1 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

May 31, 2012

Congressional Addressees 

Subject: Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority 

Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to achieve—such as

those related to protecting food and agriculture, providing homeland security, and 

ensuring a well-trained and educated workforce—require the coordinated efforts of 

more than one federal agency and often more than one sector and level of government. 

Both Congress and the executive branch have recognized the need for improved 

collaboration across the federal government. Accordingly, in January 2011 the almost 

two-decades-old Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) was 

updated with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA or the act).1 The act 

establishes a new framework aimed at taking a more crosscutting and integrated 

approach to focusing on results and improving government performance. Effective 

implementation of the act could play an important role in clarifying desired outcomes, 

addressing program performance that spans multiple organizations, and facilitating 

future actions to reduce unnecessary duplication, overlap, and fragmentation.2 Among 

other things, the act requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to 

coordinate with agencies to establish outcome-oriented federal government priority 

goals—otherwise referred to as crosscutting goals—covering a limited number of policy 

areas as well as goals to improve management across the federal government.3

 It also 

requires that OMB—with the agencies—develop a federal government performance 

plan that defines the level of performance to be achieved toward the crosscutting 

goals.4

 

This report is part of our mandate that we assess implementation of the act. 5

 

1 Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). GPRAMA amends the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).

 Our 

specific objective for this report was to comment on the federal government’s interim

crosscutting priority goals provided in the President’s 2013 budget submission based on 

our prior work—and selected ongoing work—and identify our relevant open

recommendations and matters for congressional consideration. To accomplish this 

2 GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, Fragmentation, Achieve 

Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012). 3 31 U.S.C. § 1120(a)(1). 4 31 U.S.C. § 1115(a). 

5 GPRAMA, § 15(b)(1).
2 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

objective, we reviewed information that was included in the President’s 2013 budget 

submission and the federal government’s performance plan, which was released 

concurrently with the budget on the website www.goals.performance.gov. We then 

reviewed the work that we have conducted over a number of years related to each of 

the goals. We also updated the status of key open recommendations related to each of 

the goals with the appropriate agencies. 

We conducted our performance audit from March 2012 to May 2012 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 

plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a 

reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 

conclusions based on our audit objectives

The act requires that OMB develop federal government priority goals (crosscutting 

goals) and a federal government performance plan, which is to be updated annually and 

released concurrently with the President’s budget.

Development of Crosscutting Priority Goals and the Federal Government’s Performance 

Plan

6

 Specifically, it requires OMB, 

starting with the 2015 budget and in coordination with agencies and in consultation with 

the Congress, to develop—every 4 years—long-term, outcome-oriented goals for a 

limited number of crosscutting policy areas and goals for management improvement 

areas, including: financial management; human capital management; information 

technology management; procurement and acquisition management; and real property 

management. The goals are to be updated or revised every 4 years. In addition, OMB 

is required to develop interim priority goals, starting with the 2013 budget.7 OMB is also 

required to provide information on how these federal government priority goals will be 

achieved in a federal government performance plan. 

The President’s 2013 budget submission includes the federal government’s 14 interim 

crosscutting priority goals. Of these goals, 9 are related to crosscutting policy areas, 

and 5 are management improvement goals. These goals cover the following areas

• science, technology, engineering, and math education; 

• veteran career readiness; 

• broadband; 

• entrepreneurship and small businesses; 

• energy efficiency; 

• exports; 

 

6 31 U.S.C. §§ 1115(a), 1120(a).

7 GPRAMA, § 14(a)(1). As the Congressional Research Service explains, the act aligns the timing for 

many of its products with submission of the President's budget proposal. Initially, the law requires the 

President, OMB, and agencies to produce several products to accompany the President's fiscal year 

2013 budget proposal. The act provides that a one-year transition from the requirements of GPRA takes 

place. Consequently, the law characterizes some of these goals and plans as "interim" or "adjusted." 
3 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• job training; 

• cybersecurity; 

• sustainability; 

• financial management—improper payments; 

• human capital management—critical skills gaps; 

• information technology management—data center consolidation; 

• procurement and acquisition management—strategic sourcing; and

• real property management. 

As required by the act, OMB has identified a goal leader for each of the crosscutting 

priority goals in the federal government performance plan. These goal leaders are 

responsible for coordinating efforts to achieve each of the goals.

Our prior work provides insights into federal agencies’ efforts related to the 14 interim

crosscutting priority goals. We have provided this information in the attached 

enclosures 1–14. 

The act also requires that the federal government performance plan include the 

agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and 

other activities contributing to each crosscutting priority goal. Accordingly, the 

performance plan includes this information for each of the interim goals. The 

performance plan notes that additional programs with the potential to contribute to each 

of the goals may be identified over time. In that regard, our prior work has identified 

additional relevant departments, agencies and programs for 10 of the 14 interim goals. 

For example, we have previously reported that the Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) is one of the primary federal entities that has helped to plan a nationwide public 

safety broadband network, by among other things, conducting forums, coordinating 

federal efforts on broadband implementation, and writing educational materials about 

the broadband network. However, DHS is not listed as a responsible department under 

the broadband priority goal in the federal government performance plan. 

GAO’s Work Identifies Additional Departments, Agencies, and Programs Related to the 

Interim Goals

A detailed discussion of additional relevant departments, agencies and programs for 

each priority goal based on our work is included in the attached enclosures. 

Conclusions

The President’s 2013 budget submission includes the first interim crosscutting priority 

goals. The establishment of these goals marks an important opportunity for addressing 

some of the key crosscutting program and management challenges facing the federal 

government. Accordingly, if the federal government does not leverage all relevant 

parties, important opportunities for achieving these goals may be missed.
4 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Recommendation for Executive Action

We recommend that the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, in 

considering additional programs with the potential to contribute to the crosscutting 

goals, review the additional departments, agencies, and programs that we have 

identified, and consider including them in the federal government’s performance plan, 

as appropriate.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to the Acting Director of 

OMB. OMB staff agreed with our recommendation that OMB will review the additional 

departments, agencies, and programs that we have identified in our work, and 

determine if they are relevant to achieving the crosscutting goals. In a May 23, 2012, email, OMB staff commented that they appreciated the information provided by the report 

for consideration during the implementation-planning process. Further—as we 

acknowledge in our report—they noted that the initial lists of contributing 

agencies/programs published on performance.gov were not meant to be comprehensive 

of all programs with any contribution to the crosscutting goal, but as an initial 

identification of the key programs that will contribute toward goal achievement. For 

example, OMB staff noted that for the entrepreneurship and small business goal, the 

performance plan focused on those agencies that they feel have the most direct impact 

on entrepreneurship. They also noted that they believe that the goal process will be 

successful if it focuses strategically in the first instance, with a goal of 

comprehensiveness over time. In the case of the job-training goal, OMB noted that the 

current list on performance.gov is not yet comprehensive. In other cases, it highlighted 

some instances where additional agencies—beyond those already listed on 

performance.gov—will be included in efforts related to the federal government’s priority 

goals. For example, OMB notes that the efforts of all agencies will be coordinated 

through the 5-year STEM education strategic plan that the Office of Science and 

Technology Policy is developing through the National Science and Technology Council. 

The agency also notes that the additional agencies that we list as being relevant for the 

veteran career readiness goal have representation on task forces and interagency 

groups that will be responsible for the goal. 

OMB officials further explained that the current implementation planning phase of the 

crosscutting goal process is being used to refine the identification of which programs will 

be key to goal achievement, what the nature of that contribution will look like, and how it 

will be measured. As we acknowledge in our report, the officials explained that they 

expect that the published lists on performance.gov may change as new information 

comes to light in the implementation planning. Moreover, they noted that it is important

to point out that determinations regarding which programs to include in the initial lists 

were the result of a collaborative, interagency process that was led by the goal leaders 

with coordination from the Performance Improvement Council, which consists of more 

than two dozen federal agencies. We view this collaborative process to be a positive 

development.
5 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

OMB staff also provided technical comments, which we have included as appropriate.

- - - - - - 

We are sending copies of this report to the Acting Director of OMB as well as interested

congressional committees and other interested parties. The report will also be available 

at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. This report was prepared 

under the coordination of J. Christopher Mihm, Managing Director, Strategic Issues, 

who may be reached at (202) 512-6806, or mihmj@gao.gov. Specific questions about 

individual issues may be directed to the area contact listed at the end of each 

enclosure. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs 

may be found on the last page of this report. 

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues
6 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

List of Addressees 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman

Chairman

The Honorable Susan M. Collins

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka

Chairman

The Honorable Ronald H. Johnson

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and 

the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Scott Brown

Ranking Member

Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal 

Services and International Security, Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, United States Senate

The Honorable Kent Conrad

Chairman

The Honorable Jeff Sessions 

Ranking Member

Committee on the Budget, United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner, Chairman, Task Force on Government Performance, 

United States Senate 

The Honorable Paul Ryan 

Chairman 

The Honorable Chris Van Hollen

Ranking Member

Committee on the Budget, United States House of Representatives

The Honorable Elijah Cummings, Ranking Member, Committee on Oversight and 

Government Reform, United States House of Representatives 
7 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 1:

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math Education

Goal Statement: In support of the President’s goal that the U.S. have the highest 

proportion of college graduates in the world by 2020, the federal government will work 

with education partners to improve the quality of science, technology, engineering, and 

math (STEM) education at all levels to help increase the number of well-prepared 

graduates with STEM degrees by one-third over the next 10 years, resulting in an 

additional 1 million graduates with degrees in STEM subjects.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Department of Education:

• Mathematics and Science Partnerships Program/Effective Teaching and 

Learning for a Complete Education;

• Investing in Innovation Fund;

• Improving Teacher Quality State Grants/Effective Teacher and Leader State 

Grants; and

• Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions STEM and articulation programs. 

National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

• National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program; 

• Minority University Research Education Program; and

• Formal and Informal Education. 

National Science Foundation:

• Transforming Undergrad Education in STEM;

• Widening Implementation and Demonstration of Evidence-Based Reforms;

• Math and Science Partnership Program;

• Robert Noyce Teacher Scholarship Program;

• Graduate Research Fellowships Program;

• Research Experiences for Undergraduates Program;

• Historically Black Colleges and Universities—Undergraduate Program; and

• Informal Science Education. 

Department of Health and Human Services—National Institutes of Health (NIH): 

• NIH Undergraduate Research Experiences to Support Science Learning. 
8 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

Nuclear Regulatory Commission;

Department of Agriculture; 

Department of Commerce: 

• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; and

• National Institute of Standards and Technology. 

Department of Defense; 

Department of Energy; 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

• Health Resources and Services Administration. 

Department of Homeland Security; 

Department of the Interior; 

Department of Transportation; and

Environmental Protection Agency. 

GAO Comments

Research shows that the United States (U.S.) lacks a strong pipeline of future workers 

in STEM fields and that U.S. students continue to lag behind students in other highly 

technological nations in mathematics and science achievement. The administration’s

goal to improve the quality of STEM education and increase the number of wellprepared graduates with STEM degrees by one-third over the next 10 years aims to 

address these shortcomings. The federal government invests billions of dollars 

annually through more than 200 STEM Education programs. While these programs are 

not necessarily duplicative, our work shows that poor coordination among the many 

agencies that oversee these programs and the lack of a governmentwide strategic plan 

have hampered the effectiveness of the federal effort.

In naming STEM education as a crosscutting goal, the administration is taking the first 

step towards creating a governmentwide plan to achieve its goal. However, a number 

of limitations could hamper progress. 

• There were 13 federal agencies that administered 209 STEM education 

programs in fiscal year 2010. Most of these programs overlap with each other to 

some degree in that they share the same objectives, serve the same target 

groups, and provide the same services. The administration said it will release a 

5-year strategic plan this spring that will improve the coordination and efficiency 

of these programs, but the specifics of this plan have not yet been released. 

• Nine of the agencies did not connect STEM education activities to agency goals 

in their annual performance plans while 11 did not measure and report on the 
9 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

progress of STEM education activities in their annual performance plans. This 

may hinder decision makers’ ability to assess how these STEM education 

programs contribute to the overall federal effort. When the administration 

releases its 5-year strategic plan, it plans to identify specific roles and 

responsibilities for each agency and develop implementation timelines with 

annual actions and milestones to create a road map for agency implementation 

efforts, track progress towards the 5-year strategic plan goals, and report on the 

impact of STEM education programs.

