FY 2022 Treasury Performance Validation and Verification Appendix

Introduction

This Appendix provides a detailed listing of the agency’s performance measures and indicators with their respective 

definitions, data sources, data collection methodologies, assessments of reliability, and reporting frequency. Performance 

measures and indicators are listed by the strategic objective to which they align and, within each strategic objective, by 

component, and in the order that the component reported them. 

Verification and Validation Process

The Department recognizes the importance of collecting complete, accurate, and reliable performance data since this helps 

determine progress toward achieving program and Department goals and objectives. Performance data are considered 

reliable if transactions and other data that support reported performance measures are properly recorded, processed, and 

summarized to permit the preparation of performance information in accordance with criteria stated by management. 

OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements, OMB Circular A-11 (A-11), and the Reports Consolidation Act 

of 2000 (P.L. No. 106-531) further delineate this responsibility by requiring Agency heads to attest to the completeness 

and reliability of the performance data they report. Treasury employs a central system of record for all publicly reported 

performance data and requires components to validate the data entered into that system on either a quarterly or annual 

basis, depending on the frequency with which the data are reported. Performance data are discussed with senior 

department leadership at Quarterly Performance Reviews (QPRs).

Analysis

A performance measure quality review was conducted between June – September 2022 at the department level to analyze 

the strengths and limitations of these measures, as recommended in OMB Circular A-11. This process involves assessing 

the quality of performance data across the following criteria: data source and capture, data verification and validation, 

strategic alignment, how intuitive it is for the audience to understand, and how useful it is for the intended decisionmaker. Findings from this assessment are used to determine whether or not performance data and measures/indicators are 

still relevant, valid, and of sufficient quality for the intended purpose, whether new measures/indicators are needed to 

capture the impact of new programs or activities, and whether performance measures/indicators should be discontinued 

because they no longer serve a sufficiently useful purpose. These findings are also used to identify and rectify weaknesses 

with data collection processes or validation and verification practices. A cross-system consistency and verification check 

revealed that the definition, indicator type, and all other data fields were complete for each measure. However, the review 

noted areas of improvement to many measures’ validation and verification processes. Treasury will continue to strengthen 

its validation and verification practices, focusing on improved reporting of the most critical information (definitions, data

capture source, and data verification and validation method).

Detailed Measure Verification and Validation Report 2022

STRATEGIC GOAL: 1 - Promote Equitable Economic Growth and Recovery

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 1.1 - Tax Administration and Policy

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

MEASURE: Amount of Revenue Collected Per Program Dollar

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 406 369 339 380 375 336

Definition: Represents the amount of federal excise taxes collected divided by the amount of resources expended to collect the taxes.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator
Data Capture and Source: Taxes collected are captured by the Federal Excise Tax (FET) database; expense data are maintained in Oracle 

Financials.

Data Verification and Validation: Both of these components represent information that is subject to annual audits and routine reconciliation.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Percent of Electronically Filed Operational Reports in Pay.gov

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 50 50 50 50 50 50

Actual 40 42 42 50 53 56

Target Met? N N N Y Y Y

Definition: Measure of the rate at which TTB receives operational reports via its electronic filing system, Pay.gov.Measure of the rate at which 

TTB receives operational reports via its electronic filing system, Pay.gov.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Sum of all TTB operational reports filed electronically via Pay.gov divided by the sum of all operational report 

submissions (both paper and electronic), and multiplied by 100.

Data Verification and Validation: High rates of electronic filing for operational reports reduces administrative burdens for TTB and its taxpayers, 

and enhances TTB’s ability to efficiently and effectively detect and address non-compliance. TTB relies on Pay.gov, a Fiscal Service system 

designed for government payments, for the electronic filing of operational reports. TTB captures data from electronic and paper operational 

reports in its Integrated Revenue Information System (IRIS). The measure includes all monthly and quarterly operational reports for distilled 

spirits, wine, malt beverage, and tobacco products. All submissions of operational report forms have a system flag indicating whether it was filed 

on paper or electronically. TTB extracts and stores tax return data in its analytics environment and automates all calculations in dashboards. All 

systems are subject to TTB IT data standards and security controls for data collection and maintenance. Measure results are verified through 

TTB’s Office of Analytics and reviewed by the Tax Services Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Electronically Filed Permit Applications - Amendments

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 90 80 80 80

Actual 87 89 85 83 79

Target Met? Y N Y Y N

Definition: Measures the rate at which TTB receives applications to amend a Federal permit or registration via its electronic filing system, 

Permits Online.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Sum of permit amendment applications submitted in Permits Online divided by the sum of all permit amendment 

applications (both paper and electronic), multiplied by 100.

Data Verification and Validation: High rates of electronic filing for permit amendment applications supports efficient filing and processing and 

timely service levels to TTB permittees who rely on these approvals. TTB uses the Permits Online (PONL) system to receive and/or track all 

permit amendment submissions (paper and electronic). All permit amendment submissions have a system flag indicating whether it was filed on 

paper or electronically. TTB extracts and stores permit amendment data in its analytics environment and automates all calculations in 

dashboards. All systems are subject to TTB IT data standards and security controls for data collection and maintenance. Measure results are 

verified through TTB’s Office of Analytics and reviewed by the Application Services Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal 

audit.
Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Electronically Filed Tax Returns in Pay.gov

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 50 50 50 50 50 50

Actual 35 37 41 43 47 51

Target Met? N N N N N Y

Definition: Measure of the rate at which TTB receives excise tax returns via its electronic filing system, Pay.gov..

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Sum of all TTB excise tax returns filed electronically via Pay.gov divided by the sum of all TTB excise tax returns filed 

(both paper and electronic), and multiplied by 100.

Data Verification and Validation: High rates of electronic filing for tax returns reduces administrative burdens for TTB and its taxpayers, and 

enhances TTB’s ability to efficiently and effectively detect and address non-compliance. TTB relies on Pay.gov, a Fiscal Service system 

designed for government payments, for the electronic filing of tax returns. TTB captures data from paper tax returns in its Integrated Revenue 

Information System (IRIS). All TTB excise tax returns for alcohol, tobacco, and firearms/ammunition have a system flag indicating whether it was 

filed on paper or electronically. TTB extracts and stores tax return data in its analytics environment and automates all calculations in dashboards. 

All systems are subject to TTB IT data standards and security controls for data collection and maintenance. Measure results are verified through 

TTB’s Office of Analytics and reviewed by the Tax Services Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Claims Processed within Service Standard

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 85 85

Actual 46 59 58

Target Met? Y N N

Definition: The percentage of tax refund and drawback claims that are processed (received, reviewed, and closed/completed) within the 

established service standards. Service standards vary by claim type, and TTB reviews and sets its service standards annually based on 

workload and resources.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Sum the number of claims processed that meet the respective service standard for the claim type and divide by the 

sum of the total claims processed.

The number of claims processed includes all closed submissions with the claim amount either approved (in full or in part) or rejected. The 

measure includes drawback claims filed by manufacturers of nonbeverage products (MNBP) and all other refund claims (including import claims 

as of FY 2024).

Service standards are set annually and vary by claim type. TTB publishes its service standards on TTB.gov, including its annual budget requests.

Data Verification and Validation: Timely and consistent service levels on refund claims facilitates business operations and growth, as delays 

can present cash flow challenges. TTB captures claims data in myTTB or its Integrated Revenue Information System (IRIS) (for claims submitted 

via paper or web form). TTB extracts and stores claims data in its analytics environment and automates all calculations in dashboards, which are 

subject to strict data controls. System data is subject to data management protocols established by TTB’s OCIO. Measure results are verified 

through TTB’s Office of Analytics and reviewed by management in the Tax Services Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal 

audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable
Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Voluntary Complance from Large Taxpayers - Overall

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 90 90 95 95 95 95

Actual 90 90 91 91 93 93

Target Met? Y Y N N N N

Definition: Voluntary compliance rate of large taxpayers (>$50K in annual tax liability) based on timely filing of tax returns, operational reports, 

and payments. Tax filing expectations are set based on taxpayer size (i.e., large taxpayers are required to file a return and pay taxes on a semimonthly basis and file an operational report monthly). Each filing type earns a certain number of points; points are deducted for late and missing 

filings. Each filing type is weighted in the overall calculation to reflect revenue risk.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: TTB taxpayer data on tax returns, operational reports, and payments are captured in the Integrated Revenue 

Information System (IRIS).

Data Verification and Validation: TTB uses automated reporting tools to generate the compliance results by taxpayer and overall. TTB 

auditors/specialists validate compliance findings before taking any reporting and/or follow up action. The tasks involved in the data validation 

process include reviewing the taxpayer account, identifying filings pending corrections and/or data entry, and identifying special taxpayer 

circumstances (e.g., pending bankruptcy, ongoing field audit/investigation, changes in control/proprietorship, etc.). The results are reviewed by 

Tax Services management, and validated for adherence to the methodology by TTB’s Strategic Objective Captain for Improving Voluntary 

Compliance.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Internal Revenue Service

MEASURE: Collection Coverage (Units)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 37.5 38.6 40.1 39.7 33 36.5

Actual 42.2 41.6 41.3 34.9 41.2 38.3

Target Met? Y Y Y N Y Y

Definition: The volume of collection work disposed compared to the volume of collection work available.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The data comes from the Collection Activity Report (CAR).

Data Verification and Validation: 1. Changes to programming of Collection Activity Reports are generally made once a year. Those changes 

are tested and verified by program analysts at headquarters before the first new report is released. Monthly spot checks are also done to verify 

they match the data sent to the DataMart. 2. Accuracy of Automated Offer in Compromise database is validated by management checks in the 

operating units.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Conviction Rate (%)
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 92 92 92 92 92 92

Actual 91.5 91.7 91.2 90.4 89.4 90.6

Target Met? N N N N N N

Definition: The percent of adjudicated criminal cases that result in convictions. The conviction rate is defined as the total number of cases with 

CIMIS status codes of guilty plea, nolo-contendere, judge guilty, or jury guilty divided by these status codes and nolle prosequi, judge dismissed 

and jury acquitted.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Cases are tracked in CIMIS with frequent updates to the status code.

Data Verification and Validation: Criminal Investigation management dictates that the lead agent assigned to the investigation and/or the 

agent’s manager(s) input investigation data directly into CIMIS. Agents and management directs first line managers to review individual work 

group CIMIS reports for accuracy each month to ensure any system input errors or omissions are corrected within 30 days of the initial issuance 

of the monthly data tables. (Rev. 1-07) Standardized reports extract data related to the status codes sited above on a monthly basis. This 

calculation is performed monthly.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Cost to Collect $100

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 0.34 0.33 0.35 0.33 0.29

Definition: The cost to collect $100 of revenue; measure ability to emphasize the use of data analytics, in conjunction with qualitative information, 

to select high-priority work.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: The cost of collecting $100 is computed as total operating costs divided by gross collection divided by 100. Total 

operating costs include dollars obligated, expended and disbursed against direct resources, including funds for Business Systems Modernizations 

and Health Insurance Tax Credit Administration; excluded are costs reimbursed by other federal agencies and private entities for services 

performed for these external parties. Gross collections are before refunds are issued and include penalties and interest in addition to taxes 

collected.

Data Verification and Validation: The data used is from the IRS Data Book prepared by Statistics of Income (SOI).

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Criminal Investigations Completed

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 3100 3000 2800 2700 2600 2600

Actual 3089 3051 2797 2624 2766 2552

Target Met? N Y N N Y N

Definition: The total number of subject criminal investigations completed during the fiscal year, including those that resulted in prosecution 

recommendations to the Department of Justice as well as those discontinued due to a lack of prosecution potential.

Measure Status: ACTIVE
FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Criminal Investigations Management Information System (CIMIS)

Data Verification and Validation: The guidance and direction given by upper management to first line managers is that the first line managers 

should review their individual work group CIMIS data tables at the beginning of each month. The use of this procedure will assure that system 

input errors are corrected no later than 30 days after the error is initially reported in the monthly CIMIS data tables. Additionally, national standard 

monthly reports and statistical information are circulated among the senior staff and headquarter analysts for their review and use. If the 

published information on the official critical measure appears to be out of line with what is normal or expected, headquarters analysts or senior 

staff request that the CI research staff verify that the published and circulated information and/or report is accurate. If the published and 

circulated information is not accurate, then the CI research staff corrects the error and issues revised data for the month.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Accuracy - Customer Accounts (Phones)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 95 95 94 94 91 89

Actual 96 96.1 94.3 93.5 93 91.8

Target Met? Y Y Y N Y Y

Definition: The percentage of correct answers given by a live assistor on Toll-free account inquiries. The measure indicates how often 

customers receive the correct answer to their account inquiry and/or had their case resolved correctly based upon all available information and 

Internal Revenue Manual required actions.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Quality reviewers on the Centralized Quality staff complete a data collection instrument as calls are reviewed. Data 

is input to the Quality Review Database for product review and reporting.

Data Verification and Validation: Field 715 on the DCI is coded by the CQRS monitor as calls are reviewed. Data is input to the NQRS. The 

NQRS contains several levels of validation that occur as part of the review process. The input records are validated requiring entries and 

combinations of entries based upon the relationships inherent in different product lines or based upon an entry in a quality attribute. The national 

reviews conducted by CQRS site staff on telephone product lines are sampled by local management and management officials at the CQRS site. 

In addition, every review is available on-line to the site for verification purposes. Sites monitor their review records daily and have a small rebuttal 

period to contest any review.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

2022-2026 Goals : Goal 1: Promote Equitable Economic Growth and Recovery

Activities : Filing & Account Services

MEASURE: Customer Accuracy - Tax Law Phones (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 95 95 92 92 90 89

Actual 96.7 95.5 91.6 91 92.8 92

Target Met? Y Y N N Y Y

Definition: The percentage of correct answers given by a live assistor on Toll-free tax law inquiries. The measure indicates how often customers 

receive the correct answer to their tax law inquiry based upon all available information and Internal Revenue Manual required actions.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE
Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Quality reviewers on the Centralized Quality staff complete a data collection instrument as calls are reviewed. Data 

is input to the Quality Review Database for product review and reporting.

