Managing for Results: Enhanced Goal Leader Accountability and Collaboration Could Further Improve Agency Performance
Published: 2014-07-22T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Leadership involvement and accountability are important factors driving successful performance improvement in government. GPRAMA established the role of the agency priority goal leader and assigned accountability for achieving APGs to these officials.
This report is one of a series in which GAO, as required by GPRAMA, reviewed the act's implementation. It assesses (1) the roles and responsibilities of agency priority goal leaders in managing goal progress and the extent to which they are held accountable for goal achievement; (2) the extent to which goal leaders collaborate with other programs and agencies that contribute to APG achievement; and (3) any challenges and practices identified by goal leaders, and the extent to which they exchange this information with their peers.
To address all three objectives, GAO examined nearly half (47 of 103) of the APGs for 2012 and 2013, and analyzed relevant documentation. GAO also interviewed the goal leaders and other relevant officials for each of the 47 selected goals.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Agency priority goal leaders GAO interviewed were generally highly-placed within their agencies—for example, several were heads of agencies—and reported a range of responsibilities related to managing agency priority goals (APG), such as laying out goal strategies. A majority of the goal leaders said the goal leader designation had benefits for their APGs, such as greater visibility for the goal. Several also believed that there were benefits to designating the goal leader position in conjunction with other requirements from the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), such as reviewing priority goal progress at least quarterly. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs agencies to appoint deputy goal leaders. Deputy goal leaders manage day-to-day implementation of APGs and provide continuity in the event of goal leader turnover. From the time the APGs were published in February 2012 to the end of fiscal year 2013 (when they were to have been achieved), about 40 percent of the APGs GAO examined had a change in goal leader, while about 30 percent had a change in the deputy position. In addition, although most of the 46 goal leaders GAO interviewed had formal deputy goal leaders in place, 11 (24 percent) did not. Without a designated deputy goal leader, agencies lack a formally designated official to fill a key role in goal implementation. Individual performance plans are one of several mechanisms to provide goal leader and deputy goal leader accountability for APGs. Most goal leaders and all deputy goal leaders had performance plans. These plans covered a range of responsibilities, but generally did not fully reflect their APGs. In fact, many did not refer to the APG. Performance plans that link more directly to APGs could help ensure that officials are evaluated on and held responsible for APG progress and outcomes.
Goal leaders collaborated with officials from outside their agencies to drive progress on APGs. However, some goal leaders reported that these outside contributors were not included in the quarterly performance reviews. Goal leaders also reported that a variety of different types of programs, such as grant and regulatory programs, contributes to their APGs. However, they reported few mechanisms for sharing information with other agencies related to assessing these programs. Further, for a variety of reasons agencies have focused less attention on identifying the tax expenditures that contribute to their APGs. These findings are consistent with prior recommendations GAO made to OMB regarding GPRAMA implementation. OMB has taken some steps to address the recommendations.
Goal leaders identified some common challenges and practices in managing APGs, but shared this information to a limited extent. For example, goal leaders commonly cited resource constraints as a challenge, and practices related to measuring goal progress as helpful. One of the roles of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), a council made up of agency performance improvement officers and chaired by OMB, is to facilitate information exchange. The PIC has shared tools and information with goal leaders; however PIC staff's primary points of contact are agencies' performance improvement officers and their deputies. Overall, goal leaders and their deputies have had little direct interaction with the PIC. More direct outreach from PIC staff could facilitate information sharing among goal leaders and their deputies, and help ensure that they do not miss opportunities to better manage their APGs.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that OMB work with agencies to (1) ensure that they appoint deputy goal leaders; and (2) more clearly link goal leaders' and deputies' performance plans to APGs, and work with the PIC to further involve goal leaders and deputies in information-sharing related to APGs. OMB staff generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Leadership involvement and accountability are two of the most important  factors in driving successful performance improvement. Our prior work  has found that these two factors are critical to driving change and  improvement in government by overcoming resistance, marshalling  resources, building and maintaining organization-wide commitment, and  ensuring persistent follow through. Congress took steps to promote  leadership involvement and accountability in the federal government  when it updated the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993  (GPRA) with the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), which  established certain leadership roles in law and provided the officials in  these roles with responsibilities for various aspects of performance  management. One of the key leadership roles under GPRAMA is the  agency priority goal leader. Individuals in this role are responsible for the  achievement of agency priority goals (APG), which are to reflect  agencies’ highest priorities. For example, APGs focus on issues related  to ensuring worker safety, supporting small businesses, and protecting  the environment. Goal leaders are to play an important role in managing  and achieving these goals, and in working with other agency officials to  review progress on them. Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  guidance directs that goal leaders be individuals authorized to coordinate  across their agency and program, and that they review goal progress and  make course corrections as needed, among other responsibilities.
This report is part of a series of reports responding to GPRAMA’s  mandate that we examine implementation of the act. The objectives of  this report are to (1) evaluate the roles and responsibilities of agency  priority goal leaders in managing goal progress and the extent to which  they are held accountable for achievement of priority goals; (2) review the  extent to which agency priority goal leaders collaborate with other  programs and agencies that contribute to the achievement of the priority  goals; and (3) describe any challenges and practices identified by agency  priority goal leaders in managing goals, and evaluate the extent to which  they exchange this information with other agency priority goal leaders.
To address all three objectives, we selected a random sample of 47  APGs for 2012 and 2013, or almost half of the 103 APGs established for  this time period.APGs and goal leaders, we did not generalize information to the  population of APGs or goal leaders. We chose our sample to ensure that  it included at least one goal from each of the 24 agencies that had APGs,  and approximately half of the total number of APGs per agency. For the  APGs in our sample, we obtained and analyzed documentation related to  goal leaders’ roles and responsibilities. For example, we obtained  agendas and minutes from meetings at which APGs were discussed. We  also obtained and analyzed individual performance plans from the goal  leaders and deputy goal leaders who had them to understand how those   Although our sample represented a significant portion of  plans are used to hold officials accountable for goal progress. To inform  our analysis, we also reviewed our prior work on performance  management leadership roles under GPRAMA, APGs, and interagency  collaboration. To assess goal leader and deputy goal leader  performance plans, we reviewed our prior work on leading practices  related to linking individual and organizational performance. We also  reviewed our prior work on data-driven performance reviews (also  referred to as quarterly performance reviews ) as part of our  examination of accountability mechanisms for goal achievement and goal  leaders’ collaboration.
In addition, we reviewed GPRAMA and related OMB guidance, as well as  information on the APGs published on Performance.gov, a government- wide performance website. We used information from Performance.gov  throughout this engagement, but all references to data from  Performance.gov in this report are as of May 23, 2014, the date we most  recently downloaded information from the website. To assess the  reliability of APG information available through Performance.gov, we  collected information from agencies and reviewed relevant documentation  and our prior work. We concluded that information from the website was  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of drawing our sample of APGs and  providing contextual information on them. We did not evaluate the  accuracy of agency data on goal progress to determine if the APG  progress they described to us and on Performance.gov was accurate.  But, we did ask agency officials to verify information on the goal progress  we reported from Performance.gov.
To further address all three objectives, we conducted semistructured  interviews with the goal leaders for 43 of the 47 APGs in our sample, a  total of 46 goal leaders. heads or acting heads of their agencies. Appendix I includes a list of the  goals in our sample and the names and titles of the goal leaders we  interviewed. Our interview questions focused on their roles and  responsibilities, including how they are held accountable for goal  progress, how they collaborate, and how they share promising practices  and challenges. We also interviewed OMB and Performance  Improvement Council (PIC) staff about actions the PIC has taken to reach  out to and facilitate information exchange among goal leaders. Further  details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are contained in  appendix II.
The number of goal leaders does not equal the number of goals because some goals  had more than one leader, while some goal leaders were responsible for more than one  goal in our sample. In most cases where there was more than one goal leader, we  interviewed all goal leaders. We were not able to interview the goal leaders for four of the  APGs in our sample because the goal leaders had either left their agencies or were about  to leave at the time of our interviews. For these goals, we interviewed other agency  officials who were knowledgeable about the goals. In addition, two of the departing goal  leaders were able to provide us with written responses to our questions.
We conducted our work from June 2013 to July 2014 in accordance with  generally accepted government audit standards. Those standards require  that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: GPRAMA added new requirements for setting and achieving agency  goals. Every 2 years, GPRAMA requires the heads of certain agencies to  identify a subset of agency goals to be identified as APGs. These goals  are to reflect the highest priorities of the agency and are to have clearly- defined milestones and ambitious targets that can be achieved within 2  years. GPRAMA also directs agencies to describe how goals are to be  achieved, including the processes, training, skills and technology, and the  human, capital, information, and other resources and strategies required  to meet them. In addition, they are to identify performance indicators to be  used in measuring progress, among other things. The first round of  APGs was publicly reported in February 2012, and they were to be  completed by the end of fiscal year 2013. New APGs, for 2014 and  2015, were published on Performance.gov in March 2014. According to  OMB staff, approximately 40 percent of the APGs for 2014 and 2015  were carried over from and focus on the same areas as the APGs from  2012 and 2013, although they typically have updated targets for  achievement. In conjunction with these goal-setting requirements,  GPRAMA also established a requirement that, for each APG, agencies  identify an agency official–the goal leader–responsible for goal  achievement.
GPRAMA and OMB guidance describe responsibilities and specific tasks  for goal leaders, including that they participate in quarterly performance  reviews (QPR) (see table 1). OMB also directs agencies to identify a  deputy goal leader to support the goal leader, though it does not provide  details of the responsibilities or specific tasks of the deputy position.
In addition, the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has identified  core competencies for key roles under GPRAMA, including the goal  leader. These competencies are illustrated in figure 1. OPM has also  identified executive core qualifications for Senior Executive Service  officials. Some of the competencies for the executive core qualification for  building coalitions, such as partnering, are the same as those OPM  identified as core competencies for agency priority goal leaders. Several  of these competencies are also consistent with ones we identified in our   For  prior work as important attributes for collaborative leadership.example, these leadership competencies included communication,  building and maintaining relationships, and setting a vision.
Under GPRAMA agencies are to make information on APGs available to  OMB for online publication. This information, which includes APG  strategies, performance indicators, progress updates, and identification of  the relevant goal leader, is published on Performance.gov. Agencies are  to update information on each APG at least quarterly. Agencies are also  to identify programs and activities that contribute to each APG. These  include organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other  activities, both internal and external to the agency. OMB also directs  agencies to include, as appropriate, tax expenditures in their identification  of programs that contribute to their APGs.
GPRAMA also established in law the Performance Improvement Council  (PIC), chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management and composed  of performance improvement officers from various federal agencies.  According to PIC staff, officials from a broad range of agencies, both  large and small, participate in the PIC. The PIC is charged with facilitating  the exchange of successful performance management practices among  agencies and assisting OMB in implementing certain GPRAMA  requirements (among other responsibilities).
Although this report focuses on the goal leaders for APGs, similar  positions exist for other types of goals as well. At the agency level, OMB  directs agencies to designate leaders for each agency strategic objective,  which reflects the outcomes or impacts the agency is intending to  achieve. OMB’s 2013 guidance directs agencies to conduct annual  strategic reviews of progress toward strategic objectives to inform their  decision making, starting in 2014. At the government-wide level,  GPRAMA requires a lead official to be identified for each cross-agency  priority (CAP) goal. CAP goals either focus on issues that cut across  agency boundaries or on management improvement across the federal  government. Each of the 15 CAP goals announced in the President’s  2015 budget has a leader within the Executive Office of the President and  within a related agency. Although these other types of goal leaders exist,  throughout this report, when we refer to goal leaders we are only referring  to goal leaders for the APGs.
section_title: Goal Leaders Are Carrying out Their Roles and Responsibilities on Goal Progress, but Their Performance Plans Do Not Always Hold Them Directly Accountable
subsections: section_title: Goal Leaders are Generally Highly-Placed within Their Organizations and Reported a Range of Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: The goal leaders for the goals in our sample were, in general, placed at  high levels within their agencies and so were in senior leadership  positions that enabled them to drive progress on their APGs. For  example, of the 46 goal leaders we interviewed, 7 were heads or acting  heads of agencies and 9 were agency assistant secretaries or acting  assistant secretaries. Most (28) of the 46 goal leaders we interviewed  were in career positions and the remainder (18) were political appointees.  This high placement of goal leaders is consistent with OMB guidance,  which states that goal leaders should be officials with the authority to  coordinate across an agency or program. It is also a practice supported  by our prior work, in which we noted that personal involvement of top  agency leadership is important to successful management. The  Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), who is the  goal leader for the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Reduce Risk of  Aviation Accidents APG, told us that, in his opinion, having a goal leader  who is also the head of an agency is important because he or she has the  authority to engage agency employees to achieve the goal. As an  example, FAA officials provided us with a list of the Administrator’s site  visits to FAA facilities around the country. According to DOT, aviation  fatality rates—this APG’s performance measure—are at historic lows and  have continued to drop over time.the importance of having goal leaders at a high enough level that they  have authority within their agencies, some noted the importance of  balancing that with the need for a goal leader who has the time for close,  regular involvement with the goal.
While officials we interviewed noted  Goal leaders we interviewed provided many examples of ways in which  they fulfill goal leader responsibilities required by OMB guidance,  including laying out strategies to achieve the goal, managing execution,  regularly reviewing performance, engaging others as needed, and making  course corrections as appropriate. They also engage in other activities.  For example, the Associate Administrator of the Office of Disaster  Assistance at the Small Business Administration (SBA), who is also the  goal leader for the Process Disaster Assistance Applications Efficiently  APG, told us that he and others at SBA started developing strategies and  targets in 2011, prior to the beginning of the fiscal year 2012-2013 agency  priority goal cycle. He said that it was important to consider reasonable  targets as part of setting and implementing the APG. This meant  determining a feasible target for the percentage of disaster assistance  applications the agency would aim to receive electronically as part of goal  setting. SBA reported on Performance.gov that the rate of applications  filed electronically had more than doubled from fiscal year 2011 to 2013,  when 55 percent of applications were filed electronically. In addition, the Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) Fiscal Assistant Secretary, who  was also the goal leader for the agency’s Increase Electronic  Transactions with the Public to Improve Service, Prevent Fraud, and  Reduce Costs APG, said that a significant part of his work involved  providing information to the public through press releases and working  with consumer and community groups to make them aware of the  changes coming with regard to electronic transactions. Treasury officials  provided us with examples of press releases and other public  communications, as well as a list of the Fiscal Assistant Secretary’s  meetings with advocacy groups and other stakeholders related to the  goal. The fiscal year 2015 President’s budget highlighted progress made  under this goal, noting that increased electronic transactions had helped  the government get money to beneficiaries and into the economy faster,  and reduced costs associated with collections.
GAO-13-228. In this report we identified several leading practices for conducting QPRs  through a review of relevant academic and policy literature, and with input from  practitioners at the local, state, and federal levels. through 2013. In addition, the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) within the  Department of the Interior (Interior) had been collecting data on crime  before the Reduce Violent Crime in Indian Communities goal was  designated an APG. But, officials told us that the APG designation led to  an increased focus on data use. For example, officials developed crime  rate profiles identifying locations where crimes were historically  committed, including information on times of day and days of week, and  used that information to shift police assignments and target proactive  measures. According to information reported by Interior on  Performance.gov, BIA, working with tribes, met most of its violent crime  rate targets in fiscal years 2012 and 2013 for five of the six communities  originally targeted under the APG.
section_title: Goal Leaders Report Varied Effects from Goal Leader Designation, but Identified Benefits in Conjunction with Other Related GPRAMA Requirements
paragraphs: A majority of the goal leaders we interviewed said the goal leader  designation had positive effects on goal progress and achievement. Goal  leaders and other officials identified one or more benefits that derived  from the designation, frequently saying that it provided greater visibility for  the goal, facilitated coordination, heightened focus on the goal, or  improved access to resources. For example, a deputy goal leader at the  Federal Railroad Administration, part of DOT, said that goal leader and  deputy goal leader designations are valuable in the context of competing  priorities at the department. He said that the designation and related  requirements elevate the goal, provide additional structure, and  communicate the department’s commitment to it. DOT reported on  Performance.gov that the agency initiated construction on five passenger  rail corridors and 37 individual projects during fiscal years 2012 and 2013  for the deputy goal leader’s Advance the Development of Passenger Rail  in the United States APG. Additionally, the Assistant Secretary for  Elementary and Secondary Education, who is the goal leader for two of  the Department of Education’s (Education) APGs–Demonstrate Progress  in Turning Around the Nation’s Lowest-Performing Schools and Improve  Outcomes for all Children from Birth through Third Grade–said that her  designation as goal leader has caused her to think more about the goals  and how they relate to other aspects of the department’s work and to  think more strategically across the whole Office of Elementary and  Secondary Education. According to data reported by Education on  Performance.gov, under the APG targeting the lowest-performing schools  (489 schools receiving Education’s School Improvement Grants), those  schools demonstrated at least 10 percent increases in reading or math  scores during fiscal years 2012 and 2013. Education also reported that  under the APG focusing on improved outcomes, 24 states implemented  plans to collect and report disaggregated data on children entering public  school kindergarten as part of a comprehensive assessment system.
About a third of the goal leaders we interviewed told us that the goal  leader designation did not affect goal achievement. In several cases, goal  leaders noted the difficulty they had differentiating their role as goal  leader from the work they would otherwise be doing as part of their other  roles. For example, the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s  (HUD) Acting Assistant Secretary of the Office of Community Planning  and Development, who was one of the goal leaders for the agency’s  Reducing Homelessness APG, told us that the goal leader designation  was more a description of his continuing role leading agency efforts on  homelessness rather than a significant change in responsibility or  position. In addition, some APGs continued work begun under other, prior  agency goals, and in some cases represent issues that have been  agency priorities for years. For example, several of the agency priorities  represented by the APGs in our sample had also been reflected in  agency high priority performance goals, which were in place prior to  GPRAMA’s enactment. Several goal leaders cited the close correspondence between the APG focus and agency mission as a reason  that the designation of goal leaders made little difference in how the  agency carried out its work in support of the goal. For example, the Acting  Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, who was also the goal  leader for the Department of Commerce’s Advance Commercialization of  New Technologies by Reducing Patent Application Pendency and  Backlog APG, told us that the goal leader designation did not have a  significant effect because the APG is a firmly-established part of her  agency’s mission. According to information reported by the Department of  Commerce on Performance.gov, the agency reduced pendency for first  and final actions and reduced its patent backlog during fiscal years 2012  and 2013.
For more information, see http://archive-goals.Performance.gov/goal_detail/HHS/373. funded water conservation projects that enabled nearly 250,000 acre feet  of water savings during fiscal years 2012 and 2013.
section_title: Deputy Goal Leaders Were Designated for Most, but Not All, Priority Goals
paragraphs: OMB guidance directs agencies to identify a deputy goal leader to  support each goal leader, and agencies naming a political appointee as a  goal leader are encouraged to name a career senior executive as the  deputy. Twenty-eight of the 46 goal leaders we interviewed were in career  positions and 18 were political appointees. OMB staff told us that this  guidance is in place for several reasons. Primarily, it is due to the  importance of having a person in place who is close to the work being  done on APGs and who can spend the time needed to implement and  follow up on related tasks. OMB staff said that the agency sees the  deputy goal leader as the person who can perform the important function  of connecting APG leadership and strategy with actual implementation.  OMB also directed agencies to appoint deputy goal leaders because the  position may help provide continuity in the event that the goal leader  leaves the agency, and also provides a point of contact for OMB,  particularly in situations in which the designated goal leader is very highly  placed in the agency. OMB staff told us that OMB does not monitor  whether agencies formally designate deputies or systematically collect  information, including contact information, on them. Instead, staff said that  they identify and use deputy goal leaders as points of contact when they  find it necessary.
Deputy goal leaders for the APGs in our sample supported day-to-day  goal management and provided continuity during times of transition. Most  (35 of 46) of the goal leaders we interviewed had deputy goal leaders.These goal leaders and their deputies most commonly characterized  deputies’ roles as involving day-to-day management of the goal or  managing data collection, analysis, and presentation for QPRs and other  purposes. In some cases deputies also participated in budget  management, and developing goals or strategies. Deputies also played a  role during goal leader transitions. For example, the Department of  Justice’s (DOJ) National Coordinator for Child Exploitation, Prevention  and Interdiction, who also leads the agency’s Protect Those Most in Need  of Help—With Special Emphasis on Child Exploitation and Civil Rights  APG, explained that her deputy goal leader had provided useful support  when she started in the goal leader position, especially in terms of helping  her to understand APG performance measures and how they fit into her  work. Additionally, two of the goal leaders we interviewed had originally  been deputy goal leaders, and had taken on the goal leader role when the  previous goal leader left the position. Our analysis of APGs found that  there had been somewhat higher rates of turnover among goal leaders  than deputies between the time the APGs were published in February  2012 and completed at the end of September 2013. Of the 47 APGs in  our sample, 20 (slightly more than 40 percent) had a change in goal  leader during this time period. Of the 37 APGs that had deputy goal  leaders assigned, 11 (31 percent) had a change in deputy goal leader  over this time period.
Although most of the goal leaders we interviewed had formal deputy goal  leaders in place, 11 of the 46 (24 percent) did not. Those goal leaders  who did not have deputy goal leaders generally reported that they had  other staff who fulfilled similar roles. For example, none of the goal  leaders at HUD have deputy goal leaders, but the Director of HUD’s  Performance Management Division told us that an analyst from the  agency’s Office of Strategic Planning and Management is assigned to  each APG. The analyst ensures that APGs comply with GPRAMA  requirements. Although other agency staff may fulfill many of the roles  that a deputy goal leader would, officially designating a deputy goal  leader would be consistent with OMB’s view that deputies serve a key  role in implementing APGs. In addition, this designation is especially  important if there is additional turnover in the goal leader position in the  future.
section_title: Performance Plans of Goal Leaders and Deputy Goal Leaders Generally Did Not Fully Reflect Priority Goals
paragraphs: or serving in them temporarily, so we excluded these plans from our  analysis. In all, we obtained and analyzed 32 goal leader performance  plans. We obtained performance plans from all 38 deputy goal leaders for  the APGs in our sample, but excluded three from our analysis because  the officials were new to the position and their performance plans had not  been updated to reflect it. In all, we analyzed 35 deputy goal leader  performance plans.
According to our assessment of goal leaders’ performance plans,  agencies are not fully using performance plans as a tool to align APGs  and goal leader expectations, or make goal leaders accountable for  progress on and achievement of APGs. The 32 goal leader performance  plans we analyzed reflected responsibility for goal outcomes to a varying  extent. They covered a range of responsibilities, but many did not  reference the APG at all, and few of them explicitly held goal leaders  responsible for goal outcomes. Specifically, less than half (12 of 32) of the  plans specified that the official was responsible for the APG, and 1 of the  32 linked goal leaders’ performance standards to goal outcomes. Some  goal leaders said that although their plans did not include specific  references to their APGs, responsibility was implied because the APG  was covered under broader responsibilities. We found that this was the  case in almost half (14 of 32) of the plans we analyzed. Figures 2 and 3  show excerpts from two goal leaders’ performance plans. The  performance plan in figure 2 clearly links performance standards to  specific APG outcomes, while the performance plan in figure 3 has a  weaker connection to the two APGs under the goal leader’s responsibility.  For example, the performance plan does not specifically mention the APG  or any of its performance measures.
Our analysis of deputies’ performance plans showed that they also  reflected responsibility for APGs to a varying extent. In general, the 35  deputy goal leader performance plans we reviewed did not establish a  strong connection to APGs and did not make deputies accountable for  goal outcomes. Our analysis found that 15 of 35 plans named the officials  as the deputy goal leader or explicitly made them responsible for the APG  and 1 of 35 linked deputies’ performance standards to goal outcomes.  Some officials noted that although deputies’ performance plans did not  specifically mention APGs, they did include responsibility for activities that  supported the goal. We found this to be the case for nearly half of the  performance plans we reviewed. Specifically, 14 deputies’ plans identified  them as responsible for activities that could contribute to the goal, but did  not reference the goal, goal outcomes, or broader areas of activity that  could subsume the goal. For example, the performance plan for one of  the deputy goal leaders on OPM’s Ensure High Quality Federal  Employees APG specifies that she is responsible for improving and  implementing guidance related to the Pathways Program, a streamlined  process for hiring new federal employees.
Agencies that use performance plans that lack a strong linkage to APG  outcomes may be missing opportunities to promote accountability.  Although APGs may fall under goal leaders’ broader responsibilities,  specifically including the APG and its outcomes in goal leaders’ and  deputies’ performance plans would help ensure that they are evaluated  on and held accountable for goal progress. Our prior work makes clear  the importance of tying performance standards to agency goals and  making leadership accountable for goal outcomes. This is especially  important, since APGs are to reflect the highest priorities of the agency.
section_title: Quarterly Performance Reviews and Informal Mechanisms Serve as Additional Accountability Mechanisms
paragraphs: While not all deputy and goal leader performance plans had clearly stated  relationships to APGs, goal leaders we interviewed identified other  mechanisms that they felt held them accountable for progress on APGs.  These include personal reputation, accountability to agency and other  leadership, and QPR meetings. For example, the Assistant Secretary of  Labor for Occupational Safety and Health, who is goal leader for two  APGs (Reduce Worker Fatalities and Develop a Model Safety and  Return-to-Work Program), told us that the interest of Congress and DOL’s  Inspector General, in their respective oversight roles, both operate to hold  him accountable. In addition, the Federal Railroad Administrator, who is  the goal leader for the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) Advance the  Development of Passenger Rail in the United States APG, told us that the  agency’s regulatory review meetings, which the agency also uses to meet  the GPRAMA requirement that agencies review priority goal progress at  least quarterly, act as an additional accountability mechanism. He said  that the Deputy Secretary and other agency officials place considerable  importance on these meetings and that it was personally important to him  that he perform well at them, including being able to respond to all  questions. While these other mechanisms offer additional accountability,  our previous work has shown that performance plans offer particular  benefits. For example, performance plans can allow performance  managers to (1) document that performance standards align with agency  goals; (2) hold employees accountable for achieving specific and  measurable results; and (3) make clear distinctions in performance.
section_title: Goal Leaders Collaborate with a Diverse Array of Organizations and Use Different Types of Programs to Drive Progress on Their Agencies’ APGs, but Continue to Miss Opportunities for Further Collaboration
subsections: section_title: Goal Leaders Collaborate with a Diverse Array of Organizations on Goal Progress
paragraphs: Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to  achieve require the coordinated efforts of more than one federal agency,  level of government, or sector. OMB’s guidance states that goal leaders  should be authorized to coordinate across an agency or program to  achieve progress on a goal. Our recent work on interagency collaboration  identified leadership competencies related to collaborating effectively,  including the ability to work well with others, build and maintain  relationships, and communicate openly with a range of stakeholders.
The goal leaders we interviewed reported many examples of collaborating  with other entities to drive progress on their APGs. Table 2 provides some  examples of how goal leaders reported collaborating with a diverse array  of entities.
section_title: Some Goal Leaders Reported That Relevant Contributors to Their APGs Are Not Included in Their Agencies’ Quarterly Performance Reviews
paragraphs: OMB guidance and leading practices for conducting quarterly  performance reviews (QPR) note the importance of agencies including all  relevant contributors to APGs in these reviews. As shown below, we  have made a prior related recommendation.
GAO Has Previously Recommended That OMB and the PIC Help Agencies Include  External Contributors in Quarterly Performance Reviews  In February 2013, we made the following recommendation. OMB staff agreed with our  recommendation. As of June 2014, OMB and Performance Improvement Council (PIC)  staff reported that agencies continue to work to implement this recommendation through  a PIC working group that is intended to help agencies share best practices for conducting  QPRs, but did not have a specific timeframe in place for full implementation:  To better leverage agency quarterly performance reviews as a mechanism to manage  performance toward agency priority and other agency-level performance goals, the  Director of OMB—working with the PIC and other relevant groups—should identify and  share promising practices to help agencies extend their QPRs to include, as relevant,  representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their agency  performance goals.
However, some goal leaders we interviewed reported that APG  contributors from other federal agencies, and even different components  within the same federal agency, were not included in these reviews. The  goal leader for the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) Reduce Violent  Crime in Indian Communities APG–the Assistant Secretary for Indian  Affairs–reported that he and his staff work with the Department of Justice (DOJ) on the goal, but that DOJ officials are not part of Interior’s QPRs.Interior officials explained that they meet with DOJ officials in other  settings. In another example, the Department of Labor (DOL) has  designated two officials–the Assistant Secretary for Occupational Safety  and Health and the Assistant Secretary for Mine Safety and Health–as  co-goal leaders for the Reduce Worker Fatalities APG. The Assistant  Secretary for Mine Safety and Health told us that he and the Assistant  Secretary for Occupational Safety and Health have separate QPRs with  the Deputy Secretary to discuss progress on their joint APG. In  commenting on a draft of this report, DOL officials noted that this is  because the Mine Safety and Health Administration covers only mining  and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration covers other  industries, and that the two programs have separate outcome metrics for  the APG reported on Performance.gov. However, the Assistant Secretary  for Mine Safety and Health told us that Occupational Safety and Health  Administration officials do not attend the reviews of the Mine Safety and  Health Administration. OMB guidance and our prior work state that  agencies should, as appropriate, include relevant personnel within and  outside the agency who contribute to the accomplishment of each APG.
Our interviews with goal leaders did, however, identify one case in which  a goal leader reported that external contributors to the goal attended the  agency’s QPR meeting. Two Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD) goal leaders who share responsibility for the  Reducing Homelessness APG, which includes reducing homelessness  among veterans, reported collaborating with officials from the U.S.  Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Department of Veterans  Affairs, which also has an APG focused on reducing veterans’  homelessness. HUD officials told us that every 6 months officials from the  U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness and the Department of  Veterans Affairs attend HUD’s QPRs. driven performance reviews, OMB officials cited this example of two  agencies that had been using the QPRs to collaborate on their APGs.
In our previous work on data- In cases where relevant personnel were not included in QPRs, the goal  leaders we interviewed emphasized that their agencies use other means  to collaborate with external contributors to their APGs. However, leading  practices for conducting QPRs underscore the value of agencies  extending their QPRs to include, as relevant, external contributors. We  observed that these reviews have the benefit of bringing together the  leadership and all the key players to solve problems. Moreover, when key  players are excluded from QPRs, agencies will need to rely on potentially  duplicative parallel coordination mechanisms. Thus, we continue to believe our prior recommendation has merit, and that OMB and PIC  efforts to work with agencies to fully address it would strengthen these  QPRs.
HUD refers to their QPRs as “HUDStat.”
section_title: Goal Leaders Recognized the Contributions Different Types of Programs Made to Their APGs, but There Are Limited Mechanisms for Sharing Information Across Agencies
paragraphs: GPRAMA requires the agency head and chief operating officer, with the  support of the performance improvement officer, to assess whether  relevant organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other  activities are contributing as planned to the agency’s APGs, and to  identify these contributing programs for publication on Performance.gov.  Our previous work has identified more specific examples of different  program types the federal government uses to achieve many of its goals:  direct services, government contracts, grants, regulations, research and  development, and tax expenditures. Table 3 provides more specific  definitions of these program types and also provides examples from our  interviews of how goal leaders reported different program types  contributed to their APGs.
GPRAMA requires that agencies do more than simply identify the  different program types that contribute to an APG. An agency must also  assess whether each relevant program type is contributing as planned to  the APG. This requirement is important because our previous work has  identified long-standing difficulties agencies have faced in measuring  performance across various program types. For example, in prior work,  we have found that some grant-making agencies have faced difficulties in  validating and verifying the data grant recipients report and establishing  performance measures.recommendation.
GAO Has Previously Recommended That OMB and the PIC Help Agencies Share  Information Related to Measuring Program Types  In June 2013, we made the following recommendation. As of June 2014, OMB and PIC  staff reported taking initial steps to implement this recommendation through action plans  they are developing for certain cross-agency priority goals, including those focused on  customer service and strategic sourcing. OMB staff did not have a specific time frame in  place for fully implementing the recommendation.  “Given the common, long-standing difficulties agencies continue to face in measuring the  performance of various types of federal programs and activities—contracts, direct  services, grants, regulations, research and development, and tax expenditures—we…  recommend the Director of OMB work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to  examine these difficulties across agencies, including identifying and sharing any  promising practices from agencies that have overcome difficulties in measuring the  performance of these program types. This approach should include goals, planned  actions, and deliverables along with specific time frames for their completion, as well as  the identification of the parties responsible for each action and deliverable.”
Our discussions with goal leaders identified some examples of specific  analyses agencies had done to assess the contributions a particular  program type made to APGs. For example, Interior’s Deputy Secretary  reported that the Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) is requiring  specific information from grant applicants on how to quantify the benefits,  such as water savings, if the federal government selects a particular  project to receive funding under Interior’s Increase the Available Water  Supply in the Western States APG.estimates grant applicants provide to measure progress towards its APG,  as described in the text box below.
How Interior is Analyzing the Contributions a Grant Made to its APG  An irrigation district in Montana requested $103,000 in federal grant money for a project  the district estimated would save 4,158 acre feet of water each year. Interior says a team  of Reclamation employees assessed the district’s water savings estimate and decided  the project would receive federal funding. After a financial assistance agreement was  executed, Interior officials then reported the 4,158 acre feet of estimated water savings  towards the department’s overall goal of saving a cumulative total of 350,000 acre feet of  water by the end of fiscal year 2011. The Interior report adds that Reclamation  employees are seeking to validate the estimates for certain projects by taking  measurements before construction begins and then again after construction to measure  actual water savings.
For the APG for fiscal years 2012 and 2013, Interior measures cumulative water savings since 2009,  so this project contributed to the APG.
However, other goal leaders we interviewed reported that their agencies  are either not analyzing the contributions different program types are  making or, in other cases, continue to face challenges in measuring the  performance of different program types. For example, HUD officials we  interviewed told us that grants contribute to the Preserve Affordable  Rental Housing APG, but that grants have not been a significant part of  HUD’s conversations about goal progress. The information HUD  provided on Performance.gov indicated that grants are used in  combination with other programs, such as vouchers and tax expenditures,  to provide rental assistance. However, the performance indicators HUD  identified on Performance.gov measured the total number of families  served by different HUD programs. These indicators did not break out the  number of families served through grants, thereby making it more difficult  to analyze the contributions grants made to the APG. In other cases, goal  leaders described challenges they have faced in measuring the  performance of certain types of programs. For example, the Federal  Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Associate Administrator for Aviation  Safety observed that it is difficult to know for certain whether a particular  regulation prevented an aviation accident from occurring in regards to  DOT’s Reduce Risk of Aviation Accidents APG. She emphasized that  there has been a lot of progress made in improving aviation safety and  pointed to data that show a very low risk of passenger fatalities on  commercial air carriers. However, she considered it hard to measure the  precise effect a particular regulation or safety initiative had on the  outcome that has been identified for this APG.
We discussed with several goal leaders the extent to which they have  shared information with officials in other agencies working with similar  types of programs, such as grants and regulations, on common  challenges in measuring the performance of these types of programs.  Overall, our discussions did not identify any government-wide working  groups that would allow officials from different agencies to share this sort  of information, but a small number of goal leaders interviewed identified  some more limited mechanisms for sharing this information:
FAA’s deputy goal leader for DOT’s Reduce Risk of Aviation  Accidents APG told us that he also sits on the department’s Safety  Council, which provides a forum for FAA officials to share their  regulatory experience with other DOT agencies, including the Federal  Transit Administration–which has less experience with regulations.  The DOT deputy goal leader reported that the benefits of attending  the Safety Council meetings are learning from and sharing  experiences between and among departmental agencies and being  able to apply this information to the agency priority goal. DOT officials  noted that the Safety Council is limited to DOT agencies and does not  include other federal agencies with regulatory responsibilities.
Social Security Administration (SSA) officials who were responsible  for the Reduce Supplemental Security Income Overpayments APG  told us they had participated in a now-inactive PIC working group on  benefits processing during the tenure of an earlier goal leader. The  Benefits Processing working group focused on promoting consistency  in agencies’ benefits processing, but OMB staff had previously told us  that this group no longer regularly meets because it had completed its  tasks.been helpful.
The SSA officials we interviewed indicated that this group had  We continue to believe our prior recommendation has merit, and that  OMB and PIC actions to fully address it would provide a more  comprehensive assessment of how various types of programs contribute  to agency goals.
section_title: Goal Leaders Have Focused Less Attention on Identifying Relevant Tax Expenditures
paragraphs: Since 2012, OMB guidance has directed agencies to identify as  appropriate the tax expenditures that contribute to their APGs and report  this information for publication on Performance.gov. This is important  because tax expenditures represent a significant federal investment.  Based on Department of the Treasury (Treasury) estimates for fiscal year  2013, the federal government had forgone approximately $1.1 trillion in  tax revenue through 169 tax expenditures, an amount which approaches  the size of federal discretionary spending. The tax revenue that the  government forgoes is viewed by many analysts as spending channeled  through the tax system. Since 1994, we have recommended greater  scrutiny of tax expenditures, as periodic reviews could help determine  how well specific tax expenditures work to achieve their goals and how  their benefits and costs compare to those of spending programs with  similar goals. In 2005, we recommended that OMB, in consultation with  Treasury, more fully incorporate tax expenditures into federal   Since then, OMB guidance has shown some  performance management.progress in addressing how agencies should incorporate tax expenditures  in strategic plans and annual performance plans and reports. OMB  addressed this recommendation by updating its guidance in 2012 to  require agencies to identify appropriate tax expenditures, as described  above. OMB also reported in its 2013 update to this guidance that it will  work with Treasury to align tax expenditure information with the APGs.
However, our 2013 review of the extent to which agencies implemented  certain requirements related to the APGs indicated that OMB and  agencies may be missing opportunities to identify tax expenditures that  contribute to APGs. In our 2013 report on APGs, we found that only one  agency had identified two relevant tax expenditures for one of its APGs.  As shown below, we made a recommendation to address this issue.
GAO Has Previously Recommended That OMB Ensure Agencies Identify Tax  Expenditures That Contribute to Agency Priority Goals  In April 2013, we made the following recommendation. OMB staff agreed with our  recommendation and said in June 2014 that they are working to implement the  recommendation, for example, by engaging with staff at the Department of the Treasury.  As of June 2014, OMB staff did not have a specific time frame for fully addressing the  recommendation.  “As OMB works with agencies to enhance Performance.gov to include additional  information about APGs, we recommend that the Director of OMB ensure that agencies  adhere to OMB’s guidance for website updates by providing complete information about  the organizations, program activities, regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other  activities—both within and external to the agency—that contribute to each APG.”
Our review of the information agencies provided on Performance.gov and  our discussions with goal leaders indicated that agencies and goal  leaders continue to provide Congress and the public with limited  information about the contributions of tax expenditures on  Performance.gov. Specifically, we found that five APGs in our sample had  related tax expenditures based on our prior work. However, for a variety  of reasons, only the two discussed below identified relevant tax  expenditures on Performance.gov:
HUD identified tax credits that subsidize the building and rehabilitation  of rental housing as contributing programs to the Preserve Affordable  Rental Housing APG.
Although the Department of Energy did not identify them as  contributing programs, the department mentioned two tax  expenditures in its discussion of how it measured performance of the  Make Solar Energy as Cheap as Traditional Sources of Electricity  APG.
For a third APG, HUD did not identify relevant tax expenditures as  contributing to its Prevent Foreclosures APG on Performance.gov. But,  one of the APG’s goal leaders acknowledged the relevance of a tax  expenditure and told us that the agency had worked to support its  extension. Specifically, HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Office  of Single Family Housing noted that borrowers could potentially owe  taxes if HUD’s efforts resulted in their receiving a reduction in the   Our previous work noted that Congress  principal on their mortgage. enacted a tax expenditure in 2007 that allowed taxpayers to generally  exclude from taxable income forgiven mortgage debt to assist taxpayers  facing foreclosure.consulted with Treasury to suggest that this tax expenditure be extended  by Congress.
HUD officials reported that their agency had  We have previously found that tax expenditures relate to other APGs in  our sample. However, for these APGs, agencies chose measures to  assess goal progress and achievement that did not involve tax  expenditures. As a result, agencies did not include information on tax  expenditures related to the APGs on Performance.gov.
The Department of Education Improve Students’ Ability to Afford and  Complete College APG: We have previously described the  importance of tax expenditures for helping students and families pay  for college. However, the deputy goal leader, who is the Chief of  Staff in the Office of the Undersecretary of Education, told us that tax  expenditures were not a factor in his agency’s strategy to implement  this goal, which was primarily to develop a web-based college  scorecard that is intended to help users learn about a specific  college’s affordability and value. The deputy goal leader explained  that Congress specified in statute a specific formula for his agency to  use to calculate the average net price of attending a particular college,  which does not include tax expenditures that may reduce the net price  many students pay.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Reduce Greenhouse  Gas Emissions from Cars and Trucks APG: EPA officials told us that  some tax incentives relate to the APG’s broader goal of reducing  greenhouse gas emissions. We have previously reported on tax  incentives that may affect greenhouse gas emissions from cars and  trucks, including those for plug-in electric-drive motor vehicles and for  biodiesel fuel. However, the strategy that EPA developed for this goal focused on implementing greenhouse gas emissions standards  for cars and trucks. For example, the APG’s performance measures  included the number of tests EPA conducted to confirm the validity of  manufacturers’ greenhouse gas emission test results. EPA officials  explained that, therefore, tax incentives were not central to this APG’s  progress and achievement.
We continue to believe our prior recommendation that OMB ensure  agencies identify relevant tax expenditures on Performance.gov has  merit, and that OMB actions to fully address it would provide a more  comprehensive assessment of how tax expenditures contribute to agency  goals.
section_title: Goal Leaders Identified Some Common Challenges and Practices in Goal Management, but Share This Information to a Limited Extent
subsections: section_title: Goal Leaders Identified Some Common Challenges and Practices in Managing Goals, but Have Limited Exchange of Information with Other Goal Leaders
paragraphs: Goal leaders we interviewed identified several common challenges in  managing APGs. The most commonly-cited challenge was constrained  resources, including those resulting from spending reductions under  sequestration. A little more than one-third (16 of 46) of the goal leaders  we interviewed cited resource constraints as a challenge in managing   their goals. For example, the Department of the Interior’s (Interior)  Assistant Secretary for Policy, Management and Budget, who was the  goal leader for the Support Youth Employment APG, told us that  sequestration had affected progress on her APG. The sequester cuts  took effect in March of 2013, the same time that Interior bureaus were  planning youth hiring for the summer. The goal leader told us that as a  result, Interior bureaus’ youth hiring was lower than expected. This is  consistent with our prior work, in which we found that Interior officials said  that a hiring freeze instituted in response to sequestration had adversely  affected the department’s ability to achieve this APG. According to  information Interior reported on Performance.gov, the department’s youth  hiring in fiscal year 2013 was nearly 20 percent lower than prior year  levels, and it did not achieve this APG. Additionally, the Deputy  Administrator for Defense Nuclear Nonproliferation, who was the goal  leader for the Department of Energy’s Make Significant Progress Toward  Securing the Most Vulnerable Nuclear Materials Worldwide within Four  Years APG, told us that budget uncertainties complicate goal-setting.  Although GPRAMA states that APGs should have ambitious targets, the  goal leader told us that these uncertainties may provide an incentive for  agencies to set goal targets lower than they otherwise would. Other  commonly-cited challenges included difficulty identifying meaningful  measures of goal progress and issues with data, such as problems with  consistency and availability.
Goal leaders we interviewed also identified common practices that they  said were helpful in managing APGs. Some of these were related to  GPRAMA requirements. For example, more than a quarter (14 of 46) of  goal leaders identified practices related to measuring goal progress, such  as assigning responsibility for meeting milestones, as helpful in managing  APGs. GPRAMA states that APGs are to have clearly defined quarterly  milestones and balanced performance measures for assessing goal  progress. Goal leaders emphasized the importance of not only  developing measures but developing ones that are meaningful and  reliable indicators of goal progress. For example, the Chief Operating  Officer at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), who led the  agency’s Ensure High Quality Federal Employees APG, said that she had  worked to make sure the agency used appropriate and consistent  measures to track goal progress. Other commonly-cited practices  include several related to coordination across an agency or program,  which OMB guidance specifies that goal leaders should have the  authority to do. Goal leaders noted effective methods of coordination such  as reaching out to agency field staff, employee unions, and non-federal  entities. Goal leaders also identified practices that stem from the  GPRAMA requirement that agencies review APG progress quarterly. As  noted earlier, goal leaders cited benefits from quarterly performance  review (QPR) meetings, which they said have promoted coordination,  accountability, and attention to goal progress, and have provided  opportunities to get feedback directly from agency leaders.
Goal leaders reported that they share information on APG challenges and  practices for managing their goals, although information sharing outside  of their agencies is generally limited to officials with whom they are  already working. They reported several examples of sharing information  within their agencies, most frequently through agency meetings, such as  QPRs. For example, the Director of the National Aeronautics and Space  Administration’s (NASA) International Space Station Division, who is the  goal leader for the agency’s Sustain Operations and Full Utilization of the  International Space Station APG, told us that the agency’s baseline  performance review meetings, through which the agency holds QPRs,  have facilitated his sharing of lessons learned with another NASA goal  leader whose APG also involves human space flight. Goal leaders also  provided some examples of sharing information with officials outside of  their agencies. In these cases, most examples involved sharing  information with officials with whom they work on issues related to their  APGs. These include members of interagency councils and committees  focused on issues related to their APGs, and officials from agencies doing  work related to the APG. For example, the Associate Administrator of the  Small Business Administration’s Office of Government Contracting and  Business Development, who is the goal leader for the agency’s Increase  Small Business Participation in Government Contracting APG, told us that  he shares information with officials from other agencies involved in small  business contracting through interagency groups such as the White  House Small Business Procurement Group.
section_title: The PIC Has Focused Its Efforts on PIOs, but Has Additional Opportunities to Engage Goal Leaders
paragraphs: The Performance Improvement Council’s (PIC) duties, which are detailed  in GPRAMA and OMB guidance, include facilitating among agencies the  exchange of practices that have led to performance improvements, and  developing tips, tools, training, and other capacity-building mechanisms to  strengthen agency performance management and facilitate cross-agency  learning and cooperation. As specified by GPRAMA, the PIC is chaired by  OMB’s Deputy Director for Management and composed of the  performance improvement officers (PIO) from the 24 Chief Financial  Officers Act agencies, as well as any other PIOs and individuals identified  by OMB. Our prior work found that the PIC holds two types of meetings— a “principals only” meeting open only to PIOs and a broader meeting  open to PIOs and other agency staff. In addition, the PIC sponsors  working groups focused on issues related to implementation of GPRAMA,  such as internal agency reviews. The PIC also conducts government- wide training on specific topics, such as strategic planning.
GAO-13-356. goal leader reported participating in the PIC as a member of several of its  working groups.
OMB and PIC staff explained that the PIC interacts with agency PIOs and  deputy PIOs as their primary points of contact, so staff generally do not  reach out directly to agency priority goal leaders. OMB and PIC staff said  that they see the PIO as the key official in managing agency  performance, and focus on PIOs and their staff because of the  importance of equipping them with the capability to provide support within  their agencies on a variety of issues. Additionally, they focus on the PIO  rather than other officials to avoid undercutting the PIO’s relevance. In  line with this, several goal leaders we interviewed noted that interactions  with the PIC are handled by other offices within their agencies, such as  performance offices. They rely on these staff to pass along relevant  information. For example, the Chief of NASA’s Strategic Planning and  Performance Management Branch explained that either she or the  agency’s PIO attends PIC meetings, and then shares relevant information  with goal leaders and others within the agency. NASA officials provided  us with copies of a monthly newsletter that the agency uses to distribute  information internally on performance management. The August 2013  newsletter included information on the latest version of OMB’s Circular A- 11, and on upcoming deadlines for activities related to the agency’s  APGs, performance plans, and other products.
Although the PIC has focused to date on working with PIOs to share  information with agencies, OMB and PIC staff identified several examples  of information sharing with goal leaders. OMB and PIC staff provided us  with examples of products the PIC developed for goal leaders, including a  guide to best practices for setting milestones, a priority goal setting guide,  and a priority goal evaluation tool, designed to help agencies set APGs  and drive discussion around them. Additionally, they said that they held  meetings with agency PIOs shortly after the APGs for 2012 and 2013  were set, and that these meetings included goal leaders. Agenda items  included a discussion of agencies’ performance management approaches  and selected APGs. Additionally, the PIC provided us with copies of  agendas from PIC meetings, including a January 2012 meeting at which  there was a goal leader panel. A former goal leader of one of the APGs in  our sample told us that she participated in the panel and provided a copy  of her talking points, which focused on her experience working on  previous agency goals and factors she identified for success. PIC staff  also told us that they invited goal leaders to a recent meeting they held in  February 2014 focused on implementing successful strategic reviews.
Although the PIC has developed products and information aimed at goal  leaders, it may be missing opportunities to facilitate greater information  sharing among them. As described earlier in this report, goal leaders we  interviewed have encountered common challenges in managing APGs,  and also identified practices that may be useful to other goal leaders and  deputy goal leaders. Additionally, goal leaders of APGs of similar program  types may be interested in sharing information. For example, several of  the APGs in our sample relied on program types such as grants,  contracts, regulations, and research and development. Although goal  leaders reported sharing information within their agencies and with  outside officials working on issues related to their goals, they and their  deputy goal leaders lacked the means to identify and share information  with other goal leaders who are facing similar challenges or interested in  similar topics. The deputy goal leader for DOT’s Advance the  Development of Passenger Rail in the United States APG told us that he  would find it useful to discuss common issues with others working on  APGs, in particular related to performance measures. As highlighted  earlier, our prior work has found that agencies have experienced common  issues in measuring various types of programs, and recommended that  the Director of OMB work with the PIC to develop a detailed approach to  examine these difficulties, including identifying and sharing any promising   Such an approach could also include direct outreach by OMB  practices.and the PIC to goal leaders and deputy goal leaders.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Senior agency officials’ commitment to and accountability for improving  performance are important factors in determining the success of  performance and management improvement initiatives. GPRAMA’s  provision that agencies assign responsibility for achieving APGs—which  reflect agencies’ highest priorities—to goal leaders is a powerful  mechanism for promoting greater involvement and accountability in  performance management. Although goal leaders we interviewed cited  several positive effects of the goal leader designation and related  GPRAMA requirements, there are areas where goal leader effectiveness  could be improved. These lessons learned may also be relevant for  leaders of other high-level goals, such as agency strategic objectives and  government-wide cross-agency priority goals.
First, a number of the goal leaders we interviewed did not have deputy  goal leaders, although OMB guidance states that they should. OMB staff  also stated that the deputy performs the important function of connecting  goal strategy with goal implementation. Additionally, a little more than 40  percent of the APGs in our sample had changes in goal leaders between  February 2012 and September 2013. This level of turnover may be higher  as the current presidential administration nears an end and goal leaders  who are political appointees leave their positions. Officially designating a  deputy goal leader provides clear responsibility and accountability for goal  achievement, and as shown already, deputies can help provide continuity  during times of goal leader transition.
Another missed opportunity in implementing the goal leader role is to fully  utilize performance plans as an accountability mechanism for both goal  leaders and their deputies. Performance plans are a tool for ensuring that  officials are evaluated on and held accountable for defined outcomes, but  the majority of the performance plans we reviewed did not fully reflect  responsibility for APGs. Although other mechanisms, such as QPRs, also  promote accountability, agencies that do not clearly link goal leader and  deputy performance plans with APGs may be missing opportunities to  ensure that goal leaders and deputies are held accountable for goal  progress. Because APGs by definition reflect the highest priorities of each  agency, accountability is especially important.
Goal leaders also identified several common challenges and practices  related to managing APGs, but may be missing opportunities to share this  information with their peers across government. We found that they have  shared this information to some extent within their agencies and with  officials from outside agencies who are working on similar issues.  However, they lacked a means through which to identify others facing  similar challenges or interested in similar topics. One such missed  opportunity concerns sharing information among goal leaders about how  to measure the performance of similar types of programs, such as grants,  that multiple agencies use to drive progress on their APGs. Similarly, our  review indicates that there are different views among goal leaders and  agencies on how to implement OMB’s requirement that they identify and  make public information about tax expenditures that contribute to APGs.  The PIC, which is charged with facilitating the exchange of information  among agencies, could play a greater role in fostering information sharing  on these issues and others among goal leaders and deputy goal leaders  to help improve agency performance.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To ensure goal leader and deputy goal leader accountability, we  recommend that the Director of OMB work with agencies to take the  following two actions:
Appoint a deputy goal leader to support each agency priority goal  leader.
Ensure that agency priority goal leader and deputy goal leader  performance plans demonstrate a clear connection with agency  priority goals.
To better promote the sharing of information among goal leaders and  their deputies, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with the PIC  to further involve agency priority goal leaders and their deputies in  sharing information on common challenges and practices related to  agency priority goal management.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) and to the 24 agencies that developed  agency priority goals (APG) for 2012 and 2013. A full list of these  agencies is shown in appendix I. OMB staff provided us with oral  comments and generally agreed with our findings, conclusions, and  recommendations. OMB staff, as well as officials from the Department of  Health and Human Services, National Aeronautics and Space  Administration, and Office of Personnel Management (OPM) also  provided technical comments, which we incorporated, as appropriate.
On July 1, 2014 our liaison from the Department of Labor’s (DOL) Office  of the Assistant Secretary for Policy e-mailed us a summary of DOL  officials’ comments on the draft report. DOL officials disagreed with some  of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in our draft report. We  discuss their specific comments and our evaluation of them below:
DOL officials raised concerns about our characterization of the  department’s quarterly performance reviews (QPR) for the Reduce  Worker Fatalities APG, which is jointly led by two goal leaders, each  from a different DOL component agency. DOL officials stated that our  report implies that DOL’s practice of conducting separate reviews of  safety and health agencies is a barrier to coordination of efforts to  achieve the shared APG. In response, we made changes to the draft  report to include the DOL officials’ views on the purposes of their  separate reviews. Regardless of the formats of agencies’ performance  reviews, however, both OMB guidance and our prior work emphasize  the importance of including relevant contributors to APGs in these  reviews.
DOL officials stated that they believe our report gives the incorrect  impressions that 1) organizing QPRs by components is a  shortcoming, and 2) the sole purpose of QPRs is to manage APGs.  As we previously explained, we do not take issue with DOL holding  QPRs by component, and agree with DOL officials that this format is  not a shortcoming. We also agree that QPRs may focus on broader  issues than APGs. For both of these issues, what is important is that  QPRs include relevant APG contributors.
DOL officials commented on our discussion of including external  parties in QPRs. They stated that they have other sufficient ways of  collaborating with outside contributors. They do not believe it would be  beneficial to include stakeholders with very specific concerns in a  detailed policy and operations review of all agency component  performance management issues in these reviews. In response, we  clarified in the report that both OMB guidance and our prior work  emphasized including relevant external goal contributors in these  performance reviews.
DOL officials stated that they consider figure 1, which lists goal leader  competencies identified by OPM, to be misleading because it implies  that the goal leader position is new. They suggested that we remove  the figure. They referenced our finding that some officials were  already serving in a similar role before becoming goal leaders. While  this is true, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 established the goal  leader position in law and assigned specific responsibilities to goal  leaders. Figure 1 depicts the goal leader competencies described in  OPM’s January 2012 memorandum for chief human capital officers.  So, we retained this figure in the report.
DOL officials raised concerns about whether the report includes  sufficient evidence to support our conclusion that additional OMB and  Performance Improvement Council (PIC) outreach to goal leaders and  deputies would improve goal management. As we stated in the report,  while we acknowledged that the PIC has already conducted some  limited outreach to agency goal leaders, we found that goal leaders  and their deputies could benefit from additional information sharing  facilitated by the PIC. OMB staff agreed with our recommendation  related to this finding, so we did not make any changes to the report  to address this concern.
Finally, DOL officials recommended removing or revising our  recommendation that OMB ensure that agencies have deputy goal  leaders in place because they felt it implies that the designation of a  deputy drives goal achievement. Our recommendation is based on  several factors, including OMB guidance requiring agencies to assign  deputy goal leaders, and OMB staff’s view that deputies perform the  important function of connecting APG leadership and strategy with  implementation, as discussed in our report. Furthermore, OMB staff  agreed with this recommendation, so we did not make any changes to  the report to address this concern.
The following agencies had no comments on the draft report: Department  of Agriculture, Army Corps of Engineers – Civil Works, Department of  Commerce, Department of Defense, Department of Education,  Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, General  Services Administration, Department of Homeland Security, Department  of Housing and Urban Development, Department of the Interior,  Department of Justice, National Science Foundation, Small Business  Administration, Social Security Administration, Department of State,  Department of Transportation, Department of the Treasury, U.S. Agency  for International Development, and the Department of Veterans Affairs.  The written response from the Social Security Administration is  reproduced in appendix III.
We are sending copies of this report to the Director of OMB as well as  appropriate congressional committees and other interested parties. In  addition, this report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff members have any questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this  report are listed in appendix IV.
section_title: Appendix I: GAO Sample of Agency Priority Goals for 2012-2013
paragraphs: Agency/ Goal  Department of Agriculture: Assist rural communities build and maintain  prosperity through increased agricultural exports.  Army Corps of Engineers – Civil Works: Help facilitate commercial  navigation by providing safe, reliable, highly cost-effective, and  environmentally-sustainable waterborne transportation systems.
Army Corps of Engineers – Civil Works: Improve the current operating  performance and asset reliability of hydropower plants in support of  Executive Order 13514.  Department of Commerce: Advance commercialization of new  technologies by reducing patent application pendency and backlog.
James R. Hannon, Chief, Operations and Regulatory  Community of Practice  Teresa Rea, Acting Under Secretary of Commerce for  Intellectual Property and Acting Director of the United  States Patent and Trademark Office  Department of Commerce: Expand broadband service to communities.  Lawrence Strickling, Assistant Secretary for  Department of Defense (DOD): Reform DOD’s acquisition process.
Department of Defense: Improve energy performance.
Department of Education: Improve outcomes for all children from birth  through third grade.
Department of Education: Demonstrate progress in turning around the  nation’s lowest-performing schools.  Department of Education: Improve students’ ability to afford and  complete college.  Department of Energy: Make significant progress toward securing the  most vulnerable nuclear materials worldwide within 4 years.
Department of Energy: Reduce the cost of batteries for electric drive  vehicles to help increase the market for plug-in hybrids and all-electric  vehicles and thereby reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas  emissions.
Department of Energy: Make solar energy as cheap as traditional  sources of electricity.
Agency/ Goal  Department of Energy: Prioritization of scientific facilities to ensure  optimal benefit from federal investments.  Environmental Protection Agency: Clean up contaminated sites and  make them ready for use.  Environmental Protection Agency: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions  from cars and trucks.  General Services Administration: Manage customer agency real  estate portfolio needs in a cost-effective and environmentally sustainable  manner.
Department of Health and Human Services: Reduce foodborne illness  in the population.
Department of Health and Human Services: Increase the number of  health centers certified as patient centered medical homes.
Department of Health and Human Services: Improve health care  through meaningful use of health information technology.  Department of Homeland Security: Improve the efficiency of the  process to detain and remove criminal aliens from the United States.  Department of Housing and Urban Development: Reducing  homelessness.
subsections: section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Preserve affordable rental housing.
paragraphs: Position vacant at the time of our interviews (we met  instead with the performance improvement officer and  deputy performance improvement officer)
section_title: Department of Housing and Urban Development: Prevent foreclosures.
paragraphs: Department of the Interior: Build the next generation of conservation  and community leaders by supporting youth employment at the  Department of the Interior.
Department of the Interior: Reduce violent crime in Indian  communities.
Department of the Interior: Enable capability to increase the available  water supply in the western states through conservation related  programs to ensure adequate and safe water supplies.
Department of Justice: Protect those most in need of help - with special  emphasis on child exploitation and civil rights.
section_title: Agency/ Goal Department of Justice: Reduce gang violence.
paragraphs: Department of Labor: Create a model safety and return-to-work  program.
Department of Labor: Reduce worker fatalities.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Sustain operations  and full utilization of the International Space Station.
National Aeronautics and Space Administration: Develop the nation’s  next generation human space flight system to allow for travel beyond low  earth orbit.  National Science Foundation (NSF): Increase opportunities for  research and education through public access to high-value digital  products of NSF-funded research.
Office of Personnel Management: Reduce federal retirement  processing time.  Office of Personnel Management: Ensure high quality federal  employees.
Kenneth Zawodny, Jr., Associate Director, Retirement  Services   Angela Bailey, Chief Operating Officer  (note: at the time of our interview, Ms. Bailey’s title was  Associate Director of Employee Services)
Small Business Administration: Increase small business participation  in government contracting.
Small Business Administration: Process disaster assistance  applications efficiently.
Social Security Administration: Reduce Supplemental Security  Income overpayments.  Department of State/U.S. Agency for International Development:  Democracy, human rights, and good governance.
section_title: Department of State/U.S. Agency for International Development: Procurement reform. Department of State/U.S. Agency for International Development: Economic statecraft. Department of State/U.S. Agency for International Development: Food security.
section_title: Agency/ Goal Department of Transportation: Reduce risk of aviation accidents.
paragraphs: Department of Transportation: Advance the development of passenger  rail in the United States.
Department of the Treasury: Increase electronic transactions with the  public to improve service, prevent fraud, and reduce costs.  Department of Veterans Affairs: Assist in housing 24,400 (12,200 per  year) additional homeless veterans and reduce the number of homeless  veterans to 35,000 in 2013, to be measured in the January 2014 point-in- time homelessness count.
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope and Methodology
paragraphs: The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires GAO to review  the act’s implementation. This report is part of a series of reviews planned  around the requirement. The objectives of this report are to: (1) evaluate  the roles and responsibilities of agency priority goal leaders in managing  goal progress and the extent to which they are held accountable for  achievement of priority goals; (2) review the extent to which priority goal  leaders collaborate with other programs and agencies that contribute to  the achievement of the priority goals; and (3) describe any challenges  and practices identified by priority goal leaders in managing goals, and  evaluate the extent to which they exchange this information with other  priority goal leaders.
To achieve our objectives, we focused our review on the goal leaders for  a random sample of agency priority goals (APG) for 2012 and 2013.  There were 103 APGs for 2012 and 2013, across 24 agencies. The  number of APGs per agency ranged from two to eight. The sample we  selected included nearly half (47) of these APGs. We chose our sample  to ensure that it included at least one goal from each of the 24 agencies  and approximately half of the total number of APGs per agency. Although  our sample represented a significant portion of APGs and goal leaders,  we did not generalize information to the population of APGs or goal  leaders. Appendix I includes a list of the APGs in our sample and the  associated goal leaders we interviewed.
To inform our work on all three objectives, we reviewed GPRAMA and  related Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, along with  our prior work on performance management roles, APGs, and  interagency collaboration. We also reviewed information on APGs and  goal leaders published on Performance.gov, a government-wide  performance website. We used information from Performance.gov  throughout the engagement, but all references to data from  Performance.gov in this report are as of May 23, 2014, the date we most  recently downloaded information from the website. To assess the  reliability of APG information available through Performance.gov, we  collected information from agencies and reviewed relevant documentation  and our prior work. We concluded that information from the website was  sufficiently reliable for the purpose of drawing our sample of APGs and  providing contextual information on APGs. We did not evaluate agency  data on goal progress to determine if APG progress they described to us  and on Performance.gov was accurate. But, we did ask agency officials to  verify information on goal progress we report from Performance.gov.
We conducted semistructured interviews with the goal leaders for 43 of  the 47 APGs in our sample, for a total of 46 goal leaders. The number of  goal leaders does not equal the number of goals because some goals  had more than one leader, while some goal leaders were responsible for  more than one goal in our sample. In most cases where there was more  than one goal leader, we interviewed all goal leaders. The one exception  was for a goal for which the agency had identified two goal leaders, but  noted that one was the primary goal leader. In that case, we only  interviewed that official. The goal leaders for the other four APGs in our  sample had either left their agencies or were about to leave at the time of  our interviews. For these goals, we interviewed other agency officials who  were knowledgeable about the goals, such as deputy goal leaders and  performance management staff. Two of the departing goal leaders  provided us with written responses to our questions. We also interviewed  Performance Improvement Council (PIC) and OMB staff.
To address our first objective, we obtained and analyzed documentation  from goal leaders related to their roles and responsibilities, such as  records showing how they track and communicate goal progress. We also  obtained individual performance plans from all goal leaders and deputy  goal leaders who had relevant plans—32 goal leaders and 35 deputy goal  leaders—and analyzed them to understand how they are used to hold  officials accountable for goal progress. We focused our analysis on how  closely expectations in the plans were aligned to the APG for which the  officials were responsible. Specifically, we evaluated (1) whether the  plans specify that officials are responsible for the APG; (2) whether  performance standards are linked to APG outcomes; (3) if the plans  include broad responsibilities for an office or mission area under which  the APG is likely to fall; and (4) if they hold officials responsible for one or  more activities that could contribute to progress on the APG. To assess  goal leader and deputy goal leader performance plans, we reviewed our  prior work on individual and organizational performance. We also  reviewed our prior work on data-driven performance reviews (also  referred to as quarterly performance reviews) as part of our examination  of accountability mechanisms for goal achievement and goal leaders’  collaboration. We also reviewed Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  guidance and regulations on performance management, although we  recognize that not all of the performance plans we reviewed were within  the coverage of OPM guidance and regulations. To further address this  objective, we also included questions in our interviews with goal leaders  about their roles and responsibilities, deputy goal leader roles and  responsibilities, accountability for goal achievement, and their  assessments of the effects of the goal leader designation. We also  included related questions in our interview with OMB and PIC staff.
To address our second objective, we obtained and analyzed  documentation from goal leaders related to collaboration, such as  minutes and agenda of meetings during 2012 and 2013 at which APGs  were discussed, and records of agency analysis of different program  types that contribute to APGs, such as grants. To determine how  agencies are identifying and analyzing the contribution of tax  expenditures to their APGs, we identified five APGs in our sample that   For this subset of APGs,  have a close connection to tax expenditures.we included questions during our interviews with goal leaders and their  staff about agencies’ consideration of tax expenditures. We also asked  goal leaders about how they coordinate within and outside of their  agencies, and how they identify and analyze the contributions of different  program types. We asked related questions in our interview with OMB  and PIC staff.
To address our third objective, we obtained and analyzed examples of  ways in which goal leaders shared information, such as talking points  used at presentations and copies of e-mail between agencies and OMB  and the PIC. We included questions in our interviews with goal leaders  about what they consider to be promising practices and lessons learned  in managing APGs, and the extent to which they and deputy goal leaders  share this type of information within and outside of their agencies. We  also asked OMB and PIC staff about actions the PIC has taken to reach  out to and facilitate information exchange among goal leaders.
We conducted our work from June 2013 to July 2014 in accordance with  generally accepted government audit standards. Those standards require  that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate  evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions  based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained  provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on  our audit objectives.
section_title: Appendix III: Comments from the Social Security Administration
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director,  and Kathleen Padulchick, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the development  of this report. Jenny Chanley, Karin Fangman, Erik Kjeldgaard, Michael  O’Neill, and Cynthia Saunders made significant contributions to all  aspects of this report.