey data, we found that the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework to reduce or use space more efficiently. Specifically, our analysis of (1) agency-wide space-planning policies and procedures and (2) Real Property Efficiency Plans found that all of the agencies discussed telework in the context of space planning and achieving greater space efficiencies. Agencies also provided examples in survey responses of how they have used telework to increase operational effectiveness while optimizing their use of space. Fifteen agencies’ space-planning policies and procedures included provisions for using telework and other mobility strategies, such as hoteling and desk-sharing, as a strategic space-planning tool. Three of the agencies mentioned these strategies only in the context of space planning, and five agencies did not mention them at all (see table 1). For the fifteen agencies with space planning policies that incorporated telework, the documents either expressly directed agency planners to include telework, hoteling, or desk-sharing in space planning; provided instructions and guidance for using these in space planning; or issued space allocation standards for their implementation. Several agency-wide space plans identify space reduction goals based on using telework strategically. For example, the Department of Transportation (DOT) documents identify a goal of at least a 10 percent workspace reduction in new acquisitions as a result of compressed work schedules and telework, and specifically state that employees who telework six or more days per pay period should not have a permanent workspace. Agency-wide space planning documents from three civilian CFO Act agencies mentioned telework, hoteling or desk-sharing as strategies in the context of space planning. For example, DOJ’s agency-wide policy notes that telework and hoteling could increase the efficient use of space and directs each sub-agency to maintain its own space design guidelines within agency-wide policy office space standards. The other two agencies, the Department of State and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, either had a short provisional agency-wide space planning document that laid out space standards or mentioned telework, hoteling and desk-sharing as a tool for creating sustainable space. Five agencies’ space planning documents made no reference to telework; however, one agency, OPM, developed a maximum office space utilization rate and criteria for determining which positions require a private office. As noted above, OMB’s Reduce the Footprint policy (2015) requires agencies to establish Real Property Efficiency Plans. In our analysis of the agencies’ fiscal year 2016 or 2017 plans, we found that 19 of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies discussed telework in the context of space planning. A few agencies’ Real Property Efficiency Plans explicitly stated that the agency reduced space as a result of telework. For example, GSA used telework to reduce space in its Heartland, Rocky Mountain, and National Capital Region offices. Some (5 of 23) Real Property Efficiency Plans discussed the telework pilot programs agencies have initiated. For example, the Department of Education’s plans reported using a pilot program to acclimate employees to teleworking and desk-sharing; as a result, the agency intends to incorporate hoteling or space-sharing opportunities into proposed space designs in future projects. The Social Security Administration (SSA) plans also reported initiating a pilot program to experiment with smaller “hoteling” workspaces. Similarly, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s plan reported conducting a pilot program at its headquarters offices to identify challenges, better understand telework, and evaluate the potential of shared workspaces. In response to our survey, about three-quarters of agencies reported space-planning policies that use telework to reduce office space, lower real estate costs, or reduce the size of individual workstations. Agencies reported accomplishing this by using desk-sharing and hoteling for employees who have relinquished permanent workspaces. For example, several agencies discussed strategies to reduce space in their responses to our survey. The Department of Labor reported using telework to close some small offices resulting in overall space reductions of about 16,000 square feet. OPM reported that it both reduced space and created space efficiencies by transitioning staff in its Eastern Management Development Center to full-time telework and terminating the lease, resulting in a space reduction of about 32,000 square feet. OPM’s Human Resource Solutions Program also achieved a 47 percent space reduction when it instituted desk-sharing and freed the vacated space for use by another program office. The Department of the Treasury reported that its sub-agency, the Internal Revenue Service, has aggressively used telework to help reduce its real property portfolio, while other Treasury units have leveraged telework to achieve significant space reductions. At the end of fiscal year 2016, Treasury reported agency-wide reductions of about 484,000 square feet at a cost savings of about $10 million. Two agencies––Department of Homeland Security, and the National Science Foundation––reported using telework to increase the efficiency of existing office space in sub-agencies by increasing staff without increasing the size of