PROGRAM 

EVALUATION

Some Agencies 

Reported that 

Networking, Hiring, 

and Involving 

Program Staff Help 

Build Capacity

Report to Congressional Committees

November 2014

GAO-15-25

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-15-25, a report to 

congressional committees

November 2014

PROGRAM EVALUATION

Some Agencies Reported that Networking, Hiring, 

and Involving Program Staff Help Build Capacity

Why GAO Did This Study

To improve federal government 

performance and accountability, 

GPRAMA aims to ensure that agencies 

use performance information in 

decision making and holds them 

accountable for achieving results. The 

Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) has encouraged agencies to 

strengthen their program evaluations–

systematic studies of program 

performance–and expand their use in 

management and policy making. This 

report is one of a series in which GAO, 

as required by GPRAMA, examines 

the act’s implementation. GAO 

examined federal agencies’ capacity to 

conduct and use program evaluations

and the activities and resources, 

including some related to GPRAMA, 

agencies found useful for building that 

capacity. 

GAO reviewed the literature to identify 

the key components and measures of 

evaluation capacity. GAO surveyed the 

PIOs of the 24 federal agencies 

subject to the Chief Financial Officers 

Act regarding their organizations’

characteristics, expertise, and policies, 

and their observations on the 

usefulness of various resources and 

activities for building evaluation 

capacity. All 24 responded. GAO also 

interviewed OMB and Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) staff 

about their capacity-building efforts.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making recommendations.

OMB staff provided technical 

comments on a draft of this report that 

were incorporated as appropriate. 

OPM provided no comments. 

What GAO Found

In a governmentwide survey of agency Performance Improvement Officers (PIO), 

GAO found uneven levels of evaluation expertise, organizational support within 

and outside the organization, and use across the government. The Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) is a key component of the 

enabling environment for federal evaluation capacity, having established a solid 

foundation of agency performance reporting and leadership commitment to using 

evidence in decision making. However, only half the agencies reported 

congressional interest in or requests for program evaluation studies. 

Eleven of the 24 agencies reported committing resources to obtain evaluations 

by establishing a central office responsible for evaluation of agency programs, 

operations, or projects, although only half these offices were reported to have a 

stable source of funding. Seven agencies reported having a high-level official 

responsible for oversight of evaluation. A quarter of agencies reported having

agency-wide policies or guidance concerning key issues in study design, 

evaluator independence and objectivity, report transparency, or implementing 

findings. Two-thirds of the agencies reported evaluation coverage of less than 

half their performance goals. Over a third reported using evaluations to a 

moderate or greater extent as evidence in support of budget or policy changes or 

program management. Those agencies with centralized evaluation authority 

reported greater evaluation coverage and use of the results in decision making.

Since the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) was passed, 2 to 4

agencies established a central evaluation office or leader. Half the agencies 

reported increased efforts to improve their evaluation capacity through hiring, 

training, conference participation, and consulting experts, but 4 to 5 reported 

declines in hiring and conference participation. About half reported increased use 

of evaluations as supporting evidence for management and policy decisions. 

About a quarter of PIOs were not familiar with their agencies’ various capacitybuilding activities but many of those that did respond rated hiring, professional 

networking, consulting with experts, reviewing progress on priority goals, and 

holding goal leaders accountable under GPRAMA most useful for building 

capacity to conduct evaluations. They rated engaging program staff in evaluation 

design, conduct, and reporting, and the GPRAMA priority goal review and 

accountability provisions most useful for building capacity to use evaluation. 

Based on our survey results, GAO observes that

• Promoting information sharing in professional networks and engaging 

program managers and staff in evaluation studies and priority goal reviews 

offer promise for building capacity in a constrained budget environment.

• Engaging congressional and other stakeholders in evaluation planning might 

increase their interest in and adoption of evaluation recommendations. 

• Congressional committees can communicate their interest in evaluation by 

consulting with agencies on their strategic plans and priority goals, reviewing 

agency annual evaluation plans to ensure they address issues that will

inform congressional decision making, and requesting evaluations to address 

specific questions of interest. 

View GAO-15-25. For more information, 

contact Nancy Kingsbury, (202) 512-2700, 

KingsburyN@gao.gov
Page i GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Letter 1

Background 3

Federal Agencies’ Capacity to Conduct and Use Program 

Evaluation Is Uneven 8

Some Agencies Improved Their Evaluation Capacity after 

GPRAMA Was Enacted 17

Some Agencies Reported that Professional Networking, Hiring, 

Engaging Program Staff, and Some GPRAMA Provisions Were 

Useful for Building Evaluation Capacity 20

Concluding Observations 28

Agency Comments 29

Appendix I Methodology for the Survey of Performance Improvement Officers in 

CFO Act Agencies 31

Appendix II Results from 2014 Survey of Performance Improvement Officers 33

Appendix III GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 56

References 57

Related GAO Products 60

Figures

Figure 1: Number of Agencies Citing Evaluation Evidence to 

Support Various Decisions 16

Figure 2: Agencies Reporting Change since 2010 in Efforts to 

Improve Their Capacity to Conduct Evaluations 18

Figure 3: Agencies Reporting Change since 2010 in Citing 

Evaluation as Supporting Evidence in Decisions 19

Figure 4: PIOs’ Views on Usefulness of Activities and Resources 

for Improving Agency Capacity to Conduct Credible 

Evaluations 21

Contents
Page ii GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Figure 5: PIOs’ Views on Usefulness of Activities and Resources 

for Improving Agency Capacity to Use Evaluations in 

Decision Making 25

Abbreviations

AAAS American Association for the Advancement of Science

AEA American Evaluation Association

CFO Chief Financial Officer

COO Chief Operating Officer

CAP Cross-Agency Priority goal

GAO Government Accountability Office

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PIC Performance Improvement Council

PIO Performance Improvement Officer

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

November 13, 2014

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The federal government faces a number of significant fiscal, financial 

management, and performance management challenges in responding to 

the diverse and increasingly complex issues it seeks to address. The 

reporting requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993 (GPRA) were intended to provide both congressional and 

executive decision makers with more objective information on the relative 

effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending.1 Although 

GPRA helped improve the availability of agency performance information, 

federal managers reported limited use of performance data for decision 

making.2

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA, or the act) aims to 

ensure that agencies use performance information in decision making 

and holds them accountable for achieving results and improving 

government performance.3 The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB), too, has encouraged agencies to strengthen their program 

evaluations—systematic studies of program performance—and expand 

their use of evidence and evaluation in budget, management, and policy 

decisions to improve government effectiveness. However, in our 2013 

 1

Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

2

GAO, 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).

3

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011).
Page 2 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

survey of federal managers, we found that their use of performance 

information had stagnated since our 2007 survey and that, among other 

things, their use was hindered by inadequate staff expertise in 

performance measurement and analysis as well as a widespread lack of 

program evaluations.4

This report is one of a series responding to GPRAMA’s mandate that we 

examine implementation of the act.5 In this report, we assess federal 

agencies’ current evaluation capacity and identify how some GPRAMA 

provisions and other activities have contributed to its improvement. 

Specifically, our objectives were to learn:

1. What are the key elements and extent of agency evaluation 

capacity—that is, the ability to obtain and use evaluations in decision 

making?

2. What progress, if any, has been made since 2010 across the 

government in improving evaluation capacity?

3. What activities, if any, especially those related to GPRAMA 

provisions, have agencies found useful in building their evaluation 

capacity?

To answer our first objective, we reviewed published domestic and 

international research and commentary on key components of 

organizational capacity for program evaluation, including GAO reports 

and recommendations of national and international evaluation 

organizations. We identified the key organizational characteristics, 

expertise, and policies believed either to be required for or to indicate the 

ability to obtain credible evaluations of agency programs and policies and 

to use the results in management and policy decisions. We also identified 

strategies used or proposed for building an organization’s evaluation 

capacity.

To answer all three objectives, we surveyed the Performance 

Improvement Officers (PIO) of the 24 executive branch agencies covered 

 4

GAO-13-518 and Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of 

Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making, GAO-13-570 (Washington, D.C.: 

June 26, 2013). 

5

In GAO-13-518 we summarize our work in 2013 on implementation of the act. Other 

reports we issued pursuant to this mandate are listed at the end of this report. 
Page 3 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

by the Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act of 1990, as amended.6 The 

survey questionnaire was designed to obtain information on their 

agencies’ elements of evaluation capacity as described above, and their 

observations and perceptions of the usefulness of various resources and 

activities for building their agencies’ capacity to produce evaluations and 

use the results in decision making. We administered the web-based 

survey from May through June 2014, receiving responses from all 24 

agencies. Throughout this report except where specifically noted, when 

we refer to agencies, we are referring to both cabinet departments and 

independent agencies. (More information on the survey is in appendix I. 