Data Verification and Validation: Field 715 on the DCI is coded by the CORS monitor as calls are reviewed. Data is input to the NQRS. The 

NQRS contains several levels of validation that occur as part of the review process. The input records are validated requiring entries and 

combinations of entries based upon the relationships inherent in different product lines or based upon an entry in a quality attribute. The national 

reviews conducted by CORS site staff on telephone product lines are sampled by local management and management officials at the CORS site. 

In addition, every review is available on-line to the site for verification purposes. Sites monitor their review records daily and have a small rebuttal 

period to contest any review.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Service Representative (CSR) Level of Service (LOS) (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 64 75 63 60 32 30

Actual 77.1 75.9 65.4 53.1 18.5 17.4

Target Met? Y Y Y N N N

Definition: The number of toll-free callers that either speak to a Customer Service Representative or receive automated informational messages 

divided by the total number of attempted calls.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Enterprise Telephone Database (ETD).

Data Verification and Validation: 1. Validation of monthly report data by W&I P&A staff. 2. The JOC validates CSR LOS data prior to 

publication of the weekly official Snapshot report. Independent weekly CSR LOS source data is also gathered and validated by comparing data 

with the data used to produce the official Snapshot report.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Enterprise Self-Assistance Participation Rate (ESAPR)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 82 89 91

Actual 79 82 85.4 90.6 92.3 93.9

Target Met? Y Y Y

Definition: Data comes from Intelligent Contact Management (ICM), Integrated Customer Communications Environment (ICCE) Web 

Applications WMR (IRFOF), MOD I-EIN, WMAR, Get Transcripts Online (GT), Get Transcripts Mail (OAT), and Federal Student Aid – DataShare 

(FSA-D) = sum of FOTW (FAFSA on the Web) (FSA-D) + IDR (Income Driven Repayments) (IBR), Google Analytics (ITA), SAP Business 

Objects (BO) (TDS (IRTDS04)), WP&C (Income Verification Express Service (IVES) and Return and Income Verification Services RAIVS), 

Custodial Detail Database (CDDB) Payment Report (IMF Electronic and IMF Paper Payments), Collection Office Information System (COINS) 

Collections Reports (IMF Electronic Online Payment Agreements OPA and Installment Agreements), Accounts Management Information Report 

(AMIR) (Customer Accounts Resolved (CAR)), SAP BO (Field Assistance Management Information System2 (FAMIS2) Report) (TAC Face-toFace Walk-ins & Non-Face-to-Face). As new self-assistance applications are provided to the public, they are added to the methodology. The 

ESAPR was an indicator from FY2017-FY2019.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data comes from Intelligent Contact Management (ICM), Integrated Customer Communications Environment (ICCE) 

Web Applications WMR (IRFOF), MOD I-EIN, WMAR, Get Transcripts Online (GT), Get Transcripts Mail (OAT), and Federal Student Aid –

DataShare (FSA-D) = sum of FOTW (FAFSA on the Web) (FSA-D) + IDR (Income Driven Repayments) (IBR), Google Analytics (ITA), SAP 
Business Objects (BO) (TDS (IRTDS04)), WP&C (Income Verification Express Service (IVES) and Return and Income Verification Services 

RAIVS), Custodial Detail Database (CDDB) Payment Report (IMF Electronic and IMF Paper Payments), Collection Office Information System 

(COINS) Collections Reports (IMF Electronic Online Payment Agreements OPA and Installment Agreements), Accounts Management Information 

Report (AMIR) (Customer Accounts Resolved (CAR)), SAP BO (Field Assistance Management Information System2 (FAMIS2) Report) (TAC 

Face-to-Face Walk-ins & Non-Face-to-Face). As new self-assistance applications are provided to the public, they are added to the methodology.

Data Verification and Validation: Management Controls for items on critical path:

1. Data is compiled from several sources (see individual components).

2. Each area is responsible for component accuracy. See individual component controls

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Exam Starts - High-Income Individuals

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 2227 3625

Definition: The number of high-income individual examinations with a Total Positive Income (TPI) > $10M started or opened during the fiscal 

year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: High-Income Individuals TPI > $10M – subset of AC 281)

281 No Earned Income Tax Credit present – TPI > $999,999

Data Verification and Validation: The Audit Information Management System (AIMS) will be the primary source of the data. 

NOTE: Once the final methodology is determined, detailed data 

collection & validation procedures will be input into PMM and included in 

the data dictionary.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Exam Starts - Large Corporations

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 1490 1365

Definition: The number of large corporate examinations with assets > $250M started or opened during the fiscal year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Large Corporations (Assets > $250M – AC 226-230)

226 $250 million to $500 million (valid after 12-31-2006 for all tax periods)

227 $500 million to $1 billion (valid after 12-31-2006 for all tax periods)

228 $1 billion to $5 billion (valid after 12-31-2006 for all tax periods)

229 $5 billion to $20 billion (valid after 12-31-2006 for all tax periods)

230 $20 billion and over (valid after 12-31-2006 for all tax periods)

231 $250 million or greater not yet assigned (valid after 12-31-2006 for all tax periods)

Data Verification and Validation: The Audit Information Management System (AIMS) will be the primary source of the data.

NOTE: Once the final methodology is determined, detailed data 
collection & validation procedures will be input into PMM and included in 

the data dictionary.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Exam Starts - Partnerships

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 4327 3155

Definition: The number of partnership examinations started or opened during the fiscal year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Exam Starts - Partnerships (AC 480-483)

480 Returns Processed before 1988 (no longer valid)

481 10 or less partners-gross receipts under $100,000

482 10 or Less Partners-gross receipts $100,000 and over

483 11 or more partners.

Data Verification and Validation: The Audit Information Management System (AIMS) will be the primary source of the data. 

NOTE: Once the final methodology is determined, detailed data 

collection & validation procedures will be input into PMM and included in the data dictionary.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Examination Efficiency - Individual (1040)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 118 134 122 115 111 100

Actual 121 131 109 76 108 101

Target Met? Y N N N N Y

Definition: The sum of all individual 1040 returns closed by SB/SE, W&I, TEGE and LB&I (Field Exam and Correspondence Exam programs) 

divided by the Total Full Time Equivalents (FTE) expended in relation to those individual returns. In FY 2005, Automated Underreporter (AUR) 

cases were included as part of this measure.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The data comes from the Audit Information Management System (AIMS) closed case data base, the automated 

underreporter Management Information System for Top Level Executives (MISTLE) reports and Exams time reporting system and the Integrated 

Financial System.

Data Verification and Validation: Closures and AIMS Closures - 1. Case closing documents are reviewed for accuracy during sample reviews 

by managers and quality reviewers.

2. AIMS data is validated prior to distribution. 3.Queries used to retrieve data are reviewed for thoroughness and accuracy.

Frivolous Filers (Non-AIMS Closures): 1. Cases are reviewed by managers for accuracy, timeliness and completeness at any point in the 

process. 2.Headquarters Analyst reconciles WP&C data to Summary Report in order to validate data.
SB/SE AUR: Closures - 1.Managerial review samples (phone calls, open and closed cases). 2.Checks and balances exist in the AUR Control 

System to validate the input. 3.Sample physical review of cases closed on the AUR Control System by Program Analysis System ("PAS") for 

accuracy and appropriateness of actions.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

6

MEASURE: Percent of Aged Hardware

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 43.8 30 20 20

Actual 45.5 31 16 9.3 7.1

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Quantity of hardware in operation past its useful life as a share of total hardware in use.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: KISAM OAR provides the total quantity of hardware in operation past its useful life as a share of total hardware in 

use as of a point in time. Each hardware category has a useful life that is periodically assessed against industry standards and IRS IT risk 

tolerance and approved by IT leadership. The useful life is applied to the date that the asset was received and applied against the current date to 

determine whether the asset is aged. Hardware that will not require refreshment funding and is no longer critical to operations because of a 

change in technology or how IRS delivers the IT Service (Ex. Fax Machines, Low-End Printers and Scanners) may be labeled as “Never to 

Refresh” and excluded from the OAR to better define the risk of aged hardware to the IT environment.

Data Verification and Validation: Data will be collected from the IRS’s asset management system (HP Knowledge, Incident/Problem, Service 

Asset Management – KISAM).

Data Accuracy: 

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Major IT Investments within +/-10% Cost Variance at the Investment Level

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 50 72.2 88.9 84.2 94.1 81.3

Target Met? Y Y Y Y N Y

Definition: Number of major IT investments within +/-10 percent variance between planned total cost and projected/actual cost within a fiscal 

year divided by the total number of major IT investments in that fiscal year. Cost variances less than or equal to +/- 10% are categorized as being 

within acceptable tolerance thresholds. Cost variances greater than +/- 10% of the variance are categorized as being outside of acceptable 

thresholds.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: On a monthly basis, leadership for each investment team reviews cost data before members add it into SPIKE. 

Monthly, IM&C employees and management review all SPIKE input and calculations to ensure data completeness. Once reviewed, the data is 

posted to a SharePoint site in the form of monthly variance reports Quarterly, multiple levels of management within S&P ACIO review and 

approve the investment measure data and narratives prepared by the PMT. Quarterly, the chief information officer’s office reviews the 

investment measure data and narratives prepared by the PMT and approves for transmission to the chief financial officer.

Data Verification and Validation: The baseline data will be reviewed/ validated by the Program Performance Management (PPM) Team and

Manager. To indicate the baseline is valid and approved, the manager will send a notification that the data (Excel spreadsheets) may be placed in 

the PPM shared library. Before the measure is reported, the PPM Team and Manager will review/ validate the report. The PPM Manager will 

provide the monthly report to the Deputy Associate CIO for Business Integration for approval. Concurrence will be obtained from the Associate 

CIO for BSM. To indicate the report is validated and approved, the manager will send a notification to store the report in the PPM shared library 

and report on Improvement Measure externally.
Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Major IT Investments within +/-10% Schedule Variance at the Investment Level

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 88.9 83.3 88.9 94.7 100 87.5

Target Met? Y Y Y N N Y

Definition: Number of major IT investments within +/-10 percent variance between planned days and projected/actual days within a fiscal year 

divided by the total number of major IT investments in that fiscal year. Schedule variances less than or equal to +/- 10% will be categorized as 

being within acceptable tolerance thresholds. If schedule variances are greater than +/- 10%, the variance will be categorized as being outside of 

acceptable thresholds.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: On a monthly basis, leadership for each investment team reviews cost data before members add it into SPIKE. 

Monthly, IM&C employees and management review all SPIKE input and calculations to ensure data completeness. Once reviewed, the data is 

posted to a SharePoint site in the form of monthly variance reports Quarterly, multiple levels of management within S&P ACIO review and 

approve the investment measure data and narratives prepared by the PMT. Quarterly, the chief information officer’s office reviews the 

investment measure data and narratives prepared by the PMT and approves for transmission to the chief financial officer.

Data Verification and Validation: The baseline data will be reviewed/ validated by the Program Performance Management (PPM) Team and 

Manager. To indicate the baseline is valid and approved, the manager will send a notification that the data (Excel spreadsheets) may be placed in 

the PPM shared library. Before the measure is reported, the PPM Team and Manager will review/ validate the report. The PPM Manager will 

provide the monthly report to the Deputy Associate CIO for Business Integration for approval. Concurrence will be obtained from the Associate 

CIO for BSM. To indicate the report is validated and approved, the manager will send a notification to store the report in the PPM shared library 

and report on Improvement Measure externally.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Rentable Square Feet Per Person

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 298 280 270

Actual 297 301* 298 278 278 264

Target Met? Y N N N

Definition: The amount of Rentable Square Feet the IRS maintains per Personnel requiring space.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data is from GDI – RSF data, personnel count. Data Limitations: RSF – IRS uses the GSA square footage based on 

the rent bill. If not billed for a particular month it may affect the totals for a particular location.

Data Verification and Validation: Measures Owners review measure results and work with the measures team on the analysis.

Associate Directors – Review, validate and approve the measures results and subsequent analysis.

FMSS Chief – Review and approve the measure results and analysis. Provide directions for further analysis.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 
MEASURE: Repeat Non-Compliance Rate

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline 31.4 35.6 30.7 28.1

Definition: The percentage of individual taxpayers in a Fiscal Year with additional non-compliance two years after the initial tax year that contains 

a filing, payment, or reporting compliance issue, compared to total taxpayers.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: The percentage of individual taxpayers with repeat non-compliance two years after the initial tax year for filing, 

payment, or reporting compliance. Reporting data includes data from Exam tax assessments, Automatic Underreporter (AUR) taxpayers who had 

a positive assessment after getting a “Proposed Amount Due” or “Your tax return doesn’t match the information we have on file” notice resulting 

in a positive assessment, and Math Error cases that result in $100+ owed.

Data Verification and Validation: Data used for this calculation is from the Enforcement Revenue Information Systems (ERIS) and Compliance 

Data Warehouse (CDW) databases.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Taxpayers Satisfied with the IRS

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline 73 74 70 69

Definition: The percentage of Taxpayers Satisfied with the IRS According to the American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) Survey.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: This measure is calculated from separate ACSI Individual Paper Filer and Electronic Filer Customer Satisfaction 

Index Scores (Paper filer customer satisfaction score X percentage of paper returns) + (E-filer customer satisfaction score X percentage of e-filed 

returns) using the number of individual tax filers from Document 6187 Fall Update.

Data Verification and Validation: The American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) is the only uniform, cross-industry/government measure of 

customer satisfaction with the quality of goods and services available to U.S. residents. It covers ten economic sectors, 43 industries, more than 

200 private sector companies, two types of local government services, the U.S. Postal Service, and a substantial portion of the federal 

government.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Time to Resolve Compliance Issue After Filing

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline 469 491 484 404

Definition: The average (mean) time it takes to close all individual income tax enforcement cases in days. This is an annual measure based on 

all cases closed in a Fiscal Year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Mean time to resolve compliance issue after filing.
Data Verification and Validation: Data collection will come from the Enforcement Revenue Information System, and comprises of three primary 

compliance workstreams: examination, underreporter, and collection.