offices, for example: The Department of Homeland Security reported that one of its sub- agencies used telework in the planning and design of a new office, resulting in both a space reduction and more efficient use of the space. The new office is 57,573 square feet smaller than the prior office while personnel assigned to the office increased from 315 to 394. The National Science Foundation reported that it used teleworking, among other workspace strategies such as new space standards and virtual technologies, to increase staff numbers without increasing its real estate footprint. Among the agencies we reviewed in detail—GSA, OJP, CDC, and the Fiscal Service—the use of telework in office space planning varied from emerging consideration to extensive implementation. GSA and OJP have used telework extensively to both reduce space and increase space efficiency in their office spaces. CDC has leveraged telework to reduce space or use space more efficiently in more limited cases while the Fiscal Service has begun to consider telework in future space planning. Appendix II provides additional details on office spaces where these agencies reduced space or used space more efficiently, including the role of telework, if any. GSA has leveraged telework to reduce space by implementing unassigned workstations in nearly all of its regional and headquarters offices, along with other forms of “employee mobility,” complementary IT, and smaller space standards. GSA adopted telework as early as 1999 and by fiscal year 2015, more than 90 percent of all eligible GSA employees teleworked, and nearly half of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data. GSA’s space policy cites desk-sharing (e.g., hoteling, “hot-desking,” or other arrangements) as one strategy to help meet its space standard of 136 useable square feet (USF) per person. GSA employees may telework full-time, but may be required to give up dedicated workstations if they are on site 2 or fewer days per week. GSA has gradually transitioned to unassigned workstations at headquarters and in its regional offices, allowing the agency to implement desk-sharing and calculate space needs at less than one desk per employee. The agency also assigned laptops and mobile or soft phones to employees to further maximize mobility. The three GSA sites we visited used space-planning strategies to achieve, or nearly achieve, GSA’s space standard of 136 USF per person. For example, at its Philadelphia Regional Office, GSA leveraged existing telework levels to meet reduced space standards and move to a smaller leased space by accommodating about 600 employees in fewer than 500 workstations. According to GSA, this allowed the office to achieve a utilization rate of 139 USF per person and realize a reported annual rent cost savings of about $2 million. Similarly, at its New York Regional Office, GSA also leveraged existing telework levels to meet reduced space standards and move to a smaller leased space. This step allowed the office to achieve a utilization rate of 119 USF per person and realize a reported total rent cost savings of nearly $11 million. GSA also leveraged telework as part of its headquarters consolidation. GSA reports that it was able to move approximately 1,000 additional employees to the headquarters building by implementing a hoteling system and planning for less than one workstation per employee. This allowed GSA to achieve a utilization rate of 138 USF per person at its headquarters and realize a reported annual rent-cost savings of approximately $24 million. Similar to GSA, OJP used telework, along with complementary tools, to reduce space and use space more efficiently at its consolidated office. More than 90 percent of eligible employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015, and nearly half of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data. More recently, OJP reported that around 70 percent of its employees teleworked in August 2017, with just less than 40 percent doing so three or more days per pay period. At the departmental level, DOJ’s plans to improve space utilization include reduced space requirements, and, in some cases, alternative workplace strategies. DOJ’s space utilization policy mentions telework with hoteling as one way to increase efficient use of space, and DOJ’s telework policy mentions the potential of telework to create cost savings by decreasing space needs. While most OJP employees are eligible to telework, a few federal staff occupying administrative positions are not eligible. OJP took the opportunity to examine and improve its space use as three of its leases approached expiration in 2013. It leased space in two adjacent buildings under three separate leases. OJP worked with GSA to analyze space-planning options, contracting a study of the office that recommended ways to improve space utilization. This study included a survey of all employees, a complete physical space survey, and interviews with leadership. The results of this study not only indicated OJP employees’ openness to more mobility but also that they had concerns such as loss of privacy and social connectedness. For example, more than 80 percent of survey respondents said they could work off-site more often with proper tools and support, and almost half said they would give up dedicated space to work remotely more often. Furthermore, interviews with the leadership of several OJP units indicated a willingness to support increased