The survey questions and summarized results are in appendix II.) In 

addition, we reviewed examples of agency evaluation plans and policies 

that the survey respondents provided. We also interviewed OMB and 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM) staff about their capacitybuilding efforts, reviewed agency guidance and memorandums, and 

attended related interagency information-sharing forums.

We conducted this performance audit from September 2013 to November 

2014 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.

Program evaluations are systematic studies that use research methods to 

address specific questions about program performance. Evaluation is 

closely related to performance measurement and reporting. Whereas 

performance measurement entails the ongoing monitoring and reporting 

of program progress toward preestablished goals; program evaluation 

typically assesses the achievement of a program’s objectives and other 

aspects of performance in the context in which the program operates. In 

particular, evaluations can be designed to isolate the causal impacts of 

programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in 

order to assess a program’s effectiveness. Thus, an evaluation study can 

provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by 

 6

31 U.S.C. § 901(b). The 24 CFO Act agencies, generally the largest federal agencies, 

are listed in appendix I. 

Background
Page 4 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually, 

explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or 

assessing whether one approach is more effective than another.7

Evaluation can play a key role in program planning, management, and 

oversight by providing feedback on both program design and execution to 

program managers, legislative and executive branch policy officials, and 

the public. In our 2013 survey of federal managers, we found that while 

only about a third had recent evaluations of their programs or projects, 

the majority of those who had evaluations reported that they contributed 

to understanding program performance, sharing what works with others, 

and making changes to improve program management or performance.8

GPRAMA made changes to agency performance management roles, 

planning and review processes, and reporting intended to ensure that 

agencies used performance information in decision making and were held 

accountable for achieving results and improving government 

performance.9 The act required the 24 CFO Act agencies and OMB to 

establish agency and governmentwide cross-agency priority goals, review 

progress on those goals quarterly, and report publicly on their progress 

and strategies to improve performance, as needed, on a governmentwide 

performance website. It also encouraged a more detailed and 

comprehensive understanding of those strategies by requiring agencies 

to identify and coordinate the program activities, organizations, 

regulations, policies, and other activities—both internal and external—that 

contribute to each agency priority goal. GPRAMA, along with related 

OMB guidance, established and defined performance management 

responsibilities for agency officials in key management roles: the Chief 

Operating Officer (COO), the PIO, and a goal leader responsible for 

 7

GAO, Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: January 

2012).

8

GAO-13-570.

9

For additional information on the GPRAMA requirements, see our web page on leading 

practices for results-oriented management at 

www.gao.gov/key_issues/managing_for_results_in_government. For more information on 

these roles, see GAO, Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and 

Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance, GAO-14-639 (Washington, 

D.C.: July 22, 2014).

GPRAMA Established an 

Expectation That Evidence 

Would Have a Greater 

Role in Agency Decision 

Making
Page 5 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

coordinating efforts to achieve the cross-agency and agency priority 

goals.

The PIO role was created in 2007 by executive order.10 GPRAMA 

established the role in law and specified that it be given to a “senior 

executive” at each agency who reports directly to the agency’s COO or to 

its deputy agency head. The PIO is to advise the head of the agency and 

the COO on goal setting, measurement, and reviewing progress on the 

agency priority goals. OMB guidance gave PIOs a central role in 

promoting agency use of evaluation and other evidence to improve 

program performance, describing their roles as

• “. . . driving performance improvement efforts across the organization, 

by using goal-setting, measurement, analysis, evaluation and other 

research, data-driven performance reviews on progress, cross-agency 

collaboration, and personnel performance appraisals aligned with 

organizational priorities.”

• “Help components, program office leaders and goal leaders to identify 

and promote adoption of effective practices to improve outcomes, 

responsiveness and efficiency, by supporting them in . . . securing 

evaluations and other research as needed . . . and creating a network 

for learning and knowledge sharing about successful outcomefocused, data-driven performance improvement methods across all 

levels of the organization and with delivery partners.”

11

The act also charged the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), the 

Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and OMB with responsibilities to 

improve agency performance management capacity. The PIC is an 

interagency council that was created by executive order, but GPRAMA 

established it in law and specified that it would be chaired by the OMB 

Deputy Director for Management and that membership would include the 

PIOs from all 24 CFO Act agencies, as well as any others. The PIC’s 

duties include facilitating agencies’ exchange of successful practices and 

the development of tips and tools to strengthen agency performance 

management, and assisting OMB in implementing certain GPRAMA 

 10Executive Order No. 13,450, Improving Government Program Performance, (Nov. 13, 

2007).

11OMB, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget. Part 6. Strategic Plans, 

Annual Performance Plans, Performance Reviews, and Annual Program Performance 

Reports, OMB Circular No. A-11 (Washington, D.C.: August 2012, updated July 2014).
Page 6 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

requirements. The PIC holds “principals only” and broader meetings open 

to other agency staff, has formed several working groups that focus on 

issues relating to implementing GPRAMA and related guidance, and 

provides a networking forum for staff from different agencies who are 

working on similar issues. In 2012 through 2014, OMB and the PIC 

supported several interagency forums on evaluation and evidence that 

were open to all federal agency staff.

The act charged OPM with (1) identifying key skills and competencies 

needed by federal employees for developing goals, evaluating programs, 

and analyzing and using performance information for improving 

governmental efficiency and effectiveness; (2) incorporating those skills 

and competencies into relevant position classifications; and (3) working 

with agencies to incorporate these skills and competencies into agency 

training. OPM identified core competencies for performance management 

staff, PIOs, and goal leaders and published them in a January 2012 

memorandum.12 OPM identified relevant existing position classifications 

that are related to the competencies and worked with the PIC Capacity 

Building working group to develop related guidance and tools for 

agencies. In December 2012, the PIC released a draft Performance 

Analyst position design, recruitment, and selection toolkit. OPM worked 

with the Chief Learning Officers Council and the PIC Capacity Building 

working group to develop a website—the Training and Development 

Policy wiki—that lists some resources for personnel performance 

management and implementing GPRAMA. OPM is currently conducting 

pilot studies through 2015, in collaboration with the Chief Human Capital 

Officers Council, of how to build staff capacity in several competencies 

identified as mission critical across government, including data analysis. 

OPM officials also noted that they make databases, such as the Federal 

Employee Viewpoint Survey, available to agencies for their staff to use in 

program evaluations.13

 12OPM, “Memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers: Government Performance and

Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 Functional Competencies” (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 

3, 2012). 

13The Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey measures employees’ perceptions of whether, 

and to what extent, conditions characterizing successful organizations are present in their 

agencies. See http://www.fedview.opm.gov.
Page 7 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

OMB has taken several steps to help agencies develop evaluation 

capacity by issuing guidance, promoting the exchange of evaluation 

expertise through the PIC, and working selectively with certain agencies. 

Since 2009, OMB has issued several memorandums urging efforts to 

strengthen the use of rigorous impact evaluation, and demonstrate the 

use of evidence and evaluation in budget submissions, strategic plans, 

and performance plans.14 In May 2012, OMB encouraged agencies to 

designate a high-level official responsible for evaluation who could 

develop and manage the agency’s research agenda and provide 

independent input to agency policymakers on resource allocation and to 

program leaders on program management. In July 2013, the Directors of 

OMB, the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Science and Technology 

Policy, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, jointly 

issued a memorandum encouraging agencies to adopt an “evidence and 

innovation agenda”: applying existing evidence on what works, generating 

new knowledge, and using experimentation and innovation to test new 

approaches to program delivery. In particular, the memorandum 

encouraged agencies to exploit existing administrative data to conduct 

low-cost experiments, and implement outcome-focused grant designs and 

research clearinghouses to catalyze innovation and learning.15

OMB staff established an interagency group to promote sharing of 

evaluation expertise, and organized a series of workshops and 

interagency collaborations. The workshops addressed issues such as 

potential procedural barriers to evaluation (e.g., the Paperwork Reduction 

Act information collection reviews) and promising practices for collecting 

evidence (e.g., developing a common evidence framework). OMB staff 

facilitated the collaboration of staff from the Department of Education and 

the National Science Foundation in developing common standards of 

evidence for reviewing research proposals, and another group of 

agencies in developing a common framework of standards for reviewing 

completed evaluations.

