Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

1

FY 2022–2026 Department of the Treasury

Evidence Building Capacity Assessment

Table of Contents 

Executive Summary...............................................................................................................................................2

Background.......................................................................................................................................................2

Overall Assessment of Treasury’s Capacity ......................................................................................................2

Recommended Actions.....................................................................................................................................3

Detailed Findings ..................................................................................................................................................4

Key Findings by Characteristic ..........................................................................................................................4

Detailed Findings: Coverage and Methods.......................................................................................................5

Detailed Findings: Effectiveness.......................................................................................................................7

Appendix A: Methodology and Data Sources.....................................................................................................10

Appendix B: Bureau Self-Assessment of Evidence-Building Activities................................................................12
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

2

Executive Summary 

Background

The Foundations for Evidence-Based Policymaking Act of 2018 (“Evidence Act”) requires agencies to 

assess current agency capacity for planning and implementing evidence-building activities (a “capacity 

assessment”). Done every four years as part of the strategic planning process, the assessment must 

consider the characteristics of coverage, quality, methods, effectiveness, and independence across four 

types of evidence-building activities: statistics, evaluation, research, and analysis.

Treasury’s capacity assessment aims to (1) understand how the Department currently builds evidence

and (2) assess the Department’s capacity for conducting necessary evidence-building activities, where 

capacity includes infrastructure (processes, data, etc.) and staffing (resource levels and skill). For this 

first-ever baseline capacity assessment, we analyzed existing and readily available data on current 

evidence-building activities and capabilities within Treasury bureaus and offices, including internal 

surveys, external surveys, bureau self-assessments as of August 2021, and strategic planning discussions

during 2022. Treasury plans to use this baseline assessment to prioritize opportunities to increase 

capacity and mature practices across the enterprise. See Appendix A for definitions and methodology.

Overall Assessment of Treasury’s Capacity

Adapted from OMB guidance, Treasury identified three elements indicative of the maturity of an 

agency’s evidence-building capacity: the maturity of an agency’s learning culture, the maturity of the 

processes for producing and executing the agency’s key evidence-building prioritization tools (the

Learning Agenda and evaluation plan), and the existence, quality, and adoption of an agency’s 

evaluation policy. We used these to develop a preliminary framework for summarizing our findings by 

maturity level, with the lowest maturity being Level 1 (Launch/Initial), then Level 2 

(Repeatable/Defined); and with the highest level of maturity being Level 3 (Managed/Optimized). We 

intend to test and refine this maturity model over time.

Element Preliminary Assessment/Summary of Findings Recommended Action 

Learning 

Culture

Level 1 (Launch/Initial)

Varying levels of leadership commitment, lack of 

universally understood common lexicon, limited ability 

to conduct enterprise-wide assessments, varying levels 

of stakeholder capability and engagement. There are 

definite bright spots (mature operations) across 

Treasury, but no consistency across the enterprise.

See Detailed Findings on Coverage.

1. Enable more sophisticated 

analysis in future iterations 

of the capacity assessment

2. Define and strengthen

evidence-building culture 

Department-wide

Learning 

Agenda/ 

Evaluation

Plan 

Level 2 (Repeatable/Defined)

Process created for developing the learning agenda and 

evaluation plan and a range of evidence building 

activities are used, primarily in analysis. Data and 

staffing constraints limit full execution of plans.

See Detailed Findings on Methods and Quality.

3. Implement Critical 

Management Initiatives 

identified in the Treasury 

Strategic Plan pertaining to 

data infrastructure, literacy, 

and relevant skills gaps

Evaluation 

Policy

Level 1 (Launch/Initial)

Interim standards published, but policy development in 

early stages. See Detailed Findings on Effectiveness and 

Independence.

4. Develop and implement a 

Department-wide evidence 

policy, inclusive of an 

evaluation policy.
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

3

Recommended Actions 

Based on the findings of the baseline capacity assessment, Treasury will seek to implement the following 

recommended actions as soon as practicable.