Data Accuracy: 

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Time to Start Compliance Resolution

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline 60.9 66.3 66 68

Definition: Time to Start measures the ability to quickly identify compliance issues.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: The percentage of all individual income tax enforcement cases started within six months of the return posting date.

Data Verification and Validation: Data collection will come from the Enforcement Revenue Information System.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Timeliness of Critical Individual Filing Season Tax Products to the Public (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 89 89 85 89 85 89

Actual 93.1 59.6 92.6 78.4 92 96.4

Target Met? Y N Y N Y Y

Definition: The percentage of Critical Individual Filing Season (CIFS) tax products available to the public seven calendar days before the official 

IRS start of the (individual) filing season. CIFS tax products are those tax forms, schedules, instructions, and publications required by large 

number of filers to prepare a complete and reasonably accurate Individual Income Tax Return.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Publishing Services Data System (PSD) and the Electronic Tax Forms Distribution Production Log (ETFDPL)

Data Verification and Validation: Nightly processes provide analysts and management with reports concerning production status, missing data 

problems, and past due situations.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Timeliness of Critical TE/GE and Business Tax Products to the Public (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 91 91 85 89 85 89

Actual 96.7 100 96.1 96 92.9 96

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y
Definition: The percentage of Critical Tax Exempt/Government Entities (TE/GE) and Business (CTB) tax products available to the public seven 

calendar days before the official IRS start of the individual filing season. CTB tax products are forms, schedules, instructions, and publications 

used by large number of TE/GE and Business filers to prepare a complete and reasonably accurate return or form by the filing date occurring 

during the fiscal year (e.g., income tax, excise tax, exempt organization return, etc.).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Publishing Services Data System (PSD) and the Electronic Tax Forms Distribution Production Log (ETFDPL).

Data Verification and Validation: Nightly processes provide analysts and management with reports concerning production status, missing data 

problems, and past due situations.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: IA - Monitor Quality and Enhance Effectiveness of International Monetary Fund (IMF) Lending Through Review of IMF Country 

Programs

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100 100 100

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure tracks efforts by International Affairs (IA) staff to monitor quality of IMF country programs and ensure the application of 

appropriately high standards. IA staff endeavors to review each country program and provide a synopsis, analysis, and recommendation for 

action at least one day before the IMF Board voting date. The measure tracks the percentage of times the staff review is completed in a timely 

manner (at least one day before Board action) to allow for alterations in language or policy position if deemed necessary.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: International Affairs staff tracks and accounts for actions undertaken during the reporting period.

Data Verification and Validation: Publicly available accounts of meetings (press, etc.), communiqués issued following multilateral or bilateral 

meetings.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: IA - Monitor Quality and Enhance Effectiveness of MDB Lending Through Review of MDB Grant and Loan Proposals

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100 100 100

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Treasury tracks the percentage of multilateral development bank grant and loan proposals it reviews to help ensure that proposed 

projects will have a measurable development impact, support long-term U.S. objectives, and are consistent with congressional mandates.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Loan Review Database and Weekly Operations Agenda.

Data Verification and Validation: Weekly review by Loan Review Staff.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable
Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: IA - Percentage of MDB Grant and Loan Proposals Containing Satisfactory Frameworks for Results Measurement

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 94 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 96 97.6 95 96 97 97.1

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: The percentage of grant and loan project proposals that contain a satisfactory framework for measuring project results (such as 

outcome indicators, quantifiable and time-bound targets, etc.) This information is measured on an annual basis.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: MDB monthly operational report, special requests to MDBs for loan and grant approvals, MDB annual reports and 

U.S. voting positions

Data Verification and Validation: Data provided by the MDB is compared with Treasury MDB Office vote history database and internal 

supporting memoranda.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: OTA - Program Engagement

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 3.6 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.6 3.6

Actual 4 3.8 3.8 3.3 3.6 3.6

Target Met? Y Y Y N Y Y

Definition: The degree to which a OTA’s foreign counterparts are engaging proactively and constructively with OTA advisors, at the working and 

policy levels. Counterpart engagement is both a key outcome of OTA efforts to structure and execute effective technical assistance projects that 

support host country ownership as well as the most crucial input to the successful achievement of the intermediate goals and ultimate outcomes 

described in the project’s terms of reference and work plan during the fiscal year – such as passage of law or regulation, an increase in 

government revenues, an improvement in a government’s credit rating, or a reduction in economic crimes.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Generated by the Financial Technical Assistant Advisor who manage the project in the countries were technical 

assistant project exist.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is verified and validated by the five contracting office representatives, the Associate Director of OTA 

and approved by the Director of OTA.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 1.3 - Economically Resilient Communities 

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

MEASURE: Initial Error Rate on Label and Formula Applications
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 25 25 25 25 25

Actual 43 40 37 34 31 29

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: The total number of label and beverage formula applications received that required TTB to return to the applicant for corrections 

(missing or incomplete application fields) or revisions (noncompliance with federal labeling and/or production requirements).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: COLAs Online and Formulas Online.

Data Verification and Validation: Errors on label and formula applications add to TTB’s reprocessing work and delay overall approval times for 

industry. This measure enables ongoing review of compliance errors to drive strategic improvements. TTB uses automated queries to extract 

data from its online system, which are subject to strict data controls. Results are verified through TTB’s Office of Analytics and reviewed by 

management in the Advertising, Labeling, and Formulation Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Initial Error Rate on Permit Applications

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 25 25 25 25 25 25

Actual 85 80* 71 62 67 64

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: The total number of applications received that required TTB to return to the applicant for corrections

(missing or incomplete application fields) or additional information (missing or incomplete documentation

to support the application). A high volume of errors impedes timely review and approval as the total 

processing time includes all back-and-forth with applicants.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Permits Online.

Data Verification and Validation: Errors on original permit applications add to TTB’s reprocessing work and delay overall approval times for 

industry. This measure enables ongoing review of compliance errors to drive strategic improvements. TTB uses automated queries to extract 

data from its online systems, which are subject to strict data controls. Results are verified through TTB’s Office of Analytics and reviewed by 

management in the National Revenue Center. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Activities : Collect the Revenue

MEASURE: Percent of Electronically Filed Label and Formula Applications

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 98 98 99 99 99.5 99.6
Definition: Measure of the rate at which TTB receives alcohol beverage label and formula applications via electronic filing systems (COLAs 

Online and Formulas Online).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: COLAs Online and Formulas Online.

Data Verification and Validation: Increased use of e-Gov systems provides numerous advantages that increase efficiency for both internal and 

external users. All systems are subject to TTB IT data standards and security controls for data collection and maintenance. The method of data 

extraction is static and has been tested against back-up data sources. Reported results are verified by management in the Advertising, Labeling, 

and Formulation Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Percent of Original Electronically Filed Permit Applications

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 82 87 90 80 95 95

Actual 85 86 89 92 95 95

Target Met? Y N N Y Y Y

Definition: Measures the rate at which TTB receives original permit applications via its electronic filing system, Permits Online.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Permits Online; Integrated Revenue Information System (IRIS).

Data Verification and Validation: High rates of electronic filing for original permit applications supports efficient filing and processing and timely 

service levels to TTB permittees who rely on these approvals. TTB uses the Permits Online (PONL) system to receive and/or track all permit 

applications (paper and electronic). This measure includes applications for Brewer’s Notices and Basic Permits under the Federal Alcohol 

Administration Act. All original permit applications have a system flag indicating whether it was filed on paper or electronically. TTB extracts and 

stores original permit application data in its analytics environment and automates all calculations in dashboards. All systems are subject to TTB 

IT data standards and security controls for data collection and maintenance. Measure results are verified through TTB’s Office of Analytics and 

reviewed by the Application Services Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Alcohol Beverage Label and Formula Applications Processed within Service Standards

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 85 85 85 85 85 85

Actual 62 84 48 83 92 93

Target Met? N N N N Y Y

Definition: Measures the percent of alcohol beverage label and formula applications that TTB processes within the customer service standards 

for the respective programs (annually reviewed for workload and resources and published).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: COLAs Online and Formulas Online.

Data Verification and Validation: TTB's level of service in timely processing applications is central to its mission to facilitate compliant trade. 

TTB must pre-approve the label and, in many cases, formula for an alcohol beverage before it can enter domestic commerce. TTB uses 
automated queries to extract data from its online systems and results are verified by management in the Advertising, Labeling, and Formulation 

Division. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Permit Applications Processed within Service Standards

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 85 85 85 85 85 85

Actual 48.1 71.2 57.6 84.1 92 91

Target Met? N N N N Y Y

Definition: Measures the percentage of original permit applications and registrations that TTB processes within its established service standards 

(reviewed and published annually based on workload and resources).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Permits Online

Data Verification and Validation: TTB established a strategic goal to timely issue permits to qualified applicants. Timely and consistent service 

levels facilitate commerce, as TTB must qualify and issue permits or registrations to businesses before they can operate in the alcohol or tobacco 

industries. TTB uses automated reports generated from its data warehouse maintained by TTB’s Office of Analytics. All performance data are 

vetted through the bureau’s strategic management review process.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Voluntary Complance from Large Taxpayers - Overall

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 90 90 95 95 95 95

Actual 90 90 91 91 93 93

Target Met? Y Y N N N N

Definition: Voluntary compliance rate of large taxpayers (>$50K in annual tax liability) based on timely filing of tax returns, operational reports, 

and payments. Tax filing expectations are set based on taxpayer size (i.e., large taxpayers are required to file a return and pay taxes on a semimonthly basis and file an operational report monthly). Each filing type earns a certain number of points; points are deducted for late and missing 

filings. Each filing type is weighted in the overall calculation to reflect revenue risk.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: TTB taxpayer data on tax returns, operational reports, and payments are captured in the Integrated Revenue 

Information System (IRIS).

Data Verification and Validation: TTB uses automated reporting tools to generate the compliance results by taxpayer and overall. TTB 

auditors/specialists validate compliance findings before taking any reporting and/or follow up action. The tasks involved in the data validation 

process include reviewing the taxpayer account, identifying filings pending corrections and/or data entry, and identifying special taxpayer 

circumstances (e.g., pending bankruptcy, ongoing field audit/investigation, changes in control/proprietorship, etc.). The results are reviewed by 

Tax Services management, and validated for adherence to the methodology by TTB’s Strategic Objective Captain for Improving Voluntary 

Compliance.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 
MEASURE: ALL - Award Cycle Time (Months)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 7 7 6.5 6.5 6.5 6.5

Actual 6.3 5.8 6.4 5.5 6.5 8.8

Target Met? N N N N Y Y

Definition: Cycle time from the date when applications are received to the date of award announcement (in months). Cycle time is calculated as 

a weighted average across all CDFI Fund programs, weighted by the number of awards per program in each round. A value that is less than or 

equal to the target is required to meet the target.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Application intake dates and award announcement dates posted.

Data Verification and Validation: Verification is derived from administrative data on dates of receipt of applications and date of award 

announcements.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: All - Time to Initial Disbursement (# Months)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Actual 7.5 7 7 4.4 5.29 3.5

Target Met? Y Y Y N Y N

Definition: Number of months from the date when applications are received to the date of award announcement. Months is calculated as a 

weighted average across all CDFI Fund programs, weighted by the number of awards per program in each round.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data on date of award announcements and date of initial disbursement are captured through the Awards 

Management and Information System managed by the CDFI Fund.

Data Verification and Validation: Verification is derived from administrative data on date of award announcements and date of initial 

disbursement.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: BEA - Bank Enterprise Award Program (BEA) Leverage Ratio is the $ Sum of All Award Recipients Qualified Activities to the $ Sum 

of All Awards in a Given Year.

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline

Actual

Target Met?
Definition: The BEA Program’s new performance measure is a leverage ratio that compares the sum of all award recipients’ qualified activities in 

eligible distressed communities and to certified CDFIs, to the sum of all awards in a given year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: BEA awardee data is reported to the CDFI Fund’s Award Management and Information system which collects 

geocoded transaction level reports to validate that the transaction address is located in an eligible census distressed tract or that the qualified 

CDFI investment was made to an certified CDFI. CDFI Fund analysts review and compile the data to ensure the records comply with program 

requirements.

Data Verification and Validation: BEA Program sums all qualified geocoded transactions to validate that the activities are located in eligible 

census tracts or made to certified CDFIs located in distressed communities and compares this sum to the sum of all awardees in the current 

reporting year to compute the leverage ratio.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: CDFI - Percentage of Loans & Investments Originated in Eligible Distressed or Underserved Communities by Dollar Amount of 

Loans (Annual %)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 60 60 60 60 60 60

Actual 81.2 73.7 75.6* 75 71.4 67.1

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Percentage of loans and investments originated in eligible distressed communities or made to underserved populations by amount of 

loans reported by CDFI Financial Assistance awardees during the program year. By policy all certified CDFIs must originate 60% or more of their 

loans and investments in eligible distressed census tracts or to underserved communities or populations. Note the target is a threshold that must 

be met or exceeded. The objective is to make sure that the program is meeting its basic requirements for serving distressed and underserved 

communities. Also note that the threshold recognizes that CDFIs must balance their mission of serving distressed communities and underserved 

populations against their safety and soundness considerations so the threshold is not an increasing threshold as that might engender 

unacceptable financial risks.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Each awardee collects and tracks information in its own management information system(s). The information is selfreported by awardees in the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS). The geocoded transaction data on the location of the loans is then 

compared to eligible census tracts in distressed communities or the targeted populations to determine the percentage deployed to their target 

markets.