 14OMB, Increased Emphasis on Program Evaluations, M-10-01. Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 27, 2009); and 

Use of Evidence and Evaluation in the 2014 Budget, M-12-14. Memorandum for the 

Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Washington, D.C.: May 18, 2012). 

15OMB, Next Steps in the Evidence and Innovation Agenda, M-13-17. Memorandum for 

the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2013). 

OMB Efforts to Improve 

Agency Evaluation 

Capacity
Page 8 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Studies of organization or government evaluation capacity have found 

that it requires analytic expertise and access to credible data as well as 

organizational support both within and outside the organization to ensure 

that credible, relevant evaluations are produced and used. Our survey 

found levels of evaluation expertise, support, and use uneven across the 

government. For example, 7 of the 24 agencies have central leaders 

responsible for evaluation; in contrast, 7 agencies reported having no 

recent evaluations for any of their performance goals.

To address our first objective and guide our assessment of agency 

evaluation capacity, we reviewed the research and policy literature on 

evaluation capacity, including assessments of agencies in Canada and 

the United Kingdom, and guidance from the American Evaluation 

Association (AEA) and the United Nations Evaluation Group.16 While the 

details vary, these frameworks commonly emphasize three general 

categories of elements of organizational, especially national, evaluation 

capacity:

• An enabling environment supporting the use of evidence in 

management and policymaking: credible information and statistical 

systems, legislation or policies to institutionalize monitoring and 

evaluation, public interest in evidence of government performance, 

and senior leadership commitment to transparency, accountability, 

and managing for results.

• Organizational resources to support the supply and use of credible 

evaluations: a senior evaluation leader; an evaluation office with 

clearly defined roles and responsibilities, a stable source of funding, 

and independence; an evaluation agenda, policies and tools to ensure 

study credibility and utility; staff expertise and access to experts; and 

collaboration with program managers and stakeholders.

• Evaluation results and use: evaluation quality and credibility; coverage 

of the agency’s key programs or goals; transparent reporting and 

public dissemination of reports; recommendation follow-up; and the 

use of evaluation results in program management, policy making, and 

budgeting.

 16The reference list names the sources we reviewed.

Federal Agencies’

Capacity to Conduct 

and Use Program 

Evaluation Is Uneven

An Agency’s Evaluation 

Capacity Depends on Both 

Policy Makers’ Requests 

for Information and the 

Agency’s Ability to 

Produce Credible, 

Relevant Information
Page 9 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

To learn about federal agencies’ evaluation capacity, we surveyed the 

PIOs or their deputies at the 24 CFO Act agencies because of the central 

role GPRAMA and OMB assigned them to promote agency performance 

assessment and improvement efforts.17 Our 2012 survey of PIOs found 

that they held senior leadership positions and that most of them were 

involved in the central aspects of agency performance management to a 

large extent.18 Although the PIO position was created in 2007, only one of 

the initial PIOs continued to hold this position at the time of our 2014 

survey. Half had started serving in this position within the past 2 years. 

Many of our survey respondents held key senior leadership positions in 

their agencies: 8 PIOs served as the agency’s Chief Financial Officer, 

another 4 as Assistant Secretary or Deputy for Administration or 

Management. Seventeen reported to their agency’s COO, 2 to the 

agency’s administrator or commissioner, and 3 to the agency’s CFO. In 

order to report on the policies and practices of offices throughout these 

agencies, we encouraged the PIOs to consult with others when 

completing the survey and several indicated that they did so.

GPRA represents a central component of the enabling environment for 

U.S. government evaluation capacity by providing, for over 20 years, a 

statutory framework for performance management and accountability 

across the government. Accordingly, most PIOs reported that their senior 

leadership demonstrated a commitment to using evidence in 

management and policy making through agency guidance (17), internal 

agency memorandums (12), congressional hearings (9), and speeches 

(8). Other avenues offered in comments included budget justifications 

(10) and town hall meetings or videos for agency managers and staff (2).

Moreover, as we have noted previously, GPRA has produced a solid 

foundation of generating and reporting performance information. Threequarters of the agencies (18) said that reliable performance data are 

available on outcomes for all their priority goals, 3 more said data are 

 17The number of agency PIOs who responded to survey questions depended on skip 

instructions contained in the survey, and some PIOs chose not to answer certain 

questions. See appendix II for the actual number of respondents for each question. 

18GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management 

Leadership Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed, GAO-13-356 (Washington, D.C.: 

Apr. 16, 2013).

Our Survey Respondents

Most Federal Agencies 

Reported Access to and 

Commitment to Using 

Evidence but Fewer 

Reported Congressional 

Requests for Program 

Evaluation
Page 10 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

available for more than half their priority goals. (One of the independent 

agencies was exempt from developing priority goals.)

However, our survey respondents indicated that congressional interest in 

and requests for program evaluation are not widespread. Although the 

federal government has long invested in evaluation, about half the 

agencies (13) reported having explicit agency-wide authority to use 

appropriated funds for evaluation. Some pointed to specific legislative 

authorities, while one PIO commented, “Evaluation is considered inherent 

to responsible management and programs use appropriated fund[s] for 

this purpose.” Less than half the agencies (10) indicated that they had 

congressional mandates to evaluate specific programs. However, onethird (7) indicated that they had neither explicit agency-wide authority nor 

a program-specific requirement to conduct evaluations. The importance of 

this is that in a prior study agency evaluators told us that not having 

explicit evaluation authority represented a barrier to the use of program 

funds for evaluation.19

Our survey asked the PIOs about the agency resources and policies 

committed to obtaining credible, relevant evaluations. Their responses 

indicated uneven levels of development across the agencies. About half 

the agencies (11) reported committing resources to obtain evaluations by 

establishing a central office responsible for evaluating agency programs, 

operations, or projects. However, less than a third of agencies have an 

evaluation plan or agency-wide policies or guidance for ensuring study 

credibility.

About one-third of the agencies (7) reported having assigned 

responsibility to a single high-level official to oversee their evaluation 

studies. Although agencies do not need a central evaluation leader in 

order to conduct credible evaluations, establishing such a position with 

clear responsibilities sends a message about the importance of 

evaluation to agency managers. Almost all these individuals (6) were 

responsible for setting these agencies’ evaluation agendas but only half 

(3) were responsible for following-up evaluation recommendations. 

Similar numbers of departments and independent agencies reported 

 19GAO, Program Evaluation: Experienced Agencies Follow a Similar Model for Prioritizing 

Research, GAO-11-176 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2011), p. 19.

Half of Federal Agencies 

Report Committing 

Resources to Obtain 

Credible, Relevant 

Program Evaluations

Central Evaluation Leadership 

and Resources
Page 11 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

having such officials with titles such as Chief Evaluation Officer, Chief 

Strategic Officer, and Assistant Secretary.

According to AEA guidance, a central evaluation office can promote an 

agency’s evaluation capacity and provide a stable organizational 

framework for planning, conducting, or procuring evaluation studies. All 

the agencies with a single official responsible for overseeing evaluations 

also reported having a central office responsible for evaluating agency 

programs, operations, or projects, but only about half the agencies in total 

(11) had a central office. The central offices could have other 

responsibilities as well, such as strategic planning. Most of these offices 

were said to be independent of program offices in making decisions about 

evaluation design, conduct, and reporting and to have access to analytic 

expertise through external experts or contractors, but about half were 

reported to have a stable source of funding (6). Funding generally came 

through regular appropriations, although two agencies reported having 

evaluation set-asides—that is, the ability to tap a percentage of operating 

divisions’ appropriations for evaluation. A larger proportion of independent 

agencies (5 of 9) than departments (6 of 15) reported having central 

offices.

As discussed earlier, having analytic expertise is a critical element of 

evaluation capacity. Most agencies with a central office responsible for 

evaluations (7—8 of 11) reported that the evaluation staff had training and 

experience to a great or very great extent in each of the following areas: 

research design and methods, data management and statistical analysis,

performance measurement and monitoring, and translating evaluation 

results into actionable recommendations. Slightly fewer reported that 

central evaluation office staff had great or very great subject matter 

expertise (5). Three survey respondents also volunteered that their staff 

had additional expertise, including economic analysis, geographical 

information systems and Lean cost reduction analysis.