• Little is known about the effectiveness and performance of STEM education 

programs because the majority of them have not been evaluated in the last 5 

years. Moreover, when an evaluation was conducted of a program the results 

were not always shared in a way that facilitated knowledge sharing and, 

according to National Science and Technology Council officials, most agencies 

do not share or disseminate evaluations in a way that could be useful for 

coordination. Program officials reported that the most common means of 

dissemination of their results were through their websites or at conferences or 

forums, which, according to a 2006 National Science and Technology Council 

report, were methods that require practitioners to actively seek out results, so 

such methods may prevent the results of the research from being conveyed to 

them. However, these mechanisms have limits. To address these deficiencies, 

the administration’s strategic plan is to include common metrics, criteria to 

measure success, and a strategy to disseminate evidence-based practices.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

In 2012, we reviewed STEM education programs and made four recommendations (see 

section below for a list of reports). Our first recommendation was that in order to ensure 

the federal government strategically invests limited funds in an efficient and effective 

manner that achieves the greatest impact in developing a pipeline of future workers in 

STEM fields, the Director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) should 

direct the National Science and Technology Council (NSTC) to work with agencies, 

through its strategic-planning process to identify programs that might be candidates for 

consolidation or elimination. Specifically, this step could be achieved through an

analysis that includes information on program overlap, similar to the analysis we

conducted, and information on program effectiveness. As part of this effort, OSTP 

should work with agency officials to identify and report any changes in statutory 

authority necessary to execute each specific program consolidation identified by 

NSTC’s strategic plan. 

Second, we recommended that in order to ensure NSTC’s strategic-planning process 

enhances the federal government’s ability to assess what works and that the process 

for identifying potential program consolidation includes information on program 

effectiveness, the Director of OSTP should direct NSTC to develop guidance to help 

agencies determine the types of evaluations that may be feasible and appropriate for 

different types of STEM education programs and develop a mechanism for sharing this 
10 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

information across agencies. This step could include guidance and sharing of 

information that outlines practices for evaluating similar types of programs. 

Third, we recommended that in order to ensure agencies’ efforts are better aligned to 

governmentwide STEM education goals and that federal resources are concentrated on 

advancing those goals, the Director of OSTP should direct NSTC to develop guidance 

for how agencies can better incorporate each agency’s STEM education efforts and the 

goals from NSTC’s 5-year STEM education strategic plan into each agency’s own 

performance plans and reports. 

Fourth, we recommended that in order to improve transparency and strengthen 

accountability of NSTC’s strategic planning and coordination efforts, the Director of 

OSTP should direct NSTC to develop a framework for how agencies will be monitored 

to ensure that they are collecting and reporting on NSTC strategic plan goals. This 

framework should include alternatives for a sustained focus on monitoring coordination 

of STEM programs if the NSTC Committee on STEM terminates in 2015 as called for in 

its charter.

OMB stated that our four recommendations above are critical to improving the provision 

of STEM education across the federal government. OSTP stated that it will address our

recommendations in the NSTC 5-year Federal STEM Education Strategic Plan, which 

will be released in spring 2012.

Selected Reports

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Strategic Planning 

Needed to Better Manage Overlapping Programs across Multiple Agencies. GAO-12-

108. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics Education: Survey of Federal 

Programs. GAO-12-110SP. Washington, D.C.: January 20, 2012. 

Higher Education: Federal Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 

Programs and Related Trends. GAO-06-114. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2005.

GAO Contact

George A. Scott, Director, scottg@gao.gov, (202) 512-7215 
11 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 2

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Veteran Career Readiness

Goal Statement: Improve career readiness of veterans. By September 30, 2013, 

increase the percent of eligible service members who will be served by career readiness 

and preparedness programs from 50 percent to 90 percent in order to improve their 

competitiveness in the job market.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

A Department of Defense - Department of Veterans Affairs Task Force that includes 

representation from Department of Labor, Department of Defense (to include 

representatives of the military services), Department of Veterans Affairs, Department of 

Education, the Office of Management and Budget, and the Office of Personnel 

Management, will lead this goal, guided by White House leadership.

Contributing Programs:

Department of Labor:

• Transition Assistance Program; 

• Veterans Gold Card; and

• One Stop Career Centers. 

Department of Veterans Affairs:

• Vet Success on Campus; 

• Montgomery GI Bill/Post-9/11 GI Bill Education programs; 

• Vocation Rehabilitation & Employment; 

• Veterans Jobs Corp; and

• VA for Vets. 

Department of Defense:

• Transition Assistance Program; 

• Disabled Transition Assistance Program; 

• Transition Boot Camp; and

• Career Decision Toolkit. 

Department of Education:

• Veterans Upward Bound Program

Department of Commerce:

• Veterans Employment Office 
12 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Small Business Administration:

• Vet Entrepreneurship Boot Camp. 

Tax Expenditures:

• Returning Heroes Tax Credit; and

• Wounded Warrior Tax Credit. 

Other:

• Joining Forces Campaign; 

• National Resource Directory; 

• Veterans Jobs Bank; and

• Community Health Centers to hire 8,000 veterans. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

United States Department of Labor:

• Disabled Veterans Outreach Program; 

• Local Veterans’ Employment Representative Program; 

• Homeless Veterans’ Reintegration Program; and

• Veterans’ Workforce Investment Program. 

The Joint Department of Labor and Department of Veterans Affairs Work Group. 

GAO Comments

For over 20 years, we have periodically reported on individual employment and training 

programs and specific populations of veterans who use them and made 

recommendations to improve program coordination and performance measurement. 

Because programs that target veterans may provide similar types of employment and 

training services, coordination across agencies and programs is critical. The 

Department of Labor (Labor) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) have taken 

steps to address our past recommendations by completing and approving a plan to 

track the implementation of state-level memorandums of agreement. The Joint Labor 

and VA Work Group is charged with overseeing the plan. The goal for veteran career 

readiness may provide a mechanism to encourage collaboration across government. 

However, as noted above in the additional relevant programs section, there are other 

programs that can contribute to the goal beyond those already identified in the plan. 

We have ongoing work examining the extent to which federal veterans’ employment and 

training programs coordinate services. 
13 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

Our September 2008 report examined the Benefits Delivery at Discharge program, 

which allows servicemembers to complete their VA disability benefits application while 

they are still in the military and provides access to VA personnel located at their base to 

assist them. Two of the report’s recommendations focused more broadly on the 

Transition Assistance Program (TAP), which provides briefings on a variety of topics 

related to benefits and services available to servicemembers as they are discharged 

and begin life as veterans. We recommended that the Secretary of Defense should 

direct the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness to establish (1) an 

accurate measure of service members’ participation in TAP including VA benefit 

briefings and (2) a plan with specific time frames for meeting the goal of 85 percent 

participation rate in TAP. While the Department of Defense had taken some steps to 

review TAP participation and performance measures, a new law passed in November 

2011, which made participation in the TAP program mandatory for all servicemembers, 

and made the recommendation for 85 percent participation unnecessary. We are

working with the Department of Defense to determine how the agency will track TAP 

participation consistent with new legal requirements.

Selected Reports

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating 

Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. GAO11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011. 

VA Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment: Better Incentives, Workforce Planning, 

and Performance Reporting Could Improve Program. GAO-09-34. Washington, D.C.: 

January 26, 2009. 

Veterans’ Disability Benefits: Better Accountability and Access Would Improve the 

Benefits Delivery at Discharge Program. GAO-08-901. Washington, D.C.: September 9, 

2008. 

 

Disabled Veterans’ Employment: Additional Planning, Monitoring, and Data Collection 

Efforts Would Improve Assistance. GAO-07-1020. Washington, D.C.: September 12, 

2007. 

Veterans’ Employment and Training Service: Labor Could Improve Information on 

Reemployment Services, Outcomes, and Program Impact. GAO-07-594. Washington, 

D.C.: May 24, 2007. 

GAO Contacts

Andrew Sherrill, Director, sherrilla@gao.gov, (202) 512-7215

Barbara Bovbjerg, Managing Director, bovbjergb@gao.gov, (202) 512-7215
14 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 3

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Broadband

Goal Statement: As part of expanding all broadband capabilities, ensure 4G broadband 

coverage for 98 percent of Americans by 2016.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Department of Commerce:

• Broadband Technology Opportunities Program; and

• National Telecommunications and Information Administration. 

Federal Communications Commission:

• National Broadband Plan. 

Department of Agriculture:

• Broadband Initiatives Program; 

• Rural Broadband Loan Program; 

• Community Connect Grants; and

• Rural Telecom Loan Program. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

Department of Homeland Security

GAO Comments

In 2010, we identified actions that stakeholders in other countries considered effective 

to increase broadband deployment and adoption—(1) instituting plans and policies, (2) 

providing funds through public/private partnerships, (3) increasing competition, (4) 

expanding online services, and (5) providing digital-literacy training or consumer 

subsidies or both. The federal government has taken several steps in this direction. In 

particular, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) released the National 

Broadband Plan with over 200 recommendations for FCC, other government agencies, 

and Congress; and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) provided $7.2 billion for the Departments of Agriculture and Commerce to expand 

broadband deployment and adoption.8

 

8 Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).

 However, we also noted that performance goals 

and measures, data, and oversight are important to ensure the success of these efforts. 

For example, we found that FCC does not collect data on aspects of competition in the 

wireless industry, and the Department of Agriculture lacks outcome-based performance 
15 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

goals and measures for its Recovery Act broadband loan program. With respect to 

using funds from the Universal Service Fund (USF) for broadband deployment, we have 

reported long-standing weaknesses with FCC’s management of USF, including that 

FCC has not undertaken a data-driven approach to overseeing USF or established 

performance goals and measures for USF programs. Furthermore, we previously 

reported that repurposing USF funds for broadband services could cause the size of the 

fund to greatly expand unless policymakers reexamine its purpose, design, and 

management, and the FCC improves its management and oversight processes to 

ensure the program’s cost-effectiveness. 

The goal of extending advanced 4G wireless coverage to 98 percent of Americans will 

rely on adequate radio frequency spectrum allocated for this purpose since spectrum is 

necessary to deliver wireless broadband to consumers. We have previously reported 

that the demand for spectrum is increasing as the U.S. experiences significant growth in 

commercial wireless broadband services. Currently, there are federal government 

initiatives under way aimed at identifying spectrum that can be made available to meet 

the nation’s increased demand for commercial wireless broadband services. For 

example, in June 2010, the President issued a memorandum directing the National 

Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to begin identifying federal 

spectrum that can be made available for wireless broadband, and the National 

Broadband Plan recommended that 500 megahertz of spectrum be made newly 

available for broadband use within the next 10 years. However, as new spectrumdependent technologies and services are brought to the market and new mission needs 

unfold among government users, concerns exist about the availability of additional 

spectrum for future needs. Furthermore, most of the usable spectrum in the U.S. has 

been allocated to existing uses, and changes that affect existing users can cause 

contentious stakeholder conflicts that cross the jurisdictions of the federal agencies that 

oversee the spectrum—FCC and the NTIA—and can lead to protracted negotiations.

The broadband priority goal notes that as part of the strategy to implement the goal, the 

administration is working to develop a fully functioning and interoperable public safety 

broadband network to ensure that the public safety needs are met and make excess 

network capacity available for commercial use when available. We have previously 

reported that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is one of the primary federal 

entities that have helped to plan a nationwide public safety broadband network by, 

among other things, conducting forums, coordinating federal efforts on broadband 

implementation, and writing educational materials about the broadband network. 

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

In 2009, we recommended that the Secretary of Agriculture establish quantifiable, 

outcome-based performance goals by which to measure the program effectiveness of 

its Broadband Initiatives Program, which was funded through the Recovery Act. 

According to agency officials, as of February 2012, the department has developed 

short-term performance metrics for the Broadband Initiatives Program and is working 
16 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

with the Department of Agriculture’s Economic Research Service to explore longer-term 

economic and other impacts of the broadband infrastructure.

In 2010, we recommended that FCC assess whether expanding its original data 

collection of wireless industry inputs and outputs—such as prices, special access rates, 

capital expenditures, and equipment costs—would help it better satisfy its requirement 

to review competitive market conditions with respect to commercial mobile services. On 

June 29, 2010, FCC sought comments on additional data that it should collect to inform 

the commission's policy-making activities; but as of February 2012, FCC had not issued 

a report or adopted an order pertaining to this effort.

