MANAGING FOR 

RESULTS

OMB Should 

Strengthen Reviews 

of Cross-Agency 

Goals

Report to Congressional Addressees

June 2014

GAO-14-526

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-14-526, a report to 

congressional addressees

June 2014

MANAGING FOR RESULTS

OMB Should Strengthen Reviews of Cross-Agency 

Goals 

Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government faces 

complex, high-risk challenges, such as 

protecting our nation’s critical 

information systems. Effectively 

managing these challenges is essential 

for national and economic security and 

public health and safety. However, 

responsibility for addressing these 

challenges often rests with multiple 

agencies. To effectively address them, 

shared goals and cross-agency 

collaboration are fundamental. 

This report responds to GAO’s 

mandate to evaluate the 

implementation of GPRAMA. It

assesses (1) what is known about 

progress made towards the interim 

CAP goals; and (2) how, if at all, 

quarterly progress reviews reflected 

GPRAMA requirements and leading 

practices for reviews, as well as how 

reviews contributed to improved crossagency performance and collaboration.

To address these objectives, GAO 

analyzed CAP goal status updates and 

other documents from OMB and CAP 

goal progress-review meetings, and

interviewed OMB staff and CAP goal 

representatives. GAO compared this 

information to GPRAMA requirements 

and to leading practices for 

performance reviews previously 

reported on by GAO. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven

recommendations to OMB to improve 

the reporting of performance 

information for CAP goals and ensure 

that CAP goal progress reviews meet 

GPRAMA requirements and reflect 

leading practices. OMB staff generally 

agreed to consider GAO’s

recommendations.

What GAO Found

CAP Goal Progress. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires 

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to coordinate with agencies to: (1) 

establish outcome-oriented, federal government priority goals (known as crossagency priority, or CAP, goals) with annual and quarterly performance targets 

and milestones; and (2) report quarterly on a single website now known as 

Performance.gov the results achieved for each CAP goal compared to the 

targets. In February 2012, OMB identified 14 interim CAP goals and 

subsequently published five quarterly updates on the status of the interim CAP 

goals on Performance.gov. While updates for eight of the goals included data 

that indicated performance towards an overall planned level of performance, only 

three also contained annual or quarterly targets that allowed for an assessment 

of interim progress. Updates for the other six goals did not report on progress 

towards a planned level of performance because the goals lacked either a

quantitative target or the data needed to track progress. The updates on 

Performance.gov also listed planned activities and milestones contributing to 

each goal, but some did not include relevant information, including time frames 

for the completion of specific actions and the status of ongoing efforts. The 

incomplete information in the updates provided a limited basis for ensuring 

accountability for the achievement of targets and milestones. 

OMB Quarterly Progress Reviews. GPRAMA also requires that OMB—with the 

support of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC)—review CAP goal 

progress quarterly with goal leaders. OMB instituted processes for reviewing 

progress on the goals each quarter, which involved the collection of data from 

goal leaders and the development of a memorandum for the OMB Director. 

However, the information included in these memorandums was not fully 

consistent with GPRAMA requirements. For example, GPRAMA requires OMB to

identify strategies for improving the performance of goals at risk of not being met, 

but this was not consistently done. Without this information, OMB leadership and 

others may not be able to adequately track whether corrective actions are being 

taken, thereby limiting their ability to hold officials accountable for addressing 

identified risks and improving performance. 

Leading Practices for Reviews. At the CAP-goal level, goal leaders for two 

CAP goals and one sub-goal instituted in-person progress reviews with officials 

from contributing agencies that were broadly consistent with the full range of 

leading practices for reviews, such as leadership involvement in reviews of 

progress on identified goals and milestones, and rigorous follow-up on issues 

identified through these reviews. In these cases, goal managers reported there 

were positive effects on performance, accountability, and collaboration. In

contrast, review processes used by other goal leaders did not consistently reflect 

the full range of leading practices. Effective review processes consistently 

engage leaders and agency officials in efforts to identify and address 

performance deficiencies, and to ensure accountability for commitments. Thus, 

not using them may result in missed opportunities to hold meaningful 

performance discussions, ensure accountability and oversight, and drive 

performance improvement. 

View GAO-14-526. For more information, 

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

or mihmj@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Letter 1 

Background 5

CAP Goal Leaders Reported Performance on Goals, but Many 

Lacked Key Information to Demonstrate Progress 9

OMB and Goal Leaders Established Processes for Reviewing 

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Progress, but Not All Review 

Processes Were Consistent with Requirements and Leading 

Practices 21

Conclusions 32

Recommendations for Executive Action 34

Agency Comments 35

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 37

Appendix II Interim Cross-Agency Priority Goals and Goal Statements 41

Appendix III Interagency Group Membership and Meeting Frequency 

and Purpose 42

Appendix IV Description of Interim Cross-Agency Priority Goal 

Review Processes 46

Appendix V Full Text for Interactive Figure 2 on Frequency of 

Data Reporting for Cross-Agency Priority Goals’ 

Overall Planned Levels of Performance 48

Appendix VI GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 52

Tables

Table 1: Leadership Involvement in Review Processes Reflecting 

Leading Practices 26

Contents
Page ii GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Table 2: Collection of Performance Data and Meeting Preparation 

for Review Processes Reflecting Leading Practices 27

Table 3: Participation by Key Officials in Review Processes 

Reflecting Leading Practices 28

Table 4: Follow-Up on Issues Raised During Review Meetings 29

Figures

Figure 1: Interim Cross-Agency Priority Goals, Positions of Goal 

Leaders, and Interagency Groups 6

Figure 2: Frequency of Data Reporting for Cross-Agency Priority 

goals' Overall Planned Levels of Performance 12

Figure 3: Identification of Strategies and Examples of Contributors 

for the STEM Education Cross-Agency Priority Goal 16

Figure 4: Strategic Sourcing Cross-Agency Priority Goal Update 

Provides Planned Actions Without Time Frames for 

Completion 19
Page iii GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Abbreviations

APG Agency Priority Goal

CAP Cross-Agency Priority 

CEQ Council on Environmental Quality

CIO Chief Information Officer

DHS Department of Homeland Security

EOP Executive Office of the President

FSSI Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative

GPRAMA GPRA Modernization Act of 2010

GSA General Services Administration

HHS Department of Health and Human Services

NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSTP Office of Science and Technology Policy

PIC Performance Improvement Council

PIV Personal Identity Verification

SBA Small Business Administration

SBIR Small Business Innovation Research

STEM Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics

STTR Small Business Technology Transfer

SSLC Strategic Sourcing Leadership Council

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

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-14-526 Managing for Results

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

June 10, 2014

Congressional Addressees

Collaboration across agencies is fundamental to effectively addressing 

many complex, high-risk challenges facing the federal government, 

including protecting the nation’s critical information systems, reducing 

billions of dollars lost through improper payments, and better managing 

the risks of climate change. Effectively managing these challenges is 

essential to national and economic security, public health and safety, and 

the integrity of federal programs. However, because these challenges are 

complex, responsibility for addressing them often rests with multiple 

agencies. Both Congress and the executive branch have recognized the 

need for improved collaboration across the federal government, and the 

GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) established a new 

framework and processes aimed at encouraging a more crosscutting and 

integrated approach to focusing on results and improving government 

performance and management.1

Among other things, GPRAMA requires the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to coordinate with agencies to develop federal government 

priority goals (now known as cross-agency priority, or CAP, goals), which 

include outcome-oriented goals covering a limited number of crosscutting 

policy areas, as well as goals to improve management across the federal 

government. These goals are intended to cover areas where increased 

cross-agency collaboration is needed to improve progress towards 

shared, complex policy or management objectives, such as improving our 

nation’s cybersecurity posture and addressing critical skills gaps in the 

federal workforce. In addition, in an effort to drive improved performance, 

transparency, and accountability across the federal government, 

GPRAMA requires the use of specific processes to encourage the 

application of leading management practices.

 

1

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

Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 

(Aug. 3, 1993).
 

Page 2 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

One GPRAMA requirement is that leaders regularly review progress 

towards established agency and cross-agency goals.2 Specifically, the 

Director of OMB, with the support of the Performance Improvement 

Council (PIC), must review progress towards the CAP goals with the 

appropriate lead government official at least quarterly to increase 

management’s collection and use of performance information to achieve 

crosscutting goals.3 Under GPRAMA, most large federal agencies have 

been holding quarterly reviews to assess progress in achieving their 

individual agency priority goals.4

This report is our response to a mandate that we evaluate the 

implementation of GPRAMA.

The emphasis on the creation of shared 

performance goals, the collection and analysis of data, and the regular 

review of these data with involved officials is designed to foster 

collaboration among agencies, ensure that interagency efforts are 

informed by data on performance, identify successful practices, and 

reinforce agency and collective accountability for the achievement of 

shared outcomes.

5

 

2

As our previous work has shown, holding regular meetings between leadership and 

responsible program managers to review progress is an effective leadership strategy that 

has been widely adopted by governments at the state and local level to make betterinformed decisions and drive progress towards established goals.

Due to the timing of our work, we focused 

3

31 U.S.C. § 1121(a). Executive Order No. 13450, Improving Government Program 

Performance, 72 Fed. Reg. 64519 (Nov. 15, 2007) established the PIC, whose 

establishment was later codified under GPRAMA. The PIC is chaired by OMB’s Deputy 

Director for Management and composed of Performance Improvement Officers from 

various federal agencies. The PIC is to assist the Director of OMB in achieving the CAP 

goals and in implementing the planning, reporting and use of performance information 

requirements related to the CAP goals. 31 U.S.C. § 1124(b). 

4

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).

5

We have previously released a series of reports under our mandate in GPRAMA to 

periodically examine the implementation of the law. For example, see GAO, 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) and Managing for 

Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA Modernization Act to 

Address Pressing Governance Challenges, GAO-13-518 (Washington, D.C.: June 26, 

2013).
 

Page 3 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

on efforts surrounding the 14 interim goals established in February 2012.6

To address these objectives, we interviewed representatives of 13 of the 

14 interim CAP goals.

This report assesses (1) what is known about progress made towards the 

interim CAP goals; and (2) how, if at all, quarterly progress reviews 

reflected GPRAMA requirements and leading practices for reviews, as 

well as how they contributed to improved cross-agency performance and 

collaboration. The experience with the interim goals can provide lessons 

for the implementation and management of the new CAP goals released 

with the fiscal year 2015 budget.

7 For 8 of the 13 goals, we spoke directly with the 

goal leader or deputy goal leader, along with, in some cases, other staff 

from agencies and OMB involved in supporting efforts related to the 

goals. For the other five goals, we met with agency officials or OMB staff 

playing a key role in the management of interagency efforts related to the 

goal.8

To address the first objective, and assess what is known about progress 

made towards the interim CAP goals, we analyzed performance 

information included in the quarterly status updates for each CAP goal 

published on Performance.gov, as well as relevant information collected 

through our interviews with CAP goal representatives. We compared the 

data and information made available through these updates with the 

GPRAMA requirement that Performance.gov includes the results 

achieved during the most recent quarter and overall trend data. To 

assess the reliability of performance data and information available 

through Performance.gov, we collected information from OMB and PIC 

We also interviewed the goal leaders for 11 agency priority goals 

aligned with, or contributing to, a CAP goal.

 

6

A 15th interim CAP goal—Open Government Data—was added when the status of the 

CAP goals was updated on Performance.gov in September 2013. Since this goal was not 

included in the initial list of goals identified in February 2012, it was excluded from the 

scope of our review. 

7

We requested an interview with representatives of the Energy Efficiency CAP goal, 

including the goal leader. However, no representatives of this CAP goal were made 

available for an interview. We were, however, informed that this goal was a compilation of 

related agency priority goals. We interviewed the goal leaders for two agency priority 

goals, from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, identified 

as contributing to the Energy Efficiency CAP goal. 

8

Throughout this report, we refer to agency and OMB staff that supported efforts related to 

the CAP goals as “goal managers.” 
 

Page 4 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

staff and CAP goal representatives about data quality control procedures. 

We determined that the data and information were sufficiently reliable for 

our analysis of what was reported on Performance.gov about progress 

towards identified goals and milestones.

To address the second objective and assess how OMB CAP goal 

progress reviews were conducted, we reviewed quarterly review 

memorandums developed by OMB staff. We also conducted interviews 

with staff from OMB and the PIC. We compared the contents of these 

memorandums with information required to be reviewed by the Director of 

OMB on a quarterly basis.