Organizations, whether government agencies or professional societies, 

develop written policies or standards in order to provide benchmarks for 

ensuring the quality of their processes and products. AEA has published 

guides for the individual evaluator’s practice and for developing and 

Few Agencies Have Policies to 

Ensure Credible and Relevant 

Evaluations
Page 12 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

implementing U.S. government evaluation programs.20 About one-quarter 

of agencies reported having agency-wide written policies or guidance for 

key issues addressed in those guides:

• selecting and prioritizing evaluation topics;

• consulting program staff and subject matter experts;

• ensuring internal or external evaluator independence and objectivity;

• selecting evaluation approaches and methods;

• ensuring completeness and transparency of evaluation reports;

• timely, public dissemination of evaluation findings and 

recommendations; or

• tracking implementation of evaluation findings.

A few more agencies, but less than half, reported having policies on 

ensuring quality of data collection and analysis, which could apply to 

research as well as program evaluation. Central evaluation leadership 

was not required to adopt evaluation policies; as only about half of the 

agencies with agency-wide evaluation policies had a central evaluation 

office. Agencies provided us with examples of guidance on information 

quality or scientific integrity as well as program evaluations specifically.21

We, along with OMB and AEA, have all noted that developing an 

evaluation agenda is important for ensuring that an agency’s often scarce 

research and evaluation resources are targeted to the most important 

issues and can shape budget and policy priorities and management 

practices.22 Less than a third of the agencies (7) reported having an 

agency-wide evaluation plan. Most such plans were reported to cover 

multiple years and programs across all major agency components. Senior 

agency officials and program managers were said to have been consulted 

in developing all these plans, but few agencies reported consulting 

 20American Evaluation Association, An Evaluation Roadmap for a More Effective 

Government (Oct. 2013); Guiding Principles for Evaluators (2004) accessible at 

www.eval.org. 

21For an example of a comprehensive set of evaluation policies, see U.S. Agency for 

International Development, Evaluation: Learning from Experience. USAID Evaluation 

Policy (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2011). http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation. 

22GAO-11-176; OMB, Evaluating Programs for Efficacy and Cost-Efficiency, M-10-32. 

Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies (Washington, D.C.: 

July 29, 2010); American Evaluation Association (2013). 
Page 13 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

congressional stakeholders or researchers. All but 1 of the 7 agencies 

that had a plan also had a central evaluation office.

Because we found in a previous report that stakeholder involvement 

facilitates the use of evaluation studies, we asked whether stakeholders 

were consulted in designing and conducting evaluation studies, either 

formally or informally.23 Almost all the PIOs reported consulting senior 

agency officials (20) and program managers (21) and three-quarters 

consulted researchers, but few (5) reported consulting congressional 

staff, less than local program providers or regulated entities.

Agency evaluation offices are located at different organizational levels, 

which we have previously found affects the scope of their program and 

analytic responsibilities as well as the range of issues they consider. In a 

previous study, we found that evaluators in central research and 

evaluation offices described having a broader and more flexible choice of 

topics than did evaluators in program offices.24 In our 2014 survey, half 

the federal agencies (12) reported that some agency components (such 

as an administration or bureau) had a central office responsible for 

evaluation and that the number of such components ranged from 1 to 12 

within a department or independent agency. These offices generally 

existed in addition to, rather than instead of an agency-wide office 

responsible for evaluation; as a result, 10 agencies had neither type of 

office. As might be expected, component offices were less likely than 

central offices to be considered independent of program offices (6 of 12 

agencies reported that all or many of their offices had independence in 

decision making), but 10 of 12 reported that all or many of these offices 

had access to external experts, and, like the central offices, few reported 

having a stable source of funds.

About half the agencies with component central offices for evaluation 

reported that the evaluation staff had training and experience to a great or 

very great extent in research design and methods, data management and 

statistical analysis, performance measurement and monitoring, and 

translating evaluation results into actionable recommendations. These 

were slightly lower than the ratings for the central office staff’s training. As 

one might expect, staff were characterized as having great to very great 

 23GAO-13-570. 

24GAO-11-176, p. 20. 

Agency Components’

Resources and Policies
Page 14 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

subject matter expertise more often in component offices (9 of 12) than in 

central evaluation offices (5 of 11).

Only a few PIOs (2 to 4) reported that many or all component central 

offices for evaluation had written evaluation policies or guidance for any

of the issues we listed. More often PIOs (2 to 6) reported not knowing if 

they had those specific policies.

To assess the results or outcomes of agency evaluation activity, our 

survey asked the PIOs about the characteristics of the evaluations they 

produced and their use in decision making. In line with the level of 

resources they committed to evaluation, the availability and use of 

program evaluations were uneven across the 24 federal agencies. Even 

though agencies may not have many evaluations, more than a third report 

using them from a moderate to a very great extent to support several 

aspects of program management and policy making.

Because agencies use the term “program” in different ways, we chose to 

assess agencies’ evaluation coverage of key programs and missions by 

the proportion of performance goals for which evaluations had been 

completed in the past 5 years or were in progress. The number of 

performance goals may vary across agencies but, per OMB guidance, 

they are supposed to be specific, near-term, realistic targets that an 

agency seeks to influence to advance its mission, and publicly reports. 

Only four agencies reported full evaluation coverage of their performance 

goals. Two-thirds of the agencies reported evaluation coverage of less 

than half their performance goals; including 7 that reported having 

evaluations for none of their performance goals. Evaluation coverage was 

greater in agencies that established centralized authority for evaluation. 

Three of the 4 agencies with full coverage of their performance goals had 

both a central evaluation leader and central evaluation office, while all 7 

agencies with no coverage had neither. Interestingly, 2 of the 7 agencies 

that reported having no evaluations of their performance goals did report 

having component evaluation offices, so they might have had some 

evaluations that simply did not address topics considered key to 

advancing their mission.

GAO guidance notes that strong evaluations rely on sufficient and 

appropriate evidence; document their assumptions, procedures, and 

Agencies Report Moderate 

Use of Evaluations in 

Managing Programs, 

Setting Policy, or 

Allocating Resources
Page 15 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

modes of analysis; and rule out competing explanations.25 Thus, 

transparent reporting of data sources and analyses are critical for 

ensuring that evaluations are considered credible and trustworthy. About 

half the PIOs (10) reported that their evaluation reports are transparent to 

a great or very great extent in describing the data sources used and the 

analyses performed forming the basis of conclusions; another 7 indicated 

that they did not know or did not respond to the question.

According to the evaluation capacity literature, timely, public 

dissemination of evaluation findings is important to support government 

accountability for results to the legislature and the public and to ensure 

that findings are available to inform decision making. Half the agencies 

(11) reported publicly disseminating their evaluation results by posting 

reports to a searchable database on their websites; fewer reported 

presenting findings at professional conferences (9), sending a notice and 

link to the report through electronic mailing lists (7), or conducting 

webinars on findings for the policy community (6). A couple of the PIOs 

commented that they post some, but not all, reports on the agency 

website. Of the 11 agencies posting evaluation reports to a website, half 

reported that they did so within 3 months of completion, although 1 

indicated it can take from 6 months to a year. In addition, a few agencies 

sponsor research clearinghouses that review evaluations of social 

interventions and provide the results in searchable databases on their 

websites to help managers and policy makers identify and adopt effective 

practices.

If program evaluations or any form of performance information are to lead 

to performance improvement, they must be acted on. Seven agencies 

reported that they had procedures for obtaining management’s response 

to evaluation recommendations, 8 for obtaining follow-up action on those 

recommendations. In their comments, a few PIOs noted that they had 

policies for responding to reports or recommendations from GAO or the 

Inspector General. Another PIO reported that a number of internal 

briefings are held to ensure management awareness of evaluation 

findings as well as a cross-agency research utilization committee 

composed of staff from program, public affairs, and congressional and 

intergovernmental relations offices that decides on the appropriate level 

of publicity effort for the report.

 25 GAO-12-208G. 

Responding to or Using 

Evaluation Findings
Page 16 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Over a third of the agencies (9 to 10) reported that evaluations were used 

to a moderate or greater extent to support policy changes, budget 

changes, or internal proposals for change in resource allocation or 

management, or to award competitive grants (figure 1). Five agencies 

reported using evaluation to support all these activities to a moderate or 

greater extent on average. In comments, PIOs described a variety of 

ways in which evaluation evidence could be used in awarding competitive 

grants: reviewing the merit of research proposals, evaluating grantee prior 

performance and outcomes, assessing credit worthiness, and allocating 

tiered evidence-based funding, which varies the level of funding based on 

the extent and quality of the evaluation evidence supporting a program’s 

effectiveness.