In 2010, we recommended that FCC conduct an assessment of the current 

telecommunications needs of rural health care providers and develop effective goals 

and performance measures linked to those goals for the USF Rural Health Care 

Program. As of February 2012, FCC had not released any orders or letters that 

address these recommendations.

Selected Reports

Emergency Communications: Various Challenges Likely to Slow Implementation of a 

Public Safety Broadband Network. GAO-12-343. Washington, D.C.: February 22, 2012. 

Commercial Spectrum: Plans and Actions to Meet Future Needs, Including Continued 

Use of Auctions. GAO-12-118. Washington, D.C.: November 23, 2011. 

Spectrum Management: NTIA Planning and Processes Need Strengthening to Promote 

the Efficient Use of Spectrum by Federal Agencies. GAO-11-352. Washington, D.C.:

April 12, 2011. 

Recovery Act: Further Opportunities Exist to Strengthen Oversight of Broadband 

Stimulus Programs. GAO-10-823. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2010. 

Telecommunications: Enhanced Data Collection Could Help FCC Better Monitor 

Competition In The Wireless Industry. GAO-10-779. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2010. 

Recovery Act: Agencies Are Addressing Broadband Program Challenges, But Actions 

Are Needed To Improve Implementation. GAO-10-80. Washington, D.C.: November 16,

2009.

GAO Contacts

Mark Goldstein, Director, goldsteinm@gao.gov, (202) 512-2834

Phil Herr, Managing Director, herrp@gao.gov, (202) 512-2834
17 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 4

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Entrepreneurship and Small Businesses

Goal Statement: Increase federal services to entrepreneurs and small businesses with 

an emphasis on 1) startups and growing firms and 2) underserved markets.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Small Business Administration:

• Small Business Development Centers;

• Women’s Business Development Centers;

• Small Business Lending Programs (7(a), 504, Microloans, Intermediary Lender);

• Small Business Investment Company; and

• Small Business Contracting Task Force. 

Department of the Treasury:

• Community Development Financial Institutions;

• State Small Business Credit Initiative; and

• New Markets Tax Credit. 

Department of Commerce:

• i6 Challenge; and

• Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge. 

Department of Defense:

• Small Business Innovation Research; and

• Small Business Technology Transfer. 

National Science Foundation:

• Innovation Corps; and

• Commercialization Plan. 

Veterans Affairs:

• Center for Veterans Enterprise. 

Department of Energy:

• America’s Next Top Energy Innovator; and

• Innovative Ecosystems Initiative. 

Department of Agriculture:
18 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Agriculture Lending Programs (B&I, microlending); and

• Agriculture Technology Innovation Partnership. 

Department of Health and Human Services—National Institutes of Health:

• Startup Evaluation License Agreement Program. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

As part of our ongoing work to assess potential duplication, overlap, and fragmentation 

of economic development programs, we have identified the following additional 

programs that can assist entrepreneurs with access to financing, mentorship/counseling 

services, and government contracts/research grants at the four agencies included within 

the scope of our review. These programs typically can fund a variety of activities in 

addition to providing support to entrepreneurs.

Department of Agriculture: 

• Small Socially-Disadvantaged Producer Grants; 

• Value Added Producer Grants; 

• Intermediary Re-lending; 

• Rural Cooperative Development Grants; 

• Empowerment Zones; 

• Woody Biomass Utilization Grant Program; 

• Rural Business Enterprise Grants; 

• Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program; 

• Small Business Innovation Research; and

• Rural Business Opportunity Grants. 

Department of Commerce: 

• Global Climate Change Mitigation Incentive Fund; 

• Grants for Public Works and Economic Development Facilities; 

• Trade Adjustment Assistance; 

• Minority Business Centers; 

• Native American Business Enterprise Centers; 

• Economic Adjustment Assistance; 

• Economic Development/ Support for Planning Organizations; and
19 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Economic Development/ Technical Assistance. 

Department of Housing and Urban Affairs (HUD): 

• Rural Innovation Fund; 

• Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Disaster Recovery Grants; 

• Hispanic Serving Institutions Assisting Communities; 

• Indian CDBG; 

• CDBG/Brownfields Economic Development Initiative; 

• CDBG/Non-entitlement CDBG Grants in Hawaii; 

• CDBG/Section 108 Loan Guarantees; 

• CDBG/ Special Purpose Insular Areas; 

• CDBG/States; 

• CDBG/Entitlement Grants; 

• Section 4 Capacity Building for Affordable Housing and Community 

Development; and

• Alaska Native/Native Hawaiian Institutions Assisting Communities. 

Small Business Administration: 

• 8(a) Business Development Program; 

• 7(j) Technical Assistance; 

• Procurement Assistance to Small Businesses; 

• Service Corps of Retired Executives; 

• Veterans’ Business Outreach Centers; 

• Program for Investment in Micro-Entrepreneurs; 

• Historically Underutilized Business Zones; and

• Federal and State Technology Partnership Program. 

GAO Comments

A wide range of federal agencies administer programs that provide assistance to 

entrepreneurs and small businesses. Little, however, is known about the combined 

results of federal efforts to assist entrepreneurs and small businesses or the 

contributions of each individual program. In addition, the federal government 

performance plan does not establish targets for meeting this crosscutting goal. As part 

of our ongoing work on federal economic development programs, we identified 80 

programs at four agencies—the Departments of Agriculture (USDA), Department of 
20 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Commerce (Commerce), and Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as well as the 

Small Business Administration (SBA)—that can support various economic development 

activities, including 53 programs with missions related to supporting entrepreneurs. 

Among these 53 programs, we found evidence of overlap and fragmentation in 

programs that can provide support to entrepreneurs. For example, 36 programs across 

the four agencies provide technical assistance, including business training, counseling, 

as well as research and development support. Thirty-three programs across the four 

agencies support entrepreneurs through financial assistance in the form of grants and 

loans.

We found that most of the 53 economic development programs we identified that 

support entrepreneurs have performance measures that align with their missions and 

tend to meet their annual performance goals. However, we found that few evaluation 

studies have been completed, and little evaluative information exists to assess 

programs’ effectiveness. Program evaluations are systematic ways to assess a broader 

range of information on program performance and can help identify that programs are 

effective or not, explain why goals were not met and identify strategies for meeting 

unmet goals, and estimate what would have occurred in the absence of the program. 

Congress and the agencies need meaningful performance information such as 

evaluation studies and performance measures to help decision makers identify ways to 

make more informed decisions about allocating increasingly scarce resources among 

programs, including tax expenditures.

To address issues arising from potential overlap and fragmentation in economic 

development programs, we previously identified collaborative practices agencies should 

consider implementing in order to maximize performance and results of federal 

programs that share common outcomes. Our work to date shows that three of the four 

agencies—Commerce, SBA, and USDA—have taken initial steps to implement at least 

one of the collaborative practices, defining and articulating common outcomes for some 

of their related programs. However, the four agencies have provided limited evidence 

that they have taken steps to develop compatible policies or procedures with other 

federal agencies or to search for opportunities to leverage physical and administrative 

resources with their federal partners.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

In a 2012 report, we identified the following actions we expect to recommend based on 

our ongoing work: 

• Congress may wish to consider ways to tie funding more closely to a program’s 

demonstrated effectiveness. One way to increase accountability and elevate the 

importance of program evaluation activities is to tie these factors to funding 

decisions. Therefore, Congress may want to consider requiring agencies to provide 

greater support for funding requests and requiring information on demonstrated 

results of program effectiveness.

• Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA should improve program evaluation and 

performance metrics. In order to identify options to better structure these programs 
21 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

for the Congress to consider, these agencies should conduct program evaluations 

and collect data on performance measures.

• The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and four agencies (Commerce, HUD, 

SBA, and USDA) should explore opportunities to restructure programs through 

means such as consolidation, elimination, and collaborative mechanisms, both 

within and across agencies. As OMB works with the agencies to identify 

programmatic areas that should be better coordinated and tracked, the agencies 

should look for ways to consolidate programs or opportunities for greater 

collaboration. In addition, to better ensure the most efficient and effective delivery 

method for federal assistance to entrepreneurs, SBA, Commerce, HUD, and USDA 

should individually and collectively explore options for restructuring programs that 

target particular types of businesses or communities and report the results of their 

efforts to the Congress.

The agencies did not fully agree with the needed actions above. For example, OMB 

stated that the Administration has taken a number of steps to increase coordination 

among economic and entrepreneurial development programs, provide better service to 

businesses seeking federal services, and improve performance evaluation. According 

to OMB, the new BusinessUSA website will help remedy many of the coordination and 

fragmentation issues identified in our report. The website is intended to provide a virtual 

one-stop shop for small businesses and enable them to access the wide array of federal 

programs and services available to them across the government regardless of where 

they are located. As we continue work in this area, we plan to further monitor and 

assess OMB’s efforts to work with Commerce, HUD, USDA, and SBA to increase 

coordination among economic development programs, provide better service to 

businesses under the programs, and improve program evaluation.

Commerce also stated the report did not recognize the significant advances that 

Commerce’s Economic Development Agency has made to improve program evaluation 

with the development of a performance management improvement logic model. We

recognize the action that the Economic Development Agency has taken to develop its 

new performance management model. However, because the Economic Development 

Agency has not completely designed its new model or provided sufficient information to 

explain how results of program evaluations will be included in the model, this action did

not change our findings. As we continue work in this area, we plan to further monitor 

and assess the efforts Commerce, HUD, SBA, and USDA undertake to improve 

program evaluation and performance metrics.

Selected Reports

Efficiency and Effectiveness of Fragmented Economic Development Programs Are 

Unclear. GAO-11-477R. Washington, D.C.: May 19, 2011. 

Revitalization Programs: Empowerment Zones, Enterprise Communities, and Renewal 

Communities. GAO-10-464R. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2010. 
22 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

New Markets Tax Credit: The Credit Helps Fund a Variety of Projects in Low-Income 

Communities, but Could Be Simplified. GAO-10-334. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 

2010.

Rural Economic Development: Collaboration between SBA and USDA Could Be 

Improved. GAO-08-1123. Washington, D.C.: September 18, 2008. 

Small Business Administration: Additional Actions Are Needed to Certify and Monitor 

HUBZone Businesses and Assess Program Results. GAO-08-643. Washington, D.C.: 

June 17, 2008. 

Small Business Administration: Additional Measures Needed to Assess 7(a) Loan 

Program’s Performance. GAO-07-769. Washington, D.C.: July 13, 2007.

GAO Contact

William B. Shear, Director, shearw@gao.gov, (202) 512-4325
23 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 5 

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Energy Efficiency

Goal Statement: Reduce Energy Intensity (energy demand/$ real GDP) 50 percent by 

2035 (2010 as base year).

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Environmental Protection Agency:

• Greenhouse Gas Standards for light-duty vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty 

trucks; and 

• ENERGY STAR Program.

Department of Transportation:

• Fuel Economy Standards for light-duty vehicles and medium- and heavy-duty 

trucks. 

Department of Energy:

• Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, including:

o Vehicle Technologies Program;

o Better Buildings, Better Plants Initiative;

o Building Technologies Program;

o Advanced Manufacturing Office;

o Weatherization Assistance Program and Intergovernmental 

Activities;

o Appliances and Commercial Equipment Standards;

o Federal Energy Management Program; and

o ARPA-E.

Department of Housing and Urban Development:

• Office of Sustainable Housing and Communities.

Tax Expenditures:

• Expensing of exploration and development costs, fuels;

• Excess of percentage over cost depletion, fuels; 

• Exception from passive loss limitation for working interests in oil and gas 

properties; 

• Capital gains treatment of royalties on coal; 

• Exclusion of interest on energy facility bonds; 
24 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Energy production credit; 

• Energy investment credit; 

• Tax credit and deduction for clean-fuel burning vehicles; 

• Exclusion of utility conservation subsidies; 

• Allowance of deduction for certain energy efficient commercial building property; 

• Credit for construction of new energy efficient homes; 

• Credit for energy efficiency improvements to existing homes; 

• Credit for energy efficient appliances; 

• Credit for residential energy efficient property; 

• Qualified energy conservation bonds; and, 

• Advanced Energy Property Credit. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for this Goal Based on 

GAO Work

In our 2012 report, we identified an additional 6 federal agencies that implemented 

initiatives that foster green building in non-federal buildings, namely: 

• Department of Agriculture;

• Department of Commerce; 

• Department of Defense; 

• Department of Education;

• Department of Health and Human Services; and

• Small Businesses Administration. 