Data Verification and Validation: The Fund will collect data on loans and investments originated by awardees through the Institution Level and 

Transaction Level Reports. Data provided is compared to the underlying demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of the awardees’ 

transactions and the volume of transactions is compared to their audited financial statements for accuracy and "reasonableness" as defined by 

the Fund. Awardees are contacted regarding any discrepancies.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: CDFI - Percentage of Loans & Investments Originated in Eligible Distressed or Underserved Communities by Number of Loans

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 60 60 60 60 60 60

Actual 83 72.1 78.8 79.6 75.7 77.7

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: The percentage share of loans/investments originated in eligible distressed or made to underserved populations by reporting CDFI 

Financial Assistance awardees during the program year. By regulation all certified CDFIs must originate 60% or more of their loans and 
investments in eligible distressed census tracts or to underserved populations. Note the target is a threshold that must be met or exceeded. The 

objective is to make sure that the program is meeting its basic requirements for serving distressed communities and underserved populations. 

Also note that the threshold recognizes that CDFIs must balance their mission of serving distressed communities and underserved populations 

against their safety and soundness considerations so the threshold is not an increasing threshold as that might engender unacceptable financial 

risks.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Each awardee collects and tracks information in its own management information system(s). The information is selfreported by awardees in the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS). The geocoded transaction data on the location of the loans is then 

compared to eligible census tracts in distressed communities or the targeted populations to determine the percentage deployed to their target 

markets.

Data Verification and Validation: The Fund collects data on loans and investments originated by awardees through the Institution Level and 

Transaction Level Reports. Data provided is compared to the underlying demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of the awardees’ 

transactions and the volume of transactions is compared to their audited financial statements for accuracy and "reasonableness" as defined by 

the Fund. Awardees are contacted regarding any discrepancies.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: HFFI - Retail Outlets Created/Preserved

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 24 20 23 21 29 32

Definition: Each HFFI awardee must report the number of retail food outlets that have been created or preserved as a result of the HFFI project 

financed by the awardee in a low-income/low-access area designated as a "food desert" under the program criteria.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Each HFFI awardee will be required to submit an annual report on their activities. All reports are submitted 

electronically and the data is stored in the Fund's databases.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is self-reported by awardees but must include a complete address (or latitude and longitude) so that 

the investment can be verified as occurring in a qualified "food desert" as defined by program criteria.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: NACA - Percentage of NACA Loans and Investments in Native Areas (# of Loans)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 50 50 50 50 50 50

Actual 95.1 94.4 86* 72.1 72.6 70.3

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Quantifies the extent to which eligible areas are being serviced by NACA awardees in relation to Total Loan/Investment Activity, (# of 

loans).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Each awardee collects and tracks information in its own management information system(s). The information is selfreported by awardees in the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS). The geocoded transaction data on the location of the loans is then 

compared to eligible census tracts in distressed communities or the targeted populations to determine the percentage deployed to their target 

markets.
Data Verification and Validation: The Fund collects data on loans and investments originated by awardees through the Institution Level and 

Transaction Level Reports. Data provided is compared to the underlying demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of the awardees’ 

transactions and the volume of transactions is compared to their audited financial statements for accuracy and "reasonableness" as defined by 

the Fund. Awardees are contacted regarding any discrepancies.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: NACA - Percentage of NACA Loans and Investments in Native Areas ($ Amount of Loans)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 50 50 50 50 50 50

Actual 47.9 84.9 78* 57.2 60.1 65.3

Target Met? N Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Quantifies the extent to which eligible areas are being serviced by NACA awardees in relation to Total Loan/Investment Activity, ($ 

amount of loans).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Each awardee collects and tracks information in its own management information system(s). The information is selfreported by awardees in the Community Investment Impact System (CIIS). The geocoded transaction data on the location of the loans is then 

compared to eligible census tracts in distressed communities or the targeted populations to determine the percentage deployed to their target 

markets.

Data Verification and Validation: The Fund collects data on loans and investments originated by awardees through the Institution Level and 

Transaction Level Reports. Data provided is compared to the underlying demographics and socioeconomic characteristics of the awardees’ 

transactions and the volume of transactions is compared to their audited financial statements for accuracy and "reasonableness" as defined by 

the Fund. Awardees are contacted regarding any discrepancies.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: NMTC - Percentage of Loans and Investments That Went Into Severely Distressed Communities

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 74 75 75 75 75 75

Actual 77.5 73.6 80.3 77.2 77 79

Target Met? Y N Y Y Y Y

Definition: Portfolio data being reported by allocatees' at the project level is used to determine the percentage of loans going into a distressed 

community. A distressed community is composed of any of the following criteria:

1)Poverty > 30%

2)Median Income < 60%

3)Unemployment Rate 1.5x National Average

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Each allocatee collects and tracts their portfolio data in its own management information system(s). It is then 

uploaded into the CDFI Fund's Community Investment Impact System (CIIS). This information is self-reported by the awardees.

Data Verification and Validation: The CDFI Fund will collect portfolio data thru annual transaction level reports. Data provided is compared to 

the awardees' actual financial statements for accuracy and "reasonableness" as defined by the CDFI Fund. Awardees are contacted regarding 

any discrepancies.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable
Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: SDLP - Ratio of the Number of Small Dollar Loan Program (SDLP) Loans to the Number of SDLP Recipients

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline

Definition: Applicable to both types of SDL awards – loan loss reserves and technical assistance. Each awardee type regardless of whether they 

are applying the funding towards an existing or new SDL program is required to report on closed small dollar loan activity. All SDL Program 

Award Recipients must close small dollar loans based on the three-year projected small dollar loan total to be closed as proposed in the 

Application, demonstrating an increase in lending.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: The data is submitted to the Fund through the Performance Progress Report (PPR) in Awards Management 

Information System Database (AMIS) once a year, three (3)

Data Verification and Validation: The data is submitted to the Fund through the Performance Progress Report (PPR) in Awards Management 

Information System Database (AMIS) once a year, three (3) months after their fiscal year end. Recipients respond to the questions below by 

providing numerical figures, yes or no answers, or narrative responses, as appropriate. This report is used to determine Recipient compliance 

with the applicable performance goals in their assistance agreement. The Fund’s Office of Compliance, Monitoring and Evaluation (OCME) tracks 

the reporting for noncompliance among award recipients.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

Departmental Offices - S & E

MEASURE: Percent of Procurement Dollars Spent on Small Business

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 35 40 39.5 39 36 39

Actual 35 42.63 40.4 46 39 38

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y N

Definition: This goal measures the percentage of procurement dollars obligated toward small businesses (or Treasury’s overall small business 

goal) and highlights Treasury’s efforts to ensure that small businesses have the maximum practicable opportunity to provide goods and services 

to the federal government.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Federal Procurement Data System-Next Generation.

Data Verification and Validation: Treasury Office of Small and Disadvantaged Business Utilization reviews for reasonability each week.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

MEASURE: ALL - Number of Affordable Housing Units Developed or Produced

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 27433 34083 61839 44361 58125 72807
Definition: Number of affordable housing units created by CDFI Fund programs. This includes real estate construction and rehabilitation financed 

in part by CDFI Program financial assistance awardees, New Markets Tax Credit allocatees and CMF awardees.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Each awardee and allocatee collects and tracks information in its own management information system(s). The 

information is self-reported by awardees and allocatees. The Financial Strategies and Research Unit administers the Institution Level and 

Transaction Level Reports which contain business lending data for each CDFI Financial Assistance awardee and NMTC allocatee. CMF 

reporting systems will be established in 2011.

Data Verification and Validation: The Fund will collect affordable housing unit data through the annual Institution Level and Transaction Level 

Reports. Data provided is compared to the awardees' and allocatees' actual financial statements for accuracy and "reasonableness" as defined 

by the Fund. Awardees and allocatees are contacted regarding any discrepancies.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

STRATEGIC GOAL: 2 - Enhance National Security 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 2.1 - Cyber Resiliency of Financial Systems and Insitutions 

Cybersecurity Enhancement Account

MEASURE: Percent of High and/or Critical Findings from Risk and Vulnerability Assessments (RVAs) or Security Architecture Reviews (SARs) 

on Tier 1 High Value Assets (HVAs) that are Closed by the end of the Fiscal Year

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 65 75 75

Actual 57 80 80 100*

Target Met? Y Y Y Y

Definition: This is a measure of how Treasury addresses the vulnerabilities and potentially-exploitable weaknesses of its most important 

systems, based on its recurring HVA review and assessment process. In the past three years, Treasury’s CEA performance targets were based 

upon the percentage of HVA system assessments/reviews that were conducted in a timely manner. Treasury has consistently recorded a 100 

percent completion rate, even though it faced increasing challenges over the mid- and long-term period. Treasury will now focus on steps to 

address findings resulting from these assessments. This focus will assure that the proper Plans of Action and Milestones (POAMs) are both in 

place for all reviewed systems and that the POAMs have been acted upon in a timely manner. The investment will focus on remediation of 

vulnerabilities, as well as increased review and reporting on corrective actions to resolve all findings and recommendations discerned during the 

assessment process.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The number of High and or Critical vulnerabilities closed throughout the year divided by the total number identified. 

The Department of Homeland Security determines the rating based on impact and ease of exploitation. If a vulnerability is not closed by the end 

of the year it’s included in the roll up of open findings.

Data Verification and Validation: Each Bureau identifies and reports the High and Critical vulnerabilities. The respective Bureau CISO validates 

and signs off when the vulnerability is closed out.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Tier I High Value Assets (HVA) with an overdue Risk and Vulnerability Assessment (RVA) or Security Architecture 

Review (SAR)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Target Baseline

Actual 100 100 100 100 100

Target Met? Y

Definition: The percentage of Treasury’s top tier high value assets scheduled for a third party risk assessment, but that did not undergo one on 

time. This is a measure of how often Treasury’s most important systems are being actively reviewed and assessed for weaknesses that could be 

exploited by an adversary.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Number of overdue HVA RVAs / number of scheduled HVA RVAs.

Data Verification and Validation: A schedule denoting which HVAs will undergo an RVA will be established each year. If a scheduled system 

does not undergo an RVA in a given FY, it will be counted as overdue.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 2.2 - Economic Measures to Advance National Security 

Departmental Offices - S & E

MEASURE: IA - Timely Review of CFIUS Cases

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 100 100 100

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Treasury tracks compliance with statutory deadlines for completing national security reviews of transactions notified to CFIUS to 

ensure that the CFIUS process is timely and efficient.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Manual updates of electronic tracker recording all cases reviewed.

Data Verification and Validation: Weekly review by Deputy Assistant Secretary and staff.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

MEASURE: Number of Outreach Events for Other US Government Agencies, the Public, the Business Sector, and Foreign Governments Per 

Calendar Year

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 60 60

Actual 26 46

Target Met? N N
Definition: For TFI to be successful in their mission involvement and buy-in with the private sector and government officials is necessary. This 

performance measure tracks the amount of outreach events conducted by TFI.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Number of Outreach Events for Other US Government Agencies, the Public, the Business Sector, and Foreign 

Governments Per Calendar Year.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verfied by TFFC.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Number of Roundtables with Private Sector on ML/TF Threats, Vulnerabilities, and Risk

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 13 13 16

Definition: Measures the number of roundtables with the private sector that TFFC takes part in. Roundtables contribute to the success of TFI 

mission since private sector buy-in support compliance. The data is collected by TFFC.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: TFFC tracks number of roundtables with private sector.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verified by TFFC.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Participation in International Mutual Evaluations (FATF) and Follow up Reports

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 32 32 42

Definition: FATF Mutual Evaluations are peer evaluations of countries’ levels of effectiveness and implementation of the FATF AML/CFT 

Standards. Additionally, the metric includes reviews and comments on reports produced by the nine FSRBs; and, work assessing and reviewing 

countries as part of the ICRG. Participation on mutual evaluations usually requires several extended on-site visits in country, extensive analysis 

of a country’s AML/CFT system.

Measure Status: NONE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: TFFC tracks how many mutual evaluations the U.S. participates in and the follow-up reports produced in response to 

evaluations by the nine FSRBs.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verfied by TTFC.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 2.3 - Modernize Sanctions Regime

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

MEASURE: Number of New or Modified Sanctions Programs Modified by EO or Congressional Mandate During the Fiscal Year
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 7 8 11

Definition: Measures new actions or expansion of existing sanction programs. The creation of sanctions programs requires a significant upfront 

dedication of policy, legal, and regulatory resources to ensure proper coordination and documentation of the changes.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Number of New Sanctions Programs Modified by EO or Congressional Mandate

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verified by OFAC

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 2.4 - Transparency in the FInancial System

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

MEASURE: Percentage of Law Enforcement and Regulators who Assert that they Queried BSA Data that Led to Detection and Deterrence of 

Illicit Activity

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 85 86 84 88 90 90

Actual 86* 85 92 90 93 92

Target Met? Y N Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure examines the survey responses of domestic law enforcement users directly querying the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) data 

in support of financial crime investigations. It also includes responses from regulators querying the system for their BSA compliance 

examinations. FinCEN has over 11,000 external users who rely on BSA data to identify financial crime. The survey looks at the value of BSA 

data, such as whether the data provided unknown information, supplemented or expanded known information, verified information, helped 

identify new leads, opened a new investigation or examination, supported an existing investigation or examination, and provided information for 

an investigative or examination report. This is a meaningful measure as valuable and useful BSA data contribute to the detection and deterrence 

of financial crime and improve BSA consistency and compliance.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data are captured via a survey. The vendor survey team developed questionnaires for the customers, with FinCEN 

input. They conducted e-mail surveys of FinCEN's customers in law enforcement and regulatory agencies accessing BSA information.

Data Verification and Validation: Raw data are received from the survey vendor and results are calculated and verified.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Users Satisfied with FinCEN Information Sharing Systems

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 86 84 84 84 85 85

Actual 87 86 89 88 87 87

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y
Definition: This measure is a composite survey measure and represents the users’ satisfaction with the technology systems. This measure 

tracks satisfaction with BSA E-Filing, FinCEN Query, and the Egmont Secure Web questions. Starting with industry, FinCEN collects and 

maintains BSA reports filed by financial institutions and other filers. In turn, FinCEN provides internal users (including Treasury and TFI), and 

external law enforcement and regulatory users access to a query system containing 11 years of BSA data; provides internal users with a tool to 

conduct advanced analysis; and provides foreign FIUs in the Egmont Group with a secure system for exchanging financial intelligence to combat 

money laundering and terrorist financing. This measure is meaningful because the technology allows authorized persons to more readily access 

BSA information and better enable them to conduct investigations more efficiently and effectively.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data are captured via a survey: Foreign FIU survey, the BSA E-filing survey, and the FinCEN portal/query 

satisfaction survey.