Figure 1: Number of Agencies Citing Evaluation Evidence to Support Various 

Decisions

Note: Survey items were abbreviated.

Agencies with centralized evaluation authority, independence, and 

expertise reported greater evaluation use in management and policy 

making, demonstrating its importance. More than half of the 7 agencies 

that reported great use of evaluation had a senior evaluation leader or a 

central evaluation office. Moreover, the agencies whose central offices 

were independent of the program office, those with access to external 
Page 17 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

experts or contractors, and those whose staff were rated as having great 

or better expertise in research methods and subject matter reported

greater use of evaluation in decision making.

GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011, revising existing GPRA 

provisions and adding new reporting requirements. Around the same 

time, OMB increased its outreach to agencies to encourage them to 

conduct program evaluations. We assessed change in agency evaluation 

capacity in this period through survey questions about when an office 

started conducting evaluations and whether the frequency of certain 

activities had changed. While organizational changes in evaluation 

capacity were few during this period, half the agencies reported a greater 

use of evaluation in decision making since 2010.

Organizational evaluation capacity has grown some since 2010. One-third 

of the agencies have a high-level official responsible for oversight of the 

agency’s evaluation studies, and 2 of those 7 positions were created after 

2010, both in 2013. In fact, in its May 2012 memorandum, OMB 

encouraged agencies to designate a high-level official responsible for 

evaluation who can

• “Develop and manage the agency’s research agenda;

• Conduct or oversee rigorous and objective studies;

• Provide independent input to agency policymakers on resource 

allocation and to program leaders on program management;

• Attract and retain talented staff and researchers, including through 

flexible hiring authorities such as the Intergovernmental Personnel 

Act; and

• Refine program performance measures, in collaboration with program 

managers and the Performance Improvement Officer.”

26

In addition, 4 of 11 agencies with a central office responsible for 

evaluation reported that this office started conducting evaluations after 

2010. One agency added both a central leader and a central office in 

2013; 3 others just added a central office. Of the 12 agencies that 

reported having evaluation offices in their major components, most 

existed before GPRAMA was enacted, but 5 agencies have established 

new component evaluation offices since then.

 26OMB M-12-14, p. 4

Some Agencies 

Improved Their 

Evaluation Capacity 

after GPRAMA Was 

Enacted

A Few Agencies 

Centralized Their 

Evaluation Responsibilities 

after GPRAMA Was 

Enacted
Page 18 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Presumably in response to greater administration attention to program 

evaluation, half the agencies reported that efforts to improve their 

capacity to conduct credible evaluations had increased at least somewhat 

since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011. About half the PIOs 

reported increases in staff participation in evaluation conferences and 

knowledge sharing forums, hiring staff with research and analysis 

expertise, training staff in research and evaluation skills, and consultation 

with external research and evaluation specialists. Nine agencies reported 

increases in all these activities. Most of the remaining agencies reported 

no change in training or consultation with specialists (4 to 5), or 

decreases in hiring or participating in conferences (4 to 5) in this period. 

These decreases may reflect federal budget constraints and the general 

decline in federal hiring in recent years.

Figure 2: Agencies Reporting Change since 2010 in Efforts to Improve Their 

Capacity to Conduct Evaluations

Note: Survey items were abbreviated.

In line with the increases reported in capacity building activities and 

organizational resources, about half the agencies reported that their use 

of evaluation as supportive evidence had increased at least somewhat 

since 2010 (only a few reported great increases). About half the PIOs 

reported that the use of evaluation had increased for implementing 

changes in program management or performance, designing or 

Half the Agencies 

Reported Increasing Their 

Capacity Building Activities 

after GPRAMA Was 

Enacted

Half the Agencies 

Reported Increasing Their 

Use of Evaluations as 

Evidence in Decision 

Making after 2010
Page 19 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

supporting program reforms, sharing what works or other lessons learned 

with others, allocating resources within a program, or supporting program 

budget requests. The rest reported that their use of evaluation evidence 

remained about the same in this period, with none reporting a decline in 

use of evaluation as evidence. Eight agencies reported increased use in 

all these activities, and an equal number reported that their use remained 

the same on all. Since, in a separate question, 5 agencies either provided 

no opinion or reported little or no current use of evaluation evidence to 

support budget, policy, or program management, we conclude that this 

group has continued to make little or no use of evaluations since 2010.

Figure 3: Agencies Reporting Change since 2010 in Citing Evaluation as Supporting 

Evidence in Decisions

Note: Survey items were abbreviated.
Page 20 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Our survey asked the PIOs how useful various activities or resources 

were for improving their agency’s capacity to conduct credible 

evaluations. Several PIOs did not answer these questions, in part 

because they were not familiar with such activities. Many of those who did 

respond found that hiring, professional networking, consulting with 

experts, and training as well as some of the GPRAMA accountability 

provisions were very useful for improving capacity to conduct evaluations. 

Our survey also asked about the usefulness of various activities or 

resources for improving an agency’s capacity to use evaluations in 

decision making. Again, several agencies did not respond, but most of 

those that did reported that engaging program staff, conducting quarterly 

progress reviews, and holding goal leaders accountable for progress on 

agency priority goals were very useful in improving agency capacity to 

make use of evaluation information. Some other GPRAMA-related 

activities were not found as useful for enhancing evaluation use. In 

addition, agencies had not taken full advantage of available technology to 

disseminate evaluation results, thus potentially limiting their influence on 

decision making.

Our survey asked the PIOs about the usefulness of 14 different actions or 

resources for improving their capacity to conduct evaluations, drawn from 

the literature and some GPRAMA provisions related to building agency 

capacity. About a third of the respondents indicated either that they had 

no opinion or did not respond to these questions, similar to the number 

not responding or reporting no change in the use of capacity-building 

activities since 2010. About two-thirds of agencies (15) reported hiring 

staff with research and analysis expertise, and 11—nearly half of the 

PIOs—thought it was very useful for improving agency capacity to 

conduct credible evaluations. Almost half the agencies used special hiring 

authorities, such as the Presidential Management Fellows, 

Intergovernmental Personnel Act, or American Association for the 

Advancement of Science (AAAS) fellows program, and generally found 

them useful for improving agency evaluation capacity. Other agencyspecific means of obtaining staff were mentioned in comments—for 

example, an Evaluation Fellowship Program at the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. Figure 4 summarizes agencies’ reports on the 

usefulness of the full range of activities and resources posed for building 

capacity to conduct evaluations.

Some Agencies 

Reported that 

Professional 

Networking, Hiring, 

Engaging Program 

Staff, and Some 

GPRAMA Provisions 

Were Useful for 

Building Evaluation 

Capacity

PIOs Reported Hiring, 

Professional Networking, 

and Consulting with 

Experts Were Very Useful 

in Improving the Capacity 

to Conduct Evaluations
Page 21 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Figure 4: PIOs’ Views on Usefulness of Activities and Resources for Improving 

Agency Capacity to Conduct Credible Evaluations

Note: Survey items were abbreviated.

The PIO survey respondents also gave high marks to professional 

networking for building staff capacity. Two-thirds of the PIOs reported that 

staff participation in professional conferences or evaluation interest 

groups for knowledge sharing was useful, with 9 PIOs citing these 

activities as very useful in improving agency capacity to conduct credible 

evaluations. Examples mentioned included the Association for Public 

Policy Analysis and Management research conference and an Evaluation 

Day conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services (HHS) Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and 

Evaluation.
Page 22 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

The exchange of evaluation tips and leading practices through the PIC or 

other network was considered moderately useful for capacity building by 

a third of the PIOs. PIOs provided examples of information-sharing 

networks besides the PIC, such as OMB’s Evaluation Working Group,

which holds governmentwide meetings on government performance 

topics; Federal Evaluators, an informal association of evaluation officials 

across government; Washington Evaluators, a local affiliate of the 

American Evaluation Association; and the National Academy of Public 

Administration. Some agencies have established informal networks to 

share information internally, such as HHS and the U.S. Department of 

Labor. Also mentioned were communities of practice that engage both 

public and private sectors but are focused on a specific domain—for 

example, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s 

EvalNet, which focuses on international development, and the 

Environmental Evaluators Network.

Consultation with external experts for conceptual or technical support was 

rated as very useful for improving the capacity to conduct evaluations by 

most using it (9 of 15). However, this did not apply to other forms of 

external consultation. Seven agencies reported having an annual or multiyear evaluation agenda, and 3 of them reported consulting with 

congressional or other external stakeholders on their plan. These 3 found 

consultation useful to varying degrees for building their agency’s 

evaluation capacity to conduct evaluation.