GAO Comments

Federal energy efficiency programs include the efforts of multiple federal agencies that 

play a key role in national energy conservation; among other things, the agencies 

establish national standards and incentives for efficiency, provide energy consumption 

information for some products, sponsor energy efficiency research and development, 

and establish energy savings goals for its own operations. In prior reports, we identified 

challenges among agencies collaborating to achieve energy efficiency goals. For 

example, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have worked to propose corporate average fuel 

economy (CAFE) standards and greenhouse gas (GHG) standards for passenger cars 

and light trucks that are generally aligned so manufacturers can build a single fleet of 

vehicles to comply with both standards for model years 2012 to 2016. NHTSA and EPA 

are collaborating by sharing resources and expertise to jointly set these standards. 
25 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

However, this collaboration is not formally required, and the agencies are not 

documenting the processes used. Additionally, EPA and the Department of Energy 

(DOE) have made considerable progress in their ongoing efforts to implement 

significant changes to the Energy Star program, which includes the goal of reducing 

GHG emissions and energy consumption, as agreed to in a 2009 memorandum of 

understanding. However, we found that Energy Star does not have an independent 

administrative review process where adverse agency decisions can be reviewed, and 

there was a lack of transparency in EPA’s key decisions.

DOE has also taken steps to address a variety of strategies to achieve energy efficiency 

goals. For example, a long-term goal of the Weatherization Assistance Program, which 

helps low income families by making long-term energy efficiency improvements to their 

homes, is to increase energy efficiency through cost-effective weatherization work. 

According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory’s (ORNL) March 2010 preliminary 

estimates, every $1 spent on the weatherization program for 2009 through 2011 would 

result in $1.80 in energy savings over the useful life of the investment, and an additional 

$0.70 for every dollar spent on the program for nonenergy generates benefits, such as 

reduced emissions of carbon dioxide resulting from lower residential fuel and electricity 

consumption. ORNL plans to issue more definitive estimates in 2013, and DOE officials 

stated that the results of this 2013 study will be used to strengthen current protocols for 

determining the most cost-effective weatherization work. Additionally, DOE is required 

to issue rules that set minimum energy efficiency standards for most consumer product 

categories—such as refrigerators, dishwashers, furnaces, and hot water heaters—by 

mandated deadlines in order to eliminate the least efficient products from the market. 

However, we found in January 2007 that DOE had missed all of the deadlines for 

rulemaking that had come due, a delay that was estimated to cost at least $28 billion in 

forgone energy savings by 2030. In our report, we recommended that DOE make 

improvements to its management practices in order to increase the likelihood that its 

plan for updating minimum energy efficiency standards would be successfully 

implemented. Those recommendations have been implemented, and we found that 

DOE has made significant progress toward updating the standards that we reported as 

backlogged. For example, from 2007 to 2011, DOE doubled the program staff and 

increased its budget for contractor support from $10 million/year to $35 million and, in 

2010, hired a new program manager to improve program management and operations. 

In prior reports, we have also found challenges in measuring progress toward energy 

efficiency goals. For example, DOE has taken several steps to implement the 

Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing (ATVM) loan program. The ATVM 

program was authorized to provide loans to support projects to produce more fuelefficient passenger vehicles and components, among other things. The program set 

three goals: increase the fuel economy of U.S. passenger vehicles as a whole, advance 

U.S. automotive technology, and protect taxpayers’ financial interests. However, DOE 

has not developed sufficient performance measures that would enable it to fully assess 

the extent to which it has achieved its three program goals. In addition, we found that 

the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which administers, and DOE, which assists in 

administering the EnergyGuide program requiring energy consumption labels on certain 
26 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

household products, had not: (1) updated the products required to carry the 

EnergyGuide label, (2) conducted inspections to ensure that the EnergyGuide label was 

present and available for consumers considering purchases, and (3) estimated the 

costs and energy savings of the program. 

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We recommended in 2010 that NHTSA should identify opportunities to evaluate the 

accuracy of key estimates, such as technology costs, used to determine the model year 

2008 through 2011 light truck standards. As EPA has experience conducting 

retrospective analyses of regulatory programs, NHTSA should consider involving EPA 

in this process. We also recommended that NHTSA and EPA should document the 

process used in this joint rule making to establish a road map for any future rule making 

efforts and facilitate future collaboration. In addition, NHTSA and EPA should publish 

this documentation in order to increase transparency. Officials from the Department of 

Transportation—which houses NHTSA— and EPA generally agreed with the 

recommendation, but as of April 2012, the recommendations remain open as work is 

not yet complete.

We also recommended in 2010 that DOE revisit the various methodologies used in 

determining the weatherization work that should be performed based on the 

consideration of cost-effectiveness and develop standard methodologies that ensure 

that priority is given to the most cost-effective weatherization work. To validate any 

methodologies created, this effort should include the development of standards for 

accurately measuring the long-term energy savings resulting from weatherization work 

conducted. DOE officials generally agreed with the recommendation and, as of April 

2012, in response to our recommendation, have begun to take actions to address it.

We also recommended in 2011 that to ensure decisions of the Energy Star program are 

fair and transparent, the Administrator of EPA should assess the need to develop a 

process for independent review of adverse agency decisions for the Energy Star 

program as it relates to setting specifications and disqualifications. If the Administrator 

of EPA determines that there is a need for an independent review process but that the 

agency has insufficient legal authority to undertake one, it should seek additional 

authority from Congress. EPA officials neither agreed nor disagreed with the 

recommendation and stated that close attention will continue to be paid to ensuring 

transparency in the program’s operation and careful consideration of stakeholder input 

and interest.

Additionally, we recommended in 2011 that to help ensure the effectiveness and 

accountability of the ATVM program, the Secretary of Energy should direct the ATVM 

Program Office to develop sufficient and quantifiable performance measures for its 

three goals. DOE disagreed with this recommendation and has not yet implemented 

such performance measures. While DOE rightly established goals for the ATVM 

program we still believe the performance measures are insufficient and DOE is unable 

to assess its progress in accomplishing the program’s goals. DOE’s failure to develop 
27 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

and use appropriate performance measures means that Congress lacks important 

information on whether the funds spent so far are furthering the program’s goals and, 

consequently, whether the program warrants continued support.

We made several recommendations in 2007 to FTC and DOE regarding the 

EnergyGuide program, including that it regularly review product categories not currently 

covered to assess whether they should be added, regularly measure the costs and 

energy savings of the EnergyGuide program, and conduct periodic inspections of retail 

environments (including the web) to ensure that the EnergyGuide labels are available to 

consumers. As of April 2012, FTC took steps to require that televisions carry the 

EnergyGuide label and has conducted inspections of retail environments and identified 

instances of noncompliance and taken enforcement action. FTC does review the costs 

of the EnergyGuide program, but has not measured the overall effectiveness of the 

program as GAO recommended. In addition, DOE has not evaluated the energy 

savings of the EnergyGuide program as required by law. 

Selected Reports

Recovery Act: Progress and Challenges in Spending Weatherization Funds. GAO-12-

195. Washington, D.C.: December 16, 2011.

Energy Star: Providing Opportunities for Additional Review of EPA’s Decisions Could 

Strengthen the Program. GAO-11-888. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2011.

Department of Energy: Advanced Technology Vehicle Loan Program Implementation Is 

Under Way, but Enhanced Technical Oversight and Performance Measures Are 

Needed. GAO-11-145. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2011.

Recovery Act: States’ and Localities’ Uses of Funds and Actions Needed to Address 

Implementation Challenges and Bolster Accountability. GAO-10-604. Washington, D.C.: 

May 26, 2010. 

Vehicle Fuel Economy: NHTSA and EPA’s Partnership for Setting Fuel Economy and 

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Standards Improved Analysis and Should be Maintained. 

GAO-10-336. Washington, D.C.: February 25, 2010.

Energy Efficiency: Opportunities Exist for Federal Agencies to Better Inform Household 

Consumers. GAO-07-1162. Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2007.

Energy Efficiency: Long-standing Problems with DOE’s Program for Setting Efficiency 

Standards Continue to Result in Forgone Energy Savings. GAO-07-42. Washington, 

D.C.: January 31, 2007.
28 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

GAO Contacts

Frank Rusco, Director, ruscof@gao.gov, (202) 512-3841

Mark Gaffigan, Managing Director, gaffiganm@gao.gov, (202) 512-3841
29 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 6 

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Exports 

Priority Goal: Double U.S. exports by the end of 2014.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Department of Agriculture:

• Foreign Agriculture Service; 

• Foreign Market Development Program; 

• Market Access Program; 

• Export Credit Guarantee Program; 

• Emerging Markets Program; 

• Supplier Credit Export Program; and

• Agricultural Marketing Service. 

Department of Commerce:

• International Trade Administration; 

• Market Access and Compliance; 

• Import Administration; 

• Manufacturing and Services; 

• U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service; 

• Trade Promotion Programs; 

• District Export Councils; 

• SelectUSA; 

• Strategic Partnership Programs; 

• Market Development Cooperator Program; and

• Advocacy Center. 

Department of State:

• U.S. Embassies and Consulates; 

• Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs; 

• Trade Policy and Programs; and

• Commercial and Business Affairs. 

Export-Import Bank:
30 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Working Capital Guarantee Program; 

• Export Credit Insurance; 

• Loan Guarantee & Direct Loan Program; and

• Finance Lease Guarantees Program. 

Overseas Private Investment Corporation:

• Small and Medium-Enterprise Financing; 

• Structured Financing; 

• Investment Insurance; 

• Investment Funds; and

• Enterprise Development Network. 

Small Business Administration:

• Office of International Trade; 

• Small Business Development Centers; 

• Export Legal Assistance Network; 

• Export Express and International Trade Loan Programs; 

• Export Working Capital Program; and

• State Trade and Export Promotion Grants. 

U.S. Trade and Development Agency:

• Project Development Program: 

o feasibility studies; 

o pilot projects; and

o technical assistance. 

• International Business Partnership Program: 

o reverse trade missions; 

o conferences; and

o workshops. 

Office of the U.S. Trade Representative.

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

There are 12 other member agencies of the Trade Promotion Coordination Committee 

that could be included:
31 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Department of the Treasury; 

• Agency for International Development; 

• Environmental Protection Agency; 

• Department of Defense; 

• Department of Energy; 

• Department of Homeland Security; 

• Department of the Interior; 

• Department of Labor; 

• Department of Transportation; 

• Office of Management and Budget; 

• National Security Council/National Economic Council; and

• Council of Economic Advisors. 

GAO Comments

To help achieve the National Export Initiative (NEI) and crosscutting goal of doubling the 

value of United States (U.S.) exports by 2014, the Export Promotion Cabinet and the 20 

member agencies of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee (TPCC) were 

directed to coordinate and align export promotion and other activities, including 

improving foreign market access. In January 2012, the Secretary of Commerce 

reported that recent American export levels put the U.S. on track to achieve this goal, 

which requires increasing U.S. companies’ exported goods and services from a total 

value of $1.57 trillion in 2009 to $3.14 trillion by the end of 2014. The President also 

recently announced plans to reorganize and improve export promotion agencies’ efforts 

in support of this goal. 

While progress in promoting U.S. exports has occurred, coordination challenges across 

export promotion agencies could hinder their effectiveness in supporting this priority 

goal. In 2002, 2006, and 2009, we reported that the TPCC made progress in 

coordinating federal agencies’ export promotion efforts, but that coordination challenges 

persisted. In 2009, we found that the annual national export strategy issued by the 

TPCC in 2008 continued to lack an overall review of agencies’ allocation of resources 

relative to governmentwide export promotion priorities. However, the 2011 national 

export strategy began to establish some consistent, shared, measurable goals, the 

absence of which had been a longstanding weakness. In addition, the Trade Policy 

Staff Committee (TPSC) led by the Office of the United States Trade Representative 

(USTR) plays a major role in reducing barriers to trade. The TPSC is continuing to 

engage in policy evaluation and implementation and is taking action on key market 

access and enforcement issues. However, we have identified challenges in USTR’s 

ability to coordinate with private sector advisors and the Congress, and in USTR’s 
32 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

strategic human capital planning and accounting for resources from agencies that 

support its negotiations and enforcement work. In 2009, we also reported that four free 

trade agreements we reviewed had largely achieved their U.S. commercial objectives, 

but that USTR, the Department of State (State), and the Department of Labor (Labor)

monitoring and enforcement of labor and environmental provisions with the partner 

countries remains a challenge.