To further address the second objective, we reviewed documents created 

for interagency meetings (where available), such as meeting agendas, 

presentation materials, notes, and attendee lists. We also interviewed 

sub-goal leaders from the Closing Skills Gaps and Entrepreneurship and 

Small Business CAP goals to learn more about their involvement in 

quarterly review processes for their CAP goals, and to learn of any impact 

the CAP goal designation or review processes had at the sub-goal level. 

We selected these goals to reflect one review process that involved 

regular meetings between the goal leader and contributors dedicated to 

reviewing progress (Closing Skills Gaps), and one that did not rely on 

regular meetings at the CAP-goal level to review progress 

(Entrepreneurship and Small Business). Our findings from these 

interviews cannot be generalized to the other CAP goals. We then 

compared what we learned about the processes instituted by each goal 

leader to review progress to leading practices for performance reviews 

previously identified by GAO.9

Because the scope of our review was to examine the implementation of 

quarterly reporting and reviews, we did not evaluate whether these goals 

were appropriate indicators of performance, were sufficiently ambitious, 

or met other dimensions of quality.

We conducted our work from May 2013 to June 2014 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

 

9

GAO-13-228. 
 

Page 5 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

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. More detailed information on our scope and 

methodology appears in appendix I.

GPRAMA requires OMB to coordinate with agencies to develop longterm, outcome-oriented federal government priority goals for a limited 

number of crosscutting policy areas and management improvement areas 

every 4 years.10 Furthermore, with the submission of the fiscal year 2013 

budget, GPRAMA required OMB to identify a set of interim priority 

goals.11

The CAP Goal Leader. As required by GPRAMA, each of the interim 

CAP goals had a goal leader responsible for coordinating efforts to 

achieve each goal.

The President’s 2013 budget submission included a list of 14 

interim CAP goals, 9 of which were related to crosscutting policy areas 

and 5 of which were management improvement goals.

12 CAP goal leaders were given flexibility in how to 

manage these efforts, and were encouraged by OMB to engage officials 

from contributing agencies by leveraging existing inter-agency working 

groups, policy committees, and councils. For information on the position 

of the goal leader and the interagency groups used to engage officials 

from agencies contributing to each interim CAP goal, see figure 1. For 

more information on the interagency groups used to engage agency 

officials in efforts related to each goal, see appendix III.13

 

1031 U.S.C. § 1120(a). GPRAMA specifies that the management improvement goals must 

cover financial management, human capital management, information technology 

management, procurement and acquisition management, and real property management. 

11Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 14(a)(1), 31 U.S.C. § 1115 note.

12The goal leaders were often supported by deputy goal leaders.

13For information on successful implementation approaches used by interagency groups, 

see GAO, Managing for Results: Implementation Approaches Used to Enhance 

Collaboration in Interagency Groups, GAO-14-220 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14, 2014).

Background
 

Page 6 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Figure 1: Interim Cross-Agency Priority Goals, Positions of Goal Leaders, and Interagency Groups

Source: GAO analysis of information from Performance.gov and interviews with CAP goal managers. | GAO-14-526
 

Page 7 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

According to OMB and PIC staff, because CAP goal leaders were 

responsible for managing efforts related to the achievement of the goals 

as part of a larger portfolio of responsibilities, staff from the PIC, OMB, 

and—in some cases—from agencies with project management 

responsibilities, provided additional capacity for coordinating interagency 

efforts and overseeing the process of collecting, analyzing, and reporting 

data. Specifically, PIC staff provided logistical support, assisting with the 

regular collection of data, updates to Performance.gov, and the 

development of CAP goal governance structures and working groups. 

They also provided support in the area of performance measurement and 

analysis. For example, PIC staff supported the Exports goal leader by 

informing discussions of how to measure the success and impact of 

export promotion efforts, providing expertise in the development and 

selection of appropriate performance measures, and assisting in the 

collection and analysis of relevant data.

Progress Reviews. GPRAMA also requires that the Director of OMB, 

with the support of the PIC, review progress towards each CAP goal with 

the appropriate lead government official at least quarterly. Specifically, 

the law requires that these should include a review of progress during the 

most recent quarter, overall trends, and the likelihood of meeting the 

planned level of performance.14 As part of these reviews, OMB is to 

assess whether relevant agencies, organizations, program activities, 

regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities are 

contributing as planned to the goal. The law also requires that OMB 

categorize the goals by risk of not achieving the planned level of 

performance and, for those at greatest risk of not meeting the planned 

level of performance, identify strategies for performance improvement.15

In an earlier evaluation of the implementation of quarterly performance 

reviews at the agency level, we found that regular, in-person review 

meetings provide a critical opportunity for leaders to use current data and 

information to analyze performance, provide feedback to managers and 

staff, follow up on previous decisions or commitments, learn from efforts 

to improve performance, and identify and solve performance problems.16

 

1431 U.S.C. § 1121(a)(1).

1531 U.S.C. §§ 1121(a)(4)-(5). 

16GAO-13-228. 
 

Page 8 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

As part of this work we also identified nine leading practices that can be 

used to promote successful performance reviews at the federal level. To 

identify these practices, we conducted a review of relevant academic and 

policy literature, including our previous reports. We refined these 

practices with additional information obtained from practitioners at the 

local, state, and federal level who shared their experiences and lessons 

learned.

Reporting Requirements. In addition to requiring quarterly reviews, 

GPRAMA requires that OMB make information available on “a single 

website” (now known as Performance.gov) for each CAP goal on the 

results achieved during the most recent quarter, and overall trend data 

compared to the planned level of performance.17 In addition, information 

on Performance.gov is to include an assessment of whether relevant 

federal organizations, programs, and activities are contributing as 

planned, and, for those CAP goals at risk of not achieving the planned 

level of performance, information on strategies for performance 

improvement.18

New CAP Goals. As required by GPRAMA, in March 2014, OMB 

announced the creation of a new set of CAP goals in the fiscal year 2015 

budget. It then identified 15 CAP goals with 4-year time frames on 

Performance.gov—7 mission-oriented goals and 8 management-focused 

 

17Throughout the report we refer to the single website required by GPRAMA as 

Performance.gov. 

1831 U.S.C. § 1122(c).

Nine Leading Practices That Can Be Used to Promote Successful Performance Reviews

• Leaders use data-driven reviews as a leadership strategy to drive performance improvement.

• Key players attend reviews to facilitate problem solving.

• Reviews ensure alignment between goals, program activities, and resources.

• Leaders hold managers accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying 

strategies for improvement.

• There is capacity to collect accurate, useful, and timely performance data.

• Staff have skills to analyze and clearly communicate complex data for decision making.

• Rigorous preparations enable meaningful performance discussions.

• Reviews are conducted on a frequent and regularly scheduled basis.

• Participants engage in rigorous and sustained follow-up on issues identified during reviews.

Source: GAO-13-228.
 

Page 9 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

goals. Five goal areas—Cybersecurity; Open Data; Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education; Strategic Sourcing; 

and Sustainability (renamed Climate Change (Federal Actions))—were 

carried over from the set of interim CAP goals, while the other 10 are new 

goal areas.19 OMB stated on Performance.gov that more detailed action 

plans for each of the goals, including specific metrics and milestones that 

will be used to gauge progress, will subsequently be released. The new 

CAP goals will also have co-leaders; one from an office within the 

Executive Office of the President (EOP) and one or more from federal 

agencies. According to OMB staff, this change was made to ensure that 

CAP goal leaders can leverage the convening authority of officials from 

the EOP while also drawing upon expertise and resources from the 

agency level.

OMB released the federal government performance plan on 

Performance.gov concurrently with the fiscal year 2013 budget 

submission that identified the 14 interim CAP goals. The information on 

Performance.gov included a goal statement for each of the interim goals 

that established an overall planned level of performance. During the twoyear interim goal period, OMB addressed the requirement to report on 

results achieved during the most recent quarter for each of the CAP goals 

by publishing 5 sets of quarterly updates to the interim CAP goals on 

Performance.gov. The first set of updates, for the fourth quarter of fiscal 

 

19The other 10 CAP goals are Insider Threat and Security Clearance; Job-Creating 

Investment; Infrastructure Permitting Modernization; Service Members and Veterans 

Mental Health; Customer Service; Smarter IT Delivery; Shared Services; Benchmark and 

Improve Mission-Support Operations; Lab-to-Market; and People and Culture. 

CAP Goal Leaders 

Reported 

Performance on 

Goals, but Many 

Lacked Key 

Information to 

Demonstrate 

Progress

GPRAMA Requirements for Establishing Planned Performance for CAP Goals

GPRAMA requires the Director of OMB to establish, in the annual federal government 

performance plan, a planned level of performance for each CAP goal for the year in which the 

plan is submitted and the next fiscal year, as well as quarterly performance targets for the goals.

Source: 31 U.S.C. §§ 1115(a)(1) and (4).

GPRAMA Requirements for Reporting CAP Goal Performance Information

GPRAMA requires the Director of OMB to publish on Performance.gov information about the 

results achieved during the most recent quarter and trend data compared to the planned level of 

performance for each CAP goal.

Source: 31 U.S.C. §1122(c)(5).
 

Page 10 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

year 2012, was published in December 2012 and the final set of updates, 

for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013, was published in February 

2014.20

The quarterly updates did not, however, consistently identify required 

interim planned levels of performance and data necessary to indicate 

progress being made toward the CAP goals. Updates to eight of the goals 

included quarterly, biannual, or annual data that indicated performance 

achieved to date toward the target identified in the goal statement. Three 

of the eight goals (Cybersecurity, Energy Efficiency, and Strategic 

Sourcing) also contained the required annual or quarterly targets that 

defined planned levels of performance, which allowed for an assessment 

of interim progress. For example, the Cybersecurity goal’s updates stated 

that the goal would not be met within its established time frame, and 

provided quarterly performance data compared to quarterly targets for the 

entirety of the goal period to support the statement. In contrast, the 

updates for the other five goals did not contain annual or quarterly 

targets, which made it difficult to determine whether interim progress 

towards the goals’ overall planned levels of performance was being 

made. For example, updates to the Exports goal included data on the 

total amount of U.S. exports by quarter for calendar years 2012 and 2013 

but did not include a target level of performance for those years or 

quarters. Therefore, it was unclear whether the goal’s overall planned 

level of performance of doubling U.S. exports by the end of 2014 is on 

track to be met. Furthermore, updates to six interim CAP goals did not 

include trend data to indicate progress being made towards the goals’ 

overall planned levels of performance.

These documents described general accomplishments made to 

date, specific actions completed, or both. The updates to the Broadband 

CAP goal, for instance, included short descriptions of general progress 

made towards each of the five strategies identified for achieving the goal, 

as well as specific milestones accomplished.

Figure 2 below identifies the frequency with which data on CAP goal 

performance were reported, as well as the overall performance CAP goal 

 

20The set of updates for the second quarter of fiscal year 2013 did not contain updates to 

the Energy Efficiency and Veteran Career Readiness CAP goals. According to OMB, the 

Energy Efficiency goal was not updated during the quarter due to revisions based on 

recent policy developments. The Veteran Career Readiness goal was not updated due to 

ongoing policy discussions relating to the implementation of the Department of Defense 

Transition Assistance Program.
 

Page 11 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

leaders reported making compared to the goal’s planned level of 

performance through the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013.
Figure 2: Frequency of Data Reporting for Cross-Agency Priority Goals’ Overall Planned Levels 

of Performance. Interactive graphic

Page 12 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results 

Print instructions To print text version of this graphic, go to appendix V.

Roll over each Cross-Agency Priority Goal to see more information about progress reported 

for the goal.

Directions:

Source: GAO analysis of information from Performance.gov.

Double U.S. exports by the end of 2014.

Increase energy production...50 percent by 2030.

...achieve 95 percent implementation of the Administration's priority 

cybersecurity capabilities by the end of fiscal year 2014.

...save $3 billion in taxpayer dollars by closing at least 2500 data 

centers by fiscal year 2015.

...agencies’ strategic sourcing of at least two new commodities or 

services in both 2013 and 2014, that yield at least a 10 percent 

savings... In addition, agencies must increase their use of Federal 

Strategic Sourcing Initiative vehicles by at least 10 percent in both 

fiscal years 2013 and 2014.

...ensure 4G wireless broadband coverage for 98 percent of 

Americans by 2016.

...achieve a payment accuracy of 97 percent by the end of 2016.

...[prepare] 2 million workers with skills training by 2015...