1. Enable more sophisticated analysis in future iterations of the capacity assessment: 

• Improve identification of the evidence-building workforce within Treasury and benchmark 

current skill levels for this workforce 

• Leverage the Department’s Integrated Talent Management system to identify skills gaps and 

developmental needs pertaining to evidence-building, including for program and project 

managers

• Better leverage budget, financial, and procurement data to gain insight into resources spent on 

evidence-building activities; identify opportunities to improve the data (e.g., refining and 

standardizing definitions of evidence-building related activities) to track funding and execution 

levels

2. Define and strengthen an evidence-building culture Department-wide: 

• Establish a common lexicon for data and evidence building

• Create a Treasury evaluation or evidence-building community with designated points of contact 

for each bureau who will share responsibility for planning and executing Treasury’s learning

agenda and implementing Treasury’s evidence building policy (when finalized)

• Refine and test a maturity model for evidence-building capacity to determine leading practices 

and growth areas across Treasury 

3. Implement evidence-related Critical Management Initiatives from the Treasury Strategic Plan, 

which can be summarized into five key themes: 

• Increase agency capacity for evidence-building disciplines 

• Increase level of data literacy for all staff

• Mature data governance and standards

• Enable and improve data monitoring and reporting technologies, aiming for real-time and near 

real-time analysis and use of data in decision-making 

• Secure and modernize IT systems, enhancing collaboration with internal and external partners 

• Identify and increase access to datasets and databases

4. Develop and implement a Department-wide evidence policy, inclusive of an evaluation policy.

• Dedicate resources and staff capacity for policy development and implementation 

• Rationalize with existing guidelines on performance measurement and reporting, data quality, 

and strategic planning
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

4

Detailed Findings 

For this baseline capacity assessment, we analyzed existing and readily available data on current 

evidence-building activities and capabilities within Treasury bureaus and offices, including internal 

surveys, external surveys, bureau self-assessments as of August 2021, and strategic planning discussions 

during 2022. Treasury plans to use this baseline assessment to prioritize opportunities to increase 

capacity and mature practices across the enterprise. See Appendix A for definitions and methodology.

Key Findings by Characteristic

Coverage and Methods: The baseline assessment showed that all four types of evidence-building 

activities are being used at least to some extent by Treasury’s bureaus and offices (see Detailed 

Findings: Coverage and Methods). Of note, the Department’s most frequently employed type of 

evidence-building is analysis (41.5% of bureaus/offices use analysis at least to some extent), and the 

evidence-building activities least used are statistics (13%) and evaluations (19%). However, the

assessment revealed two points that suggest clarifications and outreach are needed to more precisely 

estimate the current distribution of evidence-building activities being performed in Treasury:

(1) There is no consistent understanding of the definitions of evidence-building activities, and

(2) Bureau and offices found it difficult to estimate resources (positions and funding) devoted to 

evidence activities. 

Treasury bureaus with dedicated analysis and/or research staff have mature evidence-building 

methodologies. For example, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), the Office of Economic Policy, and the 

Office of Tax Policy have mature capabilities in research and statistics, though other parts of Treasury 

have limited or no resources devoted to research, evaluation, or statistics. Use of program evaluations 

to improve impact and implementation of Treasury programs is a growth area. Treasury is not currently 

able to further assess use of appropriate methodologies within each evidence-building type. 

Effectiveness: Managers and members of the performance community who responded to recent 

surveys identified the use of evidence in decision-making as an agency-wide area of opportunity (see 

Appendix A). However, through the strategic planning engagements, stakeholders repeatedly identified 

challenges in hiring for data skills and identified a need to train the current workforce to use data to 

better support the Department’s learning and decision-making. Further, Treasury does not currently 

have dedicated resources at the enterprise level for assessing and growing capacity across the 

Department. Also, the lack of an Evidence policy (inclusive of an evaluation policy) limits the 

Department’s ability to consistently apply standards throughout a defined evidence-building lifecycle 

(i.e., from evidence collection, analysis, dissemination, integration to decision making). (See Detailed 

Findings: Effectiveness)

Quality: Through strategic planning engagements, stakeholders repeatedly identified data sharing 

challenges that create barriers for data use and collaboration (inside and outside of the Department)

and limit the quality of data used for decision-making and in evidence-building activities. Further, 

stakeholders expressed challenges for data collection and meeting the demand for data use in new 

policy areas, such as climate, equity, and in new congressionally mandated programs. Historical internal 

surveys have also indicated room for improvement in perceptions of the quality and availability of data 

for decision-making, although it has improved over time. 
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

5

Independence: Treasury has internal controls and oversight mechanisms in place to ensure certain types 

of activities, such as performance reporting or statistical activities that are carried out free from bias and 

inappropriate influence. For example, the IRS’s Statistics of Income (SOI) division produces official 

statistics in adherence with OMB Statistical Policy Directive #1. Though, without an established 

Evaluation Policy (currently in development), Treasury does not yet have standards in place to more 

broadly assess this characteristic of the Department’s capacity to build evidence. 

Detailed Findings: Coverage and Methods 

To understand the methods and coverage of evidence-building activities employed by bureaus, Treasury 

asked bureaus and offices to self-assess their current activities and use of evidence. Operating bureaus1

were asked to identify an initial list of ongoing and planned evidence-building activities (Appendix B). 

Operating bureaus were also asked to describe and estimate the labor and non-labor resources devoted 

to each type of evidence-building activity, and the share of total evidence building resources devoted to 

each type of activity (e.g., 30% research, 20% statistics, 40% analysis, 10% evaluation). 

In reviewing bureau submissions, the Evaluation Officer staff noted that despite having defined each 

type of evidence-building activity in the report instructions, bureaus and offices lack a consistent 

understanding of these definitions. Bureaus assessed higher levels of evaluation and statistical activities 

than expected. All of Treasury’s operating bureaus cited performance measurement as one of its 

analysis activities, which is consistent with the Department’s expectation based on the maturity of the 

Department’s organizational performance framework. Treasury bureaus have varying levels of maturity 

with respect to coordinating and implementing research activities and evaluations, with the IRS having 

the largest dedicated capacity across all four types of activities. 

1

For the purposes of this Capacity Assessment, operating bureaus are as follows: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and 

Trade Bureau (TTB), Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), Bureau of the Fiscal Service (Fiscal), Financial Crimes 

Enforcement Network (FinCEN), International Revenue Service (IRS), U.S. Mint (Mint), Office of the Comptroller of

the Currency (OCC), and Departmental Offices (DO). Inspectors General are not included in this assessment. 

0 2 4 6

Statistics

Evaluation

Research

Analysis

Bureaus most often cited "analysis" as 

their most commonly used evidencebuilding activity

Number of bureaus

0 20 40 60

Statistics

Evaluation

Research

Analysis

Bureaus estimate that the largest 

shares of evidence resources are 

devoted to analysis activities

Average share
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

6

Table 1 (below) aggregates the bureau and office self-assessments based on how they align to

Treasury’s FY 2022-2026 Strategic Objectives to give a sense of enterprise capacity across Treasury’s 

strategic priorities. Through this exercise, Treasury’s operating bureaus indicated a limited ability to 

estimate the extent to which resources are devoted to each type of evidence-building activity. There is 

also limited understanding of the targeted level of activity needed, making it difficult to identify specific 

areas that are under-resourced within the Department. 

Table 1: Coverage of Evidence-building Types by Strategic Objective

Key

Statistics: Collection, compilation, and processing of data 

for describing or estimating characteristics or insights 

concerning groups Dark-shaded circle: all bureaus aligned to the 

strategic objective are conducting that type of 

activity 

Light-shaded circle: some (but not all) aligned 

bureaus are conducting that type of activity

Empty circle: no current evidence-building activities 

of that type have been identified for that objective

Evaluation: Collection and analysis of data to assess 

effectiveness and efficiency of programs, policies, or 

procedures

Research: Modeling or other systematic use of data to 

explore emerging issues or potential scenarios to 

generate new knowledge

Analysis: Routine and frequent use of data that produces 

insights for decision making and program management
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

7

Treasury will aim to improve the precision of this analysis in future iterations of the capacity assessment 

and plans to deepen the analysis to better understand capacity to address learning agenda questions 

aligned to the objectives. Achieving this will require continued focus on the Department’s current plans 

to mature data governance and increase timely access to and use of quality data and evidence, which 

are articulated in Treasury’s strategic objective 5.3: Better Use of Data. Treasury recognizes that it has 

yet to implement certain elements of all three titles of the Evidence Act, including the establishment of 

department data and quality standards, evaluation policy, data sharing, open data, annual reporting, 

and standard researcher application requirements. Furthermore, while Treasury has mature 

performance management and analysis capabilities across the enterprise, Treasury has minimal capacity 

to assist program offices and bureau staff in developing their capacity to use evaluation and research 

approaches in day-to-day operations. 

