MANAGING FOR 

RESULTS

Agencies Have 

Elevated Performance 

Management 

Leadership Roles, but 

Additional Training Is 

Needed

Report to Congressional Addressees

April 2013

GAO-13-356

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-356, a report to 

Congressional Addressees

April 2013

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management 

Leadership Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed

Why GAO Did This Study

The performance of federal agencies is 

central to delivering meaningful results 

to the American public. GPRAMA, 

along with related guidance, assigned

responsibilities for managing 

performance to key officials. It also

provided a statutory basis for the 

existing PIC, a council made up of 

agency PIOs that is tasked with 

assisting OMB with topics related to 

GPRAMA. GPRAMA directed GAO to 

report on the act’s implementation. 

This report, one of a series under that 

mandate, (1) examines the status of 

federal agencies’ implementation of the 

performance management leadership 

roles under GPRAMA and (2) 

evaluates the role of the PIC in 

facilitating the exchange of best 

practices and improving agency

program management and 

performance. 

To address both objectives, GAO

conducted a survey of PIOs at all 24 

CFO Act federal agencies, as well as 

in-depth case studies of HHS and 

NSF, which were selected because 

they have differing characteristics such 

as size. GAO also interviewed and 

obtained documents from OMB staff 

and OPM officials. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that the Director of 

OPM work with the PIC to identify 

competency gaps for agency 

performance management staff and 

use this information to identify and 

share relevant agency training. GAO 

also recommends that the Director of 

OMB work with the PIC to gather 

regular feedback from members on its 

performance and update its strategic 

plan. OPM and OMB staff agreed with 

these recommendations.

What GAO Found

The designation of senior-level officials to key performance management roles

with responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) has helped elevate accountability for 

performance management within federal agencies and ensure high-level 

involvement, according to officials GAO interviewed. The 24 Chief Financial 

Officers (CFO) Act agencies have all assigned officials to the key management 

roles—chief operating officer, performance improvement officer (PIO), and goal 

leader—required under GPRAMA, according to the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) and the results of GAO’s PIO survey. PIOs GAO surveyed 

reported that most key officials were greatly involved in central aspects of 

performance management, such as agency quarterly performance reviews. PIOs

GAO surveyed, and priority goal leaders GAO interviewed at the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), 

reported they were supported in their responsibilities by their deputies and other

staff. PIOs generally reported that their staff had competencies identified as 

relevant by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), such as reasoning, to a 

large extent, although PIOs reported that the competencies in the figure below 

were not as widespread among their staff as the other competencies. 

PIOs’ Assessments of the Extent to Which Their Performance Management Staff Possessed

Selected Competencies 

OPM has taken steps to work with agencies to incorporate performance 

management staff competencies into training. For example, OPM is working with 

the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) to develop a website that will 

include such training. However, at this time, it does not plan to assess

competency gaps among agency performance management staff to inform its 

work. Without this information, it will be difficult for OPM, working with the PIC, to 

focus on the most-needed resources and facilitate their use by other agencies. 

PIOs generally found that sharing of best practices and development of tips and 

tools are the most helpful aspects of the PIC, and reported strong agency 

attendance at meetings and participation in working groups. However, the PIC 

has not regularly collected member feedback about its performance. Additionally,

although the PIC has a strategic plan in place, it has not updated it since 

GPRAMA was enacted. Routine member feedback and an updated strategic plan 

that reflects changes required by GPRAMA could help increase the PIC’s 

effectiveness. Without these assessment tools, the PIC lacks an important basis 

and means for directing and evaluating its performance. 

View GAO-13-356. For more information, 

contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806

or mihmj@gao.gov.
Page i GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Letter 1 

Background 3

Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Roles, but 

Performance Staff Competency Assessment and Training Are 

Needed 7

PIOs and Selected Agencies Found the PIC Useful, but Additional 

Planning and Performance Assessment Are Needed 21

Conclusions 29

Recommendations for Executive Action 30

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 31

Appendix I Agencies Subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act 33

Appendix II Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 34

Appendix III Core Competencies for Performance Management Staff 38

Appendix IV Results from Survey of Performance Improvement Officers 40

Appendix V Comments from the Office of Personnel Management 65

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 67

Table

Table 1: Active PIC Working Groups, as of April 2013 25

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Figures

Figure 1: Selected Performance Management Leadership Roles at 

HHS, as of April 2013 8

Figure 2: Selected Performance Management Leadership Roles at 

NSF, as of April 2013 9

Figure 3: Most Key Officials Were Involved in Central Aspects of 

Performance Management to a Large Extent 14

Figure 4: PIO Survey Showed Most Performance Management Staff 

Competencies Were Present to a Large Extent, but a Few 

Needed Improvement 16

Figure 5: Less Than Half of PIOs Reported that the Current Level of 

Access and Availability of Performance Management 

Training Was Helpful 20

Figure 6: PIOs Generally Rated PIC Functions as Helpful to Their 

Agencies 22

Figure 7: Agency Officials Regularly Attended PIC Meetings, 

According to PIOs 24

Abbreviations

CFO Chief Financial Officer

CFO Act Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990

CLO Chief Learning Officer

COO Chief Operating Officer

GPRAMA Government Performance and Results Act Modernization 

 Act of 2010

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NSF National Science Foundation

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

PIC Performance Improvement Council 

PIO Performance Improvement Officer

SAC Small Agency Council

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

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

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

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

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548

April 16, 2013

Congressional Addressees

The performance and results of federal agencies have a significant 

impact on many issues of great importance to the American public, 

ranging from public health to homeland security to training the country’s 

workforce. Our previous work has found that two of the most important 

elements that contribute to sustained performance improvement are a 

demonstrated commitment from top agency leadership and clear lines of 

accountability for making management improvements.1

To focus and sustain attention on agency performance and improvement, 

Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA).2 GPRAMA, along with related 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, established and 

defined performance management responsibilities for agency officials in 

key management roles: the agency head, chief operating officer (COO),

performance improvement officer (PIO), deputy PIO, goal leader, and 

deputy goal leader.3 The officials in these roles constitute an agency’s 

performance management leadership team. GPRAMA also established in 

law the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), chaired by OMB’s 

Deputy Director for Management and composed of PIOs from various 

federal agencies. Among other responsibilities, the PIC is charged with 

facilitating the exchange of successful performance management 

practices among agencies and assisting OMB in implementing certain 

GPRAMA requirements.

This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate to examine 

how agencies are implementing GPRAMA, such as by conducting 

 

1

GAO, Government Performance: GPRA Modernization Act Provides Opportunities to 

Help Address Fiscal, Performance, and Management Challenges, GAO-11-466T

(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2011).

2

Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (Jan. 4, 2011). GPRAMA amends the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993).

3

OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget

(Washington, D.C.: Aug. 3, 2012), and OMB Memorandum M-11-31, Delivering an 

Efficient, Effective, and Accountable Government (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2011). 

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

quarterly performance reviews to assess progress on agency priority 

goals.4 The objectives of this report are to (1) examine the status of 

federal agencies’ implementation of the performance management 

leadership roles under GPRAMA, and (2) evaluate the role of the PIC in 

facilitating the exchange of best practices and improving agency program 

management and performance.5

To address both objectives, we administered a survey of PIOs at the 24 

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

from October 2012 through December 2012 and received responses from 

all 24 PIOs.6 Selected results from our survey were also reported in our 

February 2013 report focusing on quarterly performance reviews under 

GPRAMA.7 In order to understand GPRAMA implementation in more 

detail and put survey results in context for both objectives, we conducted 

case studies of two CFO Act agencies—the Department of Health and 

Human Services (HHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)—

focusing on their implementation of performance management leadership 

roles and participation in the PIC. We selected these agencies because 

they have differing characteristics that may affect implementation, such 

as agency size and the career status of the official in the PIO role. We 

obtained documentation and conducted interviews with both agencies’ 

COOs, PIOs, and deputy PIOs. In addition, in order to understand the 

priority goal leader role and its contributions to performance 

management, we selected three of HHS’s six agency priority goals and 

two of NSF’s three agency priority goals and interviewed the responsible 

 

4

Other reports in this series include: GAO, Managing for Results: Data-Driven 

Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other 

Relevant Agencies, GAO-13-228 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 27, 2013); and Managing for 

Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA 

Modernization Act, GAO-12-620R (Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012). 

5

The PIC has additional responsibilities under GPRAMA and OMB guidance, such as 

assisting OMB in implementing the planning, reporting, and use of performance 

information requirements related to federal government priority goals, also referred to as 

cross-agency priority goals. We did not focus our review on these other functions. 

6

See appendix I for a full list of the 24 agencies surveyed. 

7

GAO-13-228. 
 

Page 3 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

goal leaders.8 For goals that had two goal leaders assigned, we 

interviewed one of the responsible goal leaders. We also interviewed 

OMB staff and officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 

about their work under GPRAMA, including their work with agencies and 

the PIC in implementing GPRAMA.

To further address both objectives, we reviewed GPRAMA and related 

OMB guidance about the key management roles and the PIC. We 

reviewed information provided to us by OMB on the officials in the roles, 

along with information on them that is publicly available through OMB’s 

performance.gov website and agency websites.

To further address our second objective, we analyzed PIC meeting 

agendas from February 2009 through September 2012, and observed 

part of the September 12, 2012, PIC meeting. We interviewed the PIC’s 

Executive Director and officials from the Small Agency Council and the 

chair of its Performance Improvement Committee, which interacts with the 

PIC. Further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are 

contained in appendix II.

We conducted our work from May 2012 to April 2013 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.

GPRAMA made a number of changes to agency performance 

management roles, and provided the officials in these roles with specific 

duties. Among other things, the requirements for these roles reflected 

Congress’s intention to increase accountability of senior agency 

leadership for performance and results. Although these roles existed at 

some agencies prior to GPRAMA, it established them in law, added 

responsibilities, and elevated some of them. Later OMB guidance 

 

8

Every 2 years, GPRAMA requires agency heads from the CFO Act agencies, or those 

otherwise determined by OMB, to designate a subset of priority goals from the 

performance goals in their agency’s performance plans. These goals should reflect the 

highest priorities of the agency as determined by the agency head. 

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

established additional performance management roles related to 

implementation of GPRAMA.9 The primary roles with responsibilities 

under GPRAMA and in OMB guidance are:

• Agency head: GPRAMA gave each agency’s head broad 

responsibility for performance management. Among other things, the 

agency head is responsible for identifying agency priority goals and, 

along with the COO discussed in the next paragraph, conducting 

quarterly priority goal progress reviews.