Data Verification and Validation: Raw data are received from the survey vendor and results are calculated and verified.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

STRATEGIC GOAL: 3 - Protect Financial Stability and Resiliency 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 3.3 - Financial Innovation 

Fiscal Service

MEASURE: FYTD Percentage of Total Federal Government Receipts Settled Electronically (in dollars) [%]

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 98 98 98 98 98 99

Actual 98.3 98 98.4 99 99.6 99.8

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Measures the percentage of revenue collection dollars settled electronically. The comparison is with the total revenue collected.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: This measure considers the percentage of government collections that are collected by electronic mechanisms 

(Electronic Federal Tax Payment System, Plastic Card, FEDWIRE Deposit System, Automated Clearinghouse (ACH)) compared to total 

government collections. The system receives deposit and accounting information from local depositories and provides detailed accounting 

information to STAR, FMS' central accounting and reporting system.

Data Verification and Validation: The agencies that report collections are responsible for ensuring the deposit reports are correct. Financial 

institutions and Federal agencies report deposits into the CA$H-LINK deposit reporting system using an Account Key which identifies the 

collection mechanism (lockbox, which is non-electronic or ACH, electronic) through which the collection was made. FMS analysts gather deposit 

information from CA$H-LINK reports and then report totals and percentages on a monthly Collections Summary Report and on the Total 

Government Collections Report. The Total Government Collections Report totals all deposits divided into electronic/non-electronic mechanisms 

and tax and non-tax totals within the mechanisms.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Treasury Payments Made Electronically

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 95.2 95.2 95.3 95.8 96.1 96.4

Actual 95.1 95.4 95.6 96.04 96.2 96.4

Target Met? N Y Y Y Y Y
Definition: The portion of the total volume of payments that is made electronically by FMS. Electronic payments include transfers through the 

automated clearinghouse and wire transfer payments through the FEDWIRE system.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The volume of payments is tracked through FMS' Production Reporting System. The amount and number of 

payments are also maintained under accounting control.

Data Verification and Validation: Accounting controls provide verification that the number of payments, both checks and EFT, is accurately 

tracked and reported. The number of inquires made against Federal check payments, whether disbursed by FMS or by other agencies, is 

separately tracked and reported. Additionally, payment files are balanced with payment authorizations that are electronically certified and 

submitted to FMS by Federal program agencies. The Federal Reserve Banks also validate the payment files.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

STRATEGIC GOAL: 5 - Modernize Treasury Operations 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 5.2 - Future Work Routines

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

MEASURE: FEVS Satisfaction

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 65 65 65 65

Actual 74 74 71

Target Met? Y Y Y

Definition: BEP's Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) results provide a window into how engaged the Federal workforce is and the level 

of satisfaction. Having an engaged workforce is critical to each agency’s ability to achieve its mission of providing excellent service to the 

American people.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: FEVS(OPM) published results.

Data Verification and Validation: OPM survey results.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Departmental Offices - S & E

MEASURE: Treasury-wide Engagement Index of the FEVS

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 67 69 69 70 75 75

Actual 68 68 70 75 74 74

Target Met? Y N Y Y N N

Definition: The FEVS Engagement Index concentrates on factors that lead to an engaged workforce. OMB M-15-04, dated December 23, 2014, 

sets a top-line goal for federal agencies to achieve 67 percent rating in the Engagement Index on the 2016 survey.
Engagement is made up of Leaders Lead, Supervisors, and Intrinsic Work Experiences indices.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Treasury employees provide responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) questions; source FEVS.

Data Verification and Validation: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) verifies and validates the employee responses to FEVS 

questions.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Treasury-wide Footprint (Square Footage)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 34310 33600 33100 32895 32341 31948

Actual 34100 33766 33209 32517 32006 31691

Target Met? N Y Y N N N

Definition: This goal measures the total square footage occupied by Treasury’s owned and leased buildings. To reduce the Department’s real 

property footprint and maximize the use of existing real property assets, the Department maximized space utilization by undertaking space 

realignments, consolidations, and through improved work station standards.

NOTE: Actuals are determine at the end of the calendar year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: 1. GSA annually provides detailed inventory spreadsheet for the Department’s GSA controlled space. 

2. Treasury-controlled space inventory data is pulled from the Federal Real Property Profile.

Data Verification and Validation: Treasury Operations and the Bureau Real Property Officer’s Working Group reviews for reasonability at the 

end of each calendar year.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Treasury-wide Leaders Lead Index of the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 67 69 69 70 65 67

Actual 56 56 58 65 66 64

Target Met? N N N N Y N

Definition: Employees’ perceptions of leadership’s integrity as well as leadership behaviors such as communication and workforce motivation (Q. 

53, 54, 56, 60, and 61).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Treasury employees provide responses to the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS) questions; source FEVS.

Data Verification and Validation: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) verifies and validates the employee responses to FEVS 

questions.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually
Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: 5.4 - Customer Experience Practices

Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction Rate with eGov Systems - Permits Online (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 80 77* 68 78 79 78

Target Met? Y N N N N N

Definition: Results of the TTB customer survey of the permitting process, including application length, complexity, assistance received, and the 

electronic filing system.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: TTB Permit satisfaction monthly survey using a commercial survey tool.

Data Verification and Validation: The survey data provides an indicator of satisfaction across qualitative and quantitative aspects of customer 

experience, with questions designed to support analysis of the effectiveness of efforts to reduce processing times, improve guidance, and 

decrease filing burdens. The data is subject to the data standards and security controls of the online survey tool. Reported results are verified by 

the Operations Services Branch chief at the National Revenue Center. All performance data are subject to annual internal audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction Rate with eGov Systems – COLAs Online

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 82 81 77 80 83 83

Target Met? Y Y N Y Y Y

Definition: Results of TTB's customer survey to determine user satisfaction with the online filing system for Certificates of Label Approval 

(COLAs), including ease of accessing the system, submission process, online guidance, ability to complete the application without assistance, 

time to complete the application, and experience using the system. 

The survey provides feedback on respondent opinions and perceptions. Statistical validation is dependent on response rates. If the response 

rates are high enough, the survey provides a snapshot of respondent opinions, which may provide a statistically valid overview of overall 

satisfaction.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Collection:

1) TTB's Office of Analytics provides a monthly statistical sample of users for COLAs Online based on a 95% confidence interval with a 10% 

response rate. 

2) TTB uploads email addresses into pre-saved surveys in Survey Monkey and then sends out survey. 

3) Five business days after the survey is sent, TTB closes the survey, and downloads the results. 

4) TTB collects results from survey questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

Validation:
Survey Monkey designers provide and test for proper data collection standards to ensure the accuracy and completeness of results. The 

Strategic Objective Captain for TTB Objective 15, Optimize Electronic Systems, verifies the results calculated by the measure owner.

Data Verification and Validation: 

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction Rate with eGov Systems – Formulas Online

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 70 79 70 73 80 78

Target Met? N N N N Y N

Definition: Results of TTB's customer survey to determine user satisfaction with the online filing system for beverage alcohol formula 

applications, including ease of accessing the system, submission process, online guidance, ability to complete the application without assistance, 

time to complete the application, and experience using the system. 

The survey provides feedback on respondent opinions and perceptions. There are currently not enough users to generate a statistically valid 

sample for nonbeverage FONL users. However, TTB uses the survey results to provide a snapshot of respondent opinions, which may provide a 

representative view of user satisfaction (though likely biased toward negative responses).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Collection:

1) TTB's Office of Analytics provides a monthly statistical sample of users for Formulas Online (beverage) based on a 95% confidence interval 

with a 10% response rate. 

2) TTB uploads email addresses into pre-saved surveys in Survey Monkey and then sends out survey. 

3) Five business days after the survey is sent, TTB closes the survey, and downloads the results. 

4) TTB collects results from survey questions 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7. 

Add the percentage of respondents who were “somewhat satisfied” or “extremely satisfied” with six survey questions (enumerated according to 

the survey item): (1) ease of accessing the system; (2) online guidance; (3) ability to complete the application without assistance; (5) submission 

process; (6) time it took to complete the application; and (7) experience using our electronic system.

Data Verification and Validation: Validation:

Survey Monkey designers provide and test for proper data collection standards to ensure the accuracy and completeness of results. The 

Strategic Objective Captain for TTB Objective 15, Optimize Electronic Systems, verifies the results calculated by the measure owner.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

STRATEGIC GOAL: X - Mission Critical

STRATEGIC OBJECTIVE: X.1 - Mission Critical

Bureau of Engraving and Printing

MEASURE: Currency Notes Delivered Returned Due to Defects (Parts per Million)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 1 1 1 1 1

Actual 0.008 0.0031 0.09 0.02 0.016 16.6
Target Met? Y N N N N Y

Definition: Measured to incentivize continuous product quality improvement and reduce defect-driven returns of currency notes by the Federal 

Reserve back to BEP.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: When BEP's Office of Security receives defective notes back from the Federal Reserve Banks, the notes are 

recorded and turned over to Office of Quality to investigate cause, determine date of issuance and possible remedy.

Data Verification and Validation: BEP's Office of Security collects and tracks the number of notes by denomination returned from the Federal 

Reserve Banks.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Lost Time Accident Rate per 100 Employees

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8

Actual 1.36 0.78 1.48 1.01 1.59 0.95

Target Met?

Definition: Purpose: To improve employee safety and minimize unnecessary safety-related costs.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data is collected from collecting lost time hours from NFC payroll reports as well as information from Human 

Resources; rate per 100 employees.

Data Verification and Validation: Subject matter experts from the Office of Environmental Health and Safety will collect and verify information.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Manufacturing Costs For Currency (Dollar Costs Per Thousand Notes Produced)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 50 48 51.66 59.65 64.33 65

Actual 43.58 47.41 51.01 56.19 61.81 63.96

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: An indicator of currency manufacturing efficiency and effectiveness of program management. This standard is developed annually 

based on the past year's performance, contracted price factors, and anticipated productivity improvements. Actual performance comparison 

against the standard depends on BEP's ability to meet annual spoilage, efficiency, and capacity utilization goals established for this product line.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Cost data is collected through BEP's accrual-based cost accounting system.

Data Verification and Validation: BEP's accrual-based cost accounting system is audited annually as part of the financial statement audit.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable
Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Departmental Offices - S & E

MEASURE: Variance Between Estimated and Actual Receipts (Annual Forecast)(%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25 4.25

Actual 4 2.33 2.5 11.1 13.82 10.8

Target Met? Y Y Y N N N

Definition: Percentage error measures the accuracy of the Benchmark receipt forecasts produced monthly by the Office of Fiscal Projections 

(OFP). It measures the relative amount of error or bias in receipt forecasts.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: OFP within the Office of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary creates estimates of Federal receipts by major categories 

(e.g., withheld income/FICA taxes, individual/SECA taxes, corporate taxes, customs deposits, estate and gift taxes and excise taxes) as well as 

by collection mechanisms (e.g., electronic and paper coupons) as a part of an extensive cash flow forecast used to inform Treasury's debt 

management decisions. OFP is also responsible for forecasting the daily tax receipts in order to manage the federal government's cash flow. 

Data on daily and monthly estimated and actual federal tax receipts are compiled by the office and used to report on the United States' daily, 

monthly, and annual cash position.

Data Verification and Validation: The percentage error is computed by subtracting the forecast value of tax receipts from the actual (At -Ft), and 

dividing this error of forecast by the actual value, and then multiplying it by 100. PEt = ((At - Ft)/At) *100 At is actual value of receipts at time t, 

and Ft is forecasted value of receipts at time t. The average percentage error is more general measure that will be used to compare the relative 

error in the forecasts. This measure adds up all the percentage errors at each point and divides them by the number of time point APE = 

|(?t=1TPEt)|/T where PEt is the percentage error of forecasts in (1) and T is the total number of time point. The absolute value of the average 

percentage error will be used to measure the magnitude of error or bias in the receipts forecasts.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Financial Crimes Enforcement Network

MEASURE: Number of Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Users

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 11452 11679 12801 13047 13260 13651

Definition: The number of BSA system users such as law enforcement, counter-terrorism agencies, financial regulators, and the intelligence 

community who access the BSA data technology to detect money laundering and illicit finance use.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Count

Data Verification and Validation: The number is derived from a tracking system and a count is done and validated.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Number of Suspicious Activity Reports (SARS) Filed

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Actual 2401896 2537230 2698841 3039421 3524610 4307713

Definition: The number of SARS filed during the fiscal year. A SAR is a report made by a financial institution about suspicious activity or 

potentially suspicious activity.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Count

Data Verification and Validation: Report is derived from a tracking system and a count is done and validated.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Number of Total Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Reports Filed

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 19322891 20404002 20755285 20051834 23036995 26930703

Definition: The number of BSA reports filed during the fiscal year. The BSA requires The BSA requires depository institutions and other 

industries vulnerable to money laundering to take a number of precautions against financial crime. This includes filing and reporting certain data 

about financial transactions possibly indicative of money laundering, including cash transactions over $10,000 and suspicious transactions.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Count

Data Verification and Validation: Report is derived from a tracking system and a count is done and validated.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

Fiscal Service

MEASURE: All Delinquent Debt Collected FYTD as a Percentage of all Delinquent Debt Referred FYTD (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 14.9 14.9 15

Actual 14 15.73 15.9 16.58

Target Met? Y Y Y

Definition: Tracks Fiscal Service’s performance in reducing total delinquent federal debt growth. Measure tracks the total debt collections during 

a FY (regardless of originating FY) against the total delinquent debt referred in the fiscal year (dollars).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: FYTD Cross-Servicing collections + FYTD TOP collections / FYTD Cross-Servicing referrals + FYTD TOP referrals.