mobility but also a need to maintain privacy and improve mobile IT. According to OJP, it alleviated these concerns by encouraging participation in the planning process, highlighting opportunities for positive changes, and maintaining open communication (e.g., communicating changes and expected benefits). Based on the analysis of space-planning options, OJP retained one of the three previous leases and leveraged telework to accommodate all employees into less space overall in one building. OJP achieved this objective by targeting 25 percent employee mobility and implementing hoteling. Concurrently, OJP officials explained that they introduced smaller workstations and used tenant-improvement allowance funds to reconfigure space for more flexible use. Physical reconfigurations included changing hard-walled office spaces with dedicated workstations to a primarily open office with few walls or dedicated workstations. According to OJP, it complemented these changes with investments in mobile IT for individual employees, improved IT capabilities in conference rooms and other collaborative spaces, and an emphasis on training employees to work well in a mobile office environment. For example, OJP officials said they installed Wi-Fi throughout the space, issued laptops and smart phones to employees, upgraded video-conferencing capabilities in conference rooms and collaborative spaces, and expanded tools for informal employee communication. According to OJP officials, through the consolidation, they said they achieved a utilization rate of 190 USF per person—a decrease of 30 USF per person from the prior 220 utilization rate. This rate remained higher than DOJ’s overall target and housed the same total number of employees—about 1,000—in about 50,000 fewer USF. OJP reports that the consolidation resulted in an estimated $3 million annual lease- cost savings. OJP also estimates additional savings from reduced transit subsidies, carbon emissions, and continuity of operations. Relative to GSA and OJP, CDC has made more limited use of telework in office space-planning. CDC officials told us that they have leveraged telework as a space-planning tool in many locations, but they have only documented doing so in one case. HHS expects each sub-agency to comply with its 170 USF per-person utilization-rate policy, and this policy suggests that planned space reductions should take telework into account. As a component of HHS, CDC has its own space policy, which states that telework, desk-sharing, and hoteling can help CDC’s units meet HHS’s utilization rate policy of 170 USF per person. CDC’s telework policy requires employees who telework frequently to agree to participate in desk-sharing, but according to CDC officials, how and to what extent this portion of the broader policy is implemented is up to the discretion of management. CDC officials cited two limitations to further implementing space sharing techniques: (1) the large number of employees’ who may be unable to telework on certain days based upon their job responsibilities and (2) the voluntary nature of telework. Some CDC employees cannot work off-site at least some of the time due to confidential data or lab-based work. Approximately 60 percent of eligible CDC employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015 and about one-quarter of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data. CDC officials told us that telework participation ranges from 49 to 86 percent across CDC units. CDC’s National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion’s office in Chamblee, GA, provides the most clearly documented case of CDC’s leveraging telework for space efficiency. According to CDC officials, this unit accommodated more than 300 additional employees within its existing space by implementing hoteling for employees who telework 4 or more days per pay period, and it continues to use hoteling as part of its space management strategy. In contrast, CDC’s National Center for Health Statistics’ (NCHS) office in Hyattsville, MD, reduced space without leveraging telework by reconfiguring the space with smaller, soft-walled workstations. CDC officials told us that NCHS reduced its office space from seven floors to three and three-quarters floors, resulting in a reported space reduction of more than 40 percent and allowing it to achieve a 170 USF per person utilization rate. CDC officials reported that this space reduction resulted in annual rent cost savings of approximately $1 million. Hoteling was not feasible at this location because work on confidential data limits the ability of employees to work off-site, and NCHS employees also prefer dedicated workstations. CDC officials said that there is limited documentation of any additional cases of CDC’s leveraging telework as a space- planning tool because, prior to our review, there had been no formal request to connect telework and space utilization data. In contrast to GSA, OJP, and CDC, telework as a space-planning tool is an emerging consideration at the Fiscal Service. At the departmental level, Treasury has space standards that aim for efficient and effective offices that use increased telework and shared workstations to minimize the number of dedicated workstations. Similarly, objectives of the Fiscal Service telework policy include cost savings from reduced office space needs. Treasury’s space standards specify a planned maximum utilization rate of 200 USF per person for facilities