• Chief operating officer: The COO role existed at agencies prior to 

GPRAMA’s enactment, with responsibilities such as improving agency 

management and performance outlined in two presidential 

memoranda.10 GPRAMA maintained these previously established 

responsibilities, and added others to bring them in line with other 

GPRAMA requirements. It also required that the deputy agency head 

or equivalent serve as COO.

• Performance improvement officer: The PIO role was created by a 

2007 executive order.11 GPRAMA established the role in law and 

elevated it, specifying that it be given to a “senior executive” at each 

agency and that the PIO report directly to the agency’s COO. The 

various duties of the PIO include advising the agency head and COO 

on goal-setting and measurement and reviewing progress toward 

agency priority goals.

• Deputy performance improvement officer: The deputy PIO role was 

not included in GPRAMA, but later OMB guidance directed agencies 

with a PIO who is a political appointee or other official with a limitedterm appointment to also appoint a career senior executive as deputy 

PIO.12

 

9

OMB Memorandum M-11-31, Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable 

Government (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2011), and OMB Circular No. A-11.

10The White House, Presidential Memorandum, Implementing Government Reform, 

(Washington, D.C.: July 11, 2001), and Presidential Memorandum, Implementing 

Management Reform in the Executive Branch, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 1993).

11See Executive Order No. 13,450, Improving Government Program Performance, (Nov. 

13, 2007).

12OMB, Circular No. A-11.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

• Goal leader: GPRAMA directs agencies to identify a goal leader who 

is responsible for each priority goal and make this information 

available to OMB to be published online.13 Leaders for agency priority 

goals are identified, with their photos, on the performance.gov 

website. A similar position existed at some agencies prior to 

GPRAMA, as earlier OMB guidance had encouraged agencies to 

identify officials who were responsible for High Priority Performance 

Goals (these goals have since been renamed as agency priority 

goals).14

• Deputy goal leader: The deputy goal leader role was not included in 

GPRAMA, but later OMB guidance directed agencies to identify a 

deputy goal leader to support the goal leader.15 In cases where the 

goal leader was a political appointee, OMB encouraged agencies to 

assign a career senior executive as the deputy.

GPRAMA also assigned responsibilities to OPM related to agency 

performance management. By January 2012, the agency was to identify 

skills and competencies needed by government personnel for setting 

goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance 

information for improving government efficiency and effectiveness. 

GPRAMA also directed OPM, by January 2013, to incorporate these 

competencies into relevant position classifications and to work with each 

agency to incorporate the skills and competencies into employee training.

OMB has a leadership and coordinating role in agency implementation of 

GPRAMA. OMB issued guidance on implementation through memoranda 

and in Circular A-11.16 Under GPRAMA, OMB is to ensure the operation 

of a public website that includes information on cross-agency priority 

goals and agency priority goals, among other performance-related 

 

13Throughout this report, when we refer to goal leaders, we are referring to leaders for 

agency priority goals. Under OMB Circular A-11, agencies may also have goal leaders for 

their strategic objectives, but we did not focus on this role in our report. 

14In 2009, OMB required agencies to identify High Priority Performance Goals that, among 

other things, were achievable within 12 to 24 months and were highly valued by the public 

or reflecting achievement of agency missions. 

15OMB, Circular No. A-11.

16OMB Memorandum M-11-31, Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and Accountable 

Government (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 17, 2011), and OMB Circular No. A-11. 
 

Page 6 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

information. This information is included on the performance.gov website. 

OMB’s Deputy Director for Management, or his or her designee, is 

directed to chair the PIC and preside at its meetings, determine meeting 

agendas, direct its work, and establish and direct its subgroups.

GPRAMA also included specific requirements for the PIC. The PIC was 

initially created by a 2007 executive order, but GPRAMA established it in 

law and included additional specific responsibilities.17 In addition to 

directing OMB’s Deputy Director for Management to chair the PIC, 

GPRAMA specified that council membership include the PIOs from the 24 

CFO Act agencies, as well as any other PIOs and individuals identified by 

OMB’s Deputy Director for Management. The PIC’s duties are detailed in 

GPRAMA and later OMB guidance and include facilitating the exchange 

of useful practices and developing tips and tools to strengthen agency 

performance management. According to the PIC’s Executive Director, the 

PIC and the Executive Director are supported by two federal employees 

and four contractors. The PIC also typically has two to four detailees from 

other federal agencies.18 The PIC is administratively located within the 

General Service Administration’s Office of Executive Councils. According 

to a PIC staff member, the Office of Executive Councils provides 

infrastructure, analytical support, and project management capacity to the 

PIC and other interagency management councils, such as the Chief 

Financial Officers Council.

 

17See Executive Order 13,450.

18GPRAMA requires the heads of agencies with PIOs serving on the PIC to provide, as 

appropriate and to the extent permitted by law, up to two personnel authorizations to serve 

upon the request of the PIC’s chairperson. 
 

Page 7 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

The 24 CFO Act agencies have all assigned senior-level officials to the 

key performance management roles—chief operating officer, 

performance improvement officer, and goal leader—required under 

GPRAMA, according to OMB and the results of our PIO survey.19 Figures 

1 and 2 illustrate the performance management leadership teams at HHS 

and NSF, respectively.

 

19The Nuclear Regulatory Commission does not have goal leaders because it does not 

have priority goals. 

Agencies Have 

Elevated Performance 

Management Roles, 

but Performance Staff 

Competency 

Assessment and 

Training Are Needed

Designation of SeniorLevel Officials to Key 

Performance Management 

Roles Has Helped to 

Elevate Accountability for 

Agency Performance
 

Page 8 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Figure 1: Selected Performance Management Leadership Roles at HHS, as of April 2013

Notes: The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires that each 

agency’s PIO report directly to the COO.

The goals depicted in this chart are the ones for which we interviewed the priority goal leaders. HHS 

has three additional priority goals.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Figure 2: Selected Performance Management Leadership Roles at NSF, as of April 2013

Notes: The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 requires that each 

agency’s PIO report directly to the COO.

The goals depicted in this chart are the ones for which we interviewed the priority goal leaders. NSF 

has one additional priority goal.

a

NSF refers to its deputy goal leaders as “goal lieutenants.” 
 

Page 10 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Chief operating officer. GPRAMA’s requirement that each agency’s 

deputy head, or equivalent, take on the role of COO helped to ensure 

high-level involvement in performance management. GPRAMA required 

the COO to be involved in activities such as quarterly performance 

reviews. As we discuss later, most (21) PIOs we surveyed reported that 

their agencies’ COOs were involved in quarterly performance reviews to a 

large extent.20 The COOs at both HHS and NSF told us they were 

involved in selecting their agencies’ priority goals and they chaired the 

quarterly performance review meetings. HHS’s COO said that he 

considered it his role to make sure that everyone in the agency paid 

attention to performance and knew that he considered it important. NSF’s 

COO said that she saw performance management as a primary concern 

and integrally connected to all aspects of her work at NSF.

Performance improvement officer. Although the PIO role existed prior 

to GPRAMA, PIOs were not required to report directly to the COO until 

GPRAMA was enacted. GPRAMA elevated the role by putting this 

requirement in place. According to our PIO survey, at 8 agencies the PIO 

who was already in place took on the additional responsibilities required 

by GPRAMA.21 At the other 16 agencies, the current PIO began in the 

role after the implementation of GPRAMA.

All PIOs we surveyed reported that they have other agency roles in 

addition to being the PIO. Most PIOs (21) reported that these roles gave 

them access and authority that has been helpful in the PIO role, and most 

(20) reported that these roles gave them knowledge and experience that 

has been helpful in the PIO role. These roles included planning, 

administration, management, and budget and finance. The PIOs at HHS 

and NSF were both also chief financial officers (CFO), and told us that 

their other agency roles helped them in their PIO roles. HHS’s PIO said 

that her joint role allowed her to align budget development with 

performance management—she made sure that the budget was built so 

that dollars were spent on efforts that would be able to perform well. 

NSF’s PIO told us that the two roles worked well together because much 

of the data used to evaluate performance at the agency was maintained 

 

20We previously reported in more detail on agency officials’ involvement in performance 

review meetings. GAO-13-228. 

21The PIO position was established in 2007 by Executive Order 13,450. 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

by the agency’s budget division, which also reports to her in her CFO 

capacity.

NSF’s COO noted that the PIO role at NSF was designated for reasons 

relating more to the individual, including the PIO’s past experience with 

performance management, than to her role as CFO. The COO said that 

NSF’s next PIO may not necessarily be the person in the CFO role. 

Although it was common for the PIOs we surveyed to also have the CFO 

role, PIOs whose other roles were in planning, administration, and 

management reported that those roles were helpful as well.

Nearly all PIOs (23) reported that their level of authority and access to 

agency leadership helped them perform their duties. Additionally, almost 

half of surveyed PIOs (11) reported directly to the agency head in their 

non-PIO role; they had even higher level authority and access to 

leadership than the PIO role alone would have provided.22 OMB staff 

added that because they were senior level officials, PIOs had the 

authority and ability to assemble the right people to implement 

performance management at their agencies.

Our survey results did not indicate great differences between political 

appointees and career civil servants in carrying out PIO duties.23 OMB 

staff told us that the requirement that agencies with political appointee 

PIOs have career civil servant deputy PIOs was in place to address the 

higher likelihood of turnover among political appointees. However, our 

PIO survey results did not indicate great differences in either time spent 

on PIO duties or turnover so far. Additionally, nearly all the agencies (22), 

not just those with political appointee PIOs, have chosen to designate 

deputy PIOs.24

Goal leader. Agencies assigned senior-level officials with expertise in the 

goal to take on the role of priority goal leader. This was true at HHS and 

NSF, and was also true across agencies, according to OMB staff. 

 

22Eleven PIOs reported directly to the agency head. Four of these 11 PIOs said that they 

reported directly to the agency head as well as directly to another individual, such as the 

agency’s deputy secretary.

23PIOs we surveyed were nearly evenly split between political appointees (11) and career 

civil servants (13). 

24Eleven of the 13 agencies with career civil servant PIOs also had deputy PIOs. 
 

Page 12 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Officials at NSF and HHS said that priority goals had senior-level leaders 

who helped to bring attention and resources to the goal. For example, the 

U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health was one of two goal leaders for HHS’s 

priority goal on reducing tobacco consumption. He previously worked on 

tobacco cessation at the state level, was a public health professor, and 

published journal articles on tobacco control and health promotion. The 

goal’s other leader told us that because the Assistant Secretary was 

widely known within the public health community, his involvement brought 

respect and attention to the goal.