As lead for Objective 5.3, Treasury’s Chief Data Officer (CDO) will work with the Data Governance Board

to strengthen data governance at the enterprise-level and integrate data standards with the 

Department’s evaluation policy. These efforts will enhance the Evaluation Officer’s ability to assess the 

rigor and appropriateness of methods used to generate evidence and will increase employee confidence 

in the quality of data. The CDO will also work with the Data Advisory Council (DAC), comprised of bureau 

CDOs and other relevant stakeholders and representatives, to ensure that enterprise data governance 

incorporates the key takeaways of Treasury’s Data Maturity Assessment and provides opportunities for 

maturing bureau-level data standards and skills and strengthening data sharing between components.

Detailed Findings: Effectiveness 

The assessment indicated that bureaus and offices find great utility in their evidence-building activities 

and products. The analysis revealed that: 

(1) All bureaus and offices use their evidence-building activities/products for internal policy 

making and internal strategic management processes decision making. 

(2) 5 of 7 bureaus shared that their research data is used by external government partners. 

(3) 4 of 7 bureaus indicated that in addition to internal decision making and use by external 

government partners, analysis products are used by external non-government partners. 

However, coupled with feedback from the strategic planning engagement, the assessment revealed

existing challenges that may hinder effective evidence use. To better understand these challenges, the 

Deputy Performance Improvement Officer/Evaluation Officer worked with bureaus and offices, the 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Human Resources and Chief Human Capital Officer (DASHR-CHCO), Chief 

Data Officer (CDO), and Chief Information Officer (CIO), to identify critical gaps in human capital, 

information technology, and data infrastructure that create barriers to effective use of evidence. 

The critical management initiatives listed below, by strategic goal, identify the gaps in human capital, 

data, and information technology (IT) infrastructure that currently limit the agency’s capacity for 

evidence-building. These can be summarized into five themes:

• Increase staff capacity and literacy

• Mature data governance and standards 

• Enable and improve data monitoring and reporting technologies, aiming for real-time and near 

real-time analysis and use of data in decision-making 

• Secure and modernize IT systems, enhancing collaboration with internal and external partners 

• Identify and increase access to datasets and databases
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

8

Goal 1: Promote Equitable Economic Growth and Recovery

• Modernize tax policy analytic tools to better inform tax policy decision making

• Review hiring authorities to strengthen the talent pool and improve retention in high-demand skills, 

including IT and analytics

• Enhance employee skill sets through systems and processes training

• Mature Treasury’s data acquisition strategy to access and consolidate use of business data from 

commercially provided business sources

• Implement IT capability to proactively review data for compliance and ability to perform comparison 

to publicly available data sets

• Organize and coordinate data and information sharing efforts with agencies and external partners

• Improve access to data to expand policy development and programs designed to increase affordable 

housing (especially in supply constrained markets), while reducing delinquency of homeowners and 

rental participants 

Goal 2: Enhance National Security

• Enable and improve real-time and near real-time data reporting to strengthen Treasury’s incident 

coordination and expedient response to threat actors 

• Improve the use of data and data technologies to conduct monitoring of the U.S. and international 

financial systems, quickly identify illicit actors, and mitigate their risk to the financial infrastructure

• Improved data sharing and enhance data infrastructure to more effectively identify threat actors 

and detect, disrupt, and deter abuse of the U.S. and international financial systems.

Goal 3: Protect Financial Stability and Resiliency 

• Expand the use of data and modern data technologies to improve monitoring of the U.S. and global 

financial systems, promote timely identification and mitigation of risks

• Fill gaps in access to commercial data and increase data collection

• Promote and expand the use of data and modern analytic technologies (e.g., Artificial 

Intelligence/Machine Learning) for modeling, monitoring, and assessing risk

• Expand Treasury’s capabilities for secure collaboration with academic institutions and other nonfederal entities

Goal 4: Combat Climate Change

• Identify, assess, and leverage quality climate data to build scorecards that track conversion of fossil 

fuel financing to other sustainable energy options and provide investors with data-based climate 

investment decisions for domestic and international institutions

• Increase access to Treasury data assets and leverage the use of analytics to improve quantification 

and mitigation of climate-related financial risks

• Improve accessibility, quality, and use of data and analytics leveraging shared enterprise data 

management platform services to enable investor- informed, climate-aligned investment decisions

• Establish a plan to identify, assess, improve, and use data to build metrics that track climate related 

financial risks and measure the impacts of those risks on low-income households and disadvantaged 

communities

• Apply United States Digital Service standards/Integrated Digital Experience Act requirements to 

Treasury.gov to promote transparency around climate related financial risks
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

9

• Improve and use secure enterprise-wide data collection systems and analyses, coupled with 

performance measures, to aid in transparency and data/performance-based decision-making

Goal 5: Modernize Treasury Operations

• Expand and improve the use of data and data technologies to more regularly assess employee 

perception, and model impacts of policy and organizational changes on equity, inclusion, and 

diversity 

• Expand the use of existing data and data collection systems to assess impacts of future work 

routines on employee sentiment, and gauge strategies to enhance collaboration amongst 

employees and between the customers and communities they serve

• Develop an integrated data and analytics workforce plan to strategically attract, train, and retain 

individuals with data and analytical skills

• Mature and enforce adoption of enterprise-wide commodity IT platforms, shared service 

applications, and integration tools 

• Implement an enterprise metadata catalogue solution to provide a searchable inventory of 

Treasury’s available data

• Mature Treasury’s data sharing and acquisition strategy to reduce cost and improve access through 

the consolidated use of data between Treasury components, with other federal agencies, and from 

commercially available sources
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

10

Appendix A: Methodology and Data Sources

Guiding Questions

The Data Governance Board2 participated in this baseline assessment, which was then reviewed by

performance contacts in Treasury bureaus and offices. Treasury assessed the agency’s capacity to build 

evidence across the four evidence-building activity types by attempting to answer the following 

questions for each required characteristic:

• Coverage: What are each bureau and office’s ongoing and planned statistics, evaluation, research, 

and analysis activities? What are the associated resource levels for these activities and how is the 

resulting evidence used? 

• Quality: Are the data we generate and collect high in quality with respect to utility, objectivity, and 

integrity?

• Methods: What methods are being used for evidence-building activities? Are they rigorous and 

appropriate?

• Effectiveness: Are evidence-building activities meeting their intended outcomes, including serving 

the needs of stakeholders, and being disseminated? Does the agency have processes, procedures, 

and trained staff in place to use the findings to support agency learning, improvement, and decisionmaking?

• Independence: To what extent are evidence-building activities free from bias and inappropriate 

influence?

Data Sources

• Bureau and Office Self-Assessment: See Appendix B. 

• FY 2022–2026 Strategic Plan Stakeholder Engagement: Leveraging the FY 2022–2026 Strategic Plan 

development process during FY 2021, the Department conducted nine strategic planning discussions 

(involving over 200 Treasury leaders) to develop an initial set of draft strategic goals and objectives. 

As leaders and staff continued to refine the strategic plan in later months, stakeholders were asked 

to identify “critical management initiatives (CMIs)”, which are management support initiatives 

needed to enable objective and mission success. Specifically, these CMIs are in the areas of human 

capital, data, and information technology (IT). The capacity assessment captured those CMIs directly 

relating to specific evidence-building related strategies and provided analysis to identify the most 

pressing areas that hindered the Department’s ability to execute its priorities. Learning Agenda 

questions were also identified during this process and informed discussion of critical management 

initiatives.

2 The Data Governance Board is chaired by the Chief Data Officer and includes the Evaluation Officer, the Statistical 

Official, the Associate Chief Information Officer for Enterprise Business Solutions, the Deputy Chief Financial 

Officer, and the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Privacy, Transparency, and Records.
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

11

• Management Surveys: For this baseline assessment, Treasury analyzed certain questions from the 

FY 2017 Government Accountability Office (GAO) Managers’ Survey3to gain insights into Treasury 

managers’ perceptions of evidence-building capacity. Treasury also reviewed the FY 2020 GAO 

Managers’ Survey, which included additional questions about program evaluations and evidencebuilding activities. However, staff found inconsistencies when attempting to validate this data 

against other sources, including internal surveys and information provided in the self-assessment.

For example, over 30 percent of managers responded that evaluations were conducted in alignment 

to an agency evaluation plan and an agency evaluation policy, while Treasury and most bureaus did 

not have an established evaluation plan or policy at the time of the survey. 

Furthermore, the lack of comparability between the 2017 and 2020 surveys made it difficult to 

determine whether managers were applying consistent definitions. Additionally, because of the 

number of managers within the IRS, the survey data is skewed toward the IRS experience. Due to 

these concerns and varying interpretations of key terms across Treasury, staff determined this was 

not an appropriate representation of the Department’s evidence capacity. 

The Deputy Performance Improvement Officer and Budget Officer also conduct a joint internal 

annual survey of organizational performance and budget officials, which provides some insight into 

trust and confidence in the availability and use of data (see Table 2). In FY 2016, Treasury 

implemented a data quality improvement plan that may account for the high perception of 

confidence across certain stakeholder groups in FY 2016 and 2017. Limitations of this data include a 

small and varying survey population and reliance on subjective information, which makes the results 

hard to interpret. Treasury is currently exploring how to improve this survey instrument to make 

results more actionable. 

Table 2: Treasury Management Survey: Evidence Related Questionnaire Results 

3

FY 2017 GAO Managers’ Survey Results (Department of the Treasury): https://www.gao.gov/special.pubs/gao-17-

776sp/resultstreasury.htm
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

12

Appendix B: Bureau Self-Assessment of Evidence-Building Activities

During the development of the FY 2020 Annual Performance Report (also the FY 2022 Annual Performance Plan and FY 2022 President’s Budget), Treasury 

compiled a preliminary catalogue of evidence-building activities and operations to assess the coverage of evidence-building across the agency. Activities listed in 

italics are considered projects. Other activities (non-italicized) are ongoing and considered part of core operations. Projects listed as “planned” are tentative and

may be resource dependent. 

Bureau/ 

office

Evaluation Research Analysis Statistics

BEP Data collection and evaluation 

(including on-press)

Currency Quality Assurance 

(CQA) Program - security 

feature research and 

development

Currency security and other feature 

research and development

Correction and Preventive Actions 

Performance measurement 

Currency Quality Assurance (CQA)

Characterization of product 

parameters using statistical 

process and quality control

CDFI Use of ARM framework to 

track evaluation data, postaward compliance, reporting 

risks

Rapid response program 

evaluation

PPC Research with MITRE

25 Years and Counting project 

(planned)

CDFI Minority Impact project (planned)

Certification, Compliance and 

Performance data collection and 

reporting: ACR, NMTC, CDFI, CMF, 

BEA 

ARM framework

InfoUSA or comparable 

database to replace Business

Analyst for ESRI

STATA software concurrent 

licenses for 5-7 staff

Decennial Census data update 

of all CDFI Fund program

eligibility requirements

CIMS Mapping System update

FinCEN Review of Rapid Response 

Program (RRP) requests, 

responses, recovery rates, and 

other data to determine

effectiveness and efficiency of 

program, and potential trends.

Advisory support research

BSA research in support of Treasury 

CFIUS review, FinCEN's role as 

Financial Intelligence Unit of United 

States, and in support of the FinCEN 

Exchange public-private partnership

BSA foreign country fact sheets to 

assist with engagement and 

operational activity

Open source and commercial 

database research on emerging 

geopolitical issues and foreign FIU 

Performance measurement

BSA data analysis 

Support law enforcement

Increase Intelligence Capacity 

Enhance Systems and Analytical 

Capabilities

Expand Threat and Information 

Sharing

Detect and mitigate money 

laundering vulnerabilities

Regulatory impact analyses for 

purposes of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act and to 

implement Executive Order 

12866 (1993).

Compile data and related 

analysis in connection with 

publishing the SAR Activity 

Reviews mandated by the

Anti-Money Laundering Act of 

2020, to determine 

effectiveness, efficiency, and 
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

13

Bureau/ 

office

Evaluation Research Analysis Statistics

developments to inform decision 

making related to Egmont exchange 

activity

potential trends regarding the 

RRP to detect potential BEC or 

fraud trends.

Compile statistics and create 

reports to support the FinCEN 

Exchange public-private 

partnership and to

provide feedback to financial 

institutions and regulators 

Fiscal Assessing Innovative, 

Emerging Technology

Data Quality project

RPA pilot implementation 

Establishment of Evidence 

register, learning agenda, and 

Annual Evaluation Plan

Blockchain for Grant 

Payments pilot examination

Emerging Technology 

Incubator

Customer Research

Environmental Scans/research

Future Readiness Assessment

Mature Unredeemed Debt (MUD) 

Customer Research

Treasury Retail Investment Manager 

(TRIM) Customer Journey Research

Disbursement Services Modernization 

Initiative (DSMI)

Financing Modernization project

Treasury Financial Experience (TFX)

Performance measurement

Alternatives Analysis

Mainframe Strategy

E-Invoicing Modernization

Payment Integrity Center of 

Excellence (PICOE)

Joint Financial Management 

Improvement Program (JFMIP) 

project

Analytics Projects

Do Not Pay (DNP) Analytics

IRS Notice Redesign using 

Behavioral Insights

Customer Callback Initiative

Marginal Revenue/Cost Case 

Selection 

Online Accounts usability 

testing 

Issue Recommender for 

Examination Program 

Enhancement 

Measuring the Impact of 

Proactive Outreach and 

Education 

Taxpayer Experience Strategy Initiative

Network Approaches for Emerging and 

Undetected Identify Theft Selections

Small Business/Self Employed 

Emerging Issues

Tax Gap research initiatives

Measuring Indirect Effects of 

enforcement activities

Exam Planning Scenario Tool

Performance measurement

Employment Tax noncompliance

study

Power of Attorney fraud analysis

Graphic Database Visualization 

studies

Statistical Research Program

SOI Statistics on Individual, 

tax-exempt organizations, and 

government bonds 

SOI Statistics on Corporation, 

small business, and Farms

Mint Business cases and After 

Actions Reports 

Demand and sales forecasting

Numismatic product pricing

Performance measurement 

Data warehouse implementation 

Numismatic customer base 

research
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

14

Bureau/ 

office

Evaluation Research Analysis Statistics

Net income maximization 

project for numismatic 

portfolio

Payments market trend analysis

Long term circulating coin demand 

trend modelling

Improved numismatic modelling

(planned)

Executive level dashboards 

(planned)

Customer satisfaction 

measurement

OCC OCC Strategic Operating Plan

Enterprise Workforce Planning

Economic and financial research 

functions

Issuance of interpretive letters that 

provide legal certainty for 

cryptocurrency activities

Policy research workgroups

Enterprise Data Governance

Technology Modernization

Single Supervisory Platform Project

Performance measurement 

Financial sector and policy analysis

Strategic analysis

TTB Regulatory Requirements 

Analysis 

Customer/User Experience 

(CX/UX) Research and Analysis

Customer Surveys

Taxpayer Compliance 

Alcohol Market Trends

Controlled Groups project 

Taxpayer Notice Redesign (planned)

Alcohol Market Trends project

(planned)

Performance Measurement 

Management Dashboards

Risk Assessment 

Industry Guidance & Outreach 

Workforce Analysis

Commodity Statistical Reports

Data Quality Assessment

DO -

Mgmt.

Coordination of 

usaspending.gov/Data Act 

reporting

Coordination of Evidence Act 

Title I

Workforce analysis and 

human capital evaluations

Coordination of Equity 

Assessment Objective 1

Equity uptake assessments -

ARP programs

Impact evaluation - ECIP and 

CDFI

DASHR-CHCO hiring 

assessment evaluation

Coordination with MITRE (FFRDC)

Literature reviews for learning agenda 

questions

Coordination of MITRE Great Power 

Competition - Dollar Dominance Study

Analysis of performance data in 

quarterly data-driven reviews and 

annual assessment of Treasury 

performance measures

Risk assessment

FEVS data analysis

Financial analysis and budget 

formulation

Analysis of administrative data 

(e.g., procurement, operations, civil 

rights compliance)

Development and maintenance of 

analytical dashboards and data 

inventory

OCRD Audits of the Bureaus’ EEO 

DASHR-CHCO/OCRD/OMWI 

Workforce Demographic 

Statistics
Treasury FY 2022–2026 Capacity Assessment

15

Bureau/ 

office

Evaluation Research Analysis Statistics

Consultation on 

MITRE/Treasury research 

partnerships

Programs

OCRD Annual Management 

Directive 715 Reporting

OCRD Quarterly No FEAR Reports

Civil rights compliance analysis

Civil rights pre- and post-award 

compliance (planned)

DO -

Policy 

Offices

Monitoring and Evaluation 

(Technical Assistance)

Recovery program evaluations 

(ECIP, CDFI, ARP)

Analysis of RESTORE grant 

processing efficiency

Fiscal projections and debt 

management

Original research on specific financial 

and economic topics

Emerging technology and risk 

assessments

Research to support policy analysis

Situational awareness of the financial 

sector project

Policy analysis

Performance measurement

Analysis of CFIUS transactional data

Analysis of tax revenue

Equity assessment activities

Cash flow and debt analysis

Bank Systemic Risk Monitor

Financial Stress Index

Interagency Data Inventory

Short-term Funding Monitor

US Money Market Fund Monitor

Economic modeling to support 

policy analysis

Advanced data analysis