with general office space, and the Fiscal Service reported that its average office space-utilization rate was 183 USF per person at the time of our review. Treasury policy also recommends hoteling for employees who are out of the office 80 or more hours per month, but the Fiscal Service told us that it would like to conduct additional desk-sharing pilots to assess their impact before negotiating broader desk-sharing with the union. At the Fiscal Service, approximately 80 percent of eligible employees teleworked in fiscal year 2015, and about one-quarter of all employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period, according to OPM data. The Fiscal Service reported that approximately 80 percent of Fiscal Service employees telework at its Washington, D.C., Maryland, and West Virginia locations. At the time of our review, the Fiscal Service officials said the agency had reduced space without leveraging telework or implementing hoteling, instead relying on smaller space standards (i.e., fewer square feet per workstation) to lease smaller offices. For example, the Fiscal Service reduced space by giving up several floors at its Hyattsville, MD, office starting in 2012. According to Fiscal Service officials, they accomplished these reductions by consolidating data centers to other locations, conducting targeted buyouts of employees, and, most recently, by implementing a new space standard of 183 USF per person through smaller workstations. The officials said that the most recent space reduction at this location resulted in savings in annual rent costs not attributable to telework. Looking forward, the Fiscal Service reported that it has started taking preliminary steps to promote efficient space utilization through telework. These steps have included: creating an Executive Space Management Council that discussed incorporating telework and desk-sharing into space management guidelines; implementing a voluntary, informal desk-sharing pilot in one program area for employees who already telework 50 percent or more of the time; and seeking information from GSA, including discussing and visiting GSA offices that have implemented hoteling as part of their space planning model. In addition, the Fiscal Service officials told us that the agency plans to negotiate the impact and implementation of desk-sharing and hoteling for telework employees with its union, but the Fiscal Service has not yet begun this effort. Our analysis of the survey responses from the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies identified three major planning challenges agencies face with using telework to reduce space: human capital issues such as negotiating workspace changes with collective bargaining units and managing organizational change; the suitability of telework to mission work requirements; and difficulty measuring cost savings that might result from space reductions attributable to telework. This measuring difficulty may include both gross savings as well as savings net of costs, such as for renovations or IT investments. See table 3 for examples of space-planning challenges related to telework reported by the 23 agencies. To address these challenges, nearly two thirds of the agencies we surveyed reported they would like guidance on using telework programs or other alternatives to meet the federal goals of reducing space or using space more efficiently. Our review of agency survey responses, Real Property Efficiency Plans, and other agency space-planning documents, found that human capital challenges to using telework in space planning generally fell into two categories: (1) requirements to negotiate space allocation changes with collective-bargaining units; and (2) managing department workforces in adapting to new workspace designs and altered workspace allocations. Collective-bargaining challenges: Of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies, 7 of 23 noted that changes to telework policy or workspace arrangements required negotiation with collective bargaining units, for example, The Small Business Administration (SBA) reported its greatest challenge to incorporating telework in office space planning has been with negotiating and securing agreement from all parties, including management and its union, on establishing space standards. HUD reported that it could not implement hoteling or desk-sharing as its collective-bargaining agreements require that each employee retain an assigned workstation regardless of an employee’s type of telework agreement. SSA reported that changing floor plans required negotiation with its three collective-bargaining units, which could extend the time needed for construction and relocation. DOT reported that collective-bargaining agreements posed a challenge to incorporating workforce mobility options, including telework. In addition, the collective-bargaining agreements we reviewed from the four agencies we reviewed in detail––GSA, OJP, CDC and Fiscal Service––required negotiations or the opportunity to negotiate changes to matters relating to workspace arrangements and in some cases, to telework policy. Managing change: Using telework as a strategic space-planning tool, particularly in conjunction with complementary space-saving efforts such as desk-sharing, hoteling, or open-space designs, generally involves a cultural change. Nine of the 23 agencies we surveyed reported challenges associated with managing change. For example, three agencies reported employees’ discomfort or apprehension about desk-sharing and hoteling. In 2013, we reported that organizations may also encounter concerns from agency leaders, managers, employees, or employee organizations when introducing physical space changes associated with increased workforce mobility (telework). More recently, we reported that management concerns remain the most frequently reported barrier to expanding telework. Two private sector experts we met with underscored the importance of management “buy-in” saying it was imperative that senior executives fully support the initiative to facilitate the necessary cultural change for agencies to use telework in space planning. One noted that management needed to make the business case to employees so that each layer of the organization could understand the importance of the initiative and its potential benefits. Another suggested a change management plan tailored to the work performed within a unit. This individual said that key components of such a plan might include studying existing work practices and program requirements, surveying employee preferences, and including employees in the planning process. Further, a GSA document circulated in response to the Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 mentions obtaining supervisory “buy-in” or support as key to facilitating change. According to survey responses, within agencies there are sub-agencies that have individual mission requirements that may or may not be suitable for telework. This makes it difficult for agencies to implement overarching telework and space planning policies that apply department-wide. Sub- agencies and units within sub-agencies must individually determine if telework is appropriate given their particular mission requirements. For example, the Veterans Administration reported that although it developed an agency-wide telework policy, each sub-agency and supervisor has the flexibility to implement telework based on operational needs. Moreover, because the agency’s core mission involves direct services to veterans, about 83 percent of agency staff positions are not suitable for telework. The Telework Enhancement Act of 2010 outlines two broad exceptions to telework participation for employees: (1) directly handling secure materials determined to be inappropriate for telework by the agency head and (2) on-site activity that cannot be handled remotely or at an alternative worksite. In cases where telework does not support an agency’s mission or where a particular mission may require increases or decreases in personnel, telework as a strategic space-planning tool may not work. About half (12 of 23) of the agencies we surveyed reported that office space reductions resulting from using telework in space planning led to real estate cost savings while the other half reported either that cost savings did not result or they did not know. GSA officials told us that calculating cost savings attributable to a particular aspect of space planning is complicated as several factors contribute to savings. In particular, in survey responses, the Departments of Education, Energy, and Agriculture reiterated this point. OMB’s National Strategy for the Efficient Use of Real Property and its Reduce the Footprint policy encourage agencies to increase and maximize efficiencies in office space by implementing cost-effective strategies such as telework. For example, the National Strategy outlines a framework that aims to measure real property costs and utilization to improve the efficient use of federal real property. The Reduce the Footprint policy requires agencies to measure cost savings that result from reducing space through disposals. However, neither document offers guidance or methodologies on how to measure the costs or savings that may result from using telework. We previously reported that GSA works with client agencies to develop tools to measure office space utilization and, in 2013, was developing an Excel-based tool to help agencies quantify the benefits and costs of using telework to achieve greater office space efficiencies. This tool—the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool—is aimed at helping agencies quantify the benefits and costs of increased telework participation and implementing other alternative-work arrangements. When completed, the tool will enable users to quickly develop rough estimates of cost and space impacts resulting from workplace changes, particularly relating to desk-sharing, workspace reconfiguration, and consolidation. Key features include the ability to compare up to three scenarios, which in turn may be used to inform a more detailed design program. As of January 2018, GSA had not yet completed the tool. GSA officials said mission needs, resource constraints, and developmental adjustments have contributed to delays in the time frame for completing the tool. They added that during this time, GSA has diverted resources to space calculation tools for individual agencies. For example, GSA worked with DHS on its Space Calculation Tool as a way to help determine workplace space requirements in a manner consistent with DHS space policies. In January 2018, GSA officials told us that they plan to make the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool available to GSA staff in March 2018 along with training on how to use it. However, GSA officials have not decided whether to make the tool available to other federal agencies to use as a space-planning tool. Instead, the officials plan to assess GSA’s use of the tool and then determine in late 2018 if and how it should be released to other agencies for independent use. Given the absence of a government-wide tool, in our review, we found that some agencies had used their own resources to purchase similar tools for their space-planning needs from the private sector. Without such a government-wide resource, agencies may not be able to determine how best to reduce space or use it more efficiently. In responses to our survey, nearly two-thirds of agencies reported that they would find it helpful to have additional information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool. As noted above, a key element of GSA’s mission is to provide guidance and services that enable agencies to improve space utilization, reduce costs, and better achieve their missions. Moreover, under federal statute, GSA may provide guidance to executive agencies on the implementation of alternative workplace arrangements, which includes telework. Federal standards for internal control also call for agencies to communicate necessary quality information such as guidance with external parties. In reviewing GSA’s websites, we found that GSA last developed formal guidance on alternative workplace arrangements in 2006 and maintains several separate informational websites on implementing telework and optimizing space utilization. Our review of this guidance and these websites found that they do not provide specific guidance for using telework as a strategic space-planning tool. For example, the 2006 guidance is generally limited to defining the factors agency heads must contemplate when considering alternative workplace arrangements along with the equipment and technical services agencies may provide for alternative worksites. However, this guidance does not address in detail the impact of such arrangements on agency office space and resulting planning issues. Similarly, our review of GSA’s teleworking and space- planning websites found that although they separately offered documented case studies along with information such as tips for implementing telework and managing a mobile workforce, GSA did not provide documents consolidating the concept of using telework as a strategic space-planning tool. For example, information on GSA’s Total Workplace Program website––intended to assist agencies in using workforce mobility (including telework) to increase space efficiencies––is generally limited. Although this website includes high-level information that describes the potential benefits of using telework with office space planning and design, it lacks a practical outline of the process agencies might use to achieve them. Because the information in the 2006 guidance and the telework and space-planning websites is neither specific nor detailed, it is of limited assistance for agencies that would like to use telework as a strategic space-planning tool to meet the goals of a more efficient use of space. While using telework to reduce space is not a new challenge, it has become more pressing with OMB’s requirement for federal agencies to explore alternatives to acquiring more office space. Most civilian CFO Act agencies reported having a telework program in place and some reported success with using it in space planning to reduce space or accommodate more employees without increasing space. However, many of the agencies continue to face challenges and do not believe that they have adequate information, assistance, or resources to assist them in using telework as a space-planning tool or assess its costs and benefits. Until agencies have access to detailed guidance and tools to help utilize various space-planning options, they may not be able to effectively identify opportunities to use telework toward the goal of reducing their real property footprint. We are making the following two recommendations to GSA: The Administrator of General Services should ensure that the appropriate GSA offices develop guidance including, but not limited to, how agencies can use telework as a strategic space-planning tool for reducing and optimizing office space efficiency and that the offices make the guidance readily available. (Recommendation 1) The Administrator of General Services should ensure the appropriate GSA offices complete the Workplace Investment and Feasibility Tool and make it available to federal agencies for use in assessing the benefits and costs of telework to achieve office space efficiencies. (Recommendation 2) We provided a draft of this report to GSA, the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury. In its written comments, reproduced in Appendix III, GSA concurred with our recommendations and stated that it is developing a plan to address them. We received technical comments from the Department of Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services, which we incorporated where appropriate. The Department of the Treasury did not have comments on our draft report. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Administrator of GSA; and the Secretaries of the Department of Health and Human Services and Department of the Treasury, and the Attorney General of the Department of Justice. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff has 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 is listed in appendix III. This report addresses: (1) how the 23 civilian Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning; (2) the specific ways selected agencies and GSA used telework in their office space planning; and (3) any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning. To determine how the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies reported using telework in office space planning, we surveyed the agencies. The survey asked questions about agency-wide efforts to use telework in the human- capital and space-planning areas; whether agencies had achieved any cost savings as a result; the challenges agencies faced in using telework in space planning; and asked agencies to identify additional information, resources, or guidance that might be helpful. In addition to the survey questions, we asked each agency real property officer to provide copies of agency-wide space-planning documents and the Real Property Efficiency Plans agencies prepared for fiscal years 2016 and 2017 pursuant to the requirements of the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) Reduce the Footprint policy. We developed survey questions based on our review of the relevant literature, white papers from federal agencies and private sector entities, and past GAO reports. We pre- tested the survey instrument with three federal agencies to ascertain: (1) the clarity of survey questions; (2) the precision of language; and 3) the availability of information queried. As a result of the pre-tests we made changes to the content and format of the survey where appropriate. We received survey responses from each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies in addition to requested space-planning documents and Real Property Efficiency Plans, and thus achieved a 100 percent response rate. We analyzed survey results by calculating the frequency of responses to dichotomous questions (i.e., questions requiring a “yes” or “no” answer). We also conducted a content analysis on the open-ended, narrative-based questions by identifying common themes and tabulating results. We also conducted a content analysis to determine the extent to which agencies referenced telework in their agency-wide space-planning documents and in their Real Property Efficiency Plans. To accomplish these analyses, we developed separate coding schemes for each of the two types of documents. These were based on information obtained in our literature review, interviews with subject matter experts, and our professional judgment. We then identified relevant sections and common themes, and coded and tabulated the results. To validate the coding results, we used a second, independent coder. To determine the specific ways agencies include telework in their office space planning, we selected a non-generalizable sample of three CFO Act agency sub-agencies as illustrative case studies. To select sub- agencies, we analyzed data from the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) Public Use 2014-2015 Telework Data call. First, we applied two selection criteria: (1) agency-wide progress toward a stated goal of using telework to reduce real estate costs, and (2) agency-reported data indicating that more than 25 percent of sub-agency employees teleworked 3 or more days per pay period. Next, we considered variations in sub-agency size and percentage of employees eligible to telework. Finally, we excluded candidates that had recently been selected for related GAO work and we excluded sub-agencies related to agency administration such as Offices of Inspector General or Secretary-level offices. We assessed the reliability of the OPM’s data by interviews with knowledgeable officials and by reviewing prior assessments of the same data, and we found the data reliable for our purposes. As a result of this process, we selected (1) the Department of the Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal Service); (2) the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC); and (3) the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs (OJP). For each of the selected agencies, we interviewed agency officials and reviewed their telework and space- planning documents. We also visited four sub-agency office locations to determine if and how telework played a role in any space reductions or efficiencies along with any associated cost savings. In addition to these three sub-agencies, we used the General Services Administration (GSA) as a comparative example since it is responsible for providing space- planning guidance to client agencies and has experience using telework in space planning. We interviewed GSA officials, reviewed relevant documents, and visited three GSA office locations with recent space reductions or efficiencies. In total, we conducted seven site visits including two Fiscal Service locations, one location each for CDC and OJP, and three GSA locations (National Headquarters, Region 2 Office, and Region 3 Office) in Washington, D.C.; New York City; and Philadelphia, respectively. To identify any challenges the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies faced in using telework in office space planning, we analyzed results from survey questions addressed to challenges, interviewed sub-agency and GSA officials as detailed above, interviewed two private sector subject matter experts, and representatives from four private-sector entities that had reported using telework to reduce and use office space more efficiently. Statements made by knowledgeable federal officials, outside experts and private sector entities are not generalizable to the universe of civilian CFO Act agencies. We also analyzed the section of each of the 23 civilian CFO Act agencies’ Real Property Efficiency Plans devoted to challenges agency face in reducing space. We selected the two subject matter experts––representatives from Global Workplace Analytics and Fentress Facility Planning and Analytics––based on: (1) their experience working with federal agencies to incorporate telework programs into the space planning process; (2) information compiled in our literature review; (3) prior GAO reports; (4) internal GAO recommendations; and (5) industry recommendations. We selected the four private sector entities (AT&T, Deloitte, Adobe, and CapitalOne) based on our literature review, recommendations from industry experts, and reports of having achieved space efficiencies including space reduction, cost savings, or cost avoidance(s). To identify what guidance or information on using telework as a space- planning tool GSA makes available through its website, we reviewed the contents of multiple GSA websites including Telework, Total Workplace, Alternative Work, and GSA Telework Resources. We followed links and reviewed webpage contents for information on how agencies might use telework as a strategic tool to reduce space or use space more efficiently. We compared GSA’s guidance and website information to relevant statutory requirements and federal internal controls standards related to external communication. We conducted this performance audit from January 2017 to March 2018 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. In addition to the contact named above, David J. Wise (Director); Amelia Bates Shachoy (Assistant Director); Lindsay Bach (Analyst-in-Charge); Geoff Hamilton; Malika Rice; Kelly Rubin; Shelia Thorpe; Elise Vaughan Winfrey; and Amelia Michelle Weathers made key contributions to this report.

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

Answer: To reform the federal government and make it more efficient and effective, agencies need to use data about program performance. The benefit of collecting performance information is only fully realized when it is used by managers to make decisions aimed at improving results. GAO was asked to review agencies' use of performance information. This report assesses, among other things, the extent to which: (1) 24 agencies' reported use of performance information and related leading practices has changed since 2013 and (2) the Executive Branch has taken actions to enhance the use of performance information. To address the first objective, GAO analyzed results from its 2017 survey of federal managers, and compared them to 2013 results. The survey covered a stratified random sample of 4,395 managers from the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act agencies. The survey had a 67 percent response rate and results can be generalized to the population of managers government-wide and at each agency. For the second objective, GAO reviewed agency documents and interviewed staff from OMB and the PIC. Agencies' reported use of performance information to make decisions, and leading practices that can promote such use, generally has not improved since GAO's last survey of federal managers in 2013. However, GAO's survey results continue to point to certain practices that could help agencies improve managers' use of performance information. For example, as shown in the table below, GAO's survey found that managers whose programs were subject to data-driven reviews (regular reviews used to assess progress on select agency goals) to a greater extent reported statistically significantly greater use of performance information to make decisions. The Executive Branch has begun taking steps to improve the use of performance information within agencies and across the government. For example, In the President's Management Agenda and government-wide reform plan, released in March and June 2018 respectively, the administration acknowledged the need to do more, and announced a goal, among other actions, to improve the use of data in federal decision making. However, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and others responsible for this goal have yet to fully develop action plans to hold agencies accountable for achieving it. The Performance Improvement Council (PIC), which is chaired by OMB, has undertaken efforts to improve the use of performance information by, for example, creating a working group on agency performance reviews. But it has not yet taken a systematic approach to identify and share proven practices that led to, or challenges that may be hampering, increased use of performance information by managers. GAO's survey results identified agencies that may have insights into such practices and challenges. More fully developing action plans for the new goal, and identifying and sharing proven practices and challenges, could help ensure the Executive Branch takes further steps to improve the use of performance information by managers within agencies and across the federal government. To improve the use of performance information within agencies and across the federal government, GAO recommends that OMB work with (1) fellow goal leaders to more fully develop action plans for the new goal to improve the use of data and (2) the PIC to prioritize efforts to identify and share proven practices and challenges. OMB had no comments on this report.