Data Verification and Validation: The data for this measure is pulled from the CSNG database. The data is then reviewed for accuracy and 

completeness by the Business Analytics branch.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 
MEASURE: Amount of Delinquent Debt Collected Through All Available Tools ($ billions)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 7.56 7.7 8.88 8.78 5.26

Actual 7.44 9.65 10.68 5.04 5.52

Target Met? N Y Y N Y

Definition: This measure provides information on the total amount collected, in billions, through debt collection tools operated by Debt 

Management Services.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The process of collecting and reporting the debt collection data is performed on a monthly basis. The methodology 

and the origin of the data are consistent from month to month. The collection data is generated by the program systems (TOP and DMSC) and is

reported on a monthly basis. The tools include: tax refund offset, administrative offset, private collection agencies, demand letters, and credit 

bureau reporting. FMS also collects debt through the State debt program and tax levy.

Data Verification and Validation: The data from the program systems is validated against the data contained in the Debt Management Account 

System (DMAS).

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Count of Improper Payments Identified or Stopped Fiscal Year To Date [#]

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 19530 20500 21500 22520

Actual 20336 22415 22773 23801 17115

Target Met? Y Y Y Y N

Definition: For payments IDENTIFIED, DNP matches PAM payment data to death data and flags payments. Flagged records are provided to the 

agency to make determination. For improper payments that are STOPPED, DNP matches an OPM pre-payment file to death data, flag records, 

and OPM makes determination. OPM pulls deceased individuals from their certified payment file, thus preventing improper payments. Measure is 

based on the agency’s/OPM’s determination that a payment identified or prevented was improper.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Sum of # of payments identified improper after payment plus the number of payments stopped before they occur.

Data Verification and Validation: Do Not Pay (DNP) Analytics Director receives monthly file from OFAS and this data requires coordination with 

PAM and OPM to ensure accuracy. Often there is a one-month lag in reporting. DNP keeps record of these files and volumes and reports out 

accordingly.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Dollar Amount of Improper Payments Identified or Stopped Fiscal Year To Date

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 33.6 35.3 35.3 38.8

Actual 35.53 41.1 43.5 47.61 35.83
Target Met? Y Y Y Y N

Definition: For payments IDENTIFIED, DNP matches PAM payment data to death data and flags payments. Flagged records are provided to the 

agency to make determination. For improper payments that are STOPPED, DNP matches an OPM pre-payment file to death data, flag records, 

and OPM makes determination. OPM pulls deceased individuals from their certified payment file, thus preventing improper payments. Measure is 

based on the agency’s/OPM’s determination that a payment identified or prevented was improper.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Sum of dollar of payments identified improper after payment plus the dollar of payments stopped before they occur.

Data Verification and Validation: Do Not Pay (DNP) Analytics Director receives monthly file from OFAS and this data requires coordination with 

PAM and OPM to ensure accuracy. Often there is a one-month lag in reporting. DNP keeps record of these files and volumes and reports out 

accordingly.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Auction Results Released Accurately

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 98.9 98.9 98.8 100 100 100

Target Met? N N N Y Y Y

Definition: This measures the elapsed time from the auction close to the public release of the auction results. The annual percentage of 

auctions meeting the release time target of 2 minutes plus or minus 30 seconds is calculated for the fiscal year.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: BPD's automated auction processing systems.

Data Verification and Validation: For each auction, analysts verify and validate the system time stamps that record the auction close and 

auction posting times.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Auctions Successfully Completed by the Scheduled Close Date %

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 100 99.75

Target Met? Y Y Y N

Definition: This indicates that all auctions will be conducted successfully, timely, and without any issues.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: (# of auctions successfully completed by the close date / # of auctions scheduled) * 100.

Data Verification and Validation: Use the press releases posted to TD.gov. The "auction announcement" provides the announced auction 

close date. The "auction results" provide when the auction actually closed. If there is a difference between those two, then we would miss the 
measure. Validation will be done by having two people calculate the measure. Excluded are instances where the auction close is moved by the 

Department for policy reasons.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Government-Wide Accounting Reports Issued Timely

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 98 99.5 99.5 99

Actual 100 100 99.6 100 100 100

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: All Governmentwide financial data that FMS publishes relating to U.S. Treasury cash-based accounting reports (i.e., the Daily 

Treasury Statement, the Monthly Treasury Statement, and the Annual Combined Report) will be on time 100% of the time.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: A monthly reporting system is used to track the release dates to the public of all of the various governmentwide 

statements.

Data Verification and Validation: Procedures are in place to validate that the statements are released on time to the public 100% of the time.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Retail Securities Transactions That Are Unassisted

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 70 71

Actual 69 70 63 77

Target Met? Y Y N

Definition: The percent of total closed retail customer service transactions that are processed without the assistance of customer service staff.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Unassisted retail customer service transactions/Total retail transactions.

Data Verification and Validation: System Data

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of the Active Delinquent Debt Portfolio Collected FYTD (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 7 7 6.7

Actual 6.8 9.17 7.28 6.26
Target Met? Y Y Y N

Definition: Measures Fiscal Service’s performance in collecting debts which are eligible for debt collection activities (i.e. “Active” in the portfolio). 

Measure tracks the total debt collected Fiscal Year To Date (FYTD) against the total active debt portfolio. The active portfolio is defined as any 

debt which receives at least one payment during that Fiscal Year (FY). The active portfolio resets to “$0” at the beginning of each FY.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: FYTD Cross-Servicing collections + FYTD TOP collections / FYTD Cross-Servicing Active Debts + FYTD TOP Active 

Debts.

Data Verification and Validation: The data for this measure is pulled from the CSNG database. The data is then reviewed for accuracy and 

completeness by the Business Analytics branch.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Inspector General for Tax Administration

MEASURE: Percentage of Audit Products Delivered When Promised to Stakeholders

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 68 68 68 70 70 70

Actual 79 81 84 79 93 92

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure tracks the percentage of TIGTA's audit products that are delivered on or before the contract date that TIGTA has 

committed to. It is critical that TIGTA's work be done in time to support Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Congressional decision making. The 

likelihood that our products will be used is enhanced if they are delivered on time.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Information regarding contract dates and actual delivery dates for audits is maintained on the Team Central 

Management Information System (TCMIS). TIGTA's Management Information System (MIS) coordinators in the Office of Audit's 

Operating/Business Units monitor overall data accuracy and maintain secure controls over key milestone and contract data entries.

Data Verification and Validation: Summary data used for purposes of reporting on this measure are extracted from the Office of Audit's Team 

Central Management Information System (TCMIS) and analyzed and summarized by personnel in TIGTA-OA's Office of Management and Policy. 

A qualified staff member independent of the process validates the statistics.

TCMIS data are reviewed and validated monthly by MIS coordinators, Audit Managers and Directors.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Closed Investigations Resulting in a Criminal, Administrative, or Law Enforcement Action

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 81 79 79 81 85 85

Actual 90 89 91 92 90 89

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measurement is based on the percentage of those cases within the universe of all TIGTA cases, which align with the mission of 

the organization. These mission-critical cases provide the greatest impact on the protection of the integrity of tax administration. 
This percentage is determined by first taking the number of investigations closed during the fiscal year, then dividing that number by defined, 

quantifiable, value-added results derived from those cases.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The percentage is calculated by dividing the total number of cases closed that fiscal year by the number of cases 

with a reportable action taken. An example would be an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) employee receiving a suspension as result of a TIGTA 

investigation.

Data Verification and Validation: Information comes from results provided by the IRS, concerning actions taken as result of a TIGTA 

investigation, reported on Form 2076. Information also comes from court documents and other judicial or administrative actions. TIGTA validates 

this information through quality reviews of its investigations and investigative offices.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of New Audit Reports with Recommendations to Improve Tax Administration

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 70

Actual 84

Target Met? Y

Definition: This includes the number of new audit reports issued during the reporting period that contain recommendations by TIGTA to improve 

the economy and efficiency of IRS programs.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: This is calculated by dividing the total number of new audit reports issued to IRS management during the reporting 

period that contained recommendations for IRS action by the total number of all new audit reports issued to IRS management during the reporting 

period. 

Recommended corrective actions are specifically made to improve existing operations or prevent an adverse impact and are directly linked to the 

audit finding identified. Actions resulting from audit recommendations results in both qualitative outcomes and quantitative savings.

Data Verification and Validation: This information to calculate will be derived directly from Final Reports issued to IRS management. This 

information will be tracked on management information reports for quarterly reporting.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Office of Comptroller of the Currency

MEASURE: Percentage of Licensing Applications and Notices Completed within Established Timeframes

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 95 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 96 97 99 98 98 98

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure reflects the extent to which OCC meets its established timeframes for reaching decisions on licensing applications and 

notices. The OCC's timely and effective approval of corporate applications and notices contributes to the nation's economy by enabling national 

banks and federal savings associations to engage in corporate transactions and introduce new financial products and services.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE
Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Chief Counsel's office uses the Corporate Activity Information System (CAIS) and the National Applications 

Tracking System (NATS) to identify applications completed during the fiscal year. For each filing, the actual decision date is compared to the 

target action date to determine whether the application was completed within established standards. The percentage is determined by comparing 

the number of licensing applications processed within the required timeframes to the total number of licensing applications processed during the 

fiscal year. The processing time is the number of calendar days from the date of OCC receipt to the date of OCC's decision. The established 

processing timeframe depends on the application type and if the application qualifies for expedited processing.

Data Verification and Validation: The Licensing Department tracks processing of all applications and notices through the Corporate Activity 

Information System (CAIS) and the National Applications Tracking System (NATS). The analyst who is assigned the application will verify the 

accuracy of the CAIS/NATS data as the application is processed. The senior analyst or manager who approves the final decision also verifies the 

accuracy of the CAIS/NATS data.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of National Banks and Federal Savings Associations That Are Categorized As Well Capitalized 

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 95 95 95 95 95 95

Actual 97 95 98 99 99 99

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure reflects whether the national banking and federal savings association system is well capitalized at fiscal year-end. The 

Federal Deposit Insurance Act established a system of prompt corrective action (PCA) that classifies insured depository institutions into five 

categories (well capitalized; adequately capitalized; undercapitalized, significantly undercapitalized; and critically undercapitalized) based on their 

relative capital levels. The purpose of PCA is to resolve the problems of insured depository institutions at the least possible long-term cost to the 

deposit insurance fund.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: National banks and federal savings associations file quarterly Reports of Condition and Income with the Federal 

Finance Institution Examination Council through the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation's data processing center. The Supervisory 

Information office reviews the Reports of Condition and Income (i.e., call reports) for each quarter to identify national banks and federal savings 

association that meet all of the criteria for a well-capitalized institution. The number of national banks and federal savings association at fiscal 

year-end is obtained from the Federal Reserve Board's National Information Center database. The percentage is determined by comparing the 

number of national banks and federal savings associations that meet all of the established criteria for being well capitalized to the total number of 

national banks and federal savings association at fiscal year-end.

Data Verification and Validation: The banks' and thrifts' boards of directors attest to the accuracy of the reported data. The reliability of these 

quarterly reports is evaluated by OCC examiners during bank and thrift examinations.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of National Banks and Federal Savings Associations with Composite CAMELS Rating 1 or 2

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 90 90 90 90 90 90

Actual 94 96 96 96 96 96

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Bank regulatory agencies use the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, CAMELS, to provide a general framework for 

assimilating and evaluating all significant financial, operational and compliance factors inherent in a bank or Federal Savings Association. 

Evaluations are made on: Capital adequacy, Asset quality, Management, Earnings, Liquidity, and Sensitivity to Market Risk. The rating scale is 1 

through 5 where 1 is the highest rating granted.

Measure Status: ACTIVE
FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Supervisory Information office identifies the current composite rating from its supervisory information systems. 

The percentage is determined by comparing the number of national banks with current composite CAMELS ratings of 1 and 2 to the total number 

of banks. 

The data used is stored in the OCC’s Operational Data Store system. The data is captured in the OCC’s Supervisory Information SystemsExaminer View (SIS-EV), the application is used to capture all supervisory data related to national banks and federal savings associations. The 

data is accessed through FINDRS.

Data Verification and Validation: Validation continues throughout the life of each supervisory activity, first entered by supervisory staff, then 

reviewed and approved by the staff’s immediate supervisor, and finally approved by the supervisory office.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of National Banks and Federal Savings Associations With Consumer Compliance Rating of 1 or 2

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 94 94 94 94 94 94

Actual 97 98 98 98 98 98

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure reflects the national banking and federal savings association system's compliance with consumer laws and regulations. 

Bank regulatory agencies use the Uniform Financial Institutions Rating System, Interagency Consumer Compliance Rating, to provide a general 

framework for assimilating and evaluating significant consumer compliance factors inherent in a bank. Each bank and thrift is assigned a 

consumer compliance rating based on an evaluation of its present compliance with consumer protection and civil rights statutes and regulations, 

and the adequacy of its operating systems designed to ensure continuing compliance. Ratings are on a scale of 1 through 5 in increasing order of 

supervisory concern.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Supervisory Information office identifies the number of banks and thrifts with current consumer compliance 

ratings of 1 or 2 and the total number of national banks and federal savings associations from Examiner View (EV) and Supervisory Information 

System (SIS) subject to consumer compliance examinations at fiscal year-end. The percentage is determined by comparing the number of 

national banks and federal savings associations with current consumer compliance ratings of 1 or 2 to the total number of national banks and 

federal savings associations subject to consumer compliance examinations at fiscal year-end.

Data Verification and Validation: Consumer compliance ratings are assigned at the completion of each consumer compliance examination. 

These ratings are entered into OCC's management information systems, Examiner View (EV) and Supervisory Information System (SIS), by the 

banks' Examiner-in-Charge and reviewed and approved by the Supervisory Offices' Assistant Deputy Comptroller (Mid-Size/Community banks) or 

Deputy Comptroller (Large banks).