As discussed previously, the PIO and goal leader positions were filled by 

senior-level agency officials. Most of these officials had other 

responsibilities, such as serving as a CFO. HHS and NSF officials told us 

that while the PIO and goal leader roles were performed by senior-level 

officials at the highest levels of the agency, they relied on deputies who 

generally managed the day-to-day aspects of performance management.

Deputy performance improvement officer. Nearly all (22) of the CFO 

Act agencies have assigned officials to the Deputy PIO role, according to 

our PIO survey. Both HHS and NSF have assigned staff to the deputy 

PIO role. Officials at HHS and NSF also told us that PIOs tended to 

provide high-level vision and oversight and be a voice for performance 

management at their agencies, while deputy PIOs handled the day-to-day 

management of performance management for the agency. According to 

officials at HHS and NSF, responsibilities of deputy PIOs at these 

agencies included, among other things, coordinating with priority goal 

leaders, preparing for agency quarterly performance reviews, and 

attending PIC meetings, as appropriate. PIOs reported that most deputies 

devoted half or more of their time to performance-related duties.

Deputy PIOs also had other roles and titles at agencies, similar to the 

PIOs. Based on our analysis of their other titles, deputy PIOs most 

commonly had other roles also related to performance, while others filled 

roles in areas such as budget and finance and administration and 

management.

PIOs and Priority Goal Leaders 

Reported That Deputies 

Supported Them in Day-to-Day 

Performance Management 
 

Page 13 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Deputy goal leader. HHS and NSF both assigned officials to deputy goal 

leader roles to support most of their goal leaders.25 As with the 

PIO/deputy PIO division, the goal leaders at our case study agencies 

were senior-level officials. According to agency officials, goal leaders 

provided high-level vision and oversight and lent their influence to ensure 

that the goal was prioritized, while their deputy goal leaders managed the 

goal on a day-to-day basis. For example, deputy goal leaders at these 

agencies were responsible for monitoring staff carrying out the goal and 

preparing reports on the goal for quarterly performance reviews. Two goal 

leaders we spoke with—one at HHS and one at NSF—had two deputy 

goal leaders. Moreover, at NSF, one goal leader we spoke with was 

supported by a deputy from a different operating division.

26 The goal 

leader told us that this structure provided a cross-agency perspective and 

facilitated coordination.

PIOs reported that they and other key performance management officials 

at their agencies were involved in central aspects of performance 

management. We asked PIOs whether agency heads, COOs, PIOs, 

deputy PIOs, and goal leaders had large, moderate, small, or no 

involvement in four primary tasks that summarize the performance 

management responsibilities required by GPRAMA:

• strategic and performance planning and goal setting;

• performance measurement and analysis;

• communicating agency progress toward goals; and

• agency quarterly performance reviews.

As shown in figure 3, the PIOs we surveyed reported that most 

performance management officials had large involvement in these key 

tasks.

 

25HHS has also designated performance officers for each of its component agencies, such 

as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, with staff supporting those officials. 

Performance officers supported performance management within each component agency 

and coordinated across component agencies and with HHS’s central Performance 

Improvement Office. HHS’s deputy PIO told us that the performance officers were his 

primary points of contact at component agencies for matters regarding performance 

management.

26NSF refers to its deputy goal leaders as “goal lieutenants.” 

Most Key Officials Were 

Greatly Involved in Central 

Aspects of Performance 

Management, According to 

PIOs
 

Page 14 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Figure 3: Most Key Officials Were Involved in Central Aspects of Performance Management to a Large Extent

Notes: The charts do not include responses of no opinion and not applicable.

The data presented in this figure are based on PIOs’ responses to four survey questions: “How much 

involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in: (1) strategic and performance 

planning and goal setting; (2) performance measurement and analysis; (3) communicating agency 

progress towards goals, both internally and externally; and (4) your agency’s quarterly performance 

reviews?” 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Officials at HHS and NSF emphasized the importance of commitment to 

performance management at all levels, which was in part reflected in 

officials’ involvement in these key aspects. PIOs who reported large 

involvement for themselves generally reported larger involvement for 

other officials, suggesting that agencies with a strong commitment to 

performance management were following this philosophy.

GPRAMA directed OPM to take certain actions to support agency hiring 

and training of performance management staff. As noted earlier, OPM, in 

consultation with the PIC, was charged with three responsibilities under 

GPRAMA: (1) identify key skills and competencies needed by 

performance management staff; (2) incorporate these skills and 

competencies into relevant position classifications; and (3) work with 

agencies to incorporate these key skills into agency training.27 OPM has 

completed its work on its first two responsibilities, and is working to 

support agency training.

OPM identified 15 core competencies for performance management staff, 

in accordance with GPRAMA, and published them in a January 2012 

memorandum from the OPM Director. (See app. III for a list of the 

competencies with definitions.) OPM also identified competences needed 

by PIOs and goal leaders. A manager of classification and assessment 

policy at OPM told us that OPM’s work to identify these competencies 

included a review of GPRAMA and related information. OPM also worked 

with a PIC working group focused on capability building to review the 

competencies it identified.

Figure 4 shows PIOs’ responses to our survey question about the extent 

to which their staff had these competencies.

 

27GPRAMA, Sec. 12a (“Performance Management Skills and Competencies”) states, “Not 

later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Director of the Office of 

Personnel Management, in consultation with the Performance Improvement Council, shall 

identify the key skills and competencies needed by Federal Government personnel for 

developing goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance information 

for the purpose of improving Government efficiency and effectiveness.” Sections 12b 

(“Position Classifications”) and 12c (“Incorporation Into Existing Agency Training”) direct 

OPM to, within 2 years after GPRAMA’s enactment, incorporate these skills and 

competencies into relevant positions classifications and training for relevant employees at 

each agency.

OPM Has Identified 

Competencies for 

Performance Management 

Staff, but Competency 

Assessment and Additional 

Training Would Be 

Beneficial

PIOs Were Generally Satisfied 

That Staff Possessed

Competencies Identified by 

OPM, but Some Could Be 

Improved
 

Page 16 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Figure 4: PIO Survey Showed Most Performance Management Staff Competencies Were Present to a Large Extent, but a Few 

Needed Improvement

Notes: See appendix III for definitions of the competencies.

The data presented in the figure are based on PIOs’ responses to the question: “To what extent does 

your performance improvement staff have each of the following competencies that OPM has 

identified?” 

PIOs generally reported that their staff had the competencies identified by 

OPM to a large extent, although they reported that the competencies 

below were not as widespread as others:28

 

28Definitions of these competencies are from OPM’s Memorandum for Chief Human 

Capital Officers: Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 

Functional Competencies (Jan. 3, 2012).
 

Page 17 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

• Performance measurement: the knowledge of the principles and 

methods for evaluating program or organizational performance using 

financial and nonfinancial measures.

• Information management: the ability to identify a need for information, 

know how to gather information and organize and maintain 

information or information management systems. 

• Organizational performance analysis: the knowledge of the methods 

and tools used to analyze program, organizational, and mission 

performance.

• Planning and evaluating: the ability to organize work, set priorities, 

and determine resource requirements. This includes determining 

short- or long-term goals and strategies to achieve them, coordinating 

with other organizations or parts of the organization to accomplish 

goals, and monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes.

Some individual agencies found competency gaps in similar areas. HHS’s 

Deputy PIO told us that further improvement of HHS’s performance staff’s 

analytical skills would help the agency to more effectively implement 

GPRAMA. Also, as we reported in February 2013, Small Business 

Administration officials identified a skills gap among some of their staff in 

working with data.29

OPM officials had planned to develop a competency assessment tool that 

could be used to determine needs at each individual agency.30

Developing the tool was identified as a critical and manageable “next 

step” at a January 2012 meeting focused on incorporating key 

performance management competencies into agency training. Meeting 

participants included OMB, OPM, and agency members of the Chief 

Learning Officers (CLO) Council, which facilitates collaboration among 

CLOs. OPM officials told us that they took action to follow up on other 

 

29GAO-13-228. 

30Participants at the January 2012 meeting suggested that OPM develop a way to 

measure competency gaps using its Federal Competency Assessment Tool, according to 

meeting minutes. OPM has customized versions of the assessment tool for human 

resources professionals and supervisors. For example, the assessment tool for human 

resources is a web-based instrument for assessing the current proficiency levels for 

human resources professionals. 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

“next steps” related to training identified at the meeting, which are 

discussed in the following section. However, an OPM official relayed to us 

that at this time, OPM does not plan to conduct a formal competency 

assessment using a competency assessment tool. A group manager in 

OPM’s Training and Executive Development division told us that the 

agency is focused on identifying critical skills gaps across the federal 

government. She said that some of the government-wide skills that OPM 

plans to focus on are related to skills needed for performance 

management, such as data analysis.

OPM identified relevant position classifications that are related to the 

competencies for performance management staff, and worked with the 

PIC Capability Building working group to develop related guidance and 

tools for agencies. A manager of Classification and Assessment Policy at 

OPM told us that the competencies best fit into an existing classification 

series for management and program analysts. In addition, OPM worked 

with the PIC’s Capability Building working group to develop position 

descriptions for performance management staff. In December 2012, the 

Capability Building working group released to agencies a draft 

performance analyst position design, recruitment, and selection toolkit. 

The draft toolkit included position description templates for performance 

analysts, job opportunity announcement templates, and recruiting 

resources, among other information. NSF officials told us that they found 

the Capability Building working group’s performance analyst position 

description helpful and used it to develop the agency’s deputy PIO 

position, which has been recently filled. The toolkit may also be of use to 

other agencies planning to hire new performance management staff. 

About half (11) of PIOs reported that their agencies planned to hire new 

staff, in addition to training existing staff, in order to address competency 

gaps.

According to OPM, the 15 core competencies for performance 

management staff are moderately to highly trainable, and OPM has taken 

steps to work with agencies to incorporate the competencies into training 

programs for relevant staff.31 Most (18) PIOs reported that their agencies 

planned to train staff in order to strengthen their performance 

management competencies. OPM’s Director stated in a January 2012 

 

31OPM classified the competencies by trainability based on principles from a U.S. Merit 

Systems Protection Board study, Making the Right Connections: Targeting the Best 

Competencies for Training (Washington, D.C.: February 2011).