By 2020, federal government will reduce its direct greenhouse gas 

emissions by 28 percent and will reduce its indirect greenhouse 

gas emissions by 13 percent by 2020...

...increase the number of well-prepared graduates with STEM 

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

additional 1 million graduates with degrees in STEM subjects.

By September 30, 2013, increase the percent of eligible servicemembers who will be served by career readiness and preparedness 

programs from 50 percent to 90 percent...

...by September 30, 2013, close the skills gaps by 50 percent for 3 

to 5 critical federal government occupations or competencies...

The federal government will maintain the fiscal year 2012 square 

footage baseline of its office and warehouse inventory.

Increase federal services to entrepreneurs and small businesses 

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

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Quarterly

Biannually

Annually

Annually

Data not reported

Data not reported

Data not reported

Data not reported

Data not reported

Data not reported

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Overall Planned Level of Performance

Frequency of

Data Reporting for

Overall Goal
 

Page 13 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Through our review of information on Performance.gov and interviews 

with managers of the six interim CAP goals that did not report any data on 

progress towards the stated goal, we identified reasons that included:

• Lack of quantitative planned level of performance (targets). The 

Entrepreneurship and Small Business CAP goal lacked a quantitative 

performance target. The quarterly updates to the goal explained that 

efforts were focused on the goal’s 10 sub-goals. Most of these subgoals, however, also lacked quantitative performance targets. The 

deputy goal leader told us that some of the sub-goals did not have 

quantitative targets by design, as goal managers thought it more 

appropriate to use qualitative milestones to track progress towards 

them. The quarterly updates to the “Streamline immigration pathways 

for immigrant entrepreneurs” sub-goal lacked a quantitative target but 

had a range of qualitative milestones. For example, the Department of 

Homeland Security and the Department of State established a 

milestone to identify reforms needed to ease the application and 

adjudication processes for visas available to certain immigrant 

entrepreneurs.

• Unavailable data. Some CAP goal managers told us that the data 

needed to assess and report progress toward their goals’ 

performance targets were unavailable or not yet being collected. For 

example, a manager of the Job Training CAP goal told us that staff 

had not established a baseline number of participants served by 

federal job training programs against which progress towards the goal 

could be tracked. In addition, managers of the Real Property CAP 

goal told us that they did not have data available for tracking progress 

toward the goal of holding the federal real property footprint at its 

fiscal year 2012 baseline level.

Where key data were not reported, some goal managers took actions to 

obtain previously unavailable data or developed an alternative approach 

for assessing progress. 

• Job Training CAP Goal. The first quarterly update for the Job 

Training CAP goal, published on Performance.gov in December 2012, 

stated that federal agencies were surveyed to compile a list of all job 

training programs in the federal government, including the number of 

participants served by those programs, and that a working group was 

developing a baseline for measuring progress towards the goal of 

preparing 2 million workers with skills training by 2015. A goal 

manager told us that the deputy goal leader and staff from the PIC 
 

Page 14 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

gathered baseline information for most of the programs within the 

scope of the CAP goal, but that they were unable to complete the 

efforts by the end of the goal period. 

• Real Property CAP Goal. Managers of the Real Property CAP goal 

told us that they worked to establish a baseline and metrics for 

measuring future performance and would be able to report on 

progress after the goal period ended. 

• Closing Skills Gaps CAP Goal. A manager of the Closing Skills 

Gaps goal told us that the goal’s managers decided early on that it did 

not make sense for each of the goal’s identified mission-critical 

occupations to have the same skills gaps reduction target. Instead, 

managers of the goal’s sub-goals identified efforts to reduce skills 

gaps in their specific occupations. They identified an individual 

targeted level of performance for that effort and collected and reported 

data on progress made towards the target. For instance, managers of 

the Acquisitions sub-goal established a target for increasing the 

certification rate of GS-1102 contract specialists to 80 percent. The 

final quarterly status update to the Closing Skills Gaps CAP goal 

reported that the target was met and the certification rate increased to 

81 percent.

• Veteran Career Readiness CAP Goal. The leader of the Veteran 

Career Readiness CAP goal told us that efforts were made to collect

data to assess the veteran employment situation. For instance, she 

said that an interagency data-gathering working group reviewed 

sources of available data, integrated those data – such as the 

unemployment rate for various sub-populations of veterans – into

dashboards for senior leadership review, and made proposals to 

improve data availability. In addition, the Army led a working group to 

develop a more complete picture of veterans receiving unemployment 

compensation. She said that these and other efforts led to a 

concerted effort to improve the availability of data, and to develop and 

implement metrics measuring career readiness and attendance in a 

veteran career transition assistance program. However, no data to 

track progress towards the overall goal were reported during the 

interim goal period. 

As we have previously reported, no picture of what the federal 

government is accomplishing can be complete without adequate 

performance information. However, OMB and CAP goal leaders did not 

identify interim planned levels of performance or targets for most of the 
 

Page 15 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

interim CAP goals. Furthermore, they established a number of CAP goals 

for which data necessary to indicate progress towards the goal could not 

be reported. In so doing, they limited their ability to demonstrate progress 

being made towards most of the CAP goals and ensure accountability for 

results from those who helped to manage the goals.

In the status updates that were published on Performance.gov, managers 

of each of the CAP goals reported the general approaches, strategies, or 

specific initiatives being employed to make progress towards the 

achievement of the goal, as well as the departments, agencies, and 

programs that were expected to contribute to goal achievement. For 

example, the leader of the Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education CAP goal identified a number of general 

strategies for making progress towards the achievement of its goal of 

increasing the number of graduates in STEM subjects by 1 million over 

the next 10 years, such as “Address the mathematics preparation gap 

that students face when they arrive at college” and “Identifying and 

supporting the role of technology and innovation in higher education.” In 

addition, the goal leader identified a number of programs and goals within 

four departments and agencies that were likely to contribute in part or in 

whole to the goal. Figure 3 below illustrates how this information was 

presented in the update to the STEM Education CAP goal for the fourth 

quarter of fiscal year 2013.

CAP Goal Leaders

Described What 

Contributed to Goal 

Achievement, but in Some 

Cases Information Was 

Incomplete

GPRAMA Requirement for Establishing Milestones

GPRAMA requires the Director of OMB to establish, in the federal government performance plan, 

clearly defined quarterly milestones for the CAP goals.

Source: Source: 31 U.S.C. § 1115(a)(5) 

GPRAMA Requirement for Reporting on Contributions towards Cross-Agency Priority 

Goals

GPRAMA requires that OMB identify the agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations, 

tax expenditures, policies, and other activities that contribute to each CAP goal on 

Performance.gov. It also requires OMB to make available on the website an assessment of 

whether relevant agencies, organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, 

policies, and other activities are contributing as planned.

Source: 31 U.S.C. §§ 1122(c)(6)-(7).
 

Page 16 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Figure 3: Identification of Strategies and Examples of Contributors for the STEM 

Education Cross-Agency Priority Goal

In a May 2012 report on our work related to the CAP goals, we noted that 

information on Performance.gov indicated additional programs with the 

potential to contribute to each of the CAP goals may be identified over 

time.21

During our review, in some cases CAP goal managers told us about 

additional organizations and program types that contributed to their goals, 

but which were not identified on Performance.gov or in our previous 

report.

We then recommended that OMB review and consider adding to 

the list of CAP goal contributors the additional departments, agencies, 

and programs that we identified, as appropriate. OMB agreed with the 

recommendation, and in the quarterly updates to the CAP goals 

published in December 2012 and March 2013, OMB added some of the 

departments, agencies, and programs we identified in our work to some 

CAP goals’ lists of contributors. For example, we had noted that 12 

member agencies of the Trade Promotion Coordinating Committee had 

not been identified as contributors to the Exports CAP goal. OMB added 

additional information about contributors to the Exports goal in the update 

published in December 2012.

22

 

21

For example, the leader of the STEM Education CAP goal told 

GAO-12-620R. 

22GAO-12-620R. While GPRAMA and OMB’s guidance define contributing programs in 

fairly general terms, our previous work has identified more specific examples of different 

program types the federal government uses to achieve many of its goals: contracts, direct 

services, grants, regulations, research and development, and tax expenditures. See GAO, 

Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement the GPRA 

Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance Challenges, GAO-13-518 

(Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013).
 

Page 17 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

us that representatives from the Smithsonian Institution led an 

interagency working group that contributed to key efforts towards 

achieving the goal. Although the CAP goal updates indicate that the 

Smithsonian Institution is involved in federal STEM education efforts, it 

was not identified in a dedicated list of contributors to the goal. We have 

previously found that federal STEM education programs are fragmented 

across a number of agencies. We continue to believe that the federal 

government’s efforts to ensure STEM education programs are effectively 

coordinated must include all relevant efforts.23 Furthermore, the leader of 

the Broadband CAP goal told us that he is aware that tax deductions 

available to businesses making capital investments contributed to the 

goal by incentivizing investments in broadband. We have long referred to 

such deductions, along with other reductions in a taxpayer’s liability that 

result from special exemptions and exclusions from taxation, credits, 

deferrals of tax liability, or preferential tax rates, as tax expenditures. As 

we have previously reported, as with spending programs, tax 

expenditures represent a substantial federal commitment to a wide range 

of mission areas.24

Leading practices state that a clear connection between goals and day-today activities can help organizations better articulate how they plan to 

accomplish their goals. In addition, a clear connection between goals and 

the programs that contribute to them helps to reinforce accountability and 

ensure that managers keep in mind the results their organizations are 

striving to achieve. Milestones—scheduled events signifying the 

completion of a major deliverable or a set of related deliverables or a 

phase of work—can help organizations demonstrate the connection 

between their goals and day-to-day activities and that they are tracking 

We have recommended greater scrutiny of tax 

expenditures. Periodic reviews could help determine how well specific tax 

expenditures work to achieve their goals and how their benefits and costs 

compare to those of programs with similar goals. As previously 

mentioned, GPRAMA also requires OMB to identify tax expenditures that 

contribute to CAP goals. However, tax expenditures were not reported as 

contributors to the Broadband CAP goal in the quarterly status updates 

published on Performance.gov.

 

23GAO, 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 

Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington, 

D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012).

24GAO, Tax Expenditures: Background and Evaluation Criteria and Questions, GAO-13-

167SP (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 29, 2012). 

CAP Goal Leaders 

Identified Milestones for 

Tracking Progress, but in 

Some Cases Milestones 

Were Missing Key 

Information
 

Page 18 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

progress to accomplish their goals. Organizations, by describing the 

strategies to be used to achieve results, including clearly defined 

milestones, can provide information that would help key stakeholders 

better understand the relationship between resources and results.25

The updates published on Performance.gov for each of the CAP goals 

identified at least some planned activities that were expected to contribute 

to the achievement of the goal. However, in some cases the descriptions 

of these planned activities were missing key information that would be 

found in clearly defined milestones.26

• Alignment with strategies for goal achievement: Updates to the 

Job Training CAP goal described the goal’s three main objectives and 

the six specific strategies that would be used to advance them. The 

objectives included, for example, “Continued delivery of effective and 

efficient job training programs,” while the strategies included, for 

example, “Invest in Community Colleges” and “Help workers build 

skills while on the job.” The updates also identified lists of “Milestones 

for the Upcoming Quarter” and “Longer-term Milestones,” such as 

“Develop a performance data ‘checklist’ that can be used by agencies 

in designing job training programs and evaluations prior to sending 

out grant solicitations” and “Identify job training programs that would 

benefit from adoption of additional or enhanced job training 

performance measures.” These planned activities, however, were not 

clearly aligned with the objectives or strategies they supported.

Without clearly defined milestones, 

CAP goal leaders cannot demonstrate that they have effectively planned 

to support the strategies for achieving their goals and are tracking 

progress toward goal achievement. Specifically, some planned activities 

for supporting CAP goal achievement lacked:

• Time frames for completion: The first four updates for the Strategic 

Sourcing CAP goal included planned “next steps,” which described 

actions that were to contribute to the achievement of the goal. These 

 

25GAO, Agencies’ Annual Performance Plans Under the Results Act: An Assessment 

Guide to Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18

(Washington, D.C.: Feb. 1, 1998) and Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully 

Develop Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, GAO-13-174 (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 19, 2013).

26GAO-13-174; GAO-13-228; and GAO, Managing for Results: Critical Issues for 

Improving Federal Agencies’ Strategic Plans, GAO/GGD-97-180 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 

16, 1997).
 

Page 19 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

actions, however, lacked clear time frames for completion. Figure 4 

below illustrates the “next steps” identified for the Strategic Sourcing 

CAP goal in the update for the third quarter of fiscal year 2013.

Figure 4: Strategic Sourcing Cross-Agency Priority Goal Update Provides Planned 

Actions Without Time Frames for Completion.

• Completion status: The Real Property CAP goal update for the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2013 identified two planned actions as 

“next steps.” “After agencies submit their Revised Cost Savings and 

Innovation Plans to OMB, OMB will evaluate agency plans to maintain 

their square footage baselines, while balancing mission 

requirements,” and “Updates on agency square footage baselines and 

projects are forthcoming and will be posted on Performance.gov.” 

These two actions were again identified as “next steps” in the update 

for the third quarter of fiscal year 2013, but no update was provided 

on the status of the actions.

By establishing planned activities that, in many of the CAP goal updates, 

did not have information about their alignment with the strategies they 

supported, their time frames for completion, or their completion status, 

CAP goal leaders did not fully demonstrate that they had effectively 

planned to support goal achievement or were tracking progress toward 

the goal or identified milestones.

OMB did not issue formal guidance to CAP goal leaders on the types of 

information that were to be included in the CAP goal updates, including 

information about contributors and milestones. Standards for internal 

control in the federal government emphasize the importance of 

documenting policies and procedures to provide a reasonable assurance 

that activities comply with applicable laws and regulations, and that 

managers review performance and compare actual performance to 
 

Page 20 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

planned or expected results and analyze significant differences.27

This is in contrast to the detailed guidance that OMB issued on the types 

of information that agencies must provide for the updates for agency 

priority goals (APG), which are also published quarterly on 

Performance.gov. The APG guidance includes explicit instructions for 

agencies to identify, as appropriate, the organizations, regulations, tax 

expenditures, policies, and other activities within and external to the 

agency that contribute to each APG, as well as key milestones with 

planned completion dates for the remainder of the goal period. Because 

guidance for the types of information that should have been included in 

the CAP goal updates was never formally established, CAP goal leaders 

were at a heightened risk of failing to take into account important 

contributors to the goal and providing incomplete information about 

milestones that could help demonstrate progress being made.

OMB 

staff told us they provided an implementation plan template to goal 

leaders, which outlined the data elements to be reported in the quarterly 

status updates. The template was also used to collect information for 

internal and public reporting. Some CAP goal managers told us that OMB 

or PIC staff, in their role supporting the collection, analysis, and 

presentation of data on CAP goal performance, occasionally provided 

feedback on the information that the individuals submitted in draft updates 

that OMB reviewed before they were published on Performance.gov. For 

example, one CAP goal manager told us that during a review of an 

update submission PIC staff told him that he should develop additional

milestones to be completed during a specific future fiscal year quarter.

 

27GAO, Internal Control: Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, 

GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 1999).
 

Page 21 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

As required by GPRAMA, OMB reviewed progress on CAP goals each 

quarter, beginning with the quarter ending June 30, 2012. This review 

process consisted of the collection of updated information for each CAP 

goal by OMB or PIC staff, and the development of a memorandum for the 

Director of OMB with information on the status of the CAP goals. To 

develop these memorandums, OMB staff told us that approximately 6 

weeks after the end of each quarter, OMB and PIC staff worked with CAP 

goal leaders to collect updated data and information on goal metrics and 

milestones, and to update the narratives supporting the data. CAP goal 

leaders, or staff assisting leaders with the management of efforts related 

to the goal, would provide this information to OMB using a template for 

the status updates ultimately published on Performance.gov. In addition 

to the memorandums developed for the Director of OMB, OMB published 

more detailed information through the quarterly status updates available 

on Performance.gov.

OMB and PIC staff told us that to support OMB’s quarterly review efforts, 

PIC staff were to conduct assessments rating the overall health of 

OMB and Goal 

Leaders Established 

Processes for 

Reviewing CrossAgency Priority Goal 

Progress, but Not All 

Review Processes 

Were Consistent with 

Requirements and 

Leading Practices

OMB Established a 

Quarterly Process for 

Reviewing Progress on 

CAP Goals, but Did Not 

Consistently Outline 

Improvement Strategies 

Where Goal Achievement 

Was at Risk

GPRAMA Requirement for OMB Progress Reviews

GPRAMA requires that, not less than quarterly, the Director of OMB, with the support of the PIC, 

shall review progress on the CAP goals, including progress during the most recent quarter, 

overall trends, and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance. GPRAMA also 

requires that, as part of these reviews, OMB categorize goals by their risk of not achieving the 

planned level of performance and, for those goals most at risk of not meeting the planned level of 

performance, identify strategies for performance improvement.

Source: 31 U.S.C. §§ 1121(a)(1), (a)(4)-(5).
 

Page 22 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

implementation efforts and goal leader engagement. They were also to 

assess the execution status of each goal, including the quality and trend 

of performance indicators. One purpose of these assessments was to 

identify areas where risks, such as goal leader turnover, could affect the 

ability to achieve the planned level of performance. Consistent with this 

intent, several of the quarterly OMB review memorandums we examined 

highlighted turnover in goal leader or deputy goal leader positions as 

risks, and suggested the need to find or approve replacements. Although 

PIC staff have been tasked with assessing these elements of CAP goal 

implementation, and said that there was a shared understanding between 

involved staff as to how these assessments would be carried out, the PIC 

has not documented its procedures or criteria for conducting these 

assessments. Standards for internal control in the federal government 

emphasize the importance of documenting procedures, including those 

for assessing performance.28

While these quarterly review memorandums identified one goal as being 

at risk of not achieving the planned level of performance, and identified 

other instances where progress on goals had been slower than planned, 

the memorandums did not consistently outline the strategies that were 

being used to improve performance or address identified risks. For 

example, the Cybersecurity CAP goal was the one goal specifically 

described as being at risk of not achieving the planned level of

performance, both in these memorandums and in the status updates on 

Performance.gov. Specifically, the memorandum for the third quarter of 

fiscal year 2012 identified the risk of not achieving the planned level of 

performance, and outlined seven specific risks facing the goal and the 

steps being taken to mitigate them. Similarly, the memorandum for the 

second quarter of fiscal year 2013 also acknowledged that some 

agencies were at risk of not meeting their Cybersecurity CAP goal 

targets. However, in contrast to the earlier memorandums, no information 

was included about the specific steps that were being taken to mitigate 

these risks, although information on planned and ongoing actions to 

Without clearly established criteria and 

procedures, PIC staff lack a means to: consistently assess 

implementation efforts and execution across all goals; bring any 

deficiencies, risks, and recommended improvements identified to the 

attention of leadership; and ensure consistent application of criteria over 

time.

 

28GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 
 

Page 23 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

improve government-wide implementation was included in the milestones 

section of the status update for that quarter on Performance.gov.

The memorandum for the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2012 also 

acknowledged that the pace of progress on the STEM Education and 

Closing Skills Gaps goals had been slower than expected. While the 

memorandum stated that additional OMB attention was needed to 

support implementation and assure sufficient progress, no information on 

the specific strategies being employed to improve performance was 

mentioned. According to OMB staff, however, these memorandums were 

used to inform subsequent conversations with OMB leadership, which 

would build on the information presented in the memorandums.

Furthermore, because the data necessary to track progress for some 

goals were unavailable, the Director of OMB would not have been able to 

consistently review progress for all CAP goals, or make a determination 

about whether some CAP goals were at risk of meeting their planned 

levels of performance. This fact was acknowledged in the quarterly review 

memorandums for quarters one and two of fiscal year 2013, which 

acknowledged that progress on three goals (Entrepreneurship and Small 

Business, Job Training, and STEM Education) was difficult to track, and 

that additional work was needed on data collection. However, no 

information on the specific steps that were being taken to address these 

shortcomings was included. A lack of specific information about the steps 

being taken to mitigate identified risk areas and improve performance 

could hinder the ability of OMB leadership—and others—to adequately 

track the status of efforts to address identified deficiencies or risks and to 

hold officials accountable for taking necessary actions.

According to OMB staff, to encourage goal leaders and contributing 

agencies to take ownership of efforts to achieve the goals, OMB gave 

goal leaders flexibility to use different approaches to engage agency 

officials and review progress at the CAP-goal level. While guidance 

released by OMB in August 2012 encouraged goal leaders to leverage 

existing interagency working groups, committees, and councils in the 

CAP Goal Leaders 

Established Processes to 

Review Progress, but 

Their Consistency with 

Leading Practices and 

Their Effects on 

Performance and 

Collaboration Varied

GPRAMA Requirement for Goal Leader and Agency Involvement in Progress Reviews

As part of the quarterly review process, GPRAMA requires that the Director of OMB review each 

priority goal with the appropriate lead government official, and include in these reviews officials 

from the agencies, organizations, and program activities that contribute to the achievement of the 

goal.

Source: 31 U.S.C. §1121(a)(2).
 

Page 24 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

management of the goals as much as practicable, it did not include 

information on the purpose of reviews, expectations for how reviews 

should be conducted to maximize their effectiveness as a tool for 

performance management and accountability, or the roles that CAP goal 

leaders and agency officials should play in the review process.29 Again, 

standards for internal control in the federal government emphasize the 

importance of documenting procedures for reviewing performance against 

established goals and objectives.30

This is in contrast to the detailed guidance that OMB released for agency 

priority goal and agency strategic objective reviews, which outlined the 

specific purposes of the reviews, how frequently they should be 

conducted, the roles and responsibilities of agency leaders involved in the 

review process, and how the reviews should be conducted.31 We also 

found that this guidance for reviews at the agency level was broadly 

consistent with the leading practices for performance reviews that we 

previously identified.32

OMB has emphasized that flexibility is needed to ensure that goal leaders 

can use review processes that are appropriate given the scope of 

interagency efforts, the number of people involved, and the maturity of 

existing reporting and review processes. The guidance for agency 

reviews gave agencies flexibility to design their performance review 

processes in a way that would fit the agency’s mission, leadership 

preferences, organizational structure, culture, and existing decisionmaking processes. In our previous work, we detailed how several federal 

agencies had implemented quarterly performance reviews in a manner 

consistent with leading practices, but which were also tailored to the 

While no official guidance was published to guide 

how reviews involving goal leaders and staff from contributing agencies 

could be conducted for the CAP goals, OMB staff said the principles of 

the guidance released for agency reviews, which reflected many of the 

leading practices, was referenced in conversations with CAP goal leaders 

and teams.

 

29OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, pt. 6 

(August 2012).

30GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1. 

31OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, pt. 6 

(August 2012).

32GAO-13-228. 
 

Page 25 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

structures, processes, and needs of each agency.33

A lack of clear expectations for how progress should be reviewed at the 

CAP-goal level resulted in a number of different approaches being used 

by goal leaders to engage officials from contributing agencies to review 

progress on identified goals and milestones, ranging from regular inperson review meetings led by the CAP goal leader to the review of 

written updates provided to the goal leader by officials from contributing 

agencies. See appendix IV for more detailed information on the various 

processes used by goal leaders to collect data on, and review progress 

towards, identified goals.

In this way, flexible 

implementation of review processes is possible within a framework that 

encourages the application of leading practices.

Instituting review processes consistent with the leading practices we 

previously identified can help ensure that reviews include meaningful 

performance discussions, provide opportunities for oversight and 

accountability, and drive performance improvement. Taken together, 

these leading practices emphasize the importance of leadership 

involvement in the review process, data collection and review meeting 

preparation, participation by key officials, and rigorous follow-up.

Through our evaluation of how goal leaders and contributing agency 

officials reviewed progress towards the interim goals, we identified two 

CAP goals—Cybersecurity and Closing Skills Gaps—and one sub-goal—

the Entrepreneurship and Small Business sub-goal on improving access 

to government services and information (BusinessUSA sub-goal)—where 

goal managers instituted in-person review processes with officials from 

contributing agencies that were broadly consistent with the full range of 

leading practices for reviews, which we have summarized in four 

categories below. The processes used by other CAP goal leaders to 

engage agency officials in the review of progress did not reflect the full 

range of leading practices. 

Leadership Involvement. Leading practices indicate that leaders should 

use frequent and regular progress reviews as a leadership strategy to 

drive performance improvement and as an opportunity to hold people 

accountable for diagnosing performance problems and identifying 

 

33GAO-13-228. 

Some Goal Leaders Used 

Review Processes Broadly 

Consistent with Leading 

Practices, and Noted Their 

Positive Effects on 

Performance, Accountability, 

and Collaboration
 

Page 26 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

strategies for improvement. The direct and visible engagement of 

leadership is vital to the success of such reviews. Leadership involvement 

helps ensure that participants take the review process seriously and that 

decisions and commitments can be made. The goal leaders managing 

the Cybersecurity and Closing Skills Gaps goals, as well as the 

BusinessUSA sub-goal, were directly involved in leading in-person 

reviews for these goals, and in using them as opportunities to review 

progress, identify and address performance problems, and hold agency 

officials accountable for progress on identified goals and milestones, as 

detailed in table 1.

Table 1: Leadership Involvement in Review Processes Reflecting Leading Practices

Cybersecurity Closing Skills Gaps BusinessUSA

• Throughout the year the goal leader and 

deputy goal leader led reviews with 

agencies at risk of not achieving the 

planned level of performance or 

exhibiting other risk factors. They held 

reviews with eight agencies in 2013.

• These reviews were supplemented by 

meetings of the goal’s governance 

committee, which met twice each quarter 

to review and discuss agency progress.

• In the reviews, agency officials discussed 

with the goal leaders their performance 

on key metrics, recommendations for 

improvement, other issues that could 

affect performance and the risks those 

presented.

• The goal leader led quarterly review 

meetings involving all leaders of six 

identified sub-goal areas.

• Meetings were used to review 

progress on performance goals 

established for each sub-goal, as 

well as challenges encountered and 

future actions with each of the subgoal leaders.

• Also provided the goal leader with an 

opportunity to discuss specific 

actions that the goal leader or staff 

could take to support or facilitate 

progress on the sub-goals.

• The BusinessUSA sub-goal leader, in 

his capacity as Executive Director of 

BusinessUSA, led monthly meetings of 

the BusinessUSA Steering Committee

• Among other things, meetings were 

used to review progress on the 

implementation and development of 

the BusinessUSA website, the 

performance of the website and 

customer contact center in the most 

recent quarter, planned actions, and 

the status of key deliverables.

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews with cross-agency priority goal representatives.

Data Collection and Review Meeting Preparation. Leading practices 

also indicate that those managing review processes should have the

capacity to collect, analyze, and communicate accurate, useful, and 

timely performance data, and should rigorously prepare for reviews to 

enable meaningful performance discussions. The collection of current, 

reliable data on the status of activities and progress towards goals and 

milestones is critical so that those involved can determine whether 

performance is improving, identify performance problems, ensure 

accountability for fulfilling commitments, and learn from efforts to improve 

performance. The ability to assess data to identify key trends and areas 

of strong or weak performance, and to communicate this to managers 

and staff effectively through materials prepared for reviews, is also 

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews with cross-agency priority goal representatives. | GAO-14-526
 

Page 27 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

critical. As detailed in table 2, those supporting the Cybersecurity and 

Skills Gap goals, and the BusinessUSA sub-goal, instituted processes to 

regularly collect and analyze data on progress towards identified goals 

and milestones, and to ensure these data would be communicated 

through materials prepared for review meetings.

Table 2: Collection of Performance Data and Meeting Preparation for Review Processes Reflecting Leading Practices

Cybersecurity Closing Skills Gaps BusinessUSA

• Each quarter, Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) officials 

collected and analyzed data on 

cybersecurity performance that 

agencies submitted through 

CyberScope, an online data collection 

portal.

• Prior to each review, DHS staff would 

develop presentation slides and 

materials with key data from the 

agency participating in the review, 

including projected performance on 

key metrics for the next 8 quarters.

• Prior to each review, DHS staff would 

also meet with officials from the 

participating agency to prepare for the 

issues that would be discussed and to 

address any errors in the data or 

information provided.

• Each quarter, prior to the quarterly 

review meeting, Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) staff would collect 

updated information from sub-goal 

leaders, including recent progress on 

identified sub-goal performance 

metrics, achievements, and planned 

actions.

• This information was compiled into a 

set of presentation slides for the review 

meeting, with information for each subgoal presented in a consistent fashion.

• OPM and OMB staff and sub-goal 

leaders would also hold preparatory 

phone calls in advance of the review 

meetings which, according to OPM 

staff, helped ensure that participants 

would focus their discussion on the 

most pressing issues. They noted that 

this was important given that the time 

available to discuss each sub-goal 

during the review meeting was limited.

• Each quarter, the BusinessUSA project 

management office would collect data 

on key performance metrics, such as 

the number of unique visitors to the 

website and satisfaction with the 

customer contact center.

• These data on website and contact 

center performance, as well as future 

targets, were included in the 

presentation slides developed for the 

monthly Steering Committee meetings.

• These slides also listed specific 

deliverables and milestones related to 

actions being taken to improve the 

operational and technological 

performance of BusinessUSA, as well 

as the experience of customers.

• The slides also listed specific risks in 

each of these three areas, along with, 

on a scale of 1 to 5, their likelihood and 

the severity of their potential 

consequences.

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews with cross-agency priority goal representatives. | GAO-14-526

Participation by Key Officials. Leading practices indicate that key 

players involved in efforts to achieve a goal should attend reviews to 

facilitate problem solving. This is critical as their participation enables 

those involved to break down information silos, and to use the forum 

provided by the review to communicate with each other, identify 

improvement strategies, and agree on specific next steps. Reviews for 

both the Cybersecurity and Closing Skills Gaps CAP goals, and the 

BusinessUSA sub-goal, were structured so that relevant agency officials 

playing a key role in efforts to carry out the goal were included, as 

detailed in table 3.
 

Page 28 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Table 3: Participation by Key Officials in Review Processes Reflecting Leading Practices

Cybersecurity Closing Skills Gaps BusinessUSA

• Review meetings were attended by key 

agency officials responsible for the 

implementation of cybersecurity 

requirements in their agencies.

• This included the agency Chief 

Information Officer (CIO), Deputy CIO, 

Chief Information Security Officer, and 

Performance Improvement Officer.

• Staff from DHS, National Security Staff, 

and OMB involved in the administration 

of cybersecurity requirements also 

participated in the reviews.

• Quarterly review meetings were 

attended by agency and administration 

officials serving as the leaders for 

each of the six sub-goal areas, and 

who were responsible for efforts to 

drive progress toward each specific 

sub-goal.

• The meetings were also attended by 

staff from OPM that provided support 

to the sub-goal leaders, and staff from 

the OMB Office of Performance and 

Personnel Management.

• Monthly BusinessUSA Steering 

Committee meetings were attended by 

mid- to senior-level program, 

technology and customer service 

managers from each of the 

departments and agencies 

participating in the initiative.

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews with cross-agency priority goal representatives. | GAO-14-526

Review Follow-Up. Leading practices indicate that participants should 

engage in sustained follow-up on issues identified during reviews, which 

is critical to ensure the success of the reviews as a performance 

improvement tool. Important follow-up activities include identifying and 

documenting specific follow-up actions stemming from reviews, those 

responsible for each action item, as well as who will be responsible for 

monitoring and follow-up. Follow-up actions should also be included as 

agenda items for subsequent reviews to hold responsible officials 

accountable for addressing issues raised and communicating what was 

done. Goal managers for the Cybersecurity and Closing Skills Gap CAP 

goals, as well as the BusinessUSA sub-goal, took steps to follow up on 

action items identified in these meetings, and to ensure that steps were 

taken towards their completion, as detailed in table 4.
 

Page 29 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Table 4: Follow-Up on Issues Raised During Review Meetings

Cybersecurity Closing Skills Gaps BusinessUSA

• Following reviews, agency officials 

would develop an after-action plan 

outlining specific actions that agency 

officials would be responsible for 

completing, such as the development 

of a plan for the improved 

implementation of a specific 

requirement or holding discussions on 

how to address a specific issue with 

knowledgeable officials from another 

agency.

• DHS officials would periodically follow 

up with agencies on their efforts to 

address these action items, asking 

them to document specific steps 

taken.

• Following each quarterly review 

meeting, OPM staff supporting each 

sub-goal would follow up with sub-goal 

leaders on items identified for follow-up 

during the meetings.

• Sub-goal leaders were then 

responsible for taking action to address 

these items.

• To help manage efforts at the sub-goal 

level, sub-goal leaders developed 

action plans outlining specific 

deliverables, those responsible for 

implementation, time frames for 

completion, and potential barriers to 

their successful completion.

• At BusinessUSA Steering Committee 

meetings, the sub-goal leader would 

review action items identified and 

discussed during the previous month’s 

meeting.

• The sub-goal leader would also 

discuss progress made over the 

previous month and specific steps that 

would be taken to further progress.

• Following each meeting, staff would 

distribute summaries of the meeting to 

participants, which included specific 

actions to be completed by the 

BusinessUSA program office or agency 

representatives. 

Source: GAO analysis of documentation and interviews with cross-agency priority goal representatives. | GAO-14-526

Review Effects. Goal leaders and managers we interviewed said that 

these review processes were valuable in driving improved performance, 

establishing a greater sense of accountability for progress on the part of

contributors, and in providing a forum for interagency communication and 

collaboration. For example, according to DHS staff involved in the 

management of the Cybersecurity CAP goal, implementation of Personal 

Identity Verification (PIV) requirements across the federal government 

had been stagnant for several years prior to the introduction of 

cybersecurity as a CAP goal. The review process was used to hold 

agencies accountable for improved PIV implementation, which helped 

bring an increased focus on the issue and drive recent progress. Since 

the reviews were instituted in 2012, DHS has reported improved PIV 

adoption in civilian agencies, which has increased from 1.24 percent in 

fiscal year 2010, to 7.45 percent in fiscal year 2012, to 19.67 percent in 

the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013. According to data from DHS, while 

still falling short of the target, this has contributed to the overall increase 

in PIV adoption across the federal government—including both civilian 

agencies and the Department of Defense—from 57.26 percent in fiscal 

year 2012 to 66.61 percent in fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013.34

 

34A target of 75.31 percent for PIV adoption was established for the fourth quarter of 

2013.

DHS 

staff also added that agencies generally had not previously collaborated 
 

Page 30 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

on cybersecurity issues or worked to identify best practices. According to 

DHS staff, the reviews have created an important point of collaboration 

between DHS, OMB, National Security Staff, and agencies, and provided 

an opportunity to inform agencies of best practices and connect them with 

other agencies that are meeting their targets to learn from them.

Similarly, OPM officials and sub-goal leaders involved in the management 

of the Closing Skills Gap CAP goal said that the quarterly review 

meetings were a critical means to ensure sub-goal leaders and staff were 

demonstrating progress. Having sub-goal leaders report out on progress, 

and hear about the progress made in other sub-goal areas, provided 

additional pressure for continuous improvement and the need to remain 

focused on driving progress towards their goals. Having the goal leader

lead the review was also a way to demonstrate leadership commitment to 

the achievement of each sub-goal. According to OPM officials and subgoal leaders, the review meetings also served as an important forum for 

discussing innovative approaches being taken to address skills gaps in 

different areas, opportunities for collaboration to address challenges 

shared by different sub-goals, and how leaders could leverage the efforts 

of other sub-goals to drive progress on their own.

The BusinessUSA sub-goal leader said that having it as the basis for a 

CAP sub-goal elevated the cross cutting nature of the initiative. In 

addition to reviewing performance information and the status of 

deliverables, discussions at inter-agency Steering Committee meetings 

were used to discuss how contributors could work together to meet the 

initiative’s performance goals. This communication and coordination led 

to connections between agencies and to discussions about how programs 

could be working in a more integrated way. For example, these 

discussions were used to identify ways that programs could more 

effectively integrate program information on the BusinessUSA website to 

increase customer satisfaction.

We found that the processes used by other CAP goal leaders to engage 

agency officials in the review of progress, which are summarized in 

appendix IV, did not reflect the full range of leading practices. For 

example, the process for reviewing progress on the Job Training CAP 

goal involved staff from the PIC collecting updates on recent milestones 

from agencies, which were then compiled in the quarterly status update 

and reviewed by the goal leader. This approach was used by the goal 

leaders for the Broadband and STEM Education CAP goals to review 

progress as well. While goal leaders and managers for these goals 

indicated that they used the collection and review of information as an 

Other Goal Leaders Did Not 

Use Review Processes 

Consistent with the Full Range 

of Leading Practices for 

Reviews
 

Page 31 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

opportunity to communicate with officials from contributing agencies, this 

approach contrasts with OMB guidance for reviews of agency priority 

goals, which states explicitly that performance reviews should not be 

conducted solely through the sharing of written communications. As OMB 

noted in its guidance, in-person engagement of leaders in performance 

reviews greatly accelerates learning and performance improvement, and 

personal engagement can demonstrate commitment to improvement, 

ensure coordination across agency silos, and enable rapid decision 

making.