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Total OCC Costs Relative To Every $100,000 in Bank And Federal Savings Associations Assets Regulated ($)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 10.16 10 8.5 8.1 7.71 7.37

Actual 9.49 9.12 8.07 7.78 6.79 6.78

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure reflects the efficiency of OCC operations while meeting the increasing supervisory demands of a growing and more 

complex national banking and federal savings association system.

Measure Status: ACTIVE
FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: OCC costs are those reported as total program costs on the annual audited Statement of Net Cost. Banks and thrift 

assets are those reported quarterly by national banks and federal savings associations on their Reports of Condition and Income.

Data Verification and Validation: OCC's financial statements and controls over the data are audited by an independent accountant each year. 

National banks and federal thrift associations file quarterly Reports on Condition and Income with the FFIEC through the FDIC's data processing 

center. 

The banks' and thrifts' boards of directors attest to the accuracy of the reported data. The reliability of these quarterly reports is evaluated by 

OCC examiners during bank and thrift examinations.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Office of Financial Research

MEASURE: Number of LEIs Issued Cumulatively in the United States and Internationally

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 587941 1300832 1487695 1733473 1941554 2206195

Definition: Quarterly result equals the cumulative number of Legal Entity Identifiers (LEI) assigned in the U.S. and internationally based on 

registration date. Note: The Office of Financial Research (OFR) compiles the LEI data from public-access websites maintained by Local 

Operating Units (“pre-LOUs”) that have been sponsored by public authorities across the globe. The compilation is done on a best-efforts basis, 

and the OFR makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of these underlying data.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Public LEI websites.

Data Verification and Validation: Data verified by measure manager designated by division chief or deputy director, followed by quality 

assurance check by SGP, certification by measure owner (chief or deputy director), and validation by PMO.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Number of Times That Financial Data Standards Related are Incorporated in Rules and Regulations

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 4 1 1 3 2 0

Definition: Number of responses to Council data and research requests that meet delivery targets divided by the total number of data and 

research requests received.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Report from OFR service desk on SharePoint.

Data Verification and Validation: Data verified by measure manager designated by division chief or deputy director, followed by quality 

assurance check by SGP, certification by measure owner (chief or deputy director), and validation by PMO.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Percent of Monitors Updated or Expanded During the Reporting Period

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Target Baseline 95

Actual 100 95

Target Met? Y Y

Definition: The extent to which the OFR keeps its financial monitors refreshed quarterly.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Calculated by measure manager based on update schedule for each individual financial monitor.

Data Verification and Validation: Data verified by measure manager designated by division chief or deputy director, followed by quality 

assurance check by OFR Management Support, certification by measure owner (chief or deputy director), and validation by OFR Management 

Support.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Timeliness of Responses to FSOC Research and Analysis Requests.

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 95

Actual 100 95

Target Met? Y Y

Definition: How responsive OFR is to FSOC requests; the extent to which OFR delivers, as promised, on time. It also signals OFR’s focus on 

providing good customer service to the FSOC.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Calculated by measure manager based on FSOC requests per quarter.

Data Verification and Validation: Data verified by measure manager designated by division chief or deputy director, followed by quality 

assurance check by OFR Management Support, certification by measure owner (chief or deputy director), and validation by OFR Management 

Support.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Office of Financial Stability

MEASURE: Clean Audit Opinion on TARP Financial Statements (ensure transparency of operations to the public)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 1 1 1 1 1 1

Actual Met Met Met Met Met

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measure identifies whether OFS receives a clean audit opinion from the GAO on its TARP financial statements.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE
Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The OFS Office of the Chief Financial Officer generates the TARP financial statements and will receive and 

communicate the audit opinion from GAO.

Data Verification and Validation: TARP financial statements are subject to an audit conducted by GAO.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

MEASURE: Percentage of Congressional Constituent Correspondence Responses Completed within 10 Business Days of Receipt

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 87.5 100 93.75 100 100

Target Met? N Y N Y Y

Definition: This measure tracks the percentage of congressional correspondence letters sent to OFS that have a response letter completed 

(drafted, cleared and signed) within 10 business days of receipt.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Correspondence is logged in Main Treasury's TACT system.

OFS staff maintains a subsidiary tracking report in Excel to monitor and calculate the response time.

Data Verification and Validation: The OFS team lead confirms all correspondence response times by reviewing TACT-generated and COO 

response emails to verify dates and lapsed time.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of FOIA Assignments On-Time or Less Than 30-Days Overdue (ensure transparency within the government)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 33 80 95 80 100 100

Actual 85 85 97.5 100 100

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Number of assigned FOIA cases on time divided by total number of assignments. An assignment is "on time" if it is closed out within 

30 days.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Office of Privacy, Transparency and Records (PTR) receives FOIA requests from the public and assigns them to 

the appropriate UST office with an assigned due date. The responses are required to be returned to PTR within 30 days.

Data Verification and Validation: The OFS Information Disclosure Coordinator (IDC) receives the request from the Office of Privacy, 

Transparency and Records and assigns it to the appropriate OFS Program Area with the applicable due date. The IDC coordinates with the OFS 

Program Office on any related records and uploads documents into the goFOIA database; closing out the case on OFS’ end for processing by 

PTR. This process is completed within 30 days.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 
MEASURE: Percentage of SIGTARP and GAO Oversight Recommendations Responded to On-Time (ensure transparency of operations to the 

public)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 100 99.5 100 100

Target Met? Y Y N Y Y

Definition: This measure tracks the percentage of SIGTARP and GAO oversight recommendations that were responded to within the required 

timeframes.

SIGTARP: 30 days. 

GAO: 60 days.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Upon completion of an audit, SIGTARP and GAO have the opportunity to issue recommendations to which OFS 

provides responses detailing actions, if any, taken by Treasury to remedy the SIGTARP and GAO recommendations. 

OFS staff inputs GAO recommendations and OFS responses into Treasury’s Joint Management Enterprise System (JAMES). SIGTARP inputs 

SIGTARP recommendations into JAMES and OFS inputs the associated responses.

Data Verification and Validation: The data in the periodic reports are compared to data entered into JAMES. The number of recommendations 

and their associated statuses are tallied and analyzed by OFS analysts.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Statutorily-Mandated Reports Submitted On-Time (ensure transparency of operations to the public)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 96.25 100 100 100 100

Target Met? N Y Y Y Y

Definition: Timely submission of statutorily and other housing transaction required reports to the Congress:

§105 Report: by the 10th of each month

Transaction Report: 2 business days following a TARP transaction (investment).

Transaction Report: 2 business days following a TARP transaction (housing).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: OFS posts all statutorily-mandated and other housing transaction reports submitted to the Congress on 

FinancialStability.gov.

Data Verification and Validation: The submission date for each report is posted alongside each report link on FinancialStability.gov.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Office of Inspector General

MEASURE: Number of Completed Audit Products
FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 86 74 74 74 74 74

Actual 90 91 79 85 80 74

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: Audits, attestation engagements, and evaluations: (1)promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of Treasury programs and 

operations; (2)prevent and detect fraud, waste, and abuse in those programs and operations; (3)keep the Secretary and the Congress fully 

informed; and (4)help the Federal government to be accountable to the public.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: OIG audits, attestation engagements, and evaluations result in sequentially numbered written products.

Data Verification and Validation: Official audit files support the performance data.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Statutory Audits Completed by the Required Date

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 100 100 100 100 100 100

Actual 100 97 100 100 100 100

Target Met? Y N Y Y Y Y

Definition: Legislation mandating certain audit work generally prescribes, or authorizes OMB to prescribe, the required completion date for 

recurring audits and evaluations, such as those for annual audited financial statements. For other types of mandated audit work, such as a 

Material Loss Review (MLR) of a failed financial institution, the legislation generally prescribes a timeframe to issue a report (6 months for an 

MLR, as an example) from the date of an event that triggers the audit.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The date OIG issues an audit, attestation engagement, or evaluation report is printed on the cover. The required 

dates may vary each year and are specified in different legislation.

Data Verification and Validation: Official audit files and the dates on the reports themselves support the performance data.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage (%) of All Cases Closed During Fiscal Year that were Referred for Criminal/Civil Prosecution or Treasury 

Administrative Action

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 80 80 80 80 80 80

Actual 84 98.9 80.2 91 100 100

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: In order to protect the integrity and efficiency of Treasury programs it is important that findings of criminal or civil misconduct be 

referred to the Justice Department, state and/or local governments for prosecution and litigation in a timely manner. Criminal and civil convictions 

have a greater impact and carry a greater deterrent effect when they are prosecuted expeditiously. Some investigations will identify violations of 
the Ethical Standards of conduct, Federal Acquisition Regulations, or other administrative standards, which do not rise to the level of criminal or 

civil prosecution. In these cases it is important that OIG findings are reported to the bureau or office in a timely manner to allow them to take 

administrative action against the individuals engaging in misconduct.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: This data will be retrieved from the Investigations case management system.

Data Verification and Validation: All case files will be reviewed to ensure that the case data is correct and supported by documentation.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Special IG for TARP

MEASURE: Number of Completed Audit Products Identifying Waste, Abuse, Mismanagement, Inefficiencies, or Referrals to Investigations 

Divisions (Units)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 3 3 3 3 3

Actual 6 4 4 3 3

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measures the number of completed audit products that Identify waste, abuse, mismanagement, inefficiencies, or referrals to 

SIGTARP Investigations Divisions in units.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: SIGTARP audit reports are sequentially numbered and posted on http://www.sigtarp.gov/reports.shtml.

Data Verification and Validation: Official audit files support the performance data.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Cases Accepted for Consideration by Civil or Criminal Authorities Resulting in a Positive Final Outcome

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 70 70 70 70 71 70

Actual 81 79 77 77 77 75

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This measures the percentage of SIGTARP criminal or civil investigations that a federal, state, or local prosecutor has formally 

accepted to prosecute.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Data originates from the assigned Case Agent and is stored on the SIGTARP ID Case Management System.

Data Verification and Validation: This data is entered into the CMS by the case agent and verified by the case supervisor. At the headquarters 

level SIGTARP Investigations staff validates the data with other Law Enforcement headquarters contacts as well as through weekly reports by the 

Investigative Squad's assigned ID Investigative Counsel.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable
Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Cases Presented to Civil or Criminal Authorities within Eight Months of the Case Being Opened

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 70 70 84 70 71 65

Actual 80 85 75 75 71 75

Target Met? Y Y N Y Y Y

Definition: This measures the percentage of SIGTARP criminal or civil investigations that a federal, state, or local prosecutor has presented to 

within eight months of the case being opened.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: When an investigator or supervisor assesses the information contained in an allegation of wrongdoing, a number of 

factors are considered prior to determining what type of case should be opened. For example, if the allegation includes significant supporting

documentation or witness testimony showing illegal activity, then a case, or "full" investigation, would be opened immediately. However, if the 

allegation has only brief details, a "preliminary" investigation can be opened to provide a mechanism to develop further information regarding the 

allegation. The data originates with the case agent and the official case file. The data used to track this metric comes from the SIGTARP 

investigations Division (ID) Case Management System.

Data Verification and Validation: This measure is calculated in the case management system; the system tracks the dates remaining of cases 

that have not yet been converted as well as historic case conversion data. A report is run to show cases converted.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Cases That are Joint Agency/Task Force Investigations

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 70 70 70 70 90 70

Actual 75 78 76 86 90 75

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y Y

Definition: This is the overall percentage of cases during the reporting cycle that are joint with other law enforcement agencies.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Data originates from the assigned Case Agent and is stored on the SIGTARP ID Case Management System.

Data Verification and Validation: This data is entered into the CMS by the case agent and verified by the case supervisor. At the headquarters 

level SIGTARP Investigations staff validates the data with other Law Enforcement headquarters contacts as well as through weekly reports by the 

Investigative Squad's assigned ID Investigative Counsel.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Terrorism and Financial Intelligence

MEASURE: Impact of TFI Programs and Activities

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022
Target Baseline Disc Disc Disc Disc Disc

Actual 8.5

Target Met? Y N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Definition: This measure is used to assess TFI's impact as an organization through its sanctions, law enforcement, intelligence, regulatory and 

diplomatic programs to reduce threats to U.S. national security. The Office of Terrorist Financing and Financial Crimes is responsible for the 

impact of policy making, outreach and diplomacy. The Office of Foreign Assets Control is responsible for the impact of economic sanctions. The 

Office of Intelligence and Analysis is responsible for the impact of information and analysis used by Department decision makers. The Financial 

Crimes Enforcement Network is responsible for the impact of activities that create safer and more transparent financial systems.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: An annual survey is conducted by OIA. Performance measure actuals are captured in PRS to determine the rating 

for FinCEN's performance measures. OFAC and TFFC provide documentation of activities, and use a self assessment rating.

Data Verification and Validation: The Office of Strategic Planning and Performance Management validates all final information. TFFC and 

OFAC provide a self-assessed rating and supporting documentation. OIA uses an internal (within the Department) customer satisfaction survey to 

achieve it's performance rating. The survey and raw data are provided, and validated at the SECRET level to ensure reliability of the data. The 

Department reviews/validations, and gives suggestions and recommendations to each office, with a chance to provide additional information.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Number of Analytic Products Published (Includes Number of IIRs Published, Number of Finished Intelligence Pieces Published)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 743 638 656

Definition: TFI includes both formal analytical intelligence briefings as well as final analytical intelligence products that were published.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: OIA records number of analytical products created for TFI and CI community.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verfied by OFAC.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Percent Customer Satisfaction with OIA Products

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 74

Actual 70

Target Met? Y

Definition: OIA products are rated by customers using a survey. The rating help OIA improve the quality of products and customer support.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: OIA surveys customers that use intelligence products.