More recently, we identified challenges faced by the Department of Commerce

(Commerce)’s U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service (CS) and the Export-Import Bank 

(Ex-Im), agencies that also have key roles in implementing this priority goal. CS’s goals 

and activities generally support the NEI’s priorities by, for example, arranging trade 

missions, assisting U.S. exporters with trade problems, and advocating on behalf of 

U.S. firms competing for foreign government contracts. However, we reported 

weaknesses in CS’s performance measurement, resource allocation, and workforce 

planning, as well as in its cost and customer information. While CS is implementing 

revised performance measures in fiscal year 2012 that align more closely with the NEI, 

weaknesses in measuring program performance remain, which may undervalue CS’s 

efforts and mean that policymakers will not have an accurate picture of CS’s 

performance. In addition, CS’s resource-allocation-management process does not 

make full use of relevant information to guide its decisions, and CS lacks key planning 

elements for rebuilding its diminished workforce. We have also reported on Ex-Im’s role 

in promoting U.S. competitiveness and in supporting certain types of exports, including 

those by small business. As the United States’ official export credit agency (ECA), ExIm helps U.S. firms export goods and services by providing a range of financial 

products. We recently reported that Ex-Im’s requirements for the level of domestic 

content in the exports it fully finances are higher and generally less flexible than those of 

ECAs from other Group of Seven (G-7) countries (major industrialized countries that 

consult on economic issues). 

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

To improve coordination and sharing of goals among the TPCC agencies, we first 

recommended in 2002 that the Chairman of the TPCC ensure that its national export 

strategies consistently 

• identify specific goals established by the agencies within the strategies’ broad 

priorities, 

• identify how agencies’ resources are allocated in support of their specific goals, 

and 

• analyze the progress made in addressing the TPCC’s recommendations from 

the prior annual strategies. 

The TPCC agreed with our findings, but based on our assessment in 2006, we 

determined that the TPCC had not implemented our recommendations. While in 2009 

we reported on positive steps taken by the TPCC to address these issues, we believe 

the underlying challenges that prompted our recommendations persist and we have

begun new work on interagency collaboration. Similarly, in February 2012, the 

President directed the Export Promotion Cabinet and TPCC to enhance program 
33 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

coordination, customer service, interagency budget allocation, coordination among 

offices and staff, and business competitiveness initiatives.

To facilitate better consultation and resource coordination for trade promotion, we have 

made a series of recommendations to USTR and partner agencies. In 2009, we 

recommended that USTR, State, and Labor update plans for implementing and 

overseeing Free Trade Agreements (FTA) to make the FTAs more effective in 

producing results. We have also recommended that USTR and other managing 

agencies improve information access and timeliness of congressional consultations, 

and that the U.S. Trade Representative develop a strategic human capital management 

system addressing the areas of strategic human capital leadership, planning, 

recruitment and retention, and performance management. We have been working with 

USTR and the other agencies to assure continued progress in addressing our 

recommendations.

We have also recommended in 2009, 2010, and 2011 that Commerce take a number of 

steps to improve CS’s export indicators and resource data and improve its capacity to 

achieve its goals, including using customer-service-related data in CS’s performance 

measures, reviewing CS’s Overseas Resource Allocation Model, and improving CS 

procedures for determining costs and setting user fees for export promotion services, 

workforce planning, and cost estimating related to CS’s budget estimate. Commerce 

generally agreed with these recommendations and has begun to take actions to 

address these issues, and we will continue to monitor their progress in implementing 

our recommendations. 

In addition, we recommended in 2012 that in order to improve Ex-Im’s efforts at 

promoting competitiveness, Ex-Im should conduct a systematic review to assess how 

well its domestic content policy continues to support Ex-Im’s mission. While Ex-Im 

stated it considers content policy in its annual competitiveness assessments and did not 

comment directly on our recommendation, we will monitor what actions the agency 

takes to address this issue. 

Selected Reports

U.S. Export-Import Bank: Actions Needed to Promote Competitiveness and 

International Cooperation. GAO-12-294. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2012.

National Export Initiative: U.S. and Foreign Commercial Service Should Improve 

Performance and Resource Allocation Management. GAO-11-909. Washington, D.C.: 

September 29, 2011. 

Export Promotion: Observations on the Export-Import Bank’s Efforts to Achieve U.S. 

Policy Goals. GAO-10-1069T. Washington, D.C.: September 29, 2010. 

Export Promotion: Increases in Commercial Service Workforce Should Be Better 

Planned. GAO-10-874. Washington, D.C.: August 31, 2010. 
34 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

International Trade: Effective Export Programs Can Help in Achieving U.S. Economic 

Goals. GAO-09-480T. Washington, D.C.: March 2009.

International Trade: Four Free Trade Agreements GAO Reviewed Have Resulted in 

Commercial Benefits, But Challenges on Labor and Environment Remain. GAO-09-439. 

Washington, D.C.: July 10, 2009. 

Export Promotion: Commerce Needs Better Information to Evaluate Its Fee-Based 

Programs and Customers. GAO-09-144. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 2009. 

International Trade: An Analysis of Free Trade Agreements and Congressional and 

Private Sector Consultations under Trade Promotion Authority. GAO-08-59. 

Washington, D.C.: November 7, 2007. 

Export Promotion: Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee’s Role Remains Limited. 

GAO-06-660T. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2006. 

International Trade: USTR Would Benefit from Greater Use of Strategic Human Capital 

Management Principles. GAO-06-167. Washington, D.C.: December 6, 2005.

GAO Contacts

Jose Alfredo Gomez, Acting Director, gomezj@gao.gov, (202) 512-4101

Loren Yager, Managing Director, yagerl@gao.gov, (202) 512-4347
35 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 7

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Job Training

Goal Statement: Ensure our country has one of the most skilled workforces in the 

world by preparing 2 million workers with skills training by 2015 and improving the 

coordination and delivery of job-training services.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Department of Labor:

• Workforce Investment Act programs; 

• Community College Initiative; 

• Trade Adjustment Assistance & Career Training Grants; 

• Workforce Innovation Fund; 

• Pathways Back to Work Fund; 

• H-1B grants; 

• Job Corps; and

• YouthBuild. 

Department of Education:

• Community College Initiative; and

• Career Academies. 

Small Business Administration:

• Training the Next Generation of Entrepreneurs;

• Small Business Development Centers, Women Business Centers and Service

Corps of Retired Executives; 

• SBA’s 68 District Offices; 

• Veterans Entrepreneurship Pilot program;

• Skill Up America Pilot with Department of Labor and Department of Education; 

and

• Start Young Initiative Pilot with Department of Labor and Department of 

Education

Department of Housing and Urban Development:

• JobsPlus. 

Tax Expenditures:
36 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Work Opportunity Tax Credit. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work 

GAO Comments

The federal government performance plan proposes expanding investment in 

community colleges to train workers and build partnerships with businesses. Our 

previous work found a fair degree of integration between community colleges and 

Workforce Investment Act (WIA) one-stop centers. The report found cost sharing and 

improved communication among integrated programs, but concluded that it was 

uncertain whether the efforts of the Department of Labor (Labor) and Department of 

Education (Education) to build linkages between community colleges and the workforce 

system would be successful in encouraging community colleges to focus on workforce 

development. Community college and workforce officials cited state funding and 

leadership as factors that facilitate integration but identified WIA performance-system 

measures and WIA funding issues as impediments. Our recent work on 14 innovative 

collaborations among local workforce boards, community colleges, employers, and 

others highlighted their successes in meeting critical skill needs in diverse sectors, such 

as health care, manufacturing, and agriculture. This work identified six factors that 

facilitated such collaborations, including focusing on urgent workforce needs, leveraging 

resources, and providing employer-responsive services. 

The federal government performance plan also proposes publicizing more information 

on program performance and conducting rigorous evaluations as strategies to increase 

The list of contributing agencies/programs does not include a range of programs that we 

identified in our January 2011 report on multiple employment and training programs. 

Each of the programs in that report is specifically designed to enhance the specific job 

skills of individuals in order to increase their employability, identify job opportunities, 

and/or help job seekers obtain employment. The 2011 report includes programs at the:

• Department of Health and Human Services; 

• Department of the Interior; 

• Department of Agriculture; 

• Department of Defense; 

• Environmental Protection Agency; 

• Department of Justice; and

• Department of Veterans Affairs. 

The 2011 report also lists programs at the Department of Labor and Department of 

Education that were not named in the federal government performance plan. 
37 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

accountability and support system reform. The plan focuses on 18 programs across 4 

agencies. Our previous work that focused more broadly across the federal government 

identified 47 federal employment and training programs in 9 agencies for fiscal year 

2009. We found that almost all the 47 programs tracked multiple-outcome measures, 

and many programs tracked similar measures. Previous work also noted that Labor has 

made strides in measuring outcomes across Labor programs and improving the 

accuracy of performance data by requiring states to conduct data validation efforts. It 

has also made progress in states' ability to share data for tracking WIA performance. 

However, a recurring theme of our work on employment and training programs has 

been that more information is needed on what approaches work and for whom. Of the 

47 programs identified in previous work, only 5 reported demonstrating whether 

outcomes could be attributed to the program through an impact study, and about half of 

all the programs had not had a performance review since 2004.

The plan proposes expanding career academies in high schools and building on 

Recovery Act programs like those for low income youth. In examining at-risk youth, our 

previous work has cited research on career academies. That research found the 

academies significantly increased students’ school attendance rates and number of 

credits earned toward graduation and significantly cut dropout rates. The research 

available at the time did not address the effect of such academies on students’ lives 

after leaving school. Our Recovery Act work found that while states were generally 

successful in gearing up quickly to serve increased numbers of youth in WIA summer 

employment and training activities, measuring actual outcomes proved challenging and 

potentially revealed little about what the program achieved.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We recommended in 2012 that Labor compile information on workforce boards that 

effectively leverage WIA funds with other funding sources and disseminate this 

information in a readily accessible manner, as a way to better support the capacity of 

the local workforce-investment system to collaborate with employers and other partners. 

As of April 27, 2012, Labor said it is developing a new online technical assistance 

system that will allow it to tag, label, organize, and disseminate content in a readily 

accessible manner. Labor expects to complete the system in late calendar year 2013. 

In addition, Labor said it will update a website, Workforce3One, it uses to provide 

technical assistance. According to Labor, the updated site will include a feature that 

highlights emerging and evidence-based practices and feature items related to 

leveraging funding, particularly funding to support career pathways. 

We recommended in 2011 that the Secretaries of Labor and the Department of Health 

and Human Services (HHS) should work together to develop and disseminate 

information that could inform efforts to increase administrative efficiencies, including 

consolidating program administrative structures and co-locating partners. We 

recommended that Labor and HHS examine the incentives for states and localities to 

undertake such initiatives. As of April 27, 2012, Labor reported that the department will 

award competitive grants to encourage greater efficiency by states and local areas in 
38 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

their service delivery and plans to make additional funds available to pilot a model under 

which the government pays only for demonstrated results. In addition, Labor officials 

said Labor, HHS, and Education are committed to providing cross-program training and 

technical assistance to further align programs. As an example, Labor enumerated the 

types of technical assistance and guidance issued as part of a grant initiative. These 

grants were intended to help students and workers gain industry-recognized and 

academic credentials through better alignment of federal education, training and 

employment services. Officials said Labor, HHS, and other federal agencies, had been 

meeting to promote joint strategic planning, but concluded that legislative changes were 

needed to support such planning. However, Labor officials said Labor and the other 

departments would continue to examine incentives for states and localities to undertake 

such planning. According to agency officials, HHS and Labor continue to coordinate

measurement and research plans to align their activities.