While not employing the full range, goal leaders for a number of goals did 

use processes that reflected one or more leading practices. For example, 

many CAP goal leaders led or participated in interagency meetings with 

representatives of contributing agencies. While these were used to 

facilitate interagency communication and collaboration on the 

development of plans and policies, it was unclear whether many of these 

meetings were consistently used to review progress on identified CAP 

goals and milestones. The goal leader for the Strategic Sourcing CAP 

goal used processes that reflected leadership involvement, participation 

by key officials, and the collection and analysis of relevant data. 

Specifically, according to goal managers, the goal leader led regular 

meetings of the Strategic Sourcing Leadership Council (SSLC), which 

were attended by senior procurement officials from eight agencies that 

combine to make up almost all of the federal government’s total 

procurement spending.

To prepare for each SSLC meeting, staff from OMB’s Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy (OFPP) held a meeting for supporting staff from each 

agency, who would then prepare the SSLC member from their agency for 

the issues to be discussed in the SSLC meeting. OFPP also established 

a regular data collection process where each agency would report on its 

adoption and spending rates for two strategic sourcing options, which 

would then be used for the purposes of reporting on the CAP goal. 

However, it was unclear how regularly, if at all, SSLC meetings were used 

to engage agency officials in the review of data on agency adoption of, 

and spending on, strategic sourcing options, or how regularly meetings 

were used to review progress that was being made towards the CAP 

goal. It was also unclear what mechanisms, if any, were used to ensure 

rigorous follow-up on issues raised in these meetings, a key leading 

practice, as there were no official meeting minutes maintained. The lack 

of an official record could hinder follow-up and accountability for any 

identified actions that need to be taken.
 

Page 32 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Representatives of some goals stated that it was difficult to isolate the 

impact of the CAP goal designation, and its associated reporting and 

review requirements, on performance and collaboration. According to 

some goal managers, because their interim goals were based on 

initiatives that had been previously established in executive orders or 

Presidential memorandums, much of the interagency activity supporting 

their efforts would have happened without the CAP goal designation and 

its reporting and review requirements. For example, a manager for the 

Data Center Consolidation CAP goal told us that the previously 

established Federal Data Center Consolidation Initiative was used to 

drive progress and that the CAP goal designation and quarterly reporting 

and review requirements had little impact. Similarly, Job Training CAP 

goal managers said that interagency collaboration on job training issues 

had been established prior to the creation of the CAP goal, that the goal’s 

reporting and review requirements were incidental to the contributors’ 

ongoing work, and that it did not add an additional level of accountability 

for the completion of job training initiatives. However, this is a goal where 

no data were reported to demonstrate its impact on federal job training 

programs, and which was identified in multiple OMB reviews as having 

slower than anticipated progress due, in part, to extended periods of time 

in which there was no deputy CAP goal leader to provide support 

necessary to improve coordination and collaboration.

While many CAP goal leaders and staff we interviewed noted the 

progress they had made with their existing interagency meetings and 

approaches, a lack of clear expectations or guidance for how review 

processes at the CAP goal level should be carried out can lead to a 

situation where reviews are implemented in a manner that is not informed 

by, or fully consistent with, leading practices. This could result in missed 

opportunities to realize the positive effects on performance and 

accountability that can stem from the implementation of review processes 

that regularly and consistently involve leaders and agency officials in the 

analysis of performance data to identify and address performance 

deficiencies, and use rigorous follow-up to ensure accountability for 

commitments.

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to 

achieve require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency. 

GPRAMA’s requirement that OMB establish CAP goals offers a unique 

opportunity to coordinate cross-agency efforts to drive progress in priority 

areas. That opportunity will not be realized, however, if the CAP goal 

reporting and review requirements and leading review practices are not 

followed. The reporting and review requirements for the CAP goals, and 

Some Goal Leaders Reported 

Minimal Effects on 

Performance and Collaboration

Conclusions
 

Page 33 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

leading practices for the reviews, are designed to ensure that relevant 

performance information is used to improve performance and results, and 

that OMB and goal leaders actively lead efforts to engage all relevant 

participants in collaborative performance improvement initiatives and hold 

them accountable for progress on identified goals and milestones.

OMB reported performance information in the quarterly CAP goal status 

updates it published on Performance.gov. While updates for most goals 

reported data on performance towards the identified planned level of 

performance, the information in the updates did not always present a 

complete picture of progress towards identified goals and milestones. For 

example, while updates for 8 of the 14 goals included data that indicated

performance towards the identified overall planned level of performance, 

only 3 also contained annual or quarterly targets that allowed for an 

assessment of interim progress. Updates for the other 6 of the 14 goals 

did not report on performance towards the goal’s primary performance 

target because the goal was established without a quantitative target or 

because goal managers were unable to collect the data needed to track 

performance. In other cases, planned activities that were identified as 

contributing to the goal were sometimes missing important elements, 

including alignment with the strategies for goal achievement they 

supported, a time frame for completion, or information on their 

implementation status. The incomplete picture of progress that many of

the updates gave limited the ability of goal leaders and others to ensure 

accountability for the achievement of targets and milestones.

Holding regular progress reviews that are consistent with GPRAMA 

requirements and the full range of leading practices can produce positive 

effects on performance and collaboration. Engaging contributors in 

regular reviews of data on performance can help ensure interagency 

efforts are informed by information on progress towards identified goals 

and milestones, which can be used to identify and address areas where 

goal or milestone achievement is at risk. Reviews can also be used to 

reinforce agency and collective accountability for the achievement of 

individual and shared outcomes, helping to ensure that efforts to improve 

performance or address identified risks are implemented. Lastly, reviews 

can be used to foster greater collaboration, ensuring opportunities for 

communication and coordination between officials involved in efforts to 

achieve shared outcomes. While OMB and CAP goal leaders instituted 

processes for reviewing progress on the interim CAP goals, if GPRAMA 

requirements and leading practices for reviews are not consistently 

followed, it may result in missed opportunities to improve performance, 

hold officials accountable for achieving identified goals and milestones, 
 

Page 34 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

and ensure agency officials are coordinating their activities in a way that 

is directed towards the achievement of shared goals and milestones.

We recommend that the Director of OMB take the following three actions:

• Include the following in the quarterly reviews of CAP goal progress, as 

required by GPRAMA: a consistent set of information on progress 

made during the most recent quarter, overall trends, and the likelihood 

of meeting the planned level of performance; goals at risk of not 

achieving the planned level of performance; and the strategies being 

employed to improve performance.

• Work with the PIC to establish and document procedures and criteria 

to assess CAP goal implementation efforts and the status of goal 

execution, to ensure that the PIC can conduct these assessments 

consistently across all goals and over time.

• Develop guidance similar to what exists for agency priority goal and 

strategic objective reviews, outlining the purposes of CAP goal 

progress reviews, expectations for how the reviews should be carried 

out, and the roles and responsibilities of CAP goal leaders, agency 

officials, and OMB and PIC staff in the review process.

To ensure that OMB and CAP goal leaders include all key contributors 

and can track and report fully on progress being made towards CAP 

goals overall and each quarter, we recommend that the Director of OMB 

direct CAP goal leaders to take the following four actions:

• Identify all key contributors to the achievement of their goals;

• Identify annual planned levels of performance and quarterly targets for 

each CAP goal;

• Develop plans to identify, collect, and report data necessary to 

demonstrate progress being made towards each CAP goal or develop 

an alternative approach for tracking and reporting on progress 

quarterly; and

• Report the time frames for the completion of milestones; the status of 

milestones; and how milestones are aligned with strategies or 

initiatives that support the achievement of the goal.

Recommendations for 

Executive Action
 

Page 35 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

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

of OMB, the Secretaries of Commerce and Homeland Security, the 

Director of the Office of Personnel Management, the Administrator of the 

Small Business Administration, as well as the officials we interviewed to 

collect information on the interim CAP goals from the Council on 

Environmental Quality, Department of Education, Department of Labor, 

Department of Veterans Affairs, National Science Foundation, and the 

Office of Science and Technology Policy. OMB and PIC staff provided 

oral comments on the draft, and we made technical changes as 

appropriate. OMB staff generally agreed to consider our 

recommendations. For example, while they said that OMB and PIC staff 

will continue to work directly with CAP goal leaders to convey suggested 

practices for reviewing performance, they will consider referencing 

principles and practices for data-driven performance reviews in future 

Circular A-11 guidance related to the management of CAP goals. 

Furthermore, while they noted that quantitative performance data for 

some key measures may not available on a quarterly basis, they said that 

they will continue to work to develop more robust quarterly targets. 

Officials or staff from the Departments of Commerce and Veterans 

Affairs, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy provided 

technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

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

appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. The 

report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at 

http://www.gao.gov. 

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

contact me at (202) 512-6806 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. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

appendix VI. 

J. Christopher Mihm

Managing Director, Strategic Issues

Agency Comments
 

Page 36 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

List of Congressional Addressees

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper

Chairman

The Honorable Tom Coburn, M.D.

Ranking Member

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable Mark R. Warner

Chairman

Task Force on Government Performance

Committee on the Budget

United States Senate

The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings

Ranking Member

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

House of Representatives
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 37 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

This report is part of our response to a mandate that we evaluate the 

implementation of the federal government priority goals under the GPRA 

Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA).1 Due to the timing of our work, we 

focused on the implementation of the reporting and review requirements 

for the 14 interim cross-agency priority (CAP) goals established in 

February 2012.2

To address these objectives, we interviewed representatives of 13 of the 

14 interim goals.

Specifically, this report assesses (1) what is known 

about progress made towards the interim CAP goals; and (2) how, if at 

all, quarterly progress reflected GPRAMA requirements and leading 

practices for data-driven reviews, as well as how they contributed to 

improved cross-agency performance and collaboration.

3

 

1

Pub. L. No. 111-352, § 15(b)(1) , 124 Stat. 3866, 3883 (2011).

For 8 of the 13 goals we spoke directly with the goal 

leader or deputy goal leader, along with, in some cases, staff from Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies involved in supporting 

efforts related to the goals. For the other five goals (Closing Skills Gaps, 

Cybersecurity, Data Center Consolidation, Exports, and Job Training) we 

met with agency officials or OMB staff playing a key role in the 

management of interagency efforts related to the CAP goal. During these 

interviews, we asked officials questions concerning how the goal leader 

and officials from contributing agencies reviewed progress on the goal; 

the interagency groups used to engage agency officials and manage 

efforts related to the goal; the role that staff from OMB and the 

Performance Improvement Council (PIC) played in the review process; 

and any impact the CAP goal designation and review processes had on 

performance, collaboration, and accountability. We also participated in 

2

A 15th CAP goal—Open Government Data—was added when the status of the CAP 

goals was updated on Performance.gov in September 2013. Since this goal was not 

included in the initial list of goals identified in February 2012 it was excluded from the 

scope of our review. 

3

We requested interviews with representatives of the Energy Efficiency CAP goal, 

including the goal leader. However, no representatives of this CAP goal were made 

available for an interview. We were, however, informed that this goal was a compilation of 

related agency priority goals. We interviewed the goal leaders for two agency priority 

goals, from the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protection Agency, identified 

as contributors to the Energy Efficiency CAP goal. 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 38 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

interviews with the goal leaders of 11 agency priority goals that were 

aligned with, or identified as a contributor to, a CAP goal.4

To further address the first objective, and assess what is known about 

progress made toward the interim CAP goals, we analyzed information on 

identified performance metrics and milestones included in the quarterly 

status updates for each CAP goal published on Performance.gov. We 

also analyzed relevant information collected through our interviews with 

CAP goal leaders, deputies, and supporting staff. We compared the data 

and information made available through the quarterly status updates with 

requirements in GPRAMA that Performance.gov include information for 

each goal on results achieved during the most recent quarter and overall 

trend data. To assess the reliability of performance data and information 

available through Performance.gov we collected information from OMB 

and PIC staff, and CAP goal representatives, about data quality control 

procedures. We determined that the data and information were 

sufficiently reliable for our analysis of what was reported on 

Performance.gov about progress towards identified goals and milestones.

To address the second objective, we reviewed quarterly review 

memorandums developed for OMB leadership for five quarters, from the 

third quarter of fiscal year 2012 to the third quarter of fiscal year 2013.5

To further address the second objective we reviewed (where available) 

documents created for interagency meetings, such as meeting agendas, 

presentation materials, meeting notes, and attendee lists. We also 

observed one quarterly review meeting held for the Closing Skills Gap 

goals, and conducted interviews with sub-goal leaders from the Closing 

We compared the contents of these review memorandums with 

requirements for the OMB quarterly reviews established in GPRAMA. We 

also interviewed staff from OMB and the PIC to discuss the various 

approaches being used to review progress at the CAP-goal level, the data 

collection and review process, and the role of the PIC in supporting the 

quarterly review process.

 

4

GPRAMA requires certain agencies, as determined by OMB, to develop a limited number 

of agency priority goals every 2 years. These goals are to reflect the highest priorities of 

each selected agency, as identified by the head of the agency, 31 U.S.C. § 1120. 

5

At the time OMB provided these memorandums for our review, the memorandum for the 

fourth quarter of fiscal year 2013 was not yet available.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 39 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Skills Gaps and Entrepreneurship and Small Business CAP goals. These 

interviews were used to learn more about the involvement of officials from 

contributing agencies in the quarterly review process for each CAP goal, 

the processes that had been established to review progress at the subgoal level, and to gain a more complete picture of participating agency 

officials’ perceptions of the impact of the CAP goals and review 

processes.

We selected these sub-goals through a two-part process. Of the eight 

CAP goals for which we had completed interviews through the end of 

2013, the team selected one goal for which the goal leader held quarterly 

meetings dedicated to reviewing progress toward the CAP goal with the 

goal’s contributors (Closing Skills Gaps). The team also selected a 

second goal for which the goal leader used a review process that did not 

rely on quarterly meetings between the goal leader and contributing 

agencies (Entrepreneurship and Small Business). To ensure that the 

team would have at least one goal representing each type of goal, the 

team also ensured that one goal would be an outcome-oriented policy 

goal and one goal would be a management goal. For both the Closing 

Skills Gaps and Entrepreneurship and Small Business CAP goals the 

team then selected four sub-goals for interviews. For the Closing Skills 

Gaps CAP goal the team interviewed the sub-goal leaders for the 

Economist; Information Technology/Cybersecurity; Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education; and Human 

Resources sub-goals. For the Entrepreneurship and Small Business CAP 

goal the team held interviews with the sub-goal leaders for the sub-goals 

to “Accelerate commercialization of Federal research grants,” “Advance 

federal small business procurement goals,” “Improve access to 

government services and information,” and “Streamline immigration 

pathways for immigrant entrepreneurs.” These were selected to ensure 

that the team would capture sub-goals in which a range of approaches for 

measuring and reviewing progress were being used. Specifically, subgoals were selected to ensure the team would have some that did, and 

did not, hold regular meetings, and some that did, and did not, track 

quantitative measures of performance or milestones with time frames. 

Our selection of these sub-goals was nonstatistical and therefore our 

findings from these interviews are not generalizable to the other CAP 

goals. 

We compared what we learned about review processes at the CAP goal 

and sub-goal levels, through interviews and the collection of 

documentation, used by leaders from each goal against leading practices 

for performance reviews previously identified by GAO.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 40 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Because the scope of our review was to examine the implementation of 

quarterly progress reviews, we did not evaluate whether these goals were 

appropriate indicators of performance, sufficiently ambitious, or met other 

dimensions of quality.

We conducted our work from May 2013 to June 2014 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 

our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Interim Cross-Agency Priority 

Goals and Goal Statements

Page 41 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal Goal Statement

Broadband As part of expanding all broadband capabilities, ensure 4G wireless broadband coverage 

for 98 percent of Americans by 2016.

Closing Skills Gaps Close critical skills gaps in the federal workforce to improve mission performance. By 

September 30, 2013, close the skills gaps by 50 percent for three to five critical federal 

government occupations or competencies, and close additional agency-specific high risk 

occupation and competency gaps.

Cybersecurity Executive branch departments and agencies will achieve 95 percent implementation of the 

administration’s priority cybersecurity capabilities by the end of FY 2014. These 

capabilities include strong authentication, trusted Internet connections, and continuous 

monitoring.

Data Center Consolidation Improve information technology service delivery, reduce waste, and save $3 billion in 

taxpayer dollars by closing at least 2,500 data centers by fiscal year 2015.

Energy Efficiency Increase energy productivity (amount of real gross domestic product in dollars/energy 

demand) 50 percent by 2030.

Entrepreneurship and Small Business Increase federal services to entrepreneurs and small businesses with an emphasis on 

1) startups and growing firms and 2) underserved markets.

Exports Double U.S. exports by the end of 2014.

Improper Payments The federal government will achieve a payment accuracy rate of 97 percent by the end of 

2016.

Job Training Ensure our country has one of the most skilled workforces in the world by preparing 2 

million workers with skills training by 2015 and improving the coordination and delivery of 

job training services.

Real Property The federal government will maintain the fiscal year 2012 square footage baseline of its 

office and warehouse inventory.

Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Mathematics (STEM) education

In support of the president’s goal that the U.S. have the highest proportion of college 

graduates in the world by 2020, the federal government will work with education partners 

to improve the quality of STEM education at all levels to help increase the number of wellprepared graduates with STEM degrees by one-third over the next 10 years, resulting in 

an additional 1 million graduates with degrees in STEM subjects.

Strategic sourcing Reduce the costs of acquiring common products and services by agencies’ strategic 

sourcing of at least two new commodities or services in both 2013 and 2014, that yield at 

least a 10 percent savings. In addition, agencies must increase their use of Federal 

Strategic Sourcing Initiative vehicles by at least 10 percent in both fiscal years 2013 and 

2014.

Sustainability By 2020, the federal government will reduce its direct greenhouse gas emissions by 28 

percent and will reduce its indirect greenhouse gas emissions by 13 percent by 2020 

(from 2008 baseline).

Veteran Career Readiness By September 30, 2013, increase the percent of eligible service members who will be 

served by career readiness and preparedness programs from 50 percent to 90 percent in 

order to improve their competitiveness in the job market.

Source: Performance.gov. | GAO-14-526

Appendix II: Interim Cross-Agency Priority 

Goals and Goal Statements
Appendix III: Interagency Group Membership 

and Meeting Frequency and Purpose

Page 42 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal leaders for 13 of 14 cross-agency priority (CAP) goals leveraged 

interagency groups for the purposes of coordinating efforts designed to 

contribute to progress on the cross-agency priority goal. This appendix 

includes information on the membership of these interagency groups, the 

frequency with which they met, and the purposes of those meetings.

Goal or sub-goal Interagency group Membership Meeting frequency Goal or sub-goal

Broadband Broadband Deployment 

on Federal Property 

Working Group 

Fourteen agencies with 

federal property 

management or 

transportation funding 

responsibilities, and 

broadband or other related 

expertise. 

Quarterly To discuss best practices on 

broadband-related land 

management issues, and 

actions to implement an 

executive order on 

accelerating broadband 

infrastructure deployment.

Spectrum Policy and 

Plans Steering Group 

Senior officials from 

agencies considered 

major spectrum 

stakeholders and users of 

spectrum, including the 

Departments of Defense, 

Justice, Homeland 

Security (DHS), 

Commerce, and the 

National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

(NASA). 

Quarterly To provide advice on 

spectrum policy and 

strategic plans, discuss 

commercial transfer of 

federal agency spectrum, 

and resolve issues affecting 

federal/non-federal users.

Closing Skills Gaps Closing Skills Gaps CAP 

Goal Leadership Team 

Goal leader and sub-goal 

leaders for six sub-goal 

areas

Quarterly To review progress on 

performance metrics and 

actions taken to close skills 

gaps in each of the six subgoal areas. 

Cybersecurity Cybersecurity CAP Goal 

Governance Committee 

Officials from National 

Institute of Standards and 

Technology, General 

Services Administration 

(GSA), DHS, National 

Security Staff, Office of 

Management and Budget 

(OMB) and Performance 

Improvement Council. 

Twice each quarter Beginning in 2013, a 

meeting was held each 

quarter prior to the collection 

of data on agency progress 

on cybersecurity metrics. 

Another was held after data 

had been collected and 

analyzed to review and 

discuss agency progress.

Data Center 

Consolidation 

Federal Data Center 

Consolidation Task Force 

Data center consolidation 

program managers from 

24 federal agencies. 

Quarterly To identify and disseminate 

key information about 

solutions and processes to 

help agencies make 

progress towards data 

center consolidation goals. 

Appendix III: Interagency Group Membership 

and Meeting Frequency and Purpose
Appendix III: Interagency Group Membership 

and Meeting Frequency and Purpose

Page 43 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal or sub-goal Interagency group Membership Meeting frequency Goal or sub-goal

Energy Efficiency No interagency groups were used to manage efforts related to this goal.

Entrepreneurship and 

Small Business 

Interagency groups were used to manage efforts at the sub-goal level. 

Improve Access to 

Government 

Information and 

Services Sub-Goal

BusinessUSA Executive 

Committee 

Senior-level 

representatives from 24 

participating agencies. 

Quarterly To oversee strategy, 

resources and timetables for 

the development of the 

BusinessUSA website, 

resolve interagency issues 

and ensure 

department/agency 

viewpoints are represented.

BusinessUSA Steering 

Committee

Mid-to-senior level 

program, technology and 

customer service 

managers from 24 

participating agencies.

Monthly To assist the BusinessUSA 

program management office 

coordinate the design, 

development, and operation 

of the BusinessUSA website, 

and to track and monitor 

performance metrics on 

customer service and 

outcomes.

Commercialization of 

Federal Research 

Grants Sub-Goal

Small Business 

Innovation Research 

(SBIR) and Small 

Business Technology 

Transfer (STTR) 

Program Manager Group 

SBIR/STTR program 

managers from11 

agencies, and 

coordinating officials from 

Small Business 

Administration (SBA) and 

Office of Science and 

Technology Policy (OSTP)

Monthly To discuss the development 

of SBIR/STTR program 

policy directives, the 

implementation of 

requirements, outreach and 

access to the programs, and 

program best practices. 

Streamlining Pathways 

for Immigrant 

Entrepreneurs SubGoal

Interagency immigrant 

entrepreneurship group 

Officials from DHS, 

Departments of State and

Commerce, OSTP, SBA, 

and Domestic Policy 

Council

As necessary To provide updates on 

relevant agency activities 

and identify opportunities for 

interagency collaboration. 

Small Business 

Procurement Sub-Goal

Small Business 

Procurement Advisory 

Council 

Office of Small and 

Disadvantaged Business 

representative from 

federal agencies 

Monthly To share best practices for 

expanding contracting to 

small and disadvantaged 

businesses, and reviewing 

progress on agency 

simplified-acquisition 

threshold goals.

White House Small 

Business Procurement 

Working Group 

Agency principals and 

staff from 27 federal

agencies 

Annually To provide officials from the 

White House, SBA, 

Commerce, and OMB with 

an opportunity to meet with 

senior agency leaders and 

discuss the steps agencies 

are taking to increase small 

business contracting.
Appendix III: Interagency Group Membership 

and Meeting Frequency and Purpose

Page 44 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal or sub-goal Interagency group Membership Meeting frequency Goal or sub-goal

Exports Trade Promotion 

Coordinating 

Committee/Export 

Promotion Cabinet

Principals (cabinet 

secretaries and deputies) 

and staff from 20 agencies 

involved in export policy, 

service, finance, and 

oversight. 

2-3 times a year To review progress on 

deliverables supporting the 

National Export Strategy, 

communications, and the 

status of individual export 

promotion initiatives.

Improper Payments Do Not Pay 

Implementation Group

Officials from 24 federal 

agencies 

Bi-weekly to monthly To review the status of 

agency implementation of 

Do Not Pay requirements 

and milestones, and 

guidance for implementation. 

Senior Accountable 

Officials Group

Officials from agencies 

with “high-priority” 

programs, as designated 

by OMB.

As necessary To discuss the governmentwide improper payment 

initiative and overall 

strategy.

Job Training Job Training Data 

Access Working Group 

Officials from Departments 

of Education, Health and 

Human Services (HHS), 

Labor, and OMB 

As Necessary To discuss expanding 

access to job training 

performance data, and 

opportunities to promote its 

use at the local, state, and 

federal levels.