OPM Worked with the PIC to 

Develop a Draft Toolkit to 

Assist Agencies with Hiring 

Performance Management Staff

OPM Has Taken Steps to Assist 

Agencies with Training 

Performance Management 

Staff, but a More Targeted 

Focus Would Be Beneficial
 

Page 19 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

memorandum that the agency would work with CLOs to incorporate 

GPRAMA competencies into agency training programs.32 OPM worked 

with the CLO Council and the PIC Capability Building working group to 

develop a website—the Training and Development Policy Wiki—that lists 

some training resources for performance management staff. OPM also 

sponsored two webcasts focused on sharing agency experiences using 

performance management tools. A manager in OPM’s Training and 

Executive Development division told us that OPM was developing an 

interactive, online course focused on writing measurable performance 

goals that align with organizational goals, which she expected would be 

completed by July 2013. According to the official, both the webcasts and 

the work on the online course were the result of “next steps” identified at 

the January 2012 meeting between OPM, OMB, and members of the 

CLO Council.

OPM Human Resources specialists said they were also working to help 

the PIC to develop a website with more extensive resources, including 

information on training as well as performance management career path 

information. According to OPM officials and the PIC’s Executive Director, 

the PIC will develop the content for this website and it will be modeled on 

OPM’s Human Resources University website, which provides human 

resources career path information and links to related training. A 

Workforce Development Manager at OPM said the agency will support 

the PIC on the technical aspects of the site based on its experience 

developing the Human Resources University site. According to OMB staff

and OPM, the performance management website is scheduled to launch 

by the end of 2013.

In addition to OPM’s actions on performance management training, 

individual agencies have taken action to develop their own performance 

management training to address competency gaps. For example, as we 

described in our recent report on quarterly performance reviews, SBA 

developed courses focused on skills such as spreadsheet development 

and analysis, presentation delivery, and other analytic and presentation 

skills.33

 

32OPM, Memorandum for Chief Human Capital Officers: Government Performance and 

Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 Functional Competencies, Jan. 3, 2012.

33GAO-13-228. 
 

Page 20 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

According to our survey of PIOs, less than half (9) of the PIOs we

surveyed rated the level of access to and availability of performance 

management training at their agencies as helpful, as shown in figure 5. 

Figure 5: Less Than Half of PIOs Reported that the Current Level of Access and 

Availability of Performance Management Training Was Helpful

Note: The data in the figure are based on PIOs’ responses to the question: “Does the level of access/ 

availability of training related to analysis and performance management help or hinder your ability to 

perform your duties as a PIO?” 

OPM’s efforts so far to work with agencies to incorporate performance 

improvement skills and competencies into agency training have been 

relatively broad-based and have not been informed by specific 

assessments of agency training needs. As described earlier, the agency 

has not followed through on its plan to measure agency staff competency 

levels in key areas required for performance management. Our survey 

results suggest that certain areas need to be improved, but without a 

more comprehensive assessment, it will be difficult for OPM to target its 

efforts—both to identify training that addresses agency needs, and to 

make training available through its performance website, which is under 

development, or through other means.
 

Page 21 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

PIOs we surveyed generally found the PIC’s work to be helpful to their 

agencies. We asked the PIOs to rate the helpfulness of selected functions 

that GPRAMA and OMB guidance direct the PIC to perform. As shown in 

figure 6, PIOs generally rated the PIC’s work in these areas as helpful. 

The PIC’s work promoting communication and developing tools 

incorporated several practices that our past work has identified as 

necessary for building collaborative working relationships.34 These include 

establishing means to operate across agency boundaries and identifying 

and addressing needs by leveraging resources.

 

34GAO, Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help Enhance and Sustain 

Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 2005).

PIOs and Selected 

Agencies Found the 

PIC Useful, but 

Additional Planning 

and Performance 

Assessment Are 

Needed 

PIOs Reported that the 

Most Helpful Aspects of 

the PIC Were Sharing of 

Best Practices and 

Development of Tips and 

Tools 
 

Page 22 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Figure 6: PIOs Generally Rated PIC Functions as Helpful to Their Agencies

Notes:

The data presented in this figure are based on PIOs’ responses to the question “Government 

Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) and OMB guidance identify the 

following responsibilities of the Performance Improvement Council. How helpful have the following 

aspects been to your agency?” 

The survey also asked PIOs how helpful PIOs found the Performance Improvement Council’s (PIC) 

work in seeking advice and information from nonmember agencies, particularly smaller agencies. 

Because we discuss the PICs coordination in this area elsewhere, from the perspective of small 

agencies, we did not present the results from this question here. They are included in appendix IV 

with the full survey results.

Most (17) PIOs we surveyed reported that they have been able to apply 

successful practices and other information and tools shared by the PIC.35

PIOs surveyed reported some examples of information shared by the PIC 

that they applied at their agencies, including information on performance 

management positions, goal-setting, and quarterly performance reviews.

 

35Specifically, 17 PIOs reported that they were able to apply successful practices and 

other information and tools shared by the PIC. Two agencies reported that they have been 

able to do so to a large extent, 9 to a moderate extent, and 6 to a small extent.
 

Page 23 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

PIOs we surveyed and agency officials we interviewed reported that the 

PIC has been particularly helpful in facilitating the exchange of successful 

practices among agencies. An OMB staff member told us that facilitating 

this type of exchange was the PIC’s greatest strength, and that doing so 

also helped the group identify best practices. As shown in figure 6, just 

over half of PIOs reported that the PIC was very helpful in this area. 

Senior agency officials we interviewed and PIOs we surveyed provided 

examples of ways in which the PIC facilitated information exchange. For 

example, a PIO we surveyed reported that his agency’s approach to 

quarterly performance reviews was informed by examples shared by 

other agencies in the PIC’s Internal Agency Reviews working group.

An OMB staff member told us that in addition to helping agencies, the 

PIC’s facilitation of information exchange has benefitted OMB. One of the 

tasks GPRAMA charged the PIC with was submitting recommendations 

to streamline and improve performance management policies and 

requirements to OMB. PIOs we surveyed generally reported that this 

function was helpful to their agencies.36 An OMB staff member told us that 

the PIC helped OMB staff determine best practices and use that 

information to inform policy. For example, they said that in response to 

feedback from PIC members, OMB added information on “other 

indicators” to its 2012 Circular A-11 guidance.37

Another area in which PIOs reported that the PIC was particularly helpful 

was in developing and providing tips, tools, training, and other capacitybuilding mechanisms. Half of PIOs reported that the PIC was very helpful 

in this area. PIOs we surveyed and officials we interviewed reported 

various ways in which their agencies have used PIC information. For 

example, five of the PIOs we surveyed reported that their agencies used 

PIC information on goal setting.

 

36Seven said it was “very helpful,” 10 reported that it was “moderately helpful,” 4 “not 

helpful,” and 3 had no opinion.

37“Other indicators” are defined as indicators agencies use to provide context on agency 

progress that do not require targets and timeframesfor example, data about unwanted 

side effects.
 

Page 24 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

The PIC holds two types of meetings—a “principals only” meeting open to 

PIOs only, and a broader meeting open to PIOs as well as other agency 

staff—both of which are well attended, according to PIOs we surveyed. 

OMB staff told us that these two types of meetings were generally held on 

alternating months. As shown in figure 7, most of the PIOs we surveyed 

told us that they regularly attended the “principals only” PIC meetings. 

OMB staff told us that in order to encourage senior-level attendance, 

PIOs were not permitted to send substitutes in their place. Most PIOs also 

reported that their deputies or other staff members regularly attended the 

broader PIC meetings. OMB staff estimated that two to three 

representatives from each agency typically attended these meetings. In 

our previous work, we identified regular participation in activities such as 

meetings as an important feature of effective collaboration.38

Figure 7: Agency Officials Regularly Attended PIC Meetings, According to PIOs

Note: the data presented in this figure are based on PIOs’ responses to two survey questions: “How 

often do you attend the every-other-month Performance Improvement Council (PIC) meetings that 

are for PIOs only (not deputies or staff)?” and “How often does a deputy PIO or another 

representative(s) from your agency attend the every-other-month Performance Improvement Council 

meetings that are open to PIOs, deputy PIOs, and staff?” 

Agency participation in PIC working groups was also strong, and PIOs 

and other agency officials reported using information and products shared 

through working groups. The PIC established five working groups, three 

of which were actively meeting at the time of our review, to focus on 

specific topics (see table 1).39 According to the PIC’s Executive Director, 

 

38GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 

Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 2012).

39GPRAMA directs the chairperson of the PIC to establish and direct working groups to 

deal with particular subjects. 

PIOs Reported Strong 

Agency Participation in the 

PIC and in Its Working 

Groups 
 

Page 25 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

PIC working groups focused on issues related to implementation of 

GPRAMA and related guidance and provided a forum for staff from 

different agencies who were working on similar issues to connect with 

each other. He told us that the PIC identified the working group topics 

based on informal input from PIC members, though the council might in 

the future solicit more formal input through a survey. Agencies could also 

participate in separate OMB working groups that focused on informing 

policy and guidance. For example, at the time of our review, an OMB 

working group was focusing on informing guidance for strategic planning 

required under GPRAMA.

Table 1: Active PIC Working Groups, as of April 2013 

Group

Number

of PIOs reporting

agency participationa Group description

Internal Agency Reviews 15 Focuses on sharing best practices for quarterly performance reviews. The 

group has produced a baseline study of the 24 CFO Act agencies’ reviews. 

This study documented the status of the 24 CFO Act agencies’ practices 

and identified areas for improvement and best practices to be shared.

Capability Building 12 Focuses on addressing GPRAMA requirements for OPM. The group has 

produced a toolkit for agencies to use in developing performance analyst 

positions. 

Business Intelligence 10 Focuses on sharing tools for data analytics.

Sources: Information from OMB and the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), and GAO’s survey of PIOs at the 24 CFO Act 

agencies.

a

The total number of agencies participating in each working group may be higher than the numbers 

represented here. We drew this information from agencies responding to our survey. However, OMB 

staff told us that non-CFO Act agencies, who were not included in our survey, also participate in PIC 

working groups. In particular, OMB staff said that 21 agencies participate in the Internal Agency 

Reviews working group.

In addition to the three working groups described in table 1, there were 

two PIC working groups—the Goal Setting and the Benefits Processing 

working groups—that no longer regularly met, according to OMB staff.

OMB and PIC staff said that these groups could restart again in the 

future, if agency needs arise. The Goal Setting working group focused on 

helping agencies set priority goals for fiscal year 2013, and produced a 

draft guide to goal setting. OMB staff said that the group may start 

meeting again to focus on strategic goals and objectives or on the next 

round of priority goal setting. In addition, the Benefits Processing working 

group, which focused on promoting consistency in agencies’ benefits 

processing, was no longer regularly meeting because it had completed its 

tasks.
 

Page 26 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Most (18) PIOs we surveyed reported that they or other staff members 

from their agencies participated in at least one working group, with some 

agencies participating in multiple groups and one agency participating in 

all five. These 18 agencies participated in an average of three working 

groups each, according to PIOs. PIOs reported that they generally did not 

participate personally in working groups. At HHS, the Deputy PIO said 

that both he and members of his team participate in working groups. PIOs 

we surveyed and agency officials we interviewed reported using working 

group products or information. For example, a PIO reported on the survey 

that she used the Goal Setting group’s guide on developing priority goals.

According to representatives of small agencies, PIC and OMB staff 

effectively coordinated with them and were receptive to their feedback. 

GPRAMA directed the PIC to coordinate with nonmember agencies, 

which include most small agencies.40 According to a representative of the 

Small Agency Council (SAC), a management association of small 

agencies, PIC meetings generally addressed issues affecting the CFO 

Act agencies. She said that she understood the PIC’s focus, as larger 

agencies generally have more consistency in their implementation of 

GPRAMA requirements. However, she further stated that smaller 

agencies may require more assistance due to their more diverse missions 

and fewer resources. Although the broader PIC meetings were open to all 

agencies, the SAC representative told us that few small agencies found 

that the PIC met their needs. Instead, PIC and OMB staff communicated 

with small agencies through the SAC’s Performance Improvement 

Committee, which was established in March 2011. This committee is 

similar to the PIC in its attention to implementation of GPRAMA, but 

meeting objectives focus on issues facing small agencies. According to 

SAC representatives, the committee functions as a way for small 

agencies to give voice to their concerns, as well as a forum for OMB and 

the PIC to focus on the needs of small agencies, which may have unique 

issues in implementing GPRAMA and other requirements. SAC 

representatives told us that they have been satisfied with the support 

provided by OMB and the PIC in both of these areas. SAC Performance 

Improvement Committee meeting agendas from recent months included 

presentations from PIC and OMB staff. For example, a recent meeting 

 

40The Small Agency Council defines a small agency as one having fewer than 6,000 fulltime equivalent federal employees. The SAC’s member agencies include some CFO Act 

agencies, but most of its member agencies are not CFO Act agencies.

The PIC Coordinated with 

Small Agencies and 

Interagency Management 

Councils 
 

Page 27 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

included presentations from OMB staff on updated guidance contained in 

OMB’s Circular A-11 and on small agencies’ use of the performance.gov 

website.

In addition to coordinating with non-member agencies, GPRAMA directed 

the PIC to coordinate with other interagency management councils. While 

two PIOs we surveyed reported that this coordination was very helpful, 

most (16) rated this function as moderately helpful.

GPRAMA and OMB guidance specify the PIC’s functions and roles, but 

the PIC has not regularly assessed how well it has been fulfilling these 

roles. GPRAMA directed the PIC to perform several functions, such as 

helping agencies share practices that have led to performance 

improvements. According to the PIC’s Executive Director, the PIC 

conducted a survey of PIOs prior to the enactment of GPRAMA. It also 

surveyed attendees of a January 16, 2013, PIC meeting, one of the 

broader meetings that is open to PIOs as well as other agency staff. The 

survey covered topics such as participants’ expectations for the meeting 

and assessments of the usefulness of the agenda items covered. 

However, the PIC has not done this on a regular basis, or gathered 

member feedback about its overall performance. As we have previously 

reported, practices that help to sustain collaboration include having 

federal agencies create the means to monitor and evaluate their 

collaborative efforts to enable them to identify areas for improvement.41

Although our survey indicated that PIOs generally found the PIC’s work 

helpful in selected areas, without more comprehensive and regular 

assessment of member opinions, it will be difficult for the PIC to ensure 

that, going forward, it is meeting its members’ current and emerging 

needs. The PIC’s Executive Director, who started in this position in 

November 2012, told us that he was considering conducting a survey of 

PIC members as well as administering evaluation forms at the end of 

every meeting. Regularly soliciting feedback allows organizations to 

monitor member input on an ongoing basis. For example, the SAC 

Performance Improvement Committee administers an evaluation form at 

each of its meetings. These forms allow members to rate the usefulness 

of the meeting and their satisfaction with particular aspects of it and to 

suggest topics for upcoming meetings. 

 

41GAO-06-15. 

The PIC’s Functions Are 

Established in GPRAMA 

and Guidance, but It Has 

Not Routinely Assessed its 

Performance
 

Page 28 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Without formal and regular member feedback, the PIC is missing 

opportunities to tap a resource for identifying topics for future working 

groups and PIC meetings. PIC staff told us that identification of working 

group topics and meeting agenda items was generally based on informal 

input. Our review of PIC meeting agendas from February 2009 through 

September 2012 showed that since the enactment of GPRAMA in 

January 2011, both the “principals only” and broader PIC meetings 

focused on issues related to GPRAMA implementation. Going forward, 

PIC members’ needs will naturally evolve as GPRAMA implementation 

deepens within agencies and new questions and issues arise. The PIC’s 

Executive Director told us that the topic areas covered by the PIC in the 

future will most likely include new issues related to GPRAMA 

implementation, and an increased emphasis on cross-agency 

connections.

Additionally, the PIC has not updated its strategic plan since GPRAMA 

was enacted in January 2011. OMB staff provided us with a copy of the 

PIC’s Strategic Action Plan, which was implemented in January 2009 and 

covered fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This plan included four strategic 

goals, along with objectives and implementing strategies for each.42 OMB 

staff also provided us with information from a 2010 update of the strategic 

plan that focused on two new PIC goals.43 As we have previously 

reported, practices that help ensure effective collaboration include the use 

of strategic plans as tools to drive collaboration and establish goals and 

strategies for achieving results.44 Our prior work also identified several 

leading practices in federal strategic planning, among them that 

organizations involve stakeholders in strategic planning.45 Although the 

PIC has a strategic plan in place, the PIC last updated the plan prior to 

 

42The strategic goals established in the plan were to ensure that: 1) performance 

information is integrated into policy and resource management decisions at all levels; 2) 

horizontal collaboration is used cross agency for effective and efficient performance in 

solving complex problems; 3) vertical collaboration is used throughout organizations to 

apply performance information to improve results; and 4) full accountability for achieving 

results at all levels of the federal government is transparent and demonstrated to the 

American people. 

43The two goals established in 2010 were focused on performance reporting and 

accelerating performance efforts. 

44GAO-06-15. 

45GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996). 
 

Page 29 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

the enactment of GPRAMA. An up-to-date strategic plan that incorporates 

the input of its members and reflects the changes in federal performance 

management required by GPRAMA could help the PIC be reasonably 

assured that it has established a framework to effectively guide and 

assess its work. The PIC’s Executive Director told us that he intended to 

work with the PIC to update the strategic plan, which will be informed by 

PIC member feedback.

Senior agency officials’ commitment to and accountability for improving 

performance are important factors in determining the success of 

performance and management improvement initiatives. Through our PIO 

survey, we found that officials with responsibilities under GPRAMA were 

greatly involved in central, key aspects of performance management. 

These officials were supported by performance management staff, and 

PIOs reported that they were generally satisfied with their staff skills. 

However, our survey results showed that PIOs believed that certain 

competencies could be strengthened. OPM planned to directly assess 

performance management competency gaps at agencies, but has not yet 

done so. An assessment directly focused on performance management 

competencies could provide information on any gaps and inform 

agencies’ efforts to address them. OPM could also use this information to 

ensure that its work with agencies to incorporate competencies into 

training for agency staff, as required by GPRAMA, is effective. In 

particular, this information could inform OPM’s coordination of the sharing 

of training resources among agencies, both through its Training and 

Development Policy Wiki website and the website planned for 

performance management professionals. Through these websites, OPM 

could target resources to areas in which it has identified competency 

gaps. Such sharing of agency training resources offers the opportunity to 

maximize efficiency, and OPM is well positioned to play a coordinating 

role in this area through its expertise and relationships with the PIC and 

CLO Council. OPM has worked with these councils related to training 

under GPRAMA in the past. Additionally, the councils include 

representatives from across government with expertise in performance 

management and training, so they provide OPM with the ability to 

efficiently obtain input and share resources on performance management 

training.

The PIC plays a significant role in agency implementation of GPRAMA, 

and our survey results indicate that PIOs generally found the PIC helpful 

to their agencies. Both GPRAMA and related OMB guidance described 

the PIC’s functions, but the PIC has not regularly collected member 

Conclusions 
 

Page 30 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

feedback on its own performance, and has not updated its strategic plan 

since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011. Functions such as creating 

working groups and developing meeting agendas have been based on 

informal feedback. Regularly collecting formal feedback from members, 

such as through a survey, would help the PIC identify areas in which it 

could ensure it maintains its usefulness, as well as new areas on which 

member agencies would like for it to focus its meetings and working 

groups. Obtaining such feedback would allow the PIC to monitor its 

performance and identify issues as they arise. This will be particularly 

important as agencies become more accustomed to GPRAMA processes 

and their needs change. In addition, the PIC lacks an up-to-date strategic 

plan. Its most recent update was in 2010, so it does not reflect any 

changes in goals or priorities that may have resulted from GPRAMA. An 

up-to-date plan could provide the PIC with a basis for directing and 

evaluating its performance in implementing GPRAMA. A strategic plan 

that incorporates input from PIC members could also serve as a tool for 

encouraging collaboration and reinforcing accountability.

To improve performance management staff capacity to support 

performance management in federal agencies, we recommend that the 

Director of OPM, in coordination with the PIC and the CLO Council, work 

with agencies to take the following three actions:

• Identify competency areas needing improvement within agencies.

• Identify agency training that focuses on needed performance 

management competencies.

• Share information about available agency training on competency 

areas needing improvement.

To ensure that the PIC has a clear plan for accomplishing its goals and 

evaluating its progress, we recommend that the Director of OMB work 

with the PIC to take the following two actions:

• Conduct formal feedback on the performance of the PIC from member 

agencies, on an ongoing basis.

• Update its strategic plan and review the PIC’s goals, measures, and 

strategies for achieving performance, and revise them if appropriate.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 31 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Director of OMB, Director 

of OPM, Secretary of HHS, and Director of NSF for review and comment. 

OMB staff agreed with our recommendation that it work with the PIC to 

conduct regular feedback on the PIC’s performance, and update the 

PIC’s strategic plan and review the PIC’s goals, measures, and strategies 

for achieving performance. The staff also provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate. OPM agreed with our 

recommendation that it identify competency areas needing improvement 

in agencies, and use this information to identify and share information 

about training that focuses on needed performance management 

competencies. OPM explained that it will work with agencies, and in 

particular with PIOs, to assess the competencies of the performance 

management workforce. OPM also stated that it will support the use of 

the PIC’s performance learning website to facilitate the identification and 

sharing of training related to competencies in need of improvement. 

OPM’s written comments are reprinted in appendix V.

HHS did not have comments. NSF provided technical comments, which 

we incorporated.

We are sending copies of this report to the Acting Directors of OMB, 

OPM, and NSF, and the Secretary of HHS, as well as the appropriate 

congressional committees and other interested parties. In addition, this 

report is available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 

the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this 

report are listed in appendix VI. 

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
 

Page 32 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

List of Congressional Addressees

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Tom Coburn

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate

The Honorable Elijah Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Chairman

Task Force on Government Performance, Committee on the Budget

United States Senate
Appendix I: Agencies Subject to the Chief 

Financial Officers Act

Page 33 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

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

National Aeronautics and Space Administration

Agency for International Development

General Services Administration

National Science Foundation

Nuclear Regulatory Commission

Office of Personnel Management

Small Business Administration

Social Security Administration

Appendix I: Agencies Subject to the Chief 

Financial Officers Act
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 34 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 

(GPRAMA) requires GAO to review the act’s implementation, and this 

report is part of a series of reviews planned around the requirement. The 

objectives of this report are to (1) examine the status of federal agency 

implementation of the performance management leadership roles under 

GPRAMA; and (2) evaluate the role of the PIC in facilitating the exchange 

of best practices and improving program management and performance.

To achieve our objectives, we focused our review on the 24 agencies 

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

provisions of GPRAMA apply specifically to these agencies, including that 

the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) include them as members. 

We focused our examination of performance management leadership on 

the management roles that have specific responsibilities under GPRAMA 

and related OMB guidance, with the exception of agency head. These are 

the chief operating officer (COO), performance improvement officer (PIO), 

deputy PIO, priority goal leader, and deputy goal leader. In looking at the 

PIC, we evaluated its role in facilitating the exchange of best practices 

and improving agency program management and performance. GPRAMA 

and related OMB guidance charge the PIC with performing several 

additional functions, such as supporting OMB in implementing 

requirements related to federal government priority goals, also referred to 

as cross-agency priority goals. We did not include these other functions in 

our review.

To address both objectives, we conducted a survey of PIOs at the 24 

CFO Act agencies. Through our survey, we collected information 

regarding PIOs’ and other key officials’ characteristics, their involvement 

in performance management under GPRAMA, and PIO and agency 

participation in the PIC. Appendix IV presents the survey questions we 

asked, and summarizes the responses we received. We received 

responses from all 24 PIOs (a 100 percent response rate). Selected 

results from our survey were also reported in another GAO report that 

focused on quarterly performance reviews under GPRAMA.2 We 

administered the web-based survey from October 18, 2012 to December 

14, 2012. Respondents were sent an e-mail invitation to complete the 

 

1

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

See appendix I for a full list of agencies surveyed. 

2

GAO-13-228. 

Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 35 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

survey on a GAO web server using a unique username and password. 

During the data collection period, we sent reminder e-mails and made 

phone calls to nonresponding agencies. Because this was not a sample 

survey, it has no sampling errors. The practical difficulties of conducting 

any survey may also introduce nonsampling errors, such as difficulties 

interpreting a particular question, which can introduce unwanted 

variability into the survey results. We took steps to minimize nonsampling 

errors by pretesting the questionnaire in person with PIOs and deputy 

PIOs at three different agencies. We conducted these pretests to make 

sure that the questions were clear and unbiased, the data and information 

were readily obtainable, and that the questionnaire did not place an 

undue burden on respondents. Additionally, a senior methodologist within 

our office independently reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its 

administration. We made appropriate revisions to the content and format 

of the questionnaire after the pretests and independent review. All data 

analysis programs used to generate survey results were independently 

verified for accuracy. Additionally, in reviewing the answers from 

agencies, we confirmed that PIOs had correctly bypassed inapplicable 

questions (skip patterns). Based on our findings, we determined that the 

survey data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.

In addition, in order to understand GPRAMA implementation in more 

detail and put survey results in context for both objectives, we conducted 

in-depth studies of two agencies’ implementation of performance 

management leadership roles under GPRAMA and participation in the 

PIC—the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the 

National Science Foundation (NSF). We selected these two agencies 

because they have differing characteristics that may affect 

implementation, such as agency size and the career status of the official 

in the PIO role. HHS is a relatively large agency when ranked according 

to annual budget and number of staff, while NSF is a relatively small 

agency. Additionally, HHS’s PIO is a political appointee, while NSF’s PIO 

is a career civil servant. In making our selection, we excluded agencies 

with certain characteristics, including those with a PIO that was relatively 

new to the role at the time of our survey and agencies that had been the 

subject of recent case studies on performance management by us or 
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 36 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

other organizations.3 We conducted interviews with both selected 

agencies’ COOs, PIOs, and deputy PIOs.

In addition, in order to understand the priority goal leader role and its 

contributions to performance management, we selected three of HHS’s 

six priority goals and two of NSF’s three priority goals and interviewed the 

responsible goal leaders. We selected these goals on the basis of several 

characteristics that may affect their management. These include: (1) 

number of priority goal leaders—we selected some goals with one leader 

and some with multiple leaders; (2) number of agency components 

involved in the goal—we selected goals with varying numbers of 

components and other stakeholders involved; (3) type of goal—we 

selected some process goals and some outcome goals; and (4) 

relationship to cross-agency priority goals—we included one goal in our 

set that relates to a cross-agency priority goal. The three goals we 

selected for HHS were: (1) improve the quality of early childhood 

education: (2) improve patient safety; and (3) reduce cigarette smoking. 

The two goals we selected for NSF were: (1) develop a diverse and highly 

qualified science and technology workforce; and (2) increase 

opportunities for research and education through public access to highvalue digital products of NSF-funded research.4 For priority goals in which 

two leaders were assigned, we interviewed one of the responsible 

leaders. In several cases, deputy/ lieutenant goal leaders also attended 

the interviews.

5

We also addressed our first objective by reviewing GPRAMA and OMB 

guidance related to the key management roles. We reviewed information 

provided to us by OMB on the officials in the roles, along with information 

on them that is publically available through OMB’s performance.gov 

website and agency websites. We also interviewed OMB staff and 

officials at OPM about their work under GPRAMA, including their work 

with agencies in implementing GPRAMA. To understand agencies’ 

 

3

We considered any PIO who did not have the position as of March 22, 2012 (the date 

that OMB published a list of agency PIOs) as being “new” to the position. 

4

After our interviews were completed, leadership for NSF’s Access to Digital Products 

priority goal changed. Specifically, it moved from the Directorate for Mathematical and 

Physical Sciences to the Division of Advanced Cyberinfrastructure in the Directorate for 

Computer and Information Sciences. 

5 For the HHS goals, performance officers attended the interviews as well.
Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

perspectives and experiences in implementing the performance 

management leadership roles under GPRAMA, we analyzed relevant 

results from our survey of PIOs and included related questions in our 

interviews with officials at HHS and NSF. We also obtained relevant 

documentation, such as meeting agendas, from these two agencies.

To address our second objective, we reviewed GPRAMA and related 

OMB guidance on the PIC. We analyzed PIC meeting agendas from 

February 2009 through September 2012, and we observed part of the 

September 12, 2012, PIC meeting. We also reviewed documents related 

to the PIC and its working groups and website, and interviewed OMB and 

PIC staff. We also interviewed OPM officials about their work with the 

PIC. To understand agencies’ participation in and use of the PIC, we 

analyzed relevant results from our survey of PIOs and included related 

questions in our interviews with officials at HHS and NSF. We also 

interviewed the PIC’s Executive Director, and officials from the Small 

Agency Council and the chair of its Performance Improvement 

Committee, which interacts with the PIC.

We conducted our work from May 2012 to April 2013 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.
Appendix III: Core Competencies for 

Performance Management Staff

Page 38 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

In a January 2012 memorandum, OPM’s Director identified 15 

competencies that are essential for performance management staff to 

have in order to perform their roles.1 The memorandum included the 

following definitions of each competency.

Accountability - Holds self and others accountable for measurable highquality, timely, and cost-effective results. Determines objectives, sets 

priorities, and delegates work. Accepts responsibility for mistakes. 

Complies with established control systems and rules. 

Attention to Detail - Is thorough when performing work and 

conscientious about attending to detail.

Customer Service - Works with clients and customers (that is, any 

individuals who use or receive the services or products that your work unit 

produces, including the general public, individuals who work in the 

agency, other agencies, or organizations outside the Government) to 

assess their needs, provide information or assistance, resolve their 

problems, or satisfy their expectations; knows about available products 

and services; is committed to providing quality products and services. 

Influencing/Negotiating - Persuades others; builds consensus through 

give and take; gains cooperation from others to obtain information and 

accomplish goals.

Information Management - Identifies a need for and knows where or 

how to gather information; organizes and maintains information or 

information management systems.

Oral Communication - Expresses information (for example, ideas or 

facts) to individuals or groups effectively, taking into account the audience 

and nature of the information (for example, technical, sensitive, 

controversial); makes clear and convincing oral presentations; listens to 

others, attends to nonverbal cues, and responds appropriately.

Organizational Awareness - Knows the organization’s mission and 

functions, and how its social, political, and technological systems work 

 

1

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

Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 Functional Competencies (January 3, 2012).

Appendix III: Core Competencies for 

Performance Management Staff
Appendix III: Core Competencies for 

Performance Management Staff

Page 39 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

and operates effectively within them; this includes the programs, policies, 

procedures, rules, and regulations of the organization.

Organizational Performance Analysis - Knowledge of the methods, 

techniques, and tools used to analyze program, organizational, and 

mission performance; includes methods that deliver key performance 

information (for example, comparative, trend, diagnostic, root cause, 

predictive) used to inform decisions, actions, communications, and 

accountability systems.

Partnering - Develops networks and builds alliances; collaborates across 

boundaries to build strategic relationships and achieve common goals.

Performance Measurement - Knowledge of the principles and methods 

for evaluating program or organizational performance using financial and 

nonfinancial measures, including identification of evaluation factors (for 

example, workload, personnel requirements), metrics, and outcomes.

Planning and Evaluating - Organizes work, sets priorities, and 

determines resource requirements; determines short- or long-term goals 

and strategies to achieve them; coordinates with other organizations or 

parts of the organization to accomplish goals; monitors progress and 

evaluates outcomes.

Problem Solving - Identifies and analyzes problems; weighs relevance 

and accuracy of information; generates and evaluates alternative 

solutions; makes recommendations.

Reasoning - Identifies rules, principles, or relationships that explain facts, 

data, or other information; analyzes information and makes correct 

inferences or draws accurate conclusions.

Technical Competence - Uses knowledge that is acquired through 

formal training or extensive on-the-job experience to perform one’s job; 

works with, understands, and evaluates technical information related to 

the job; advises others on technical issues.

Written Communication - Writes in a clear, concise, organized, and 

convincing manner for the intended audience.
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 40 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act 

(GPRAMA), enacted in January 2011, modifies the Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993. GAO has been mandated to 

review the implementation of GPRAMA. As a part of this mandate, 

GAO is reviewing the status of agency implementation of the 

performance management positions and responsibilities under 

GPRAMA, examining the role that the Performance Improvement 

Council plays in helping agencies implement performance 

management activities, and assessing the status of agency 

implementation of quarterly performance reviews. To address these 

questions, we are surveying Performance Improvement Officers 

(PIOs) in the 24 agencies covered by Chief Financial Officers Act of 

1990. 

Most of the questions in this survey can be answered by checking 

boxes or filling in blanks. The survey should take no more than 45 

minutes to complete. You do not need to complete the survey in 

one sitting, as the survey will allow you at any point to save your 

responses so that you can log in again and complete the rest of it at 

a later time. To learn more about completing the questionnaire, 

printing your responses, and whom to contact if you have 

questions, click here. 

The results of this survey generally will be provided in summary 

form in a GAO report. Individual answers may be discussed in our 

reporting, but we will not include any information that could be used 

to identify individuals' or agencies' names. We will not release 

individually identifiable data outside of GAO, unless compelled by 

law or requested by the Congress. 

Thank you for your time and assistance. 

Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Introduction 
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 41 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Performance Improvement Officer (You and Your Role)

Please note: Please provide what you personally believe is the most correct answer to each question, even if it is different from the 

opinions of others at your agency.

1. Besides Performance Improvement Officer (PIO), what other title(s), if any, do you have (e.g. CFO)?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

2. When did you start serving in the position(s) you identified in Question 1?

2009 or earlier 2010 2011 2012 

Number of 

respondents

9 6 6 3 24

3. Which of the following best describes your hiring status?

Career civil

servant

Political 

appointee 

Number of 

respondents

13 11 24

4. Who do you report to in the role(s) you identified in Question 1?

(check all that apply)

1. Agency Head

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

13 11 24

2. Deputy Secretary

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

15 9 24

3. Other(s)

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

16 8 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 42 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

4a. If other, please specify:

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

5. When did you start serving as PIO at your agency?

2009 or earlier 2010 2011 2012 

Number of 

respondents

6 2 9 7 24

6. Who do you report to in your role as PIO? 

(check all that apply)

1. Chief Operating Officer (i.e. Deputy Secretary or equivalent)

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

2 22 24

2. Other(s)

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

21 3 24

6a. If other, please specify:

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

7. How many PIOs has your agency had (including yourself) since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011?

1 PIO 2 PIOs 3 PIOs 4 PIOs

Number of 

respondents

15 6 2 1 24

8. On average, how much time per month do you spend performing duties related to your role as PIO? 

All of my time

Most of my 

time 

About half of

my time 

Some of my 

time 

Very little of

my time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

1 0 7 14 2 0 24

9. How do your other role(s) besides PIO affect your ability to perform your duties as a PIO?

(check all that apply)

1. My other role(s) prevent me from spending enough time on the PIO role

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

22 2 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 43 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

2. My other role(s) give me knowledge/experience that is helpful to the PIO role

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

4 20 24

3. My other role(s) give me authority/access that is helpful to the PIO role

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

3 21 24

4. Other(s)

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24

5. None of the above

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24

6. Not applicable

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24

9a. If other, please specify:

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

10. Do each of the following factors help or hinder your ability to perform your duties as a PIO?

10a. Your level of access to agency leadership

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

24 0 0 0 0 24

10b. Your level of authority

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

23 0 1 0 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 44 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

10c. Number of staff directly supporting performance management

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

16 3 5 0 0 24

10d. Level of staff skills/ competencies to perform required performance analysis

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

18 3 3 0 0 24

10e. Level of access/ availability of training related to analysis and performance management

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

9 11 2 2 0 24

10f. Level of access to performance information

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

17 2 4 1 0 24

10g. Turnover of PIOs

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

0 7 0 2 15 24

10h. Turnover of deputy PIOs

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

0 6 0 1 17 24

10i. Other factor #1

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

3 0 5 0 2 10

10j. Other factor #2

Helps 

Neither helps

nor hinders Hinders No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

0 0 2 0 2 4 
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 45 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

If other factors specified in question 10, what was each additional factor?

Other factor #1

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

Other factor #2

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

11. To what extent, if at all, are PIO responsibilities considered in your annual performance expectations and appraisals?

Large extent

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Not applicable

- no annual 

performance

expectations

or appraisals

Number of 

respondents

5 16 2 0 0 1 24

12. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the effectiveness of the PIO role?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

Deputy Performance Improvement Officer(s)

13. Does your agency have a Deputy Performance Improvement Officer(s)?

Yes - we have

1 Deputy 

Performance

Improvement 

Officer 

Yes - we have

2 Deputy 

Performance

Improvement 

Officers No

Number of 

respondents

20 2 2 24

14. When was the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer position created at your agency?

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Number of 

respondents

2 2 3 3 10 2 22

15. How many Deputy PIOs has your agency had (including the current person in that position) since GPRAMA was enacted 

in January 2011?

1 2 

Number of 

respondents

14 8 22
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 46 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

16. What other title(s), if any, does each Deputy Performance Improvement Officer have?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

17. Who does each Deputy Performance Improvement Officer report to in the role(s) identified in question 16?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

18. On average, how much time per month does each Deputy PIO spend performing duties related to his/her role as PIO? 

All of his/her

time 

Most of 

his/her

time 

About half of

his/her time 

Some of 

his/her

time 

Very little of

his/her time No opinion 

Number of 

DPIOs

Listed by 

Agencies

5 5 5 8 1 0 24

19. When did the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer start in his/her position?

2009 or earlier 2010 2011 2012 

Number of 

DPIOs

Listed by 

Agencies

7 0 8 9 24

20. To what extent, if at all, are Deputy PIO responsibilities specifically considered in his/her annual performance 

expectations and appraisals?

Large extent

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Not applicable

- no annual 

performance

expectations

or appraisals

Number of 

Deputy PIOs

14 5 4 0 0 1 24

21. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the effectiveness of the Deputy PIO role?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 47 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Performance Improvement Staff

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is responsible under GPRAMA for identifying the skills and competencies needed by 

government personnel for goal-setting, evaluation, and analysis. Additionally, the agency is required to incorporate these skills and 

competencies into relevant position classifications and agency training. The following questions relate to the 15 competencies OPM 

identified for performance improvement staff.

22. To what extent does your performance improvement staff have each of the following competencies that OPM has 

identified? For explanations of competencies, click here.

22a. Accountability

1

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

18 5 1 0 0 24

22b. Attention to Detail

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

20 4 0 0 0 24

22c. Customer Service

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

19 3 2 0 0 24

22d. Influencing/ Negotiating

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

17 5 2 0 0 24

22e. Information Management

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

14 8 2 0 0 24

 

1 See Appendix IV for explanations of competencies.
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 48 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

22f. Oral Communication

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

21 3 0 0 0 24

22g. Organizational Awareness

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

20 4 0 0 0 24

22h. Organizational Performance Analysis

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

14 8 2 0 0 24

22i. Partnering

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

19 4 1 0 0 24

22j. Performance Measurement

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

15 7 2 0 0 24

22k. Planning and Evaluating

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

13 8 3 0 0 24

22l. Problem Solving

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

20 2 2 0 0 24

22m. Reasoning

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

21 3 0 0 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 49 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

22n. Technical Competence

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

19 3 1 1 0 24

22o. Written Communication

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

21 3 0 0 0 24

23. What are your plans, if any, to strengthen staff competencies?

Hire new staff 

Train existing 

staff 

Hire new staff 

and train 

existing staff 

Not applicable 

- all 

competencies 

are 

sufficiently 

available 

Not applicable 

- 

competencies 

are not 

sufficiently 

available, but 

no action is 

planned Other 

Number of 

respondents

0 7 11 3 1 2 24

23a. If other, please specify:

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

Agency Performance Management Roles and Responsibilities

GPRAMA provides senior agency officials with specific duties and responsibilities related to performance management and 

achievement of performance goals. The key agency officials identified in the Act are Agency Head, Chief Operating Officer (COO) who 

is the Deputy Secretary or equivalent position; Performance Improvement Officer (PIO); and Goal Leader. Later guidance from the 

Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs agencies that have a political appointee serving as the PIO to appoint a career senior 

executive to serve as Deputy PIO. The following questions address these roles and their responsibilities at your agency.

24. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in strategic and performance planning and goal 

setting? 

24a. Agency Head

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

12 10 2 0 0 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 50 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

24b. Chief Operating Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

18 5 0 0 1 0 24

24c. Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

20 4 0 0 0 0 24

24d. Deputy Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

17 4 1 0 0 2 24

24e. Goal Leaders

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

19 5 0 0 0 0 24

25. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in performance measurement and analysis? 

25a. Agency Head

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

4 7 11 1 0 1 24

25b. Chief Operating Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

9 12 3 0 0 0 24

25c. Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

17 5 2 0 0 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 51 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

25d. Deputy Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

18 3 1 0 0 2 24

25e. Goal Leaders

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

20 3 1 0 0 0 24

26. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in communicating agency progress toward goals, 

both internally and externally? 

26a. Agency Head

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

10 11 3 0 0 0 24

26b. Chief Operating Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

14 9 1 0 0 0 24

26c. Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

20 4 0 0 0 0 24

26d. Deputy Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

14 7 1 0 0 2 24

26e. Goal Leaders

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

16 6 1 0 1 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 52 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Quarterly Performance Reviews

As of June 2011, GPRAMA required agencies to review progress toward its priority goals on at least a quarterly basis. The quarterly 

performance reviews are to involve key leadership and other relevant parties and should, at minimum, focus on the agency's priority 

goals. They are to include reviewing progress and trends, coordinating within and outside the agency, assessing agencies’, activities', 

and policies’' contributions to goals, categorizing goals by risk, and identifying strategies for improvement. 

When we refer to "quarterly performance reviews" in the following questions, we refer to all aspects of the regularly-scheduled reviews 

required under GPRAMA, including preparation, review, and follow-up. Some agencies refer to these reviews as "stat" reviews. 

Additionally, although we refer to them as "quarterly performance reviews," agencies may conduct these reviews on a regularly

occurring basis more frequently than quarterly.

27. Does your agency conduct GPRAMA-required quarterly performance reviews?

Yes No 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24

28. Did your agency conduct quarterly performance reviews (or similar reviews) before the GPRAMA requirement took effect 

in June 2011?

Yes No 

Number of 

respondents

20 4 24

29. When did your agency begin conducting quarterly reviews?

2007 or earlier 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 

Number of 

respondents

9 

1

0 4 5 3 1 22

1

30. How does your agency conduct its quarterly performance reviews?

Two PIOs did not respond to this question.

Meetings 

Written 

communication Both 

Number of 

respondents

10 0 14 24

31. How often does your agency conduct performance reviews (although GPRAMA requires quarterly reviews, some agencies 

have established other review cycles to meet their management needs)?

Less often 

than 

quarterly Quarterly 

More often 

than 

quarterly

Number of 

respondents

0 17 7 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 53 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

31a. How often?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

32. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in your agency's quarterly performance reviews? 

32a. Agency Head

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

4 5 9 6 0 0 24

32b. Chief Operating Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

21 2 1 0 0 0 24

32c. Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

23 1 0 0 0 0 24

32d. Deputy Performance Improvement Officer

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

20 1 1 0 0 2 24

32e. Goal Leaders

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

19 2 3 0 0 0 24

32f. Management Chiefs

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

15 8 1 0 0 0 24

32g. Internal-to-agency contributors to goals

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

15 7 2 0 0 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 54 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

32h. External-to-agency contributors to goals

Large 

involvement 

Moderate 

involvement

Small 

involvement 

No 

involvement No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

1 3 9 7 0 4 24

33. For each of the following officials, has their involvement in agency performance management increased, remained about 

the same, or decreased as a result of your agency's quarterly performance reviews?

33a. Agency Head

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

2 19 0 2 1 24

33b. Chief Operating Officer

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

15

1

6 0 2 0 23

1

33c. Performance Improvement Officer

One PIO did not respond to this question.

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

16 7 0 1 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 55 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

33d. Deputy Performance Improvement Officer

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

11 10 0 1 2 24

33e. Goal Leaders

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

13 10 0 1 0 24

33f. Management Chiefs

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

8 14 0 1 1 24

33g. Internal-to-agency contributors to goals

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

9 14 0 1 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 56 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

33h. External-to-agency contributors to goals

Increased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Remained 

about

the same as a

result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews

Decreased as

a result of 

quarterly

performance 

reviews No opinion Not applicable

Number of 

respondents

0 9 1 3 11 24

34. How frequently do your agency's quarterly performance reviews include the following characteristics?

34a. Reviews include information on progress and trends relevant to achievement of priority goals

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

23 1 0 0 24

34b. Reviews include coordination with personnel inside and outside agency, as relevant to achievement of priority goals

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

16 4 3 1 24

34c. Reviews include assessment of whether relevant organizations, programs, regulations, policies, etc. are contributing as 

planned toward goals

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

20 2 2 0 24

34d. Reviews include assessment of risk of not achieving priority goals and for the highest-risk goals 

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

18 4 2 0 24

34e. Reviews include discussion of strategies for performance improvement

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

19 5 0 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 57 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

35. How frequently do your agency's quarterly performance reviews include the following characteristics or practices and 

how easy or challenging has it been to implement them?

35a. Frequency: Accurate, timely, and useful data is available for the reviews

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

18 6 0 0 24

35a. Challenge: Accurate, timely, and useful data is available for the reviews 

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

2 6 16 0 24

35b. Frequency: Participants are adequately prepared for the reviews

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

22 1 1 0 24

35b. Challenge: Participants are adequately prepared for the reviews

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

5 15 4 0 24

35c. Frequency: Reviews are held routinely as scheduled

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

20 3 1 0 24

35c. Challenge: Reviews are held routinely as scheduled

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

10 8 6 0 24

35d. Frequency: Reviews are aligned with strategic goals and performance objectives

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

22 1 1 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 58 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

35d. Challenge: Reviews are aligned with strategic goals and performance objectives

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

13 9 1 1 24

35e. Frequency: Leadership actively participates in the reviews

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

22

1

1 0 0 23

1

35e. Challenge: Leadership actively participates in the reviews

One PIO did not respond to this question.

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

12

1

8 2 1 23

1

35f. Frequency: Reviews include those managers/staff needed to facilitate problem solving and identify improvement 

opportunities

One PIO did not respond to this question.

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

21 3 0 0 24

35f. Challenge: Reviews include those managers/staff needed to facilitate problem solving and identify improvement 

opportunities

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

10 12 2 0 24

35g. Frequency: Data and relevant analyses are presented effectively to participants of the reviews

More than half

the time 

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

16 6 1 1 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 59 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

35g. Challenge: Data and relevant analyses are presented effectively to participants of the reviews

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

2 10 11 1 24

35h. Frequency: Reviews strike a balance between motivating improvement and holding participants accountable

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

17 5 0 2 24

35h. Challenge: Reviews strike a balance between motivating improvement and holding participants accountable

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

4 12 6 2 24

35i. Frequency: Actionable opportunities for performance improvement are identified through the reviews

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

13 8 3 0 24

35i. Challenge: Actionable opportunities for performance improvement are identified through the reviews

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

6 11 5 2 24

35j. Frequency: Follow up takes place after the reviews so that all action items arising from reviews are addressed

More than half

the time

About half the

time 

Less than half

the time No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

21 2 1 0 24

35j. Challenge: Follow up takes place after the reviews so that all action items arising from reviews are addressed

Easy 

Neither easy

nor 

challenging Challenging No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

4 12 7 1 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 60 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Performance Improvement Council

GPRAMA establishes in law the Performance Improvement Council (PIC). The PIC is an interagency council made up of agency PIOs

that is charged with assisting OMB with topics related to GPRAMA and facilitating the exchange of useful practices among agencies.

36. How often do you attend the every-other-month Performance Improvement Council meetings that are for PIOs only (not 

deputies or staff)? 

Attend all or

nearly all 

meetings

Attend more 

than 

half of 

meetings

Attend about

half of 

meetings

Attend less 

than 

half of 

meetings

Rarely or 

never

attend 

meetings 

Number of 

respondents

15 3 2 2 2 24

37. How often do you attend the every-other-month Performance Improvement Council meetings that are open to PIOs, 

Deputy PIOs, and staff?

Attend all or

nearly all 

meetings

Attend more 

than 

half of 

meetings

Attend about

half of

meetings

Attend less 

than 

half of 

meetings

Rarely or 

never

attend 

meetings 

Number of 

respondents

5 1 2 4 12 24

38. How often does a Deputy PIO or another representative(s) from your agency attend the every-other-month Performance 

Improvement Council meetings that are open to PIOs, Deputy PIOs, and staff?

Attend all or

nearly all 

meetings

Attend more 

than 

half of 

meetings

Attend about

half of

meetings

Attend less 

than 

half of 

meetings

Rarely or 

never

attend 

meetings 

Number of 

respondents

22 0 1 0 1 24

39. Which of the following working groups of the Performance Improvement Council do/did you actively participate in 

personally as the PIO? (check all that apply)

1. Capability Building working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24

2. Goal Setting working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 61 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

3. Internal Agency Reviews working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

22 2 24

4. Benefits Processing working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

23 1 24

5. Business Intelligence working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

23 1 24

6. I do not personally participate in any working groups

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

3 21 24

7. Other

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

24 0 24

39a. If other working group, please specify:

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

40. In which of the following working groups of the Performance Improvement Council do/did other representatives from your 

agency actively participate? (check all that apply)

1. Capability Building working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

12 12 24

2. Goal Setting working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

15 9 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 62 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

3. Internal Agency Reviews working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

10 14 24

4. Benefits Processing working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

20 4 24

5. Business Intelligence working group

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

15 9 24

6. Other

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

18 6 24

7. None

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

20 4 24

8. Do not know

Not checked Checked 

Number of 

respondents

21 3 24

40a. If other working group, please specify:

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

41. GPRAMA and OMB guidance identify the following responsibilities of the Performance Improvement Council. How helpful 

have the following aspects been to your agency?

41a. Resolving cross-cutting performance issues as needed

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

3 11 5 5 24
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 63 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

41b. Facilitating the exchange of successful practices among agencies

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

14 8 1 1 24

41c. Coordinating with other interagency management councils

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

2 16 3 3 24

41d. Seeking advice and information from nonmember agencies, particularly smaller agencies

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

3 7 1 13 24

41e. Considering models from corporations, nonprofits, other governments, unions, etc.

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

4 10 1 9 24

41f. Submitting recommendations to streamline performance management policies and requirements to OMB

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

7 10 4 3 24

41g. Developing and providing tips, tools, training, and other capacity-building mechanisms

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

12 9 1 2 24

41h. Other aspect #1

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

0 0 1 1 2

41i. Other aspect #2

Very Helpful

Moderately 

Helpful Not Helpful No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

0 0 0 1 1 
Appendix IV: Results from Survey of 

Performance Improvement Officers

Page 64 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

If other aspect(s) specified in question 41, what was each additional aspect?

Other aspect #1

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

Other aspect #2

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

42. To what extent are you able to apply successful practices and other information and tools shared by the PIC to your 

agency's performance management?

Large extent 

Moderate 

extent Small extent No extent No opinion 

Number of 

respondents

2 9 6 0 7 24

42a. Please provide an example or examples of case(s) in which you have applied successful practices and other information 

and tools shared by the PIC in your agency.

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

43. What suggestions do you have for improving the effectiveness of the PIC, if any?

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.

44. Please provide any comments that would expand upon your responses to any of the questions in the survey.

Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 65 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management
Appendix V: Comments from the Office of 

Personnel Management

Page 66 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 67 GAO-13-356 Performance Management Leadership

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director, 

and Kathleen Padulchick, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the development 

of this report. Virginia Chanley, Lois Hanshaw, Linda Kohn, Jill Lacey, 

Albert Sim, and Meredith Trauner made significant contributions to all 

aspects of this report.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements 

(450981)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 

policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 

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

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

accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

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

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

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

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

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

Contact:

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

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

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

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

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.