We also recommended in 2011 that Labor develop processes to involve outside experts 

in setting the Employment and Training Administration’s (ETA) research agenda. 

According to Labor, as of April 27, 2012, it engaged a panel of outside experts in the 

development of ETA’s soon-to-be-released 5-year research plan; now requires the 

identification of experts as members of technical working groups for large scale 

evaluations that ETA contracts; engages a third party organization to manage peer 

review groups; and has engaged its colleagues in the department’s Chief Evaluation 

Office and at HHS and Education to review reports prior to publication.

Selected Reports

Workforce Investment Act: Innovative Collaborations between Workforce Boards and

Employers Helped Meet Local Needs. GAO-12-97. Washington, D.C.: January 19, 

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. 

Department of Labor: Further Management Improvements Needed to Address 

Information Technology and Financial Controls. GAO-11-157. Washington, D.C.: March 

16, 2011. 

Multiple Employment and Training Programs: Providing Information on Colocating 

Services and Consolidating Administrative Structures Could Promote Efficiencies. GAO11-92. Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2011. 

Employment and Training Administration: Increased Authority and Accountability Could 

Improve Research Program. GAO-10-243. Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2010. 

 

Workforce Investment Act: Labor Has Made Progress in Addressing Areas of Concern, 

but More Focus Needed on Understanding What Works and What Doesn't. GAO-09-
39 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

396T. Washington, D.C.: February 26, 2009.

GAO Contacts

Andrew Sherrill, Director, sherrilla@gao.gov, (202) 512- 7215

Barbara Bovbjerg, Managing Director, bovbjergb@gao.gov, (202) 512-7215
40 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 8

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Cybersecurity

Goal Statement: Achieve 95 percent use of critical cybersecurity capabilities on federal 

executive branch information systems by 2014, including strong authentication, Trusted 

Internet Connections, and Continuous Monitoring.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan 

Department of Homeland Security:

• National Cyber Security Division. 

Department of Commerce: 

• National Institute of Standards and Technology (Computer Security Division). 

General Services Administration:

• Federal Acquisition Service; 

• Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies; and 

• Office of Government-wide Policy. 

Federal Agencies: 

• Agency Chief Information Officers. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for this Goal Based on 

GAO Work

Department of Defense:

• National Security Agency; and

• Cyber Command. 

GAO Comments

Based on our March 2010 report on the Trusted Internet Connections (TIC), we found 

that none of the 23 federal agencies included in our review, as of September 2009, had 

met all of the requirements of the TIC initiative. Although most agencies reported that 

they have made progress toward reducing their external connections and implementing 

critical security capabilities, most agencies have also experienced delays in their 

implementation efforts. 

In September 2011, we reported on the federal government’s implementation of 

Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12 (HSPD-12), which ordered the 

establishment of a governmentwide standard for secure and reliable forms of 

identification for employees and contractors who access government-controlled facilities 
41 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

and information systems, known as personal identity verification (PIV) credentials. In 

that report we found that overall, federal agencies have made progress issuing PIV 

cards to employees and contractors but have made limited progress in implementing 

the electronic capabilities of the cards for accessing federal facilities and information 

systems. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), through its annual reporting guidance to 

federal agencies on their implementation of the Federal Information Security 

Management Act of 2002 (FISMA) (Title III of Public Law 107-347), measures the 

progress of agencies towards meeting its TIC, PIV and continuous monitoring goals. As 

of fiscal year 2011, based on agency-reported FISMA data, we have seen that federal 

agencies have increased their implementation of TIC, PIV, and continuous monitoring 

programs. 

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We recommended in October 2011 that the Director of OMB incorporate performance 

targets for metrics in annual FISMA reporting guidance to agencies and inspectors 

general. In response to our recommendation, OMB stated that since unlike in previous 

years, OMB and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now issue separate 

memorandums regarding FISMA reporting guidance, it is more appropriate for the 

performance targets to be included in DHS’s memorandum since that is where the 

metrics are listed. We agreed that including the performance targets in the metrics 

issued by DHS would meet the intent of our recommendation. DHS's Director of the 

Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office noted that he was pleased with our

acknowledgment of efforts made by DHS to improve the cybersecurity posture of 

federal agencies.

We made a total of 24 recommendations to 9 agencies to assist in implementing the 

HSPD-12 program's objectives. We recommended that eight departments and 

agencies develop and implement plans for PIV-based access to government-controlled 

facilities and information systems and require staff with PIV cards to use them for 

access to systems and networks. Of the nine agencies to which we made 

recommendations, six (Department of Commerce, DHS, Department of the Interior

(Interior), Department of Labor (Labor), National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

(NASA), and Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)) concurred with our 

recommendations. DHS, Interior, Labor, and NASA also provided information 

regarding specific actions they have taken or plan on taking that address portions of our 

recommendations. As of April 2012, several agencies (Interior, DHS, and NRC) have 

reported that they have taken actions to address specific recommendations, while the 

remaining agencies have indicated they have begun taking steps that would address 

the recommendations.
42 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Selected Reports

Information Security: Weaknesses Continue Amid New Federal Efforts to Implement 

Requirements. GAO-12-137. Washington, D.C.: October 3, 2011.

Personal ID Verification: Agencies Should Set a Higher Priority on Using the 

Capabilities of Standardized Identification Cards, GAO-11-751. Washington, D.C.: 

September 20, 2011.

Defense Department Cyber Efforts: DOD Faces Challenges In Its Cyber Activities, 

GAO-11-75. Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2011.

Cybersecurity: Progress Made but Challenges Remain in Defining and Coordinating the 

Comprehensive National Initiative, GAO-10-338. Washington, D.C.: March 5, 2010.

Information Security: Concerted Effort Needed to Consolidate and Secure Internet 

Connections at Federal Agencies, GAO-10-237. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2010.

GAO Contact

Gregory C. Wilshusen, Director, wilshuseng@gao.gov, (202) 512-6244
43 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 9

Crosscutting Policy Goal: Sustainability

Goal Statement: By 2020, the federal government will reduce its direct greenhouse gas 

emissions by 28 percent and will reduce its indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 13 

percent by 2020 (from 2008 baseline).

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

The Interagency Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability—composed of a Senior 

Sustainability Officer, designated by the head of each federal agency—serves to 

facilitate implementation of the Executive Order and implement programs to achieve 

greenhouse gas reduction goals.

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

None because all federal agencies are members of the Interagency Steering Committee 

on Federal Sustainability.

GAO Comments

Federal agencies—which collectively are the nation’s largest energy consumer—for 

decades have been required to meet increasingly stringent sustainability goals, 

including reducing energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. Accordingly, 

we have a large body of work on federal efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 

within federal buildings and within the federal fleet of vehicles. We have reported on 

efforts by agencies to decrease fossil fuel and increase renewable energy used in 

response to requirements in statutes and executive orders, including investing about 

$4.5 billion in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(Recovery Act) to convert existing federal facilities into high performance green 

buildings. In addition, in fiscal year 2012, we identified 185 renewable energy initiatives 

being implemented in the facilities and vehicle fleets of a range of federal agencies, 

primarily the Departments of Defense, Agriculture, Energy and Interior. The renewable 

energy initiatives are aimed at reducing fossil fuels used—and greenhouse gases 

emitted—by the agencies. We have reported that agencies face challenges in 

continuing efforts to reduce energy use because of expiring credits for renewable 

energy purchases and the ending of funding through the Recovery Act. We have also 

reported on agencies’ efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in the federal vehicle 

fleet. For example, we reported that the United States Postal Service (USPS), which 

has the world’s largest civilian fleet, along with 20 other agencies, have met their 

requirement to acquire alternative fuel vehicles by acquiring flex-fuel vehicles that can 

operate on either gasoline or 85 percent ethanol, which emits fewer greenhouse gases; 

however, the agencies often continue to fuel the vehicles with gasoline because 85 

percent ethanol is not readily available and can be more expensive.
44 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

In 2008, we reported that the greenhouse gas emissions metric for federal facilities did 

not accurately reflect agencies’ performance in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 

Specifically, the metric was tied to agencies’ reductions in energy intensity, but did not 

account for whether greenhouse gas emissions were reduced in absolute terms. We 

recommended that the Department of Energy, in conjunction with the Office of the 

Federal Environmental Executive—which is housed at the President's Council on 

Environmental Quality, administered by the Environmental Protection Agency, and 

stewards the Interagency Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability—as well as the 

Office of Management and Budget, establish a metric that more accurately reflects 

agencies' performance in reducing emissions. Accordingly, the administration issued 

Executive Order 13514 in 2009, which made reduction of greenhouse gas emissions a 

priority for federal agencies and set deadlines and targets for achieving greenhouse gas 

emissions reductions in absolute terms. 

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We recommended in 2008 that in order to help agencies address the challenges they 

face in meeting energy goals into the future, the Secretary of Energy should finalize and 

issue guidance that instructs agencies in developing long-term energy plans that 

consider the key elements of effective plans identified in the report. In 2008, we also 

made a series of recommendations to the Department of Energy regarding alternative 

fuel vehicles in the federal fleet. As of April 2012, the agency had issued guidance that

begins to address both recommendations and we continue to monitor the Department of 

Energy’s efforts in both of these areas.

In 2008, we raised a matter for congressional consideration: that in order to help 

agencies more efficiently use their resources to increase use of alternative fuel and 

decrease use of petroleum, Congress may wish to consider aligning the federal fleet’s 

alternative-fuel-vehicle acquisition requirements and its fueling requirements with 

current alternative fuel availability, as well as revising those requirements as 

appropriate. We continue to monitor Congress’ actions in this area.

Selected Reports

Renewable Energy: An Inventory of Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Initiatives. GAO-12-

259SP. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2012. 

United States Postal Service: Strategy Needed to Address Aging Delivery Fleet. GAO11-386. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 2011. 

Defense Infrastructure: DOD Needs to Take Actions to Address Challenges in Meeting 

Federal Renewable Energy Goals. GAO-10-104. Washington, D.C.: December 18, 

2009. 

Federal Energy Management: Agencies Are Acquiring Alternative Fuel Vehicles but 

Face Challenges in Meeting Other Fleet Objectives. GAO-09-75R. Washington, D.C.: 
45 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

October 22, 2008. 

Federal Energy Management: Addressing Challenges through Better Plans and 

Clarifying the Greenhouse Gas Emission Measure Will Help Meet Long-term Goals for 

Buildings. GAO-08-977. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 2008.

U.S. Postal Service: Vulnerability to Fluctuating Fuel Prices Requires Improved 

Tracking and Monitoring of Consumption Information. GAO-07-244. Washington, D.C.: 

February 16, 2007. 

GAO Contacts

Frank Rusco, Director, ruscof@gao.gov, (202) 512-3841 (for information on energy 

efficiency and the federal fleet) 

Dave Wise, Director, wised@gao.gov, (202) 512-2834 (for information on federal real 

property)

Susan Fleming, Director, flemings@gao.gov, (202) 512-2834 (for information on the

federal fleet)

Lorelei St. James, Director, stjamesl@gao.gov, (241)777-2834 (for information on the 

United States Postal Service)
46 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 10

Crosscutting Management Improvement Goal: Financial Management/Improper

Payments

Goal Statement: The federal government will reduce the governmentwide improper 

payment rate by at least 2 percentage points by fiscal year 2014, from 5.42 percent in 

2009.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

This goal applies to all programs that annually report improper payment estimates. The 

governmentwide performance is driven by programs that make a significant amount of 

improper payments every year. In fiscal year 2011, the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) reported an estimated governmentwide improper payment rate and 

amount of about 4.7 percent and $115 billion, respectively, including both overpayments 

and underpayments. In total, Some 79 programs within 17 agencies contributed to this 

amount. Of the $115 billion in improper payments, roughly 80 percent was made by five 

programs: Medicare Fee-for-Service, Medicaid, and Medicare Advantage (Part C), 

within the Department of Health and Human Services; the Earned Income Tax Credit, 

within the Department of the Treasury; and Unemployment Insurance, within the 

Department of Labor. The remaining 20 percent of the governmentwide improper 

payment amount was made by the other 74 programs that reported improper payment 

estimates.

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for this Goal, Based on 

GAO Work

We have reported that some agencies have not yet reported estimates for all risksusceptible programs and some agencies’ estimating methodologies need to be refined. 

We also found that internal control weaknesses exist, heightening the risk that improper 

payments may occur and not be detected promptly. 

GAO Comments

Our past work on governmentwide improper payments has not specifically focused on 

the 2 percent governmentwide improper payment reduction goal. However, our 

governmentwide improper payment work can be related to efforts to reduce improper 

payments. In 2010, the President set goals, as part of the Accountable Government 

Initiative, for federal agencies to reduce overall improper payments by $50 billion, and 

recapture at least $2 billion in actual improper payments (e.g. improper contract 

overpayments or overpayments to healthcare providers) by the end of fiscal year 2012. 

Federal agencies reported improper payment estimates totaling $115.3 billion in fiscal 

year 2011, a decrease of $5.3 billion from the revised prior year’s reported estimate of 

$120.6 billion. Further, a number of federal agencies have reported progress in 

reducing improper payment error rates in some programs and activities. For example, 

we identified 40 federal agency programs, or about 50 percent of the total programs 
47 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

reporting improper payment estimates in fiscal year 2011, that reported a reduction in 

the error rate of estimated improper payments in fiscal year 2011 when compared to 

fiscal year 2010 error rates. We caution, however, that these rates have not been 

independently verified or audited.

Despite reported progress in reducing estimated improper payment amounts and error 

rates for some programs and activities during fiscal year 2011, the federal government 

continues to face challenges in determining the full extent of improper payments. 

Specifically, some agencies have not yet reported estimates for all risk-susceptible 

programs, and some agencies’ estimating methodologies need to be refined. We have 

also found that internal control weaknesses exist, heightening the risk of improper 

payments occurring. Until federal agencies are able to implement effective processes 

to completely and accurately identify the full extent of improper payments and 

implement appropriate corrective actions to effectively reduce improper payments, the 

federal government will not have reasonable assurance that the use of taxpayer funds is 

adequately safeguarded.

A number of actions are under way across the federal government to help advance 

improper payment reduction goals. These initiatives, as well as additional actions in the 

future, will be needed to advance federal government’s efforts to reduce improper 

payments. Identifying and analyzing the root causes of improper payments is key to 

developing effective corrective actions and implementing the controls needed to 

advance the federal government’s efforts to reduce and prevent improper payments. In 

this regard, implementing strong preventive controls can serve as the frontline defense 

against improper payments. In addition, agencies can also enhance detective controls 

to identify and recover overpayments. For example, an initiative that enhances 

incentives for grantees, such as state and local governments, could help increase 

attention to preventing, identifying, and recovering improper payments.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We have made numerous recommendations in reports on agency- and program-specific 

work that we performed. This work included recommendations focused on more 

accurately and completely estimating improper payments, preventing and detecting 

improper payments, ensuring corrective action strategies to effectively reduce improper 

payments, and improving the recovery of improper payments. 

For example, in the past 5 years, we have issued more than 15 reports that focus on

improving agency activities and federal oversight of state activities designed to reduce 

Medicare and Medicaid improper payments. Our most recent report, issued in April 

2012, discussed the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) implementation 

of new provider and supplier enrollment procedures and other measures to help ensure 

that only those qualified are approved to bill Medicare and indicates the important steps 

that have not been completed. We have ongoing work to assess CMS’s actions to 

address Medicare improper payments, including: use of prepayment edits to avoid 

paying erroneously; examining the types of providers and suppliers involved in fraud 
48 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

investigations; examining CMS’s implementation of its new Fraud Prevention System, 

which uses analytic methods to identify potential fraud; and assessing the quality of 

data in CMS’s provider enrollment database. We are also currently examining a range 

of issues to address Medicaid improper payments, including CMS and state progress 

and coordination in reducing improper payments; reasons for growth in Medicaid 

supplemental payments and the extent that audits of certain of these payments are 

facilitating oversight; and quality of data in Medicaid data expenditure systems.

In 2012, we recommended that the Administration for Children and Families (ACF) take 

action to more accurately and completely estimate and aggregate improper payments 

for the Foster Care program, including state-level data, and ensure that its methodology 

is statistically valid. We also recommended that ACF take actions to help ensure that 

the Foster Care program implements procedures requiring states to report on corrective 

actions whenever a state’s estimated improper payment dollar error rate exceeds a 

specified target level. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) generally 

concurred with three recommendations related to improving the improper payment 

estimation methodology for the Foster Care program. Specifically, HHS generally 

agreed to (1) estimate and report improper payments related to administrative costs, (2) 

provide specific procedures to identify and report any underpayments and duplicate or 

excessive payment errors, and (3) revise procedures for calculating the aggregate 

state-level margins of error to derive an overall, inflation adjusted, program estimate.

In 2011, we recommended the Social Security Administration (SSA) take steps to help 

avoid making improper payments to Disability Insurance program (DI) recipients who 

may be working, such as developing data sharing agreements to access earningsrelated databases, and to improve collection of DI program overpayments, such as 

enhancing tracking and reporting of overpayments and the review of repayment 

agreements. SSA agreed with four of five recommendations we made to the 

Commissioner to strengthen SSA’s processes and management controls over the 

detection, prevention, and recovery of DI overpayments. We continue to monitor this 

area.

In 2009, we made recommendations focused on the Department of Defense (DOD)

improving efforts to address improper payment and recovery auditing requirements of 

the Improper Payments Information Act of 2002 and the Recovery Auditing Act, which 

included performing oversight and monitoring activities to ensure the accuracy and 

completeness of the improper payment data submitted by the DOD agencies and the 

military services. DOD disagreed with 12 of our 13 recommendations designed to 

strengthen its improper payment and recovery auditing processes. DOD stated that 

generally the actions envisioned by our recommendations were already being 

accomplished within the department or were not required by OMB and thus, such 

direction from us was not necessary. Although DOD has efforts underway, it has not 

yet established the processes and detailed guidance necessary to effectively implement 

either Improper Payments Information Act or the Recovery Auditing Act. Accordingly, 

we continue to believe that our recommendations are critical for DOD to enhance its 

efforts to minimize improper payments and recover those that are made.
49 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Selected Reports

Medicare Program Integrity: CMS Continues Efforts to Strengthen the Screening of 

Providers and Suppliers. GAO-12-351. Washington, D.C.: April 10, 2012.

Improper Payments: Remaining Challenges and Strategies for Governmentwide 

Reduction Efforts. GAO-12-573T. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2012.

Improper Payments: Moving Forward with Governmentwide Reduction Strategies. 

GAO-12-405T. Washington, D.C.: February 7, 2012. 

Foster Care Program: Improved Processes Needed to Estimate Improper Payments 

and Evaluate Related Corrective Actions. GAO-12-312. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 

2012.

Improper Payments: Recent Efforts to Address Improper Payments and Remaining 

Challenges. GAO-11-575T. Washington, D.C.: April 15, 2011. 

Disability Insurance: SSA Can Improve Efforts to Detect, Prevent, and Recover 

Overpayments. GAO-11-724. Washington, D.C.: July 27, 2011. 

Improper Payments: Status of Fiscal Year 2010 Federal Improper Payments Reporting. 

GAO-11-443R. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2011. 

Medicare Recovery Audit Contracting: Weaknesses Remain in Addressing

Vulnerabilities to Improper Payments, Although Improvements Made to Contractor 

Oversight. GAO-10-143. Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2010.

Improper Payments: Significant Improvements Needed in DOD's Efforts to Address 

Improper Payment and Recovery Auditing Requirements. GAO-09-442. Washington, 

D.C.: July 29, 2009.

GAO Contact

Beryl Davis, Director, davisbh@gao.gov, (202) 512-2623 
50 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 11

Crosscutting Management Improvement Goal: Human Capital 

Management/Closing Skill Gaps

Goal Statement: Close critical skills gaps in the federal workforce to improve mission 

performance. By September 30, 2013, close the skills gaps by 50 percent for 3 to 5 

critical federal government occupations or competencies, and close additional agencyspecific high-risk occupation and competency gaps.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

In collaboration with the Office of Management and Budget, the Office of Personnel 

Management and the Department of Defense are leading a Chief Human Capital 

Officers Council working group for this crosscutting goal. Other agencies and the federal 

management councils will also contribute to the effort.

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for this Goal Based on 

GAO Work

None because all Chief Financial Officers Act agencies are listed.

GAO Comments

Skills gaps in critical occupations across the federal government have the potential to 

place agency missions and taxpayer funds at risk. We discussed the challenge of 

closing the federal government’s current and emerging critical skills gaps as a high-risk 

area in our 2011 High-Risk Update because of the long-standing lack of leadership in 

addressing this management challenge. 

In prior reports, we have recommended that federal agencies plan, implement, and 

monitor strategies to recruit, develop, and retain personnel with the needed critical 

skills. We have also stated that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) must have 

the capacity to effectively assist and lead agencies in the implementation of 

governmentwide human capital reforms, and work collaboratively with agencies through 

interagency partnerships, such as the Chief Human Capital Officers Council (CHCOC), 

to address critical skills gaps that cut across several federal agencies. 

In February 2012, the CHCOC working group identified a set of mission-critical 

occupations existing in multiple federal agencies and will begin formulating an 

implementation plan that outlines steps to close these skill gaps. The Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) staff commented that the success of this initiative will 

be dependent on the efforts of the CHCOC in concert with the senior leadership of the 

agencies to ensure all aspects of the action plan are fully implemented, that progress is 

effectively monitored and that additional corrective actions are identified and 

implemented as needed. Additionally, the CHCOC and agency senior leadership, in 

partnership with OPM, must ensure the process is appropriately institutionalized into the 

federal government’s human capital management operations.
51 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

Our prior work has shown that critical skills gaps exist across multiple federal agencies 

and include various occupations. In 2009, our review of the State Department’s Bureau 

of Diplomatic Security concluded that shortages in foreign language skills could be 

negatively affecting several aspects of U.S. diplomacy, including security operations. 

As such, we recommended that the Secretary of State address some key human capital 

challenges including staffing foreign missions with officials who have appropriate 

language skills. The State Department agreed with our recommendation and, as of 

April 2012, it had taken steps to address language shortfalls; however, it did not 

address the issues we raised with respect to Diplomatic Security in its Quadrennial 

Diplomacy and Development Review.

Additionally, in 2010, we issued four reports identifying critical skills gaps affecting the 

operations at the Department of Defense (DOD), the Department of the Interior

(Interior), the Agency for International Development (USAID), and the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC). Our recommendations to address these critical skills

gaps ranged from having USAID develop a comprehensive workforce plan for its entire 

workforce to a more specific recommendation that the Department of the Interior take 

steps to attract staff qualified to accurately measure oil and gas production on federal 

lands and waters. 

• At DOD we recommended that in order to improve the development, 

implementation, and evaluation of acquisition workforce training, and in order to 

demonstrate and track how training efforts contribute to improved acquisition

workforce performance, the Secretary of Defense should direct the Office of the 

Under Secretary of Defense for Technology and Logistics Acquisition to establish 

milestones for the development of metrics to measure how acquisition 

certification training improves the proficiency and capability of the acquisition 

workforce. Although DOD did not concur with this recommendation, DOD 

officials agreed that metrics are needed and the department continues to focus 

training on helping to improve organizational performance. The officials indicated 

that developing metrics is an ongoing process and could take multiple years to 

complete. 

• At Interior, we have reported that agencies have encountered persistent

problems in hiring, training, and retaining sufficient staff to meet its oversight and 

management of oil and gas operations on federal lands and waters. We recently 

began work to examine Interior’s progress on this issue.

• We also recommended that in order to improve USAID's capacity to effectively 

and strategically plan and manage its entire workforce, the Administrator of 

USAID should develop a comprehensive workforce plan that takes into account 

USAID's total workforce, including nondirect-hire staff. We recommended that 

the workforce plan include an analysis of overall workforce and competency gaps 

and the steps the agency plans to take to address these gaps. USAID concurred 

with our recommendation and is taking steps to address it. For example, USAID 

stated that it is developing a comprehensive, automated competency 
52 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

management system, which it hopes to have completely operational by fiscal 

year 2013, as well as implementation plans for overseas staffing requirements. 

We continue to monitor USAID efforts to implement this recommendation.

• We also recommended that, as the SEC establishes the newly created Office of 

Credit Ratings, it develop recruitment, hiring, and training plans to ensure that the 

office has the skills required to fulfill its oversight mission. SEC agreed with this 

recommendation and, as of April 2012, SEC officials reported that they were

hiring staff with the appropriate financial expertise.

Selected Reports

Defense Acquisition Workforce: DOD’s Training Program Demonstrates Many Attributes 

of Effectiveness, but Improvement is Needed. GAO-11-22. Washington, D.C.: October 

28, 2010. 

Federal Aviation Administration: Agency is Taking Steps to Plan for and Train Its 

Technician Workforce, but a More Strategic Approach is Warranted. GAO-11-91. 

Washington, D.C.: October 22, 2010. 

Human Capital: Further Actions Needed to Enhance DOD’s Civilian Strategic Workforce 

Plan. GAO-10-814R. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2010. 

Securities and Exchange Commission: Action Needed to Improve Rating Agency 

Registration Program and Performance-Related Disclosures. GAO-10-782. 

Washington, D.C.: September 22, 2010.

Foreign Assistance: USAID Needs to Improve Its Strategic Planning to Address Current 

and Future Workforce Needs. GAO-10-496. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2010. 

Language Access: Selected Agencies Can Improve Services to Limited English 

Proficient Persons. GAO-10-91. Washington, D.C.: April 26, 2010. 

Oil and Gas Management: Interior's Oil and Gas Production Verification Efforts Do Not 

Provide Reasonable Assurance of Accurate Measurement of Production Volumes. 

GAO-10-313. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2010.

State Department: Diplomatic Security's Recent Growth Warrants Strategic Review. 

GAO-10-156. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2009.

GAO Contacts

Robert G. Goldenkoff, Director, goldenkoffr@gao.gov, (202) 512-2757 

Yvonne Jones, Director, jonesy@gao.gov, (202) 512-2717
53 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 12 

Crosscutting Management Improvement Goal: Information Technology 

Management/Data Center Consolidation

Goal Statement: Improve IT service delivery, reduce waste, and save $3 billion in 

taxpayer dollars by closing at least 1,200 data centers by fiscal year 2015.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

Twenty-four agencies are participating in the Federal Data Center Consolidation 

Initiative (FDCCI). Agency FDCCI efforts are led by agency Chief Information Officers in 

conjunction with agency mission programs and management functions, including real 

property, acquisition, sustainability, and security. FDCCI participating agencies include:

• 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; 
54 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• Small Business Administration; 

• Social Security Administration; and

• U.S. Agency for International Development. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

FDCCI could be expanded to include other members of the Chief Information Officer 

Council, such as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and other 

independent executive branch agencies, such as the Securities and Exchange 

Commission and the Federal Communications Commission.

GAO Comments

In order to accomplish FDCCI’s goals, OMB launched the Data Center Consolidation 

Task Force comprised of the data-center-consolidation program managers from each 

participating agency. OMB officials stated that this task force is critical to driving 

forward on individual agency-consolidation goals and to meeting the overall federal 

consolidation targets. In July 2011, we reported that agencies had incomplete data 

center inventories and consolidation plans, but that agency plans still indicated savings 

of about $700 million through 2015.

Consequently, we made recommendations to both OMB and the participating agencies 

that were intended to better position the FDCCI for success. In response to our report, 

OMB required agencies, in addition to an existing requirement to update their 

inventories, to complete their consolidation plans. Beginning in October 2011, all of the 

agencies posted their updated plans online. We have ongoing work assessing the 

completeness of the updated inventories and plans. As of April 2012, our preliminary 

analysis shows that not all agency inventories and plans have been updated to include 

all required information, such as consolidation milestones, performance metrics, and 

savings projections.

OMB has also expanded the definition of a data center from facilities over 500 square 

feet to one that includes data centers of all sizes. This change resulted in an expanded 

data center baseline of 3,133 centers, an increase from the 2,094 centers originally 

reported by agencies. In December 2011, the Federal Chief Information Officer (CIO) 

announced a revised goal of closing over 1,200 of the 3,133 centers in the new baseline 

and the Analytical Perspectives for the President’s budget for fiscal year 2013 expects 

data center consolidation to save $3 billion by 2015. We have reported that moving 

forward to consolidate obviously redundant or underutilized centers is warranted—and 

should result in immediate cost savings and increased efficiency. With the FDCCI’s 

new goals in mind, the success of the initiative will be based, in large part, on continued 

efforts to oversee the development of complete agency inventories and comprehensive 

consolidation plans. Without either, agencies are at increased risk that they will be illprepared to manage a transformation as significant as that which has been proposed by 
55 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

the Federal CIO. Such a lack of preparation could slow the consolidations and reduce 

expected savings and efficiencies.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We recommended in 2011 that in order to better ensure the FDCCI improves 

governmental efficiency and achieves cost savings, the Director of the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) direct the Federal Chief Information Officer to, among 

other things, require that agencies identify limitations in data center inventory contents, 

require that agencies complete missing elements from their consolidation plans, and 

monitor agencies’ implementations of their plans. We also recommended that each 

agency participating in the FDCCI complete its data center inventories and 

consolidation plan.

In response to our report, in July 2011, OMB required the 24 FDCCI agencies to 

complete their consolidation plans. OMB further required agencies to certify the actions 

taken to verify their inventory data and to identify any data limitations in their inventories 

or plans. Beginning in October 2011, all of the agencies posted their updated plans 

online. We have ongoing work assessing the completeness of agencies’ updated 

inventories and plans. As of April 2012, our preliminary analysis shows that not all 

inventories and plans have been updated to include all required information.

Selected Reports

Data Center Consolidation: Agencies Need to Complete Inventories and Plans to 

Achieve Expected Savings. GAO-11-565. Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2011. 

GAO Contact

David Powner, Director, pownerd@gao.gov, (202) 512-9286
56 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 13 

Crosscutting Management Improvement Goal: Procurement and Acquisition 

Management/Strategic Sourcing

Goal Statement: Reduce the costs of acquiring common products and services by 

agencies’ strategic sourcing of at least two new commodities or services in both 2013 

and 2014 that yield at least a 10 percent savings.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

The specific Office of Management and Budget initiatives that contribute to this goal 

include:

• Campaign to Cut Waste; 

• Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative; and 

• Shared First Strategy. 

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

None because the Office of Management and Budget initiatives listed are 

governmentwide initiatives. 

GAO Comments

The federal government could save billions of dollars annually by leveraging its 

enormous buying power through strategic sourcing. This approach involves a range of 

activities—from developing a better picture of what an agency is spending on various 

types of supplies and services, to taking an enterprisewide approach to procurement, to 

developing new ways of doing business. Since 2002, spending on federal contracts has 

more than doubled to more than $540 billion in 2010, consuming a significant share of 

agencies’ discretionary budgets. For many years, we have reported that because 

procurement at federal departments and agencies is generally decentralized, the federal 

government is not fully leveraging its aggregate buying power and that acquisition 

leaders across the government needed to more fully embrace strategic sourcing 

beginning with collecting and analyzing procurement spending data. In 2011, we found 

that many federal agencies had begun making progress using strategic sourcing to 

achieve cost savings and other efficiencies. For example, the Department of Homeland 

Security reported saving about $347 million in fiscal year 2010 through enterprisewide 

contracts and participation in federal strategic sourcing initiatives. Additionally, we 

found that the office supply II federal strategic sourcing initiative launched in 2010 has 

produced governmentwide savings.

The strategic sourcing priority goal provides additional emphasis to help agencies 

implement strategic sourcing approaches. While this goal is a step in the right direction, 
57 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

it is not clear how agencies will measure savings to meet the 10 percent savings target. 

In our prior work, we found that agency officials were confused about what constitutes 

savings because of the Office of Management and Budget’s broad and changing 

guidance on acquisition savings initiatives. Moreover, we identified data and other 

limitations related to the magnitude of savings achieved through the office supply 

strategic sourcing initiative. We have ongoing work on strategic sourcing.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

Currently, we do not have key open recommendations or matters for congressional 

consideration related to this goal, but we have ongoing work related to this issue.

Selected Reports

Strategic Sourcing: Office Supplies Study Had Limitations, but New Initiative Shows 

Potential for Savings. GAO-12-178. Washington D.C.: December 20, 2011.

Federal Contracting: OMB’s Acquisition Savings Initiative Had Results, but 

Improvements Needed. GAO-12-57. Washington D.C.: November 15, 2011.

GAO Contacts

Cristina Chaplain, Director, chaplainc@gao.gov, (202) 512-4859

Paul Francis, Managing Director, francisp@gao.gov, (202) 512-4841
58 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

Enclosure 14

Crosscutting Management Improvement Goal: Real Property Management

Goal Statement: The federal government will manage real property effectively to 

generate $3 billion in cost savings by the end of 2012.

Responsible Agencies Identified in the Federal Government Performance Plan

The Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Federal Financial Management, and 

Division of General Government Programs, the General Services Administration’s Office 

of Government-Wide Policy, and the agencies, listed below.

• 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; and
59 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

• U.S. Agency for International Development.

Additional Relevant Departments, Agencies, or Programs for This Goal Based on 

GAO Work

None because all Chief Financial Officers Act agencies are listed.

GAO Comments

We have identified real property management as a high-risk area due, in part, to the 

presence of excess and underutilized assets. We identified that improving real property 

management would require a governmentwide effort among land-holding agencies. In 

order to address the lack of a governmentwide strategic approach to real property 

management the Federal Real Property Council (FRPC) was established among the 

major real-property-holding agencies and chaired by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). The FRPC partnership has provided a mechanism for establishing the 

$3 billion administration goal for savings related to improved real property management 

by the end of fiscal year 2012. OMB said that it has worked with agencies to list every 

agency’s goal publicly and that agencies have listed data about the types of assets they 

have identified in their inventories.

OMB has reported that it will exceed the $3 billion goal, but has not provided sufficient 

data for us to validate this statement. Effective real property management continues to 

be hampered by underlying legal and budgetary-related limitations and competing 

stakeholder interests—two critical elements to identifying and eliminating waste within 

the real property portfolio. In addition, the federal government continues to overly rely 

on leasing to fulfill long-term needs when it would be more efficient in the long run to 

purchase or construct facilities. OMB officials said that tight spending limits have 

reduced agencies’ abilities to invest in capital acquisitions, forcing agencies to choose 

short-term leases.

Status of Key Open Recommendations/Matters for Congressional Consideration

We recommended in 2007 that OMB in coordination with FRPC address key problems 

associated with disposing of unneeded real property, including reducing the effect of 

competing interests on real property decisions. OMB has partially addressed this 

recommendation by proposing the Civilian Property Realignment Act (CPRA) in 2011, 

which would create an independent board to assist agencies by bundling 

recommendations to dispose or consolidate multiple properties in various places. OMB

staff said that the independent board would send the recommendations to Congress as 

part of a fast-track procedure meant to reduce competing interests that are inherent in 

proposals to dispose of single properties. The CPRA bill (H.R. 1734) passed the full 

House in February 2012. It was also introduced in the Senate (S.2232) but as of May

2012, it had not yet passed.

We recommended in 2008 that OMB in coordination with FRPC develop a strategy to 
60 GAO-12-620R: Crosscutting Priority Goals

reduce agencies’ reliance on costly leasing where ownership would result in long-term 

savings. Although OMB did not include leasing challenges in its CPRA proposal, 

Congress has added it. The version of CRPA that passed the House and that was 

introduced in the Senate has included, among its purposes, reducing the government’s 

reliance on leasing. OMB officials said that the administration’s CPRA proposal would 

address both owned and leased assets. They also said that there are opportunities to 

consolidate agency leases and co-locate agency operations, but that OMB has only 

concurred with our assessment of overreliance on leasing in narrow circumstances.

Selected Reports

Federal Real Property: Progress Made on Planning and Data, but Unneeded Owned 

and Leased Facilities Remain. GAO-11-520T. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2011.

Federal Real Property: Proposed Civilian Board Could Address Disposal of Unneeded 

Facilities. GAO-11-704T. Washington, D.C.: June 9, 2011.

Federal Real Property: Overreliance on Leasing Contributed to High-Risk Designation. 

GAO-11-879T. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 2011.

GAO Contacts

David Wise, Director, wised@gao.gov, (202) 512-2834

(450967)
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.
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 (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 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: 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.