Real Property Federal Real Property 

Council 

Senior Real Property 

Officers from 24 federal 

agencies 

Quarterly Among other policy 

discussions, to discuss the 

development of agency 

“Freeze the Footprint” plans.

Sustainability Steering Committee on 

Federal Sustainability 

Officials from Council on 

Environmental Quality, 

OMB, and Senior 

Sustainability Officers 

from federal agencies

Biannually To discuss policy to guide 

the federal government on 

sustainability issues, and to 

discuss sustainability goals.

Science, Technology, 

Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) 

Education 

Federal Coordination in 

STEM Education Task 

Force 

Representatives from 12 

federal agencies - 

including Department of 

Education, National 

Institutes of Health, NASA, 

and National Science 

Foundation – and the 

Smithsonian Institution

Every 4-6 weeks, 

during the 

development of the 

5-year strategic plan.

To develop a 5-year 

strategic plan for federal 

support for STEM education.

Strategic Sourcing Strategic Sourcing

Leadership Council 

Representatives from 

Departments of Defense, 

Energy, and Veterans 

Affairs (VA), DHS, HHS, 

GSA, NASA, and SBA.

Monthly To discuss the development 

and adoption of strategic 

sourcing options.
Appendix III: Interagency Group Membership 

and Meeting Frequency and Purpose

Page 45 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal or sub-goal Interagency group Membership Meeting frequency Goal or sub-goal

Veteran Career 

Readiness

Interagency Policy 

Council

Representatives from 

Departments of Defense, 

Education, and Labor, 

HHS, VA, Office of 

Personnel Management 

(OPM), OMB, SBA

Every 2 months To review ongoing policy 

initiatives and opportunities 

for collaboration between 

agencies.

Veterans Employment 

Initiative Task Force 

Representatives from 

Departments of Defense, 

Education, and Labor, VA, 

OPM, and SBA 

Monthly To develop and implement a 

redesigned veterans 

transition program. 

Source: GAO analysis of information and documentation collected from CAP goal representatives. | GAO-14-526
Appendix IV: Description of Interim CrossAgency Priority Goal Review Processes

Page 46 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal Description of review process

Broadband • The goal leader tasked staff from the Department of Commerce (Commerce) with 

collecting updated information from contributing agencies for quarterly updates.

• This information was then reviewed by the goal leader, who would follow-up directly 

with staff from contributing agencies, as necessary.

Closing Skills Gaps • Each quarter the goal leader hosted a review meeting with the leaders of six sub-goal 

areas to review progress on performance goals established for each sub-goal, as well 

as achievements, challenges and future plans.

Cybersecurity • Beginning in 2013, a Cybersecurity Cross-Agency Priority Goal Governance 

Committee, made up of officials from the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology, General Services Administration, Homeland Security (DHS), National 

Security Staff, Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Performance 

Improvement Council (PIC) would meet twice each quarter to review agency data on 

progress towards cybersecurity goals.

• Throughout the year, the goal leader and deputy goal leader would also host review 

meetings with officials from agencies at risk of not achieving cybersecurity 

performance targets, or that exhibited other risk factors.

Data Center Consolidation • Each quarter, staff from OMB would collect data on agency data center closures, and 

then review these data to evaluate each agency’s progress.

• Once a year, the Federal Chief Information Officer also held PortfolioStat review 

meetings with officials from each agency. According to OMB staff, during these 

reviews participants reviewed metrics from across the agency’s information 

technology portfolio, which included, in some cases, those related to data center 

consolidation.

Energy Efficiency • Each quarter staff supporting the goal leader would collect updated information on 

contributing agency priority goals for the purposes of updating the quarterly status 

update.

Entrepreneurship and Small Business • Each quarter the deputy goal leader would collect updated information on goals and 

milestones from the leaders of each of 10 sub-goals for the purposes of developing 

the quarterly status update. 

• The deputy goal leader would follow-up with sub-goal leaders or agency officials, as 

necessary, to address issues or questions about the status of efforts. The goal leader 

would then review and approve the quarterly status update.

• Some sub-goal leaders would hold in-person meetings with officials from contributing 

agencies to, among other things, review progress on identified goals and milestones. 

See appendix III for information on interagency groups that were used to manage 

efforts for four of the sub-goals.

Exports • Each quarter the goal leader, with the assistance of staff from Commerce and the 

PIC, would collect updated information on relevant agency metrics and activities for 

the purposes of updating the quarterly status update.

• Periodic meetings of the Export Promotion Cabinet/Trade Promotion Coordinating 

Committee, and its Small Business and other working groups, were also used to 

discuss the status of export promotion efforts and progress on specific deliverables.

Improper Payments • Each year OMB would collect and report data on agency improper payment rates.

• Staff from the OMB Office of Federal Financial Management led monthly meetings 

with agency representatives to discuss the implementation of the Do Not Pay 

initiative, which was designed to contribute to the reduction of improper payments. 

The Department of Treasury, as the agency leading implementation of the Do Not 

Pay initiative, would track agency progress on implementation milestones.

Appendix IV: Description of Interim CrossAgency Priority Goal Review Processes
Appendix IV: Description of Interim CrossAgency Priority Goal Review Processes

Page 47 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Goal Description of review process

Job Training • Each quarter staff from the PIC would collect updated information on progress 

towards agency milestones, and work with the goal leader on the development of the 

quarterly status update. 

Real Property • After this goal was revised in the second quarter of 2013, a new review process to 

track agency adherence to the goal was under development by OMB.

Sustainability • Twice a year the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) would collect and review 

quantitative and qualitative data on agency progress towards established 

sustainability goals, including the reduction of agency greenhouse gas emissions.

• Following the collection of these data, the goal leader hosted meetings of the 

Steering Committee on Federal Sustainability, which were used to discuss federal 

sustainability policy and progress on sustainability goals.

• According to CEQ staff, the goal leader and CEQ staff would meet with 

representatives from agencies about sustainability issues on an ad hoc basis. In 

instances where there was a gap between an agency’s actual performance and the 

target established in that area, the goal leader, or other staff from CEQ, would meet 

with officials from that agency to discuss ways to address the performance gap. 

Science, Technology, Engineering, and 

Mathematics (STEM) Education

• Each quarter the goal leader would collect updated information on agency milestones 

for inclusion in the quarterly status updates.

• Progress on some identified strategies to achieve the goal, such as the National 

Science Foundation’s efforts to improve undergraduate STEM education, were 

reviewed at the agency level. After progress was reviewed at the agency level the 

information was passed onto the goal leader and reported publicly in the quarterly 

status update.

Strategic Sourcing • Each quarter the General Services Administration would collect data on agency 

adoption and spending rates for the Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative (FSSI) 

solutions for domestic delivery and office supplies.

• The Strategic Sourcing Leadership Council met bi-monthly to guide the creation and 

adoption of new FSSI options, and, as part of that effort, might review quarterly data 

on agency adoption and spending rates.

Veteran Career Readiness • According to the goal leader, each month staff from the Departments of Defense and

Veterans Affairs, and the PIC, would provide data for “one-pagers” and other status 

update documents with key pieces of relevant information, such as the veterans’ 

unemployment rate and the number of active employers on the Veteran’s Job Bank. 

These one-pagers would be used to inform regular Interagency Policy Council (IPC) 

discussions, along with more specific briefing memorandums, which were used to 

cover the latest issues, keep stakeholders focused on overall outcomes, and to 

inform discussion around specific outliers. Some of the data in these one-pagers 

would also be incorporated into the quarterly status updates.

• More frequently, issue papers and data analysis were provided to Veterans 

Employment Initiative (VEI) Task Force and IPC members as needed to address 

topical issues.

• Ongoing milestone reviews held by the VEI Task Force and its associated working 

groups on Education, Employment, Transition, and Entrepreneurship, provided an 

opportunity to discuss strategies being employed to improve performance.

Source: GAO analysis of information and documentation collected from CAP goal representatives. | GAO-14-526
Appendix V: Full Text for Interactive Figure 2 

on Frequency of Data Reporting for CrossAgency Priority Goals’ Overall Planned Levels 

of Performance

Page 48 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

This appendix includes the print version of the text and rollover graphics 

contained in interactive figure 2.

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Overall Planned Level of Performance

Frequency of Data Reporting for 

Overall Goal

Cybersecurity ...achieve 95 percent implementation of the 

Administration’s priority cybersecurity capabilities 

by the end of fiscal year 2014.

Quarterly

Data reported for primary performance goal

Data Center Consolidation ...save $3 billion in taxpayer dollars by closing at 

least 2500 data centers by fiscal year 2015.

Quarterly

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Agencies have already closed 640 data centers...”

Energy Efficiency Increase Energy Productivity...50 percent by 2030. Quarterly

Data reported for primary performance goal

Appendix V: Full Text for Interactive Figure 2 

on Frequency of Data Reporting for CrossAgency Priority Goals’ Overall Planned 

Levels of Performance
Appendix V: Full Text for Interactive Figure 2 

on Frequency of Data Reporting for CrossAgency Priority Goals’ Overall Planned Levels 

of Performance

Page 49 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Overall Planned Level of Performance

Frequency of Data Reporting for 

Overall Goal

Exports Double U.S. exports by the end of 2014. Quarterly

Data reported for primary performance goal

Strategic Sourcing ...agencies’ strategic sourcing of at least two new 

commodities or services in both 2013 and 2014, 

that yield at least a 10 percent savings... In 

addition, agencies must increase their use of 

Federal Strategic Sourcing Initiative vehicles by at 

least 10 percent in both fiscal years 2013 and 

2014.

Quarterly

Data reported for primary performance goal

Broadband ...ensure 4G wireless broadband coverage for 98 

percent of Americans by 2016.

Biannually

Data reported for primary performance goal
Appendix V: Full Text for Interactive Figure 2 

on Frequency of Data Reporting for CrossAgency Priority Goals’ Overall Planned Levels 

of Performance

Page 50 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Overall Planned Level of Performance

Frequency of Data Reporting for 

Overall Goal

Improper Payments ...achieve a payment accuracy rate of 97 percent 

by the end of 2016.

Annually

Data reported for primary performance goal

Sustainability By 2020, the Federal Government will reduce its 

direct greenhouse gas emissions by 28 percent 

and will reduce its indirect greenhouse gas 

emissions by 13 percent by 2020...

Annually

Data reported for primary performance goal

“As a whole, the Federal government is on track to meet the 2020 greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions reduction goal of a 28 percent 

reduction for Scope 1 and 2 emissions. By the end of fiscal year 2012, the Federal government reduced these emissions by 15 percent 

from the 2008 fiscal year baseline.” 

Closing Skills Gaps ...By September 30, 2013, close the skills gaps by 

50 percent for 3 to 5 critical Federal Government 

occupations or competencies...

Data Not Reported

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Data Not Reported”

Entrepreneurship and Small 

Businesses

Increase federal services to entrepreneurs and 

small businesses with an emphasis on 1) startups 

and growing firms and 2) underserved markets.

Data Not Reported

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Data Not Reported”

Job Training ...[prepare] 2 million workers with skills training by 

2015...

Data Not Reported

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Data Not Reported”

Real Property The Federal Government will maintain the fiscal 

year 2012 square footage baseline of its office and 

warehouse inventory.

Data Not Reported

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Data Not Reported”

Science, Technology, Engineering, 

and Math (STEM) Education

...increase the number of well-prepared graduates 

with STEM degrees by one-third over the next 10 

years, resulting in an additional 1 million graduates 

with degrees in STEM subjects.

Data Not Reported
Appendix V: Full Text for Interactive Figure 2 

on Frequency of Data Reporting for CrossAgency Priority Goals’ Overall Planned Levels 

of Performance

Page 51 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

Cross-Agency Priority Goal Overall Planned Level of Performance

Frequency of Data Reporting for 

Overall Goal

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Data Not Reported”

Veteran Career Readiness By September 30, 2013, increase the percent of 

eligible service members who will be served by 

career readiness and preparedness programs from 

50 percent to 90 percent...

Data Not Reported

Data reported for primary performance goal

“Data Not Reported”

Source: GAO analysis of information from Performance.gov. | GAO-14-526
Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 52 GAO-14-526 Managing for Results

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

In addition to the contact named above, Elizabeth Curda (Assistant 

Director) and Adam Miles supervised the development of this report. 

Virginia Chanley, Jehan Chase, Steven Putansu, Stacy Ann Spence, and 

Dan Webb made significant contributions to this report. Deirdre Duffy and 

Robert Robinson also made key contributions.

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(451055)
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.