Training in specific skills and knowledge—for example, types of evidence, 

assessing evidence quality, report writing, and communication—is 

frequently cited in the evaluation literature as a way to build 

organizational or individual evaluation capacity. Besides asking about 

participating in professional conferences and networks, our survey asked 

about the usefulness of training in evaluation skills—for example, 

describing program logic models, choosing appropriate evaluation 

designs, and collecting and analyzing data. Half the agencies reported 

engaging in internal or external training—whether delivered in a 

classroom, online, or in webinars. Half the agencies using internal training 

reported that it was very useful for improving capacity to conduct credible 

evaluations. PIOs who reported on agency experience with external 

evaluation training were less enthusiastic, but still considered the training 

useful for developing evaluation skills overall.

OMB, in addition to encouraging agencies to conduct evaluations through 

guidance, sponsored a number of governmentwide open forums on 

performance issues. About half the PIOs reported a range of opinions on 

PIOs Reported Training Is 

Needed to Build Skills
Page 23 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

the usefulness of the OMB forums on the Paperwork Reduction Act, 

procurement, data sharing, and related rules and procedures to help 

improve agency capacity for conducting credible evaluations.

Nevertheless, 7 or more of the agencies identified training or guidance in 

several skills as still needed to a great or very great extent to improve 

their agencies’ capacity to conduct credible evaluations. These skills 

included: translating evaluation results into actionable 

recommendations—a requirement for getting evaluation results used—

data management and statistical analysis, and performance 

measurement and monitoring. Few reported that more training in 

research design and methods or subject matter expertise was greatly 

needed. Our survey asked what other types of training or guidance might 

be needed to improve agency capacity. A few PIOs commented that 

training is needed in preparing statements of work for evaluation 

contracts, data analytics and visualization of information, and learning 

how to effectively use evidence and evaluation information.

Our survey asked about several activities and resources related to 

GPRAMA provisions linked to creating an enabling environment for 

agency evaluation capacity. Majorities of PIOs stated that conducting 

quarterly progress reviews on their priority goals, and holding goal 

leaders accountable for progress on those goals, were moderately to very 

useful in improving their agency’s ability to conduct credible evaluations.

In response to GPRAMA provisions to improve agency performance 

management capacity, the PIC and OPM developed a Performance 

Analyst position design, recruitment, and selection toolkit to assist 

agencies’ hiring. Seven PIOs reported that their agencies used the toolkit, 

and 3 did not find it useful for building agency evaluation capacity.

About a third of the PIOs reported that their agencies made an effort to 

incorporate the core competencies that OPM identified for performance 

management staff into internal agency training. However, 2 of the 7 

agencies did not find the effort useful for improving staff evaluation 

capacity. The competencies primarily address general management skills 

and define planning and evaluating fairly simply—as setting and 

monitoring progress on performance goals—so they do not address some 

of the specific analytic skills PIOs reported were still needed for 

conducting evaluations. GAO previously recommended that OPM, in 

coordination with the PIC and the Chief Learning Officer Council, identify 

PIOs Reported Some 

GPRAMA–Related Activities 

Useful for Building the 

Capacity to Conduct 

Evaluation
Page 24 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

performance management competency areas needing improvement and 

work with agencies to share information about available agency training in 

those areas.27 OPM agreed with those recommendations and has 

embarked on a 2-year pilot program to test how to build capacity in 

several mission critical competencies identified across government, such 

as strategic thinking, problem solving, and data analysis, to ensure that 

both program staff and management can use evaluation and analysis of 

program performance.

OMB senior officials also engaged with agency officials on the 

Performance Improvement Council to collaborate on improving program 

performance. Eight of the 14 agencies that responded considered the 

exchange of evaluation tips and leading practices through the PIC or 

other networks as at least moderately useful for improving their evaluation 

capacity. For example, the PIC developed a guide to best practices for 

setting milestones and a guide and evaluation tool to help agencies set 

their agency priority goals.

Previously, we found that experienced evaluators emphasized three basic 

strategies to facilitate evaluation’s influence on program management and 

policy: demonstrate leadership support of evaluation for accountability 

and program improvement, build a strong body of evidence, and engage 

stakeholders throughout the evaluation process.28 Accordingly, our survey 

asked the PIOs how useful various activities or resources were for 

improving their agency’s capacity to use evaluations in decision making.

Several did not answer these questions because they did not use the 

particular activity or resource or had no opinion. The PIOs who responded 

mainly cited engaging program staff, conducting quarterly progress 

reviews, and holding goal leaders accountable for progress on agency 

priority goals as very useful for improving agency capacity to make use of 

evaluation information in decision-making.

Over two-thirds of the PIOs responded that involving program staff in 

planning and conducting evaluation studies was useful for improving 

agency use of evaluation; 11 saw it as very useful. Engaging staff 

throughout the process can gain their buy-in on the relevance and 

 27GAO-13-356.

28GAO-13-570. 

PIOs Reported Engaging 

Program Staff and Holding 

Goal Leaders Accountable 

Were Very Useful for 

Building Capacity to Use 

Evaluations in Decision 

Making
Page 25 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

credibility of evaluation findings; providing program staff with interim 

results or lessons learned from early program implementation can help 

ensure timely data for program decisions. Majorities of PIOs affirmed that 

other forms of program staff engagement were also very useful: providing 

program staff and grantees with technical assistance on evaluation and 

its use and agency peer-to-peer presentations of evaluation studies to 

discuss methods and findings

Figure 5: PIOs’ Views on Usefulness of Activities and Resources for Improving 

Agency Capacity to Use Evaluations in Decision Making

Note: Survey items were abbreviated.

As mentioned earlier, majorities of PIOs viewed the new GPRAMA 

activities of conducting quarterly reviews and holding goal leaders 

accountable as moderately to very useful for improving agency capacity 

to conduct credible evaluations. Majorities of the responding PIOs also 

viewed those same activities as moderately to very useful for improving 

agency capacity to use evaluations in decision making. However, another 

GPRAMA provision—coordinating with OMB and other agencies to 

review progress on cross-agency priority (CAP) goals—met with a range 
Page 26 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

of opinions. Equal numbers reported that it was moderately to very useful, 

somewhat useful, or not useful at all for improving an agency’s use of 

evaluation. Because the 14 CAP goals for this period cover 5 general 

management improvement and 9 cross-cutting but specific policy areas, 

some of the 24 PIOs may have been more involved than others in those 

reviews.

Other activities potentially useful for improving the capacity to use 

information from evaluations rely on leveraging resources. A third of the 

PIOs reported that exchanging leading practices, tips, and tools for using 

evidence to improve program or agency performance through the PIC or 

other network was moderately or very useful in improving agency 

capacity to use evaluation results in decision making. Many of the same 

networks named as helping to improve their capacity to conduct credible 

evaluations were also named with regard to improving capacity to use

evaluations in decision making. These included the Environmental 

Evaluators Network, Federal Evaluators, the National Academy of Public 

Administration, and the OMB Evaluation Working Group.

Seven agencies reported having an agency-wide annual or multi-year 

evaluation plan or agenda of planned studies, and 6 PIOs reported 

consulting with congressional and other external stakeholders on that 

plan. However, these consultations were not viewed as useful for 

improving their agency’s capacity to use evaluations in decision making. 

The absence of consultation may miss an opportunity to ensure that 

evaluations will address the questions of greatest interest to 

congressional decision makers and will be perceived as credible support 

for proposed policy or budget changes. In previous work, we found that 

dialog between congressional committees and executive branch agencies 

was necessary to achieve a mutual understanding that would allow 

agencies to provide useful information for oversight.29

Previously we found that a key strategy for promoting the use of 

evaluation findings was to make them digestible and usable and to 

proactively disseminate them. Our survey posed various options that 

agencies could take to publicly disseminate their evaluation findings. Half 

 29GAO, Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to the Congress, 

GAO/PEMD-95-1 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 1995), and Managing for Results: A Guide 

for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to Help Inform Congressional Decision Making,

GAO-12-621SP (Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2012). 

Agencies May Not Be Taking 

Full Advantage of Technology 

to Disseminate Evaluation 

Results
Page 27 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

the respondents reported posting evaluation reports in a searchable 

database on their websites, and half of them viewed this practice as 

moderately to very useful for improving their agency’s capacity to use 

evaluations in decision making. However, 3 did not find the practice 

useful. Electronic mailing lists are more proactive than posting a report to 

a website and permit tailoring the message to different audiences. A third 

of all respondents disseminated evaluation reports by electronic mailing 

lists, which most saw as somewhat to very useful for facilitating the use of 

evaluations in decision making. Tailoring messages for particular 

audiences—for example, federal policy makers, state and local agencies, 

and local program affiliates—may, however, increase the applicability and 

use of evaluation findings by these other audiences.

GPRAMA requires OMB to provide quarterly updates on agency and 

cross-agency priority goals on a central, government-wide website, 

Performance.gov, to make federal program and performance information 

more accessible to the Congress and the public. In our survey, PIO 

reviews were mixed about the utility of this website to improve agency 

capacity to use evaluations in decision making. Almost half the agencies 

found the practice somewhat to moderately useful for improving the 

agencies’ use of evaluation findings in decision making, but one-fourth of 

the agencies did not. In 2013, GAO reviewed Performance.gov and 

recommended that OMB work with the General Services Administration 

and the PIC to clarify specific ways that intended audiences could use the 

website and specify changes to support these uses.30 OMB staff agreed 

with our recommendations, and Performance.gov continues to evolve.

Currently each agency has a home page that provides links to the 

agency’s strategic plan, annual performance plans and reports, and other 

progress reviews.

Data.gov is a federal government website that provides descriptions of 

datasets generated or held by the federal government in order to increase 

the ability of the public to locate, download, and use those datasets. A 

third of the PIOs reported that sharing databases in public repositories 

such as Data.gov for researchers and the public to use helped in 

improving agency capacity to use evaluations in decision making, but 1 

thought it was not useful. However, a third of PIOs stated that the agency 

 30GAO, Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued 

Development of Performance.gov, GAO-13-517 (Washington, D.C.: June 6, 2013).
Page 28 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

did not use this vehicle. Vehicles such as Data.gov and Performance.gov 

are primarily intended to improve government transparency and expand 

information’s use by the Congress and the public, but they can also help 

support agency requests for budget and policy changes to improve 

government performance.

Although OMB and several agencies have taken steps since 2010 to 

expand federal evaluation efforts, most agencies demonstrate rather 

modest evaluation capacity. Those with centralized evaluation authority 

reported greater evaluation coverage and use in decision making, but 

additional effort will be required to expand agencies’ evaluation capacity 

beyond those that already possess evaluation expertise. In addition to 

hiring and training staff and consulting experts, promoting information 

sharing through informal and formal evaluation professionals’ networks 

offers promise for building agencies’ capacity to conduct evaluation in a 

constrained budget environment. Engaging program staff, regularly 

reviewing progress on agency priority goals, and holding goal leaders 

accountable can help build agency use of evaluation in decision making, 

as our survey results show. While timely, public dissemination of 

performance and evaluation results may not directly influence agency 

decision making, it is important to support government transparency and 

accountability for results to the Congress and the public.

Directly engaging intended users (for example, involving program staff in 

planning and conducting evaluations and holding regular progress 

reviews) was strongly associated with increasing evaluation use in 

internal agency decision making. In contrast, few agencies reported 

consulting congressional and other external stakeholders in conducting 

their evaluation studies or developing their evaluation agendas. However, 

some program reforms require program partners and legislators to take 

action. Engaging congressional and other stakeholders in evaluation 

planning might increase their interest in evaluation as well as their 

adoption of evaluation findings and recommendations.

In the absence of explicit authority or congressional request, agencies 

may be reluctant to spend increasingly scarce funds on evaluation studies 

that are perceived as resource intensive. A stable source of evaluation 

funding could help maintain a viable evaluation program that produced a 

steady stream of information to guide program management and policy 

making. Even so, only a quarter of the agencies in our survey reported 

that their evaluation offices had a stable source of funding. Congressional 

appropriators could direct the use of program or agency funds for 

Concluding 

Observations
Page 29 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

evaluating federal programs and policies. As we have noted before, 

congressional committees can also communicate their interest in 

evaluation in a variety of ways to encourage agencies to produce 

credible, relevant studies that inform decision making:31

• consult with agencies on proposed revisions to their strategic plans 

and priority goals, as GPRAMA requires them to do every 2 years, to 

ensure that agency missions are focused, goals are specific and 

results-oriented, and strategies and funding expectations are 

appropriate and reasonable;

• request agency evaluations to address specific questions about the 

implementation and results of major program or policy reforms, in time 

to consider their results in program reauthorization; and

• review agencies’ annual evaluation plans or agendas to ensure that 

they address issues that will inform budgeting, reauthorization, and 

ongoing program management.

We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of the 

Office of Management and Budget, whose staff provided technical 

comments that we incorporated as appropriate, and from the Director of 

the Office of Personnel Management, who provided none.

We are sending copies of this report to other interested congressional 

committees, and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget 

and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management. In addition, the 

report will be available on our web site at http://www.gao.gov.

 31GAO-12-621SP, and GAO-13-570.

Agency Comments
Page 30 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact 

me at (202) 512-2700 or by e-mail at kingsburyn@gao.gov. Contacts for 

our Office of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs may be 

found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are 

listed in appendix III.

Nancy Kingsbury, Ph.D.

Managing Director

Applied Research and Methods
Appendix I: Methodology for the Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers in CFO Act 

Agencies

Page 31 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

We administered a web-based questionnaire from May 2, 2014, to June 

19, 2014, on federal agency evaluation capacity resources and activities 

to the Performance Improvement Officers (PIO) or their deputies at the 24 

agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO act).1

We received responses from all 24 agencies (listed at the end of this 

appendix.) The survey gave us information about agencies’ evaluation 

resources, policies, and activities, and the activities and resources they 

have found useful in building their evaluation capacity. (The survey 

questions and summarized results are in appendix II.) We sent 

respondents an e-mail invitation to complete the survey on a secure GAO 

web server. Each e-mail contained a unique username and password. 

During the data collection period, we sent follow-up e-mails and, if 

necessary, called nonresponding agencies on the telephone.

Because this was not a sample survey, it has no sampling errors. In 

practice, however, any survey may introduce nonsampling errors that 

stem from differences in how a particular question is interpreted, the 

availability of sources of information, or how the survey data are 

analyzed. All can introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. 

We took a number of steps to minimize these nonsampling errors. A 

social science survey specialist designed the questionnaire, in 

collaboration with our staff who had subject matter expertise. In addition, 

we pretested the questionnaire in person with PIOs at three federal 

agencies to make sure that the questions were relevant, clearly stated, 

easy to comprehend, and unbiased. We also affirmed that data and 

information the PIOs would need to answer the survey were readily 

obtainable and that answering the questionnaire did not place an undue 

burden on them.

Additionally, a senior methodologist within our agency independently 

reviewed a draft of the questionnaire before we administered it. We made 

appropriate revisions to its contents and format after the pretests and 

independent review. When we analyzed data from the completed survey, 

an independent analyst reviewed all computer programs used in our 

analysis. Since this was a web-based survey, respondents entered their 

answers directly into the electronic questionnaire; thus, we did not key the 

data into a database, avoiding data entry errors.

 1

The CFO Act agencies are listed at 31 U.S.C. § 901(b). 

Appendix I: Methodology for the Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers in CFO 

Act Agencies
Appendix I: Methodology for the Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers in CFO Act 

Agencies

Page 32 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Additionally, in reviewing the agencies’ answers, we confirmed that the 

PIOs had correctly bypassed inapplicable questions (such as questions 

we expected them to skip). We concluded from our review that the survey 

data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. 

The 24 agencies subject to the CFO Act include

• Agency for International Development

• Department of Agriculture

• Department of Commerce

• Department of Defense

• Department of Education

• Department of Energy

• Department of Health and Human Services

• Department of Homeland Security

• Department of Housing and Urban Development

• Department of the Interior

• Department of Justice

• Department of Labor

• Department of State

• Department of Transportation

• Department of the Treasury

• Department of Veterans Affairs

• Environmental Protection Agency

• General Services Administration

• National Aeronautics and Space Administration

• National Science Foundation

• Nuclear Regulatory Commission

• Office of Personnel Management

• Small Business Administration

• Social Security Administration.
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 33 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 34 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 35 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 36 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 37 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 38 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 39 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 40 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 41 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 42 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 43 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 44 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 45 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 46 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 47 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 48 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 49 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 50 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 51 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 52 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 53 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 54 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix II: Results from 2014 Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 55 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation
Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 56 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Nancy Kingsbury, (202) 512-2700 or kingsburyn@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Stephanie Shipman (Assistant 

Director), Thomas Beall, Valerie Caracelli, Timothy Carr, Joanna Chan, 

Stuart Kaufman, and Penny Pickett made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments
References

Page 57 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Administration for Children and Families. Evaluation Policy. Washington, 

D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, November 2012. 

Accessed September 24, 2014. 

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/resource/acf-evaluation-policy.

America Achieves. “Investing in What Works Index: Better Results for 

Young People, Their Families, and Communities.” Results for America, 

Washington, D.C., May 2014. Accessed September 11, 2014. 

http://www.InvestInWhatWorks.org/policy-hub.

American Evaluation Association. An Evaluation Roadmap for a More 

Effective Government. N.p.: Revised October 2013. Accessed September 

22, 2014. http://www.eval.org/d/do/472.

Auditor General of Canada. 2013 Spring Report of the Auditor General of 

Canada. Ch. 1. “Status Report on Evaluating the Effectiveness of 

Programs.” Ottawa: 2013. Accessed September 15, 2014.

http://www.oagbvg.gc.ca/internet/English/parl_oag_201304_01_e_38186.html.

Bourgeois, Isabelle, and J. Bradley Cousins. “Understanding Dimensions 

of Organizational Evaluation Capacity,” American Journal of Evaluation, 

34:3 (2013): 299—319.

Chapel, Thomas. “Building and Sustaining Evaluation Capacity in a 

Diverse Federal Agency.” Paper presented at Federal Evaluators 

Conference, Washington, D.C., November 1, 2012. Accessed September 

11, 2014. http://www.fedeval.net/presen.htm.

Clapp-Wincek, Cindy. “The Complexity of Building Capacity at USAID.”

Paper presented at Federal Evaluators Conference, Washington, D.C., 

November 1, 2012. Accessed September 11, 2014. 

http://www.fedeval.net/presen.htm.

Cousins, J. Bradley, Swee C. Goh, Catherine J. Elliott, and Isabelle 

Bourgeois. “Framing the Capacity to Do and Use Evaluation,” New 

Directions for Evaluation, 133 (Spring 2014): 7—24.

Dawes, Katherine. “Program Evaluation at EPA.” Paper presented at 

Federal Evaluators Conference, Washington, D.C., November 1, 2012. 

Accessed September 11, 2014. http://www.fedeval.net/presen.htm.

References
References

Page 58 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Goldman, Ian. “Developing a National Evaluation System in South Africa,”

eVALUatiOn Matters: A quarterly knowledge publication of the African 

Development Bank, 2(3) (September 2013): 42—49.

Labin, Susan N., Jennifer L. Duffy, Duncan C. Meyers, Abraham 

Wandersman, and Catherine A. Lesesne. “A Research Synthesis of the 

Evaluation Capacity Building Literature,” American Journal of Evaluation, 

33:307 (2012).

National Audit Office. Cross-Government: Evaluation in Government. 

Report by the National Audit Office. London, Eng. December 2013. 

Accessed September 24, 2014. www.nao.org.uk.

Partnership for Public Service and Grant Thornton. A Critical Role at a 

Critical Time: A Survey of Performance Improvement Officers. 

Washington, D.C.: April 2011. Accessed September 16, 2014. 

http://ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/viewcontentdetails.php?id=1

60.

Partnership for Public Service and Grant Thornton. Taking Measure: 

Moving from Process to Practice in Performance Management.

Washington, D.C.: September 2013. Accessed September 16, 2014. 

http://ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/viewcontentdetails.php?id=2

32.

Partnership for Public Service and IBM Center for the Business of 

Government. From Data to Decisions III: Lessons from Early Analytics 

Programs. Washington, D.C.: November 2013. Accessed September 16, 

2014. 

http://ourpublicservice.org/OPS/publications/viewcontentdetails.php?id=2

33.

Pew Charitable Trusts and MacArthur Foundation. States’ Use of CostBenefit Analysis: Improving Results for Taxpayers. Philadelphia: PewMacArthur Results First Initiative, July 29, 2013. Accessed October 31, 

2014. http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-andanalysis/reports/2013/07/29/states-use-of-costbenefit-analysis.

Rist, Ray C., Marie-Helene Boily, and Frederic Martin. Influencing 

Change: Building Evaluation Capacity to Strengthen Governance. 

Washington, D.C.: The World Bank, 2011. Accessed September 24, 

2014. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/
References

Page 59 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Segone, Marco, Caroline Heider, Riitta Oksanen, Soma de Silva, and 

Belen Sanz. “Towards a Shared Framework for National Evaluation 

Capacity Development,” eVALUatiOn Matters: A Quarterly Knowledge 

Publication of the African Development Bank, 2(3) (September 2013): 7—

25.

Segone, Marco, and Jim Rugh (eds.). Evaluation and Civil Society: 

Stakeholders’ Perspectives on National Evaluation Capacity 

Development. New York: UNICEF, EvalPartners, IOCE, 2013. Accessed 

September 24, 2014. 

http://www.mymande.org/Evaluation_and_Civil_Society.

Treasury Board of Canada. 2011 Annual Report on the Health of the 

Evaluation Function. Ottawa: 2012. Accessed September 24, 2014.

http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/report/orp/2012/arhef-raefetb-eng.asp.

United Nations Evaluation Group. National Evaluation Capacity 

Development: Practical Tips on How to Strengthen National Evaluation 

Systems. A report for the United Nations Evaluation Group Task Force on 

National Evaluation Capacity Development. New York: 2012. Accessed 

September 24, 2014. www.uneval.org/document/detail/1205.

U.S. Agency for International Development. Evaluation: Learning from 

Experience. USAID Evaluation Policy. Washington, D.C.: January 2011. 

Accessed September 25, 2014. http://www.usaid.gov/evaluation.

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention. Improving the Use of Program Evaluation for 

Maximum Health Impact: Guidelines and Recommendations. Atlanta: 

November 2012. Accessed September 24, 2014. http://www.cdc.gov/eval.

U.S. Department of Labor. U.S. Department of Labor Evaluation Policy. 

Washington, D.C.: November 2013. Accessed September 25, 2014. 

http://www.dol.gov/asp/evaluation/EvaluationPolicy.htm.

U.S. Department of State. Department of State Program Evaluation 

Policy. Washington, D.C.: February 23, 2012. Accessed September 24, 

2014. http://www.state.gov/s/d/rm/rls/evaluation/.
Related GAO Products

Page 60 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

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: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and 

Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance. GAO-14-639. 

Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2014.

Managing for Results: OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency 

Goals. GAO-14-526. Washington, D.C.: June 10, 2014.

Education Research: Further Improvements Needed to Ensure 

Relevance and Assess Dissemination Efforts. GAO-14-8. Washington, 

D.C.: December 5, 2013.

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.

Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies’ Use of Evaluation 

in Program Management and Policy Making. GAO-13-570. Washington, 

D.C.: June 26, 2013.

Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued 

Development of Performance.gov. GAO-13-517. Washington, D.C.: June 

6, 2013.

Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance 

Management Leadership Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed.

GAO-13-356. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2013.

Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise 

but Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies.

GAO-13-228. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2013.

Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to 

Help Inform Congressional Decision Making. GAO-12-621SP. 

Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2012.

President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief: Agencies Can Enhance 

Evaluation Quality, Planning and Dissemination. GAO-12-673. 

Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012.

Related GAO Products
Related GAO Products

Page 61 GAO-15-25 Program Evaluation

Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision. GAO-12-208G. Washington, D.C.: 

January 2012.

Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed to 

Improve Transparency and Accountability of Its Research Program.

GAO-11-285. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2011.

Program Evaluation: Experienced Agencies Follow a Similar Model for 

Prioritizing Research. GAO-11-176. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2011.

Employment and Training Administration: Increased Authority and 

Accountability Could Improve Research Program. GAO-10-243. 

Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2010.

Program Evaluation: A Variety of Rigorous Methods Can Help Identify 

Effective Interventions. GAO-10-30. Washington, D.C.: November 23, 

2009.

Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative 

Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington, 

D.C.: May 2, 2003.

Program Evaluation: Improving the Flow of Information to Congress. 

GAO/PEMD-95-1. Washington, D.C.: January 30, 1995.

(460630)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its 

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. 

GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 

cost is through GAO’s website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 

production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 

publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and 

white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s website, 

http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.