Data Verification and Validation: Collected and verified by OIA.
Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of Designations and Identifications Released On Time to the Public Without Errors

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 90 90

Actual 97 98 100

Target Met? Y Y Y

Definition: This performance measure captures the number of actions taken to impose sanctions released to the public on time and without 

errors.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Calculating percent of timely release of designation to the public and without errors i.e. incorrect alias. Financial 

institutions use OFAC designation lists to block the designated from using banking services and notify OFAC.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verfied by OFAC.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Respond to De-Confliction Requests Received From Law Enforcement Within 7 Days

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 91 91

Actual 88 97 99

Target Met? Y Y Y

Definition: OFAC is tasked with providing a timely response to law enforcement agencies regarding conflicts in law enforcement information.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: OFAC records the time de-confliction requests are received and provided response.

Data Verification and Validation: The data is collected and verfiied by OFAC.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund

MEASURE: Percent of Forfeited Cash Proceeds Resulting from High-Impact Cases

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 80 80 80 80 80 91.04

Actual 81.79 94.19 91 82.87 89.65

Target Met? Y Y Y Y Y
Definition: A high impact case is a case resulting in a cash forfeiture deposit equal to or greater than $100,000. The performance percentage is 

calculated by dividing the amount of forfeited cash proceeds from high impact cases, by the total amount of forfeited cash proceeds from all 

cases.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The Treasury Forfeiture Fund is able to capture this data on a monthly basis and the source of the data is the 

Detailed Collection Report (DCR). The Forfeiture Fund receives the DCR from the Customs and Border Protection's (CBP's) National Finance 

Center.

Data Verification and Validation: The source of the data that supports our performance calculation comes from the general ledger of the 

Treasury Forfeiture Fund which data is audited annually pursuant to our financial statement audit. Therefore, the annual financial statement audit 

process serves to "verify and validate" the data used to support our performance measure on an annual basis.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

Treasury Franchise Fund

MEASURE: Annual Effective Spend Rate (CTAS)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 96 96 96

Actual 98 94 96 96

Target Met? Y N Y Y

Definition: This measures the obligation rate for CTAS programs, excluding funds that are collected for reserve programs.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The total approved CTAS budget is divided by the total CTAS obligations. Any reserve collections or obligations are 

excluded.

Data Verification and Validation: The denominator for this calculation is the CTAS approved budget from signed IAA’s. This denominator 

excludes any collection for reserve funds. The numerator for this calculation is the CTAS obligations, as determined by Oracle after year-end 

close. This numerator excludes any spending out of a reserve fund.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Annual Effective Spend Rate (SSP)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 96 96 96

Actual 97.1 98 98

Target Met? Y Y Y

Definition: This measures the obligation rate for CTAS programs, excluding funds that are collected for reserve programs.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Signed customer interagency agreements; Trial balance detail from Oracle database.
Data Verification and Validation: Office of Treasury Franchise Fund Management and Oversight reviews for reasonability each quarter.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Average Cost Per FTE

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 1460 1580.3 1710.5

Actual 1436.53 1719.4 1580.3 1951

Target Met? Y Y Y Y

Definition: Measure the cost of Shared Services Programs for the Treasury customers.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Signed customer interagency agreements; Enacted FTE numbers.

Data Verification and Validation: Office of Treasury Franchise Fund Management and Oversight reviews for reasonability each quarter.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction with ARC Administrative Services

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 80 80 80

Actual 86 91 93 90

Target Met? Y Y Y Y

Definition: Business Line measure of the percentage of ARC customer satisfaction level determined by direct customer input.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Data gathered from survey results from ARC’s ‘OneVoice’ Team led 

by the Office of Agency Outreach (OAO)

Data Verification and Validation: 

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction with Centralized Treasury Administrative Services

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 75 80 80

Actual 75 75 80 78

Target Met? Y Y Y N
Definition: Measure the Customers’ Overall Satisfaction with the Services Received Through Centralized Treasury Administrative Services.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The percentage of survey respondents who answer a 4 or 5 on a 5 point satisfaction scale.

Data Verification and Validation: OTFFMO will send a yearly survey to its customer contact distribution list.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction with Shared Services Programs

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target Baseline 80 80 80

Actual 75 80 80 73

Target Met? Y Y Y N

Definition: Measure the customers’ overall satisfaction with the services received through Shared Service Programs.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The percentage of survey respondents who answer a 4 or 5 on a 5 point satisfaction scale.

Data Verification and Validation: OTFFMO sends a yearly survey to its customer contact distribution list.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Unmodified Audit Opinions %

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 100 100 100 100 100 100

Definition: Financial Management measure of percentage of audit opinions for items under ARC control and responsibility.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: From Financial Management staff reporting metrics using internal tracking log.

Data Verification and Validation: ARC Business Management Branch reviews for reasonability each quarter.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Percent of IT Portfolio Treasury Franchise Fund (TFF) Software and Hardware Currency

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 70 76
Definition: Tacks the percentage of the Treasury Franchise Fund IT Portfolio software and hardware currency, where currency is the measure of 

technical components (i.e. hardware, software, application frameworks) that have current vendor support and are not end-of-life).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: Total number of current IT Portfolio (TFF) Software and Hardware / Total number of IT Portfolio (TFF) Software and 

Hardware

Data Verification and Validation: Architecture and Engineering Division

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Percentage of Shared Services Service Level Agreement Performance Metrics Met or Exceeded [%]

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline 89 87 94 96.8

Definition: Business Line measure of SLA performance metrics that met or exceeded service levels compared to the total number of 

performance outcomes across all ARC clients.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: (Number of SLA performance metrics met /Total number of SLA performance metrics)* 100

Data Verification and Validation: ARC Business Management Branch reviews for reasonability each quarter. All service catalog cost per units 

factored with changes from prior period, while weighted ensures larger more impactful services influence calculation greater as is case for 

customer’s overall price

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

United States Mint

MEASURE: Circulating On-Time Delivery

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5 97.5

Actual 100 100 100 100 100 100

Target Met?

Definition: On-time delivery to the Federal Reserve Banks (FRB) is the percentage of total scheduled orders shipped on time to the FRB. The

United States Mint is responsible for providing the Nation's coinage in sufficient quantity to meet the needs of commerce. To accomplish this 

mission, the United States mint must supply coinage in the quanities and timelines specified by the FRB. The FRB is then responsible for 

distributing coinage to the commercial banking sector.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Each month, the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) provides United States Mint analysts a report detailing the next 

month's requirements for coinage. Based on this report, United States Mint analysts establishes a shipment schedule that is captured in the 

Oracle manufacturing system. Changes to the schedule are only made when the FRB provides formal documentation of a requested adjustment 

to scheduled orders. Coin shipment data is maintained in the Oracle manufacturing system.

Data Verification and Validation: Results and data are captured and verified by United States Mint analysts.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable
Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Customer Satisfaction Index (%)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 90 90 90 90 87 84.5

Actual 91.7 93.6 93.6 91.7 84.5 80.2

Target Met? Y Y Y Y N N

Definition: The United States Mint conducts a quarterly Customer Satisfaction Measure (CSM) Tracking Survey among a random sample of 

active customers. The CSM Survey is intended to capture customer satisfaction with the United States Mint’s performance as a coin supplier and 

the quality of specific products. The CSI is as a single quantitative score of CSM Survey results.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: A professional survey consultant administers quarterly CSM survey to a random sample of active customers.

Data Verification and Validation: Results and data are captured and verified by the professional survey consultant.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Numismatic Sales Units (Million Units)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 4.4 3.5 3.9 3.8 3.6 3.5

Actual 3.9 3.3 4.3 3.4 3.66294 4.65436

Target Met?

Definition: The numismatic sales units indicates the number of coin products sold to the public from numismatic operations. It quantifies the 

demand for the Nation's official numismatic products. Increases in units sold allow the Mint to potentially reduce the sales prices, as fixed costs 

will spread among more units. More units sold will also demonstrate that the Mint is meeting demand for products.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Net Product Sales (NPS) report

Data Verification and Validation: The cumulative Net Product Sales (NPS) report is derived from Oracle, the United States Mint’s financial 

system of record. This system is subject to annual audit by independent auditors. The financial system of record is subject to periodic reviews 

conducted internally according to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123 requirements. On a monthly basis, analysts in the 

Numismatic and Bullion Directorate, the Accounting Division, and Policy, Planning and Budget (PPB) Division review the numismatic sales data 

for reasonableness and accuracy.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Safety Incident Recordable Rate

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 2.83 2.46 2.39 2.32 2.3 2.26

Actual 1.96 1.9 1.45 1.29 0.71 1.29
Target Met?

Definition: Safety incident recordable rate measures the occurrence of work-related incidents involving death, lost time and restricted work, loss 

of consciousness, and medical treatment. This definition follows Part 1904 of Title 29, Code of Federal Register (29 CFR 1904).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The data is captured in the Safety and Health Information Management System (SHIMS). SHIMS is used to record, 

track, and manage safety incidents and workers' compensation claims.

Data Verification and Validation: Results and data are captured and verified by Unites States Mint analysts.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Seigniorage per Dollar Issued ($)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 0.48 0.43 0.36 0.36 0.41 0.33

Actual 0.45 0.37 0.4 0.47 0.37 0.3

Target Met? N N Y Y N N

Definition: Seigniorage per total face value of circulated coinage shipped to Federal Reserve Banks.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The data is captured in Oracle Financials system and reported through Oracle’s Discoverer Reporting system.

Data Verification and Validation: External auditors perform routine audits of financial statements. Seigniorage and the total value of circulating 

coinage shipped to the Federal Reserve Banks are included in the financial statements.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Debts Processed Through Cross Servicing

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual 911073 1.1

Definition: This is a year-to-year workload indicator that displays the number of new debts processed through Cross-Servicing.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: The total number of new debts referred to Cross-Servicing within a fiscal year.

Data Verification and Validation: An economist from the Business Analytics branch pulls and validates the data. This data is extracted from the 

CSNG system before it is submitted to be used for this measure.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

4: Transform Government-wide Financial Stewardship

Activities : Debt Collection
MEASURE: Debts Processed Through Treasury Offset Program (TOP) (#M)

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Actual Baseline 6.7

Definition: This is a year-to-year workload indicator that displays the number of new debts processed through the Treasury Offset Program 

(TOP).

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Indicator

Data Capture and Source: The total number of new debts referred to TOP within a fiscal.

Data Verification and Validation: A TOP data analyst pulls and validates this data. This data is extracted directly from the TOP system before it 

is submitted to be used for this measure.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Explanation of Outcome/Future Plans: 

MEASURE: Count of Governmentwide Accounting Reports Issued Timely

FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022

Target 264

Actual 263 264

Target Met? N

Definition: Indicator of a count of Governmentwide Accounting reports issued timely.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: The total number of Daily Treasury Statements and Monthly Treasury Statements that are issued timely within a 

fiscal year.

Data Verification and Validation: The Daily Treasury Statement (DTS) must be published by 4:00 pm every business day. Fiscal Accounting 

accountants conduct pre-check activities throughout the day and a final check at 4:00 pm to ensure that the DTS was published to the Fiscal 

Service website.

The Monthly Treasury Statement (MTS) must be published on the 8th business day of the month by 2:00 pm. Fiscal Accounting accountants 

conduct pre-check activities during the first 8 business days of the month and a final check on the 8th business day at 2:00pm to ensure that the 

report has been published to the Fiscal Service website.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: CEA - Treasury Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) Adoption for Enterprise

FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024

Target Baseline

Actual

Target Met?

Definition: Presidential Executive Order (EO) 14028 on “Improving the Nation’s Cybersecurity,” issued on May 12, 2021, was in direct response 

to multiple high-profile cybersecurity incidents that occurred over the past year. The EO directs Federal Agencies to develop and adopt stronger 

cybersecurity policies and practices, including fully adopting Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA)
• Treasury outlined a goal to implement MFA to the maximum extent feasible. Treasury is migrating 35% of Enterprise Applications MFA 

compliance by end of Fiscal Year 2022, 90% in Fiscal Year 2023 and 99% in Fiscal Year 2024.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: Use of FISMA-reportable systems and data is reported monthly.

Data Verification and Validation: Percent of Enterprise reported systems for MFA.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Quarterly

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: OCIO CEA - Logging

FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023

Target Baseline

Actual

Target Met?

Definition: OCIO used the Cybersecurity Enhancement Account (CEA) to modernize the Treasury Shared Services Security Operations Center 

(TSSSOC) to be able to intake additional logs from Bureaus as required by OMB M-21-31. This measure will track Treasury’s progress in 

transitioning enterprise logging data from on-premises locations to the cloud.

Treasury’s goals are to send 75% of enterprise logging data to the cloud by the end of FY22 and at 95% by the end of FY23. For FY24 and

beyond, the performance measure is set to 99% to account for new assets and new requirements.

(For the table) Percentage of enterprise logging data from on premise to the cloud.

Measure Status: BASELINE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure

Data Capture and Source: There is a set amount of data currently on premise at the TSSSOC. TSSSOC is copying its current log data from on 

premise to move and store in the cloud. TSSSOC is validating the log data flows; when complete, all current log data flows will move directly to 

the cloud.

Moving enterprise logging data as the Enterprise Security Information and Event Management (SIEM) system moves to the cloud.

Data Verification and Validation: There is a set amount of data currently on premise at the TSSSOC. TSSSOC is copying its current log data 

from on premise to move and store in the cloud. TSSSOC is validating the log data flows; when complete, all current log data flows will move 

directly to the cloud.

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: 

MEASURE: Percent of On-Premise Target Service Level Agreements (SLA) Met

FY 2019 FY 2020 FY 2021 FY 2022 FY 2023 FY 2024

Target Baseline 80 80

Actual 95 94

Target Met? Y Y

Definition: Tracks the percentage of service level agreement targets that are met or exceeded, where on-premise is defined by the technology 

infrastructure housed and managed onsite in Parkersburg, WV and Kansas City, MO.

Measure Status: ACTIVE

FY 2022 Measure Status: ACTIVE

Indicator Type: Measure
Data Capture and Source: Total number of On-Premise SLAs that were met / Total number of On-Premise SLAs.

Data Verification and Validation: Service Operations Division

Data Accuracy: Reasonable

Data Frequency: Annually

Future Plans/Explanation for Shortfall: