Program Evaluation: Strategies to Facilitate Agencies' Use of Evaluation in Program Management and Policy Making
Published: 2013-06-26T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) aims to ensure that agencies use performance information in decision making and holds them accountable for achieving results and improving government performance. GPRAMA requires GAO to evaluate the act's implementation; this report is one of a series to assess its initial implementation. GAO examined the extent of agencies' use of program evaluations--a particular form of performance information, factors that may hinder their use in program management and policy making, and strategies that may facilitate their use.
GAO surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,391 federal civilian managers and supervisors to obtain their perspectives on several results-oriented management topics, including the extent of and barriers to their evaluation use. GAO also interviewed the Office of Management and Budget and evaluators on barriers to evaluation use and strategies to facilitate it at five agencies selected for their evaluation experience in the Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Labor. These officials' views cannot be generalized but provide useful insights.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: In a governmentwide survey, GAO found that most federal managers lack recentevaluations of their programs. Thirty-seven percent reported that an evaluation had been completed within the past 5 years of any program, operation, or project they were involved in. Another 40 percent of managers reported that they did not know if an evaluation had been completed. However, 80 percent of managers who did have evaluations reported that those evaluations contributed to a moderate or greater extent to improving program management or performance and to assessing program effectiveness or value. Fewer reported that evaluations contributed moderately or more to allocating resources within a program (67 percent) or streamlining programs (61 percent).
Of the 37 percent of federal managers who had evaluations, the factor most often rated as having hindered use to a great or very great extent was lack of resources to implement the evaluation findings (33 percent). The next most frequently reported barriers related to program context, such as resolving differences of opinion among program stakeholders (23 percent). Other issues were not considered significant barriers by these managers, such as the lack of credibility or timeliness of study results, lack of leadership commitment or support for using evaluations, or difficulty accepting unexpected findings. Managers reported limited knowledge of congressional support for using results; 39 percent reported not being able to judge whether this was a barrier.
The agency evaluators GAO interviewed noted that it usually takes a number of studies, rather than just one, to influence change in programs or policies. They described using evaluations to modify existing or develop new programs and share what works with their program partners. They emphasized three basic strategies to facilitate evaluation influence:
1. Demonstrate leadership support of evaluation for accountability and improvement by promoting capacity building and the use of evidence and funding evaluation offices to promote and support the use of evidence.
2. Build a strong body of evidence by attending to rigor in whatever methods are used and accumulating a knowledge base from which to respond to varied questions over time or fast-breaking policy discussions.
3. Engage stakeholders throughout the evaluation process--developing relationships to gain their input to planning and buy-in; providing assistance, training, and incentives; and disseminating usable messages.
GAO observes that
Agencies' lack of evaluations may be the greatest barrier to their informing program managers and policy makers.
Seeking out in advance the interests and concerns of program stakeholders, including Congress, can help ensure that evaluations will provide the information necessary for effective management and oversight.
Comprehensive evaluations that examine the coverage and effectiveness of federal programs and policies aimed at achieving similar outcomes could be key to coordinating and streamlining programs to reduce duplication and overlap.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO is not making recommendations.
The Departments of Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Labor, and Office of Management and Budget staff provided technical comments on a draft of this report that we incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The federal government faces a number of significant fiscal,  management, and performance challenges. In the absence of policy  change, rapid growth in federal government debt will increasingly  constrain budgetary flexibility and the ability to address current and future  needs. Tough choices will be required to reform programs and  management activities to reduce costs and better link resources to  results. The reporting requirements of the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) were intended to provide both congressional  and executive decision makers with more objective information on the  relative effectiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending.  Although GPRA helped improve the availability of agency performance  information, in our previous surveys, about half of federal managers  reported using performance data for decision making to a great or very  great extent.
The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) aims to ensure that  agencies use performance information in decision making and holds them  accountable for achieving results and improving government  performance. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB), too, has encouraged agencies to improve government effectiveness by increasing  their use of evidence and rigorous program evaluation in making budget,  management, and policy decisions. GPRAMA requires GAO to evaluate  the act’s implementation at several junctures; this report is one of a series  responding to the mandate to assess its initial implementation by June  30, 2013. The report addresses agencies’ access to and use of  evaluation studies—a particular form of program performance  information—for decisions.
Our objectives were to identify  1. the extent to which federal agencies are using program evaluations  in selected program management and policy making activities;  2. factors, if any, that hinder agencies’ use of evaluation in program  management and policy making; and  3. factors or strategies that facilitate evaluation use.
To address our objectives, we surveyed a stratified random sample of  4,391 persons from a population of approximately 148,300 civilian  managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive branch agencies  covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990. The questionnaire  was designed to obtain the observations and perceptions of respondents  on various aspects of such results-oriented management topics as the  presence and use of performance measures, hindrances to measuring  performance and using performance information, and program evaluation  use. The web-based survey was administered between November 2012  and February 2013. About 69 percent of the eligible sample responded  with usable questionnaires. The sample allowed us to generalize our  results to the governmentwide population of federal managers. (See  appendix I for more information on the survey.) We further discuss the  survey’s results in a June 2013 report summarizing our body of work on  the implementation of GPRAMA and in an electronic supplement showing  the responses to all survey items at the governmentwide and individual  agency levels.
In addition, we interviewed OMB staff and evaluation officials at five  federal agencies on factors or strategies that have hindered or facilitated  these agencies’ use of evaluation results in decision making. Selected for  their experience with evaluation, these agencies were the Food and  Nutrition Service (FNS) at the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), the  Administration for Children and Families (ACF) and the Centers for  Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) at the U.S. Department of Health  and Human Services (HHS), and the Employment and Training  Administration (ETA) and Chief Evaluation Office (CEO) at the U.S.  Department of Labor. To identify agencies meeting our criteria, we  reviewed previous GAO reports and agency documents for evidence of  emphasis on conducting evaluations. For example, we searched for  examples of agencies’ incorporating the results of program evaluations in  their strategic plans. We cannot generalize this information  governmentwide but we believe it supplements and clarifies the survey  results and provides useful strategies that other agencies can adapt.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2012 to June 2013  in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Program evaluations are systematic studies that use research methods to  address specific questions about program performance. Evaluation is  closely related to performance measurement and reporting. Whereas  performance measurement entails the ongoing monitoring and reporting  of program progress toward preestablished goals, program evaluation  typically assesses the achievement of a program’s objectives and other  aspects of performance in the context in which the program operates. In  particular, evaluations can be designed to isolate the causal impacts of  programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in  order to assess a program’s effectiveness. Thus, an evaluation study can  provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by  measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually,  explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or  assessing whether one approach is more effective than another.
Evaluation can play a key role in program planning, management, and  oversight by providing feedback on both program design and execution to  program managers, legislative and executive branch policy officials, and  the public. The program evaluation literature has identified different ways  that program managers and policy makers can use evaluation results to  (1) clarify understanding of how the program does or does not address a  problem of interest, (2) make changes to improve the design or  management of an existing program or policy, (3) support or change  resource allocations within or across programs, (4) share promising  practices or lessons learned with service providers or program partners,  or (5) improve the quality of program or policy assessment.
In addition, the program evaluation literature has identified influences on  whether evaluation results are used for decision making such as (1)  characteristics of the evaluation study (for example, quality and  relevance), (2) agency evaluation capacity (skills and understanding), (3)  policy context of decision making, and (4) stakeholder involvement in the  evaluation. For example, our recent reviews of evaluations of programs  funded under the President’s Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) and  programs supporting education in science, technology, engineering, and  mathematics concluded that limitations in evaluation quality, planning,  and dissemination were barriers to the use of study results.
subsections: section_title: Our Interviews at Health and Human Services Agencies
paragraphs: In HHS, we interviewed officials at ACF and CDC because of their mature  evaluation experience and officials from the Office of the Assistant  Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) because they coordinate  HHS’s evaluation, research, and demonstration activities and report to the  Congress on its evaluations. ASPE conducts some studies on cross- cutting issues but primarily relies on other agencies to evaluate their own  programs.
ACF oversees and helps finance programs to improve the social and  economic well-being of families, individuals, and communities—the Head  Start program is an example. ACF also assists Temporary Assistance for  Needy Families (TANF) as well as state programs for child support  enforcement. The principal office for managing evaluation at ACF is the  Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE), which also  provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight related  to strategic planning, performance measurement, research, and  evaluation methods. OPRE conducts statistical, policy, and program  analyses and synthesizes and disseminates research and demonstration  findings. It consults with outside groups on ideas that feed into program  and evaluation planning, including researchers, program partners, and  other content area experts.
CDC is charged with protecting the public health by developing and  providing to persons and communities information and tools for  preventing and controlling disease, promoting health, and preparing for  new health threats. Some evaluation activities are funded by the Public  Health Service (PHS) evaluation set-aside; in 2012, the Secretary of  Health and Human Services was authorized to use up to 2.5 percent of  appropriations for programs authorized by the PHS Act for evaluating the  implementation and effectiveness of those programs. The set-aside is  also used to fund databases of the National Center for Health Statistics  and programs that cut across CDC’s divisions. Presently, the divisions  within CDC control most of the evaluation funding that is focused on their  respective programs. In 2010, CDC created the Office of the Associate  Director for Program (OADPG)  to promote program improvement  through evidence-based practice. Among other duties, the office provides  CDC-wide direction, standardization, and technical assistance for  program planning, performance and accountability, and evaluation.
In addition to interviews with OADPG, we interviewed evaluation staff  from CDC’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP) and from the  National Diabetes Prevention Program (National DPP) in the Division of  Diabetes Translation (DDT) to discuss their use of evaluations. DHAP is  charged with preventing HIV infection and reducing the incidence of HIV- related illness and death. DHAP provides national leadership and support  for HIV prevention research and for developing, implementing, and  evaluating evidence-based HIV prevention programs. It also conducts  surveillance and tests biomedical interventions to reduce HIV  transmission and progression. The Division of Diabetes Translation  focuses on translating science into everyday practice. For example, the  National Diabetes Prevention Program promotes evidence-based lifestyle  change programs to prevent type 2 diabetes. The National DPP is a  public-private partnership of community organizations, insurers,  employers, health care organizations, and government agencies  designed to help establish a network of structured, evidence-based  lifestyle change programs for people at high risk for the disease.
section_title: Our Interviews at Labor Agencies
paragraphs: Labor’s ETA plays an important role in providing job training, employment  assistance, and labor market information and income maintenance  services primarily through state and local workforce development  systems. The Office of Policy Development and Research (OPDR)  provides ETA with strategic approaches to improve performance and  outcomes through research, demonstrations, and the evaluation of major  ETA programs. In addition to ETA’s staff, we interviewed staff from  Labor’s Chief Evaluation Office. Labor established the Chief Evaluation  Officer position in 2010 within its Office of the Assistant Secretary for  Policy to manage and coordinate Labor’s evaluation agenda. The Chief  Evaluation Office supports a wide range of high-priority and special  research and evaluation activities across the department. To foster  research relevant to policy, these activities include developing designs  and proposed methodology (experimental as well as nonexperimental  designs), collecting and analyzing data, maintaining information systems,  developing reports, convening meetings, and briefing federal executive  and other staff.
section_title: Our Interviews at Agriculture Agencies
paragraphs: FNS works within USDA’s Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services to end  hunger and obesity, administering 15 federal nutrition assistance  programs, including the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program  (SNAP), and school meals. FNS conducts a variety of studies,  evaluations, and related activities to meet nutrition assistance program  goals. Its Office of Policy Support (OPS) conducts program analysis and  assessment to inform the policymaking and management of federal  nutrition assistance. OPS is FNS’s coordinating point for program-related  nutrition and policy services, working to coordinate its strategic and  operational planning processes; its multidisciplinary staff analyze and  evaluate key policy and program issues for the Congress and the public.
section_title: Federal Managers Reported That, Where Available, Evaluations Had Helped Improve Programs
subsections: section_title: Most Managers Lacked Recent Evaluations of Their Programs
paragraphs: Our governmentwide survey of federal managers found that the majority  did not have recent evaluations of their programs. Just over a third (37  percent) reported that an evaluation had been completed in the past 5  years on any program, operation, or project they were involved in.  Significantly more Senior Executive Service (SES) managers reported  having had evaluations than non-SES managers (54 percent versus 36  percent). This should be expected, since SES managers are likely to  oversee a broader range of programs than non-SES managers, any one  of which might have been evaluated.
Moreover, a similar number of federal managers (40 percent) reported  that they did not know if an evaluation had been completed. We believe,  for three reasons, that this may represent midlevel staff’s lack of  familiarity with activities outside their programs rather than their problems  in understanding the definition of “program evaluation.” First, in the fairly  broad definition of evaluation we provided in the survey, we included both  implementation and outcome or effectiveness evaluation. Second, many  more non-SES managers than SES managers reported not knowing if  there had been an evaluation (41 percent compared to 24 percent). Third,  in other questions in our survey about GPRAMA provisions, larger  proportions of midlevel managers reported that they had not heard of  GPRAMA (21 percent of SES, 50 percent of non-SES managers) or were  not familiar with any of the cross-agency priority goals it requires OMB, in  coordination with agencies, to establish (26 percent of SES, 41 percent of  non-SES managers).
Of the 37 percent of managers who had evaluations, almost all (90  percent) reported that the agency or program itself conducted or  contracted for these evaluations. Many of these managers also reported  that studies had been conducted by their Inspector General or GAO (46  and 38 percent, respectively) or others such as independent boards or  commissions (23 percent). Because of variation in the responsibilities of  federal managers, we cannot deduce from these results how many  programs have been evaluated. However, even had additional  evaluations been conducted by others within or outside an agency, if  managers were unaware of them, their results would not have been  available for use.
section_title: Most Managers Who Had Evaluations Reported That Evaluations Helped Them Assess and Improve Programs
paragraphs: For the 37 percent of federal managers who had evaluations, the survey  asked to what extent those evaluations had contributed to a variety of  program management and policy making activities. Eighty to 81 percent  of these managers reported that evaluations contributed to a moderate or  greater extent to implementing changes to improve program management  or performance and in assessing program effectiveness or value. Fewer  managers reported that evaluations contributed to resource allocation or  informing the public. Figure 1 summarizes their responses to the 11  activities the survey posed.
Managers reported that evaluations had contributed to a moderate or  greater extent to their taking direct actions to improve programs such as  implementing changes to improve program management or  performance (81 percent),  sharing what works with others (73 percent), developing or revising performance goals (72 percent), and designing or supporting program reforms (71 percent).
They reported that evaluations had to a lesser extent helped them  streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities (61 percent).
The evaluators we interviewed provided several examples of how  evaluations had contributed to their modifying existing or developing new  programs. For example, the FNS evaluators stated that conducting a  series of cost-effectiveness studies had led to replacing paper coupons  with electronic benefit cards in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance  Program (previously, food stamps).
CDC, too, led the design of the lifestyle change diabetes prevention  program for persons at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes based on a  systematic review of the research and evaluation evidence on diabetes  prevention. CDC joined with federal researchers, state health officials,  and healthcare industry representatives to review the evidence to identify  the key features strongly associated with successful diabetes  prevention—weight loss, greater physical activity, stress management,  and supportive group interaction. This strong research base laid the basis  for the program and was said to have been critical in obtaining support for  the program. “the process by which evaluation influences change is iterative, messy, and complex.  Policy changes do not occur as a direct result of an answer to an evaluation question;  rather, a body of evaluation results, research, and other evidence influences policy and  practice over time.”
The evaluators explained that sharing what works with others is often the  most direct action federal managers can take in decentralized programs  where they do not have direct control of program activities conducted by  others at the state or local level. In the public workforce system, states  and localities set the amount of a voucher or Individual Training Account  for individual jobseekers to obtain employment training, as well as how  much guidance and direction counselors provide. ETA conducted a  comparative effectiveness evaluation of how different service delivery  models affected participation in counseling, training choices,  expenditures, and impacts on participants’ earnings. It found that  providing more flexible, higher-value training awards was cost effective  and had positive impacts on job seekers’ long-term earnings. ETA then  disseminated the results to state and local employment agencies to help  inform their choice of programming.
HHS contracted for an evaluation review to identify programs effective in  reducing teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections or sexual  risk behaviors. The review rated the rigor of program impact studies and  described the strength of evidence supporting different program models.  Findings from the review were released along with grant announcements  for the Office of Adolescent Health’s Teen Pregnancy Prevention  program, which supports the replication of evidence-based models and  tests of additional models and innovative strategies. ACF evaluators  disseminate their evaluation findings to researchers and practitioners  through a listserv and events such as their annual Welfare Research and  Evaluation Conference and Head Start’s Biennial National Research  Conference. Since the 1990s these events have presented current  research and evaluation for broad audiences of federal, state, and local  government officials, practitioners, and researchers.
GAO, 2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap, and  Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits, GAO-13-279SP (Washington, D.C.:  Apr. 9, 2013); 2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and  Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-12-342SP (Washington,  D.C.: Feb. 28, 2012); and Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government  Programs, Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue, GAO-11-318SP (Washington, D.C.:  Mar. 1, 2011). and results to help inform decisions about how to streamline these  programs. Evaluation studies, if carefully designed, can address specific  questions about the comparative effectiveness of and extent of overlap  among related programs. Common outcome measures are an important  first step in comparing the effectiveness of alternative approaches.  Collecting targeted data to compare the programs’ actual coverage of  specific localities or populations can clarify the extent of duplication and  reveal opportunities for streamlining or better coordinating these  programs.
For example, ETA used state data to “unbundle” the effects of  Unemployment Insurance from other forms of assistance for low-income  workers and families (such as SNAP and TANF) that were unavailable  from analyses of national macroeconomic data. Officials noted that the  evaluation, which looked at results during an earlier recession, helped the  Congress understand the utility of the program and factored into their  considerations on whether to extend benefits. The macroeconomic  simulation models reaffirmed the value of these benefits as an automatic  economic stabilizer during the latest recession.
section_title: Increasing Understanding of Program Performance
paragraphs: Managers reported that evaluations contributed to a moderate or greater  extent to improving their understanding of program performance, such as  in their assessing program effectiveness, value, or worth (80 percent); increasing understanding about the program or topic (76 percent); and  supplementing or explaining performance results (75 percent).
The primary purpose of program and policy evaluations, of course, is to  provide systematic evidence on how well a program is working, whether it  is operating as intended or achieving its intended results. All the  evaluators we interviewed indicated that each evaluation study added to a  body of evidence and knowledge about the program that would influence  policy over time. ACF evaluators noted that a 2012 report by the Advisory  Committee on Head Start Research and Evaluation had drawn on a  plethora of evidence about the program. The committee made use of a  large body of knowledge on early childhood program interventions,  including rigorous studies of Head Start and Early Head Start, to develop  a number of recommendations for future research, policy, and practice.  The Advisory Committee’s recommendations were based on an intensive  review and extensive deliberation on the implications of Head Start’s  history and unique features, as well as the current and evolving policy  context for early childhood programs.
Evaluations reportedly also serve as a valuable supplement to routine  performance monitoring. Managers reported that they contributed to a  moderate or greater extent to developing or revising goals (72 percent)  and supplementing or explaining performance results (75 percent). We  have reported that evaluations can help explain the reasons for change  (or lack of change) in program performance as well as measure more  complex forms of performance than can feasibly be obtained on a routine  basis. ETA evaluators noted that performance measures are a good  source of ideas for future research and evaluation, identifying areas that  need attention. Moreover, they saw them as two prongs of evidence- based decision making; evaluation results are often integrated into  program management through the use of performance measures. ACF  evaluators indicated that the funds allocated for the evaluation of the  Health Professions Opportunity Grant program led to the development of  a management information system for the program. The National  Implementation Evaluation is to assess implementation, system change,  and outcomes in improving education and employment opportunities for  TANF recipients and other low-income individuals. In setting up the  program, the evaluators worked with the program staff and grantees to  develop a reporting system to track grantee progress and inform the  evaluation.
section_title: Allocating Program Resources
paragraphs: Fewer managers reported that evaluations contributed to a moderate or  greater extent to allocating resources within the program (67 percent)  than to improving program management or increasing understanding.  Yet, in order to ensure that funds are directed toward activities most likely  to significantly affect the HIV epidemic, CDC incorporated information  from a national HIV-related resource allocation model to revise the way in  which the agency funds health departments for HIV prevention. The new  approach focused more on the highest-impact prevention strategies,  informed in part by data on the costs and efficacy of key interventions for  populations at various levels of risk for acquiring HIV.
Fewer managers also reported that evaluations contributed to a moderate  or greater extent to supporting program budget requests (62 percent).  This result is not surprising because, as we have pointed out, other  factors and priorities influence the budget process. OMB staff noted that  evaluations do not typically address high-stakes issues, such as whether  a program should be continued, but address lower-stakes issues, such as  how program performance might be improved. However, several  evaluators reported that their agencies included evaluation results in their  budget justifications for OMB and the Congress.
section_title: Informing the Public
paragraphs: These federal managers’ use of evaluations appears to be oriented more  internally than externally. Few managers reported that evaluations  contributed to informing the public about how programs were performing  (36 percent rated it as small or no extent, and 26 percent reported that  they had no basis to judge). This does not mean that they do not make  their evaluation reports public; several agencies post them on their  websites. It does imply that government transparency may still be a work  in progress. For example, ETA posts evaluation evidence on best  practices on a website targeted to the public workforce system for  community colleges and state and local agencies to apply to their  programs.the public through Data.gov, the federal database repository, to  encourage others to conduct research and evaluation on ETA programs.
section_title: Program Context Hinders an Evaluation’s Use More Than Its Limitations or the Agency’s Lack of Capacity
paragraphs: Our governmentwide survey asked federal managers who had had  evaluations completed in the past 5 years to what extent 12 potential  barriers had hindered their using evaluations in their agencies. We found  that modest concerns related to program and policy context were  reported to be greater barriers to an evaluation’s use than problems with  study quality or agency capacity or support for evaluation. Figure 2  summarizes their responses to all the barriers the survey posed.
The only factor that more than one-fourth of the managers reported as  having hindered the agency’s use of evaluation to a great or very great  extent was lack of resources to implement the evaluation findings (33  percent). The next most important barriers were also related to program  context: difficulty resolving differences in opinion among internal or external  program stakeholders (23 percent rated great or very great extent), difficulty distinguishing between the results produced by the program  and the results caused by other factors (19 percent), and  concern that the evaluation did not address issues that are important  to decision-makers (18 percent).
Among federal managers who had evaluations of their programs, policies,  or projects, the barrier to their use most frequently identified was lack of  resources (one-third rated a great or very great extent). This is not  surprising given today’s constrained federal budget resources; in a  climate of budget reductions, agencies are hard pressed to argue for  expanding or creating new programs. Some of the evaluators we  interviewed noted that expensive or complicated programs, even if found  to be effective, are unlikely to be adopted. Other evaluators thought it  would be easier to defend a new investment if it were shown to be a cost- effective approach. Evaluators reported addressing this challenge by  focusing on the cost-effectiveness of interventions and encouraging  simpler program designs and effective program partnerships.
For example, CDC developed an optimal allocation tool to help state and  local health departments determine how best to allocate their federal HIV  prevention funds among interventions with the goal of preventing the  greatest number of new cases of HIV. The evaluators reported that as  program budgets remained constant or declined and as the number of  persons living with HIV increased, health departments and local  stakeholders became more accepting of transparent approaches to  decision making, where the costs and benefits of decisions were made  clear.
Some evaluators recommended a focus on identifying the key features  that define an effective program in order to reduce the burden on  grantees’ attempting to implement a complex program and to improve  their likelihood of success. The CDC Diabetes Prevention Program staff  described four levers for scaling up a national program: quality standards  with which to certify program sites, training to ensure that the program  model would be implemented with fidelity, support and reimbursement for  program sites, and participant engagement. The staff noted that having  analyzed various options, they determined that it was important to  develop a business model to operate—and obtain insurance  reimbursement for—a new practical, scalable, and sustainable program  outside the overburdened health care system.
Almost a quarter of federal managers perceived the effort to resolve  differences of opinion among program stakeholders as a barrier to  evaluation’s use to a great or very great extent. The wide range of  program stakeholders can include the Congress, executive branch  officials, nonfederal program partners (state and local agencies and  community-based organizations), program beneficiaries, and the policy  research community. Their perspectives on evaluation results may differ  because of the complexity of study findings or differences in their policy  opinions. One evaluator noted disagreements about what to do next when  findings are not wholly positive or negative.
The CDC evaluators indicated that having a clear program outcome goal  provided discipline and focus for basing a program’s development on a  review of research and evaluation, ensuring that they examined only  approaches found effective in achieving the program goal. Evaluators  also emphasized the importance of reaching out early to program staff to  get buy-in on evaluation questions and establish ongoing communication  throughout, building trusting relationships. In the end, however,  evaluators said they recognized that sometimes political or ideological  concerns override evaluation findings in decision making.
Some federal managers we surveyed (19 percent) reported that difficulty  distinguishing between results produced by the program and results  caused by other factors was a great or very great barrier to evaluation  use. Across the government, programs aim to achieve outcomes that they  do not control, that are influenced by other programs or external social,  economic, or environmental factors. Typically, this challenge is met by  conducting a net impact evaluation that compares what occurred with an  estimate of what would have occurred in the absence of the program.
However, these studies can be difficult to conduct and may not provide  definitive results. Even when rigorous designs successfully exclude the  influence of other factors, program officials may be reluctant to accept  findings that do not match their expectations. Most of the evaluators we  interviewed indicated that transparency regarding the evaluation’s  assumptions and how the data were obtained were important for gaining  stakeholder buy-in to the credibility of the evaluation and its proposed  use. In addition, they said that as program staff gained more  understanding and familiarity with evaluation methods, they became more  comfortable using their results.
However, in some circumstances, it may not be possible to construct  evaluation designs that effectively isolate a program’s impact. FNS  evaluators explained, for example, that since many federal nutrition  programs are entitlement programs that serve all eligible applicants, it is  difficult to find comparable nonparticipants with which to estimate the  specific effects of receiving food assistance. In response to this  challenge, evaluators said that they often evaluate, instead, the effects of  modifications to entitlement programs. For example, FNS evaluators  studied the effects of altering the way Summer Food Service Program  benefits are delivered by using existing electronic benefits transfer  technologies for SNAP and WIC (Special Supplemental Nutrition Program  for Women, Infants, and Children) to provide $60 per month in food  benefits to low-income children during the summer, when they do not  receive school meals.
Some federal managers (18 percent) reported that the concern that an  evaluation did not address issues that were important to decision-makers  hindered its use to a great or very great extent. The evaluators we  interviewed noted that evaluations were often not useful for budget  justifications, for example, because they had been designed for a  different, narrower purpose, such as assessing grantee performance or  the effectiveness of a particular approach. As we pointed out in a  previous report on how experienced agencies develop evaluation  agendas, reaching out to key program and congressional stakeholders  before developing proposals can help ensure that evaluations will be  used effectively in management and legislative oversight. Most of the  evaluators indicated that their maintaining close communication with  stakeholders helps them understand the issues that are important to  program managers and policy makers and then design evaluations that  will be useful to them.
For example, ETA evaluators described developing learning agendas with  program staff: 5-year evaluation agendas that served as a strategic plan  for conducting evaluations and revisiting them every 2 years to ensure  that they continued to address the important issues. According to these  evaluators, the process of setting these learning agendas has several  benefits. Not only does joint planning create an opportunity for program  staff to have ownership of and investment in the process; it also creates  buy-in for the subsequent evaluations at executive and staff levels.
subsections: section_title: Potential Barriers Associated with Study Features or Agency Evaluation Capacity
paragraphs: Of seven potential barriers to use concerning the studies or an agency’s  capacity or support for using evaluations, none were generally considered  significant by the 37 percent of federal managers who reported having  evaluations:  concern about the credibility (validity or reliability) of study results (49  percent rated small or no extent); difficulty generalizing the results to other persons or localities (53 difficulty obtaining study results in time to be useful (58 percent); difficulty determining how to use evaluation findings to improve the  program (54 percent);  lack of staff knowledgeable about interpreting or analyzing program  evaluation results (50 percent); difficulty accepting evaluation findings that do not conform to  expectations (54 percent);  lack of ongoing top executive commitment or support for using  evaluation to make program or funding decisions (55 percent).
As we have reported before, an effective evaluation agenda aims to  provide credible, timely answers to important policy and program  questions.credibility of study results (49 percent) or the ability to generalize the  results to other persons or locations (53 percent) to be a significant  barrier to use, the evaluators we interviewed generally emphasized the  importance of having a body of strong evidence.
Although many federal managers did not consider the  They said that they try to ensure study credibility by conducting rigorous,  objective, independent research and that having several concurring  studies helped build confidence in the findings and willingness to act on  them. The evaluators said that research rigor was defined not by a  particular choice of methods but by rigorous application of whatever  method one chose: using “the right tool for the right situation.” The  evaluators did not raise the issue of the generalizability of results directly  but did note the advantage of a body of evidence over a single study in  showing that effects are consistent across different conditions and  locations.
The majority of federal managers with evaluations (58 percent) reported  that not obtaining results in time to be useful was a barrier to a small or  no extent. The evaluators we interviewed indicated that evaluations might  arrive too late to contribute to policy decisions for a variety of reasons.  First, they noted that the pace of policy making is much quicker than the  time it takes to conduct an evaluation and that they often faced a trade-off  between obtaining robust results from careful study methods and  providing timely answers to policy questions. They saw this as a particular  disincentive for policy officials to conduct large evaluations. Evaluators  described three different strategies for addressing this issue: providing managers with interim results or lessons learned about  implementing program changes that they could use right away, assembling a body of evidence on a program or issue from which  evaluators could respond to questions as they arise, and  involving stakeholders in planning their evaluation agenda to ensure  that they will have the information needed in the future.
Second, several evaluators singled out the reviews of data collection  instruments required under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 as  adding at least a year to their evaluation planning, thus precluding the use  of rigorous methods to produce quick policy responses. Among other  things, the act requires agencies to obtain public comment and secure  OMB’s approval before requiring members of the public to provide  information. The purpose of these reviews includes improving the quality  and practical utility of the information the federal government requests  and reducing paperwork burden on the public. Prior to OMB’s review,  agencies are required, with some exceptions, to provide a 60-day public  notice-and-comment period for each proposed information collection  requirement not contained in a proposed rule. OMB’s 60-day review  process generally includes a second 30-day period of public comment. In  addition, the public and OMB reviews are typically preceded by internal  agency review, which also adds time to the evaluation planning process.
Others in the evaluation community have complained about the length of  the review process, its application to quite small as well as large data  collection efforts, and its discouraging effect on evaluation activity. In 2010, OMB clarified the guidance for employing a streamlined “generic  clearance” process intended for proposals to conduct multiple information  collections using very similar methods. In response to continued  concerns, OMB staff recently met with federal evaluators to answer  questions and discuss ways in which the review process might be  streamlined.
The majority of federal managers (54 percent) reported that determining  how to use the findings to improve the program was a barrier to a small or  no extent. The evaluators we interviewed described circumstances in  which study results might be tentative or open to interpretation, providing  no clear recommendation for action. For example, a study might have a  process component insufficient to help identify the reasons for poor  performance. Broadly, all the evaluators we interviewed recommended  developing a clear report message, distilling the findings into an easily  digestible and usable form, and tailoring the message to the intended  actor or audience. For example, CDC evaluators stated that to respond to  frequent congressional and other stakeholder requests about the cost- effectiveness of their programs, they develop a one-page document that  includes a succinct, clear message describing the value of their  programs.
We have previously reported on the importance of agency evaluation  culture—sustaining a commitment to accountability and improving  program performance—to supporting the regular conduct and use of  evaluations.had access to evaluations reported that the presence of ongoing top  executive commitment to using evaluations (55 percent rated small or no  extent), staff knowledgeable about analyzing evaluation results (50  percent), and acceptance of findings that do not conform to expectations  (54 percent) were not significant barriers to evaluation use.
As one might expect, most federal managers in offices that  Indeed, all the evaluators we interviewed pointed to the research and  policy expertise of their evaluation staff and their agency leadership’s  commitment to evaluation as key to facilitating the use of their evaluation  results. The ACF, ETA, and FNS evaluation offices, and many of their  staff, have been producing evaluations for decades. The leadership of  these agencies also demonstrates support for evaluation through  allocating funding for evaluation and the operations of these offices and  forming close working relationships with their evaluators. At the  department level, Labor’s Deputy Secretary asked each component  agency to substantiate its congressional budget justifications and  operating plans with performance data and evaluation information. CDC’s  Office of the Associate Director for Program described working with the  program offices to integrate evaluation findings into their budget  justifications for OMB and congressional appropriators. An evaluator we  interviewed noted, however, that political staff turnover can inhibit  developing leadership support for evaluation because it is hard to gain  support for a study whose results may arrive after staff have left the  agency.
Some of the evaluators we interviewed noted that differences between  evaluators and program staff in mission, world view, and pace sometimes  made it difficult to gain program staff support for or interest in longer-term  studies or for the notion of continuous program improvement. They  pointed out that while evaluation staff are interested in assessing long- term program impacts, program staff are more interested in shorter-term  projects. Evaluations can be a burden for program offices, given their  workload, and program staff may discount negative findings unless they  understand how they were derived.
The evaluators generally said that diligent outreach, effective  relationships and trust, evaluation training, and developing audience- friendly formats for presenting results help mitigate these challenges.  Evaluators described a variety of efforts—formal and informal—to engage  regularly with program staff: providing technical assistance and tools for  performance monitoring and evaluation, building staff understanding of  the logic of evaluation, and improving evaluators’ understanding of  program and policy issues and information needs. ETA evaluators brief  program staff on completed evaluations’ evidence and findings.  Evaluation offices throughout Labor host two to three seminars a month  to discuss both substantive and methodological issues to improve staff’s  awareness and knowledge of evaluation.
For example, the CDC Office of the Associate Director for Program  developed a template for all nonresearch domestic Funding Opportunity  Announcements to, among other things, ensure clarity for applicants on  the program’s purpose and scope and provide a strong evaluation  approach that aligns with the program’s purpose, activities, and  outcomes. The template also requires applicants and CDC programs to  indicate how findings will be made available and used, helping to ensure  that evaluations align with the CDC program’s work plan and produce  findings that will be used in planning and other decision making.
Decentralized programs, whose control over program activities is state  and local, can restrict the ability of federal program officials to act on  evaluation results. Officials must convince state or local program officials,  grantees, or others in industry to adopt program evaluation findings and  recommendations. Evaluators explained that program partners and  grantees who deliver program services but are not directly managed by  federal staff may lack evaluation capacity and may be reluctant to use  evaluation findings to change their activities without a clear mandate to do  so. Some evaluators described using carrots and sticks to obtain program  staff and partners’ interest and involvement in their evaluations. The  allocation of funds for evaluation and requirements in grants to conduct  evaluation helped gain program partners’ interest and involvement in the  evaluations and their results. Evaluators reported disseminating  evaluation results and program guidance to local service providers,  engaging with intermediary organizations such as professional  associations to disseminate their evaluation results, and working directly  with program staff to help grantees implement effective program  approaches.
section_title: Managers’ Limited Knowledge of Congressional Support for Evaluation
paragraphs: Only 18 percent of managers reported that lack of ongoing congressional  commitment to use evaluation to make program or funding decisions was  a barrier to use to a great or very great extent; however, more (39  percent) reported not being able to judge whether this was a barrier. Of  course, agency staff on their own can implement some evaluation  recommendations, whereas others may require legislative changes. In  addition, agency managers, especially those not in the SES, may have  quite limited contact with congressional staff and members; our interviews  with evaluators indicated few such contacts. One evaluator stated that, for  the most part, agency officials conduct formal briefings for the Congress  in a tense, high-stakes environment; they lack the opportunity for informal  discussion. To help improve the usefulness of agency performance  information to Congress, GPRAMA significantly enhances requirements  for agencies to consult with Congress when establishing or adjusting their  strategic plans and agency priority goals. We recently issued a guide to  assist Congress in ensuring the usefulness of these consultations and in  using performance information in various legislative and oversight  activities.
Agencies may strategically plan work to gain congressional attention.  ETA planned a survey to coincide with the anniversary of the Family  Medical Leave Act of 1993 so that policy makers could use results in  reexamining the program. CDC assembled a body of research and  evaluation evidence supporting diabetes prevention that resulted in  congressional support and authorizing legislation for the National  Diabetes Prevention Program. However, as discussed previously, several  responses to our survey suggest that many federal managers are focused  relatively internally on their programs rather than on the broader policy  environment and may be unfamiliar with congressional concerns.
section_title: Lessons for Facilitating Agencies’ Use of Evaluation Results
paragraphs: The evaluators we interviewed emphasized three basic strategies to  facilitate evaluation’s influencing program management and policy: demonstrate leadership support of evaluation for accountability and build a strong body of evidence, and engage stakeholders throughout the evaluation process.
subsections: section_title: Demonstrate Leadership Support for Evaluation for Program Accountability and Improvement
paragraphs: Agency leadership can both provide support for conducting evaluations  and encourage a culture of experimentation and continuous improvement.  During the administrations of Presidents George W. Bush and Barack  Obama, OMB has encouraged agencies formally and informally to  expand their evaluation efforts and to use evidence and rigorous  evaluation in budget, management, and policy decisions to improve  government effectiveness. In 2002−07, OMB used the Program  Assessment Rating Tool (PART) to bring assessments of program results  explicitly into the budget formulation process. By asking whether a  program had undergone regular independent program evaluations, PART  sent the message that program assessment and evaluation was an  important management tool.
In October 2009, OMB announced an initiative to strengthen federal  program evaluation by posting information online on all agencies’ planned  and ongoing impact evaluations, establishing an interagency group to  promote the sharing of evaluation expertise, and funding some rigorous   In  new agency impact evaluations and capacity strengthening efforts. May 2012, OMB asked agencies to demonstrate the use of evidence and  evaluation throughout their budget submissions, encouraged the  designation of a high-level official responsible for program evaluation, and  announced a number of forums for information development and sharing  to improve agency use of evidence. In interviews, OMB staff noted that  agencies vary so much that they cannot deliver a top-down evaluation  mandate on what to do; instead, they work with OMB Resource  Management Officers and agency staff on how to use evaluations and  institutionalize evaluations “as part of agencies’ DNA.”
Nevertheless, as OMB staff observed, the federal government’s capacity  and support for evaluation vary widely. The agencies where we  conducted interviews were selected for their evaluation capacity and,  naturally, demonstrated leadership support for conducting and using  evaluations. Several evaluators reported that their deputy secretary and  other senior officials strongly emphasized the use of evidence for decision  making and asked for performance and evaluation data in budget  justifications and operating plans. In addition, these five agencies gave  the evaluation offices responsibility for promoting evaluation capacity and  providing an organizational framework for planning and conducting  evaluation, similar to that recommended by the American Evaluation  Association.
Labor created the Office of the Chief Evaluation Officer in 2010 to  coordinate and provide guidance to evaluations conducted throughout the  department. Also in 2010, CDC created the Office of the Associate  Director for Program to promote continuous program improvement and  provide direction and consultation to program planning, performance  measurement, and evaluation conducted by individual CDC centers. In  November 2012, ACF established a formal evaluation policy that reaffirms  its commitment to conducting evaluation and using evidence from  evaluations to inform policy and practice. The policy describes the  procedures and policies by which ACF seeks to promote the principles of  rigor, relevance, transparency, independence, and ethics in conducting  evaluation.
The ACF and FNS evaluation offices have a long history of supporting  their agencies’ policy making process and described having close  communication with and support from their agency leadership. For  example, the Associate Administrator heading FNS’s evaluation office  reported participating regularly in discussions of program and policy  changes with the Administrator. ACF OPRE has also partnered with  HHS’s Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation to  research the best techniques for disseminating evaluation results.
section_title: Build a Strong Body of Evidence
paragraphs: Strong evidence may include descriptive research, clinical trials,  evaluations of innovative practices, survey statistics, performance data,  case studies, and program administrative data. All the evaluators  indicated that attention to evaluation rigor and quality was critical, no  matter the methods used. They noted that randomized experiments,  although extremely powerful for assessing program net impact, were not  always necessary or feasible and that it was important to use the right  tool for the right situation.
These evaluators drew on systematic literature reviews, a portfolio of  studies and program data, and an agency’s many years of experience  with scaling up national programs to develop a knowledge base over  time. A body of evidence was considered more valuable than a single  study because multiple studies with similar results strengthens confidence  in their conclusions, and a body of information can yield answers to a  variety of different questions, whenever stakeholders pose them.
These evaluators pointed out that they rarely based decisions on a single  study. Individual evaluation studies typically do not simply identify  whether a program works but, rather, assess the effects of an individual  program or intervention on specific domains (such as employment or  educational attainment) for the specific populations and conditions  studied. Programs found effective in their initial development stage need  to be reevaluated when implemented by someone other than the program  developer under less auspicious conditions. Accumulating a body of  evidence on an issue was also considered important because no one  study or form of data can answer all questions. It is also a strategy for  ensuring that information is available for input to fast-breaking policy  discussions.
section_title: Engage Program Stakeholders throughout an Evaluation
paragraphs: All the evaluation officials we interviewed stressed the importance of  developing good relationships with program stakeholders and involving  them in evaluations to promote their use. They involved stakeholders  throughout the evaluation planning, execution, and reporting stages to  gain their buy-in on the relevance and credibility of evaluation findings.
Evaluators recommended conducting outreach to and maintaining close  communication with program managers and policymakers in order to  understand the issues they face and design evaluations that will be  helpful to them. Evaluators at ACF, ETA, and FNS consulted with their  program offices and other stakeholders to ensure that their evaluation  agendas addressed policy and management information needs.  Consulting with program staff throughout an evaluation was said to help  ensure a more trusting relationship and a greater willingness to hear not- so-good news when the evaluation results came in. Program staff may be  unwilling to accept negative findings because they have a vested interest  in trying to make the program work. But this can be countered if staff  understand the logic of the evaluation or if the study provides information  on barriers that might be overcome.
Some evaluators noted that it was important to find the right balance of  proximity and independence between program and evaluation staff.  Evaluations have to be objective and independent enough that readers  have faith in their findings and conclusions, but stretching independence  too far risks the irrelevance of results to the policy and program staff.  Others warned that if evaluators are located within program offices, then  their studies may get buried and important findings may not reach the  leadership. ACF’s evaluation policy highlights the importance of obtaining  stakeholder input to evaluation priorities and planning while protecting  independence in evaluation design, conduct, and analysis.
The evaluators described providing assistance, training, and incentives to  program staff and service providers to conduct and use evaluations.  Evaluation offices provided technical assistance themselves or through  contractors for evaluations conducted by program offices or grantees and  for performance measurement systems. Both Labor’s CEO and the CDC  OADPG developed tools and guidance for evaluation planning and use.  The CEO described developing checklists for implementation and  effectiveness evaluations, method guidelines, and templates for preparing  data collection packages for OMB’s review. They also reported holding  two or three seminars a month on evaluation methods or individual  studies for both evaluation and program staff. OADPG provided  evaluation guidelines and recommendations, and a grant announcement  template for focusing an evaluation’s purpose and intended use. OADPG  also funds an evaluation fellows program to increase evaluation capacity  in the centers. ACF sponsors an annual Welfare Research and  Evaluation Conference of researchers, state and local program  administrators, practitioners, and federal officials and policymakers who  meet and learn about research on and experience with family self- sufficiency and social welfare programs and policies. ACF and ETA  evaluators noted that embedding evaluation in grant programs serves as  a significant incentive for state and local agency staff to get involved in  and use evaluations.
A key strategy recommended for promoting the use of evaluation findings  was to distill them to make them digestible and usable and to proactively  disseminate them. In addition to posting findings on agency websites,  evaluators may tailor a message to fit various audiences such as federal  agency program offices and policy makers, state and local agencies, and  local program affiliates. It can be very important to provide program staff  with interim results or lessons from early implementation to ensure timely  data for program decisions, as well as help them integrate findings into  their program budget justifications.
ETA conducts briefings for agency staff on each evaluation as it is  completed and packages lessons learned from evaluations as “promising  practices” and guidance to local program affiliates in private industry  through the Workforce Systems Strategies website. ACF uses regular  research conferences and a listserv to disseminate evaluation findings to  intermediary professional organizations that can be especially influential  for program practitioners’ adoption of those findings. In the diabetes  prevention program, CDC provided an unusual example of leveraging and  coordinating the resources of several nongovernmental program partners  to implement a national program based on evaluation findings.
section_title: Concluding Observations
paragraphs: Agencies’ lack of evaluations may be the greatest barrier to their ability to  inform program management and policy making. Four-fifths of federal  managers who had evaluations reported that they contributed to  implementing changes to improve program management or performance.  Moreover, the greatest barrier to evaluation use was having insufficient  resources to implement their findings rather than having difficulty  accepting them or determining how to use them. Yet, just over a third of  federal managers reported that an evaluation had been completed in the  past 5 years on any of the programs, operations, or projects that they  were involved in. We believe this gap represents lost opportunities for  agencies to identify ways to improve federal government efficiency and  effectiveness.
Seeking out in advance the interests and concerns of key program  stakeholders, including the Congress, can help ensure that agency  evaluations provide the information necessary for effective management  and congressional oversight. Two of the barriers to evaluation use  managers most frequently cited in our survey concerned addressing  issues important to decision makers and resolving differences of opinion  among stakeholders. Yet, nearly 40 percent of managers who had  evaluations reported that they did not know whether lack of ongoing  congressional commitment to using evaluations was a barrier, and some  of the evaluators we interviewed reported few congressional consultations  in planning evaluations. Consultation with congressional stakeholders in  developing evaluation agendas is important to help ensure that agency  evaluations meet their information needs and inform decisions.
Comprehensive program evaluations that examine the coverage and  effectiveness of a cluster of federal programs and policies aimed at  achieving similar outcomes could be key in coordinating and streamlining  programs so as to reduce duplication and overlap. Over the past 3 years,  we have identified numerous areas of fragmentation, overlap, or  duplication in federal programs and activities. Carefully designed  evaluation of performance and results for clusters of related programs— adoption of common measures and direct assessment of their overlap— could reveal ways to streamline, consolidate, or better coordinate those  programs.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We requested comments on a draft of this report from the Secretaries of  Agriculture, Health and Human Services, and Labor and the Director of  the Office of Management and Budget. The agencies and OMB staff  provided technical comments that we incorporated as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of Agriculture,  Health and Human Services, and Labor; to the Director of the Office of  Management and Budget; and to appropriate congressional committees.  The report is also available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-2700 or kingsburyn@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Office of Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs may be  found on the last page of this report. Staff who made key contributions to  this report are listed in appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Methodology for Federal Managers Survey
paragraphs: We administered a web-based questionnaire on organizational  performance and management issues to a stratified random sample of  4,391 persons from a population of approximately 148,300 mid-level and  upper-level civilian managers and supervisors working in the 24 executive  branch agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990  (CFO Act), as amended. The sample was drawn from the Office of  Personnel Management’s (OPM) Central Personnel Data File (CPDF) as  of March 2012, using file designators indicating performance of  managerial and supervisory functions. The sample was stratified by  agency and by whether the manager or supervisor was a member of the  Senior Executive Service (SES) or not. The management levels covered  general schedule (GS) or equivalent schedules in other pay plans at  levels comparable to GS-13 through GS-15 and career SES, or  equivalent. In reporting the questionnaire data, when we use the term  “governmentwide” or the phrase “across the federal government” we are  referring to these 24 CFO Act executive branch agencies, and when we  use the terms “federal managers” and “managers” we are referring to  both managers and supervisors.
The questionnaire was designed to obtain the observations and  perceptions of respondents on various aspects of such results-oriented  management topics as the presence and use of performance measures,  hindrances to measuring performance and using performance  information, agency climate, and program evaluation use. In addition, to  address implementation of GPRAMA, the questionnaire included a  section requesting respondents’ views on various provisions of GPRAMA,  such as cross-agency priority goals, agency priority goals, and quarterly  performance reviews.
This survey is similar to surveys we have conducted four times previously  at the 24 CFO Act agencies—1997, 2000, 2003, and 2007—except that  the questions on GPRAMA provisions and program evaluation use were  new in 2013. The 1997 survey was conducted as part of the work we did  in response to a GPRA requirement that we report on implementation of  the act. The 2000, 2003, and 2007 surveys were designed to update the  results from each of the previous surveys.new questions with federal managers in several of the 24 CFO Act  agencies.
We conducted pretests of the  Most of the items on the questionnaire were closed-ended, meaning that  depending on the particular item, respondents could choose one or more  response categories or rate the strength of their perception on a 5-point  “extent” scale ranging from “to no extent” at the low end of the scale to “to  a very great extent” at the high end. On most items, respondents also had  an option of choosing the response category “no basis to judge/not  applicable.” A few items had yes, no, or do not know options for  respondents.
To administer the survey, an e-mail was sent to managers in the sample  that notified them of the survey’s availability on the GAO website and  included instructions on how to access and complete the survey.  Managers in the sample who did not respond to the initial notice were  sent up to four subsequent e-mail reminders and follow-up phone calls  asking them to participate in the survey. From the 4,391 managers  selected for this survey, we found that 266 of the sampled managers had  retired, separated, died, or otherwise left the agency or had some other  reason that excluded them from the population of interest. We received  usable questionnaires from 2,762 sample respondents, or about 69  percent of the remaining eligible sample. The response rate across the 24  agencies ranged from 57 percent to 88 percent.
The overall survey results can be generalized to the population of  managers as described above at each of the 24 agencies and  governmentwide. The responses of each eligible sample member who  provided a usable questionnaire were weighted in the analyses to  account statistically for all members of the population. All results are  subject to some uncertainty or sampling error as well as nonsampling  error. The governmentwide percentage estimates based on our sample  from 2012 presented in this report have 95 percent confidence intervals  within plus or minus 4 percentage points of the estimate itself for the initial  question about whether an evaluation had been completed and within 5 to  6 percentage points for subsequent questions about use of those  evaluations. An online e-supplement shows the questions asked on the  survey along with the percentage estimates and associated 95 percent  confidence intervals for each item for each agency and governmentwide.  For additional details on the survey methodology, see our report  summarizing our body of work on the implementation of GPRAMA.
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Stephanie Shipman (Assistant  Director), Thomas Beall, Valerie Caracelli, Thomas Clarke, Stuart  Kaufman, Jamila Kennedy, Penny Pickett, Mark Ramage, and Paul  Teicher made key contributions to this report.
section_title: References
paragraphs: Administration for Children and Families. Evaluation Policy. Washington,  D.C.: Department of Health and Human Services, November 2012.
American Evaluation Association. Comments on the Paperwork  Reduction Act. Fairhaven, Mass.: December 16, 2009.
American Evaluation Association. An Evaluation Roadmap for a More  Effective Government. Fairhaven, Mass.: September 2010.  www.eval.org/EPTF.asp.
Cousins, J. Bradley and Kenneth A. Leithwood. “Current Empirical  Research on Evaluation Utilization,” Review of Educational Research,  56:3 (1986): 331−64.
Hatry, Harry P., and others. How Federal Programs Use Outcome  Information: Opportunities for Federal Managers. Washington, D.C.: IBM  Endowment for the Business of Government, 2003.
The Lewin Group. Getting the Most out of Evaluations: A Guide to  Successful Evaluation Utilization. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of  Health and Human Services, June 30, 2009.
Macoubrie, J., and C. Harrison. Human Services Research  Dissemination: What Works? OPRE Report 2013-09. Washington, D.C.:  Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children  and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
Macoubrie, J., and C. Harrison. The Value-Added Research  Dissemination Framework. OPRE Report 2013-10. Washington, D.C.:  Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children  and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2013.
Mark, Melvin M., Gary T. Henry, and George Julnes. Evaluation: An  Integrated Framework for Understanding, Guiding, and Improving Public  and Nonprofit Policies and Programs. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass,  2000.
Mathison, Sandra, ed. Encyclopedia of Evaluation. Thousand Oaks,  Calif.: Sage Publications, 2005.
Nutley, Sandra M., Isabel Walter, and Huw T. O. Davies. Using Evidence:  How Research Can Inform Public Services. Bristol, U.K.: The Policy  Press, 2007.
Office of Management and Budget. Increased Emphasis on Program  Evaluations. Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and  Agencies, M-10-01. Washington, D.C.: The White House, Oct. 7, 2009.
Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Act—Generic  Clearances, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and  Agencies and Independent Regulatory Agencies. Washington, D.C.: The  White House, May 28, 2010.
Office of Management and Budget. Use of Evidence and Evaluation in the  2014 Budget, Memorandum to the Heads of Executive Departments and  Agencies, M-12-14. Washington, D.C.: The White House, May 18, 2012.
Ottoson, J. M. “Knowledge-for-Action Theories in Evaluation: Knowledge  Utilization, Diffusion, Implementation, Transfer, and Translation.” In J. M.  Ottoson and P. Hawe, eds. Knowledge Utilization, Diffusion,  Implementation, Transfer, and Translation: Implications for Evaluation.  New Directions for Evaluation, 124 (2009): 7−20.
Patton, Michael Quinn. Utilization-Focused Evaluation, 4th ed. Los  Angeles, Calif.: Sage, 2008.
Prewitt, Kenneth, Thomas A. Schwandt, and Miron L. Straf, eds. Using  Science as Evidence in Public Policy. National Research Council,  Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. Washington,  D.C.: National Academies Press, 2012.
Weiss, Carol H., and others. “The Fairy Godmother and Her Warts:  Making the Dream of Evidence-Based Policy Come True.” American  Journal of Evaluation, 29:1 (March 2008): 29−47.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Managing for Results: 2013 Federal Managers Survey on Organizational  Performance and Management Issues. GAO-13-519SP. Washington,  D.C.: June 2013.
Managing for Results: Executive Branch Should More Fully Implement  the GPRA Modernization Act to Address Pressing Governance  Challenges. GAO-13-518. Washington, D.C.: June 26, 2013.
Managing for Results: Leading Practices Should Guide the Continued  Development of Performance.gov. GAO-13-517. Washington, D.C.: June  6, 2013.
Managing for Results: Agencies Should More Fully Develop Priority Goals  under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-13-174. Washington, D.C.:  April 19, 2013.
Managing for Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance  Management Leadership Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed.  GAO-13-356. Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2013.  2013 Annual Report: Actions Needed to Reduce Fragmentation, Overlap,  and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial Benefits. GAO-13-279SP.  Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2013.
Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise  but Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies.  GAO-13-228. Washington, D.C.: February 27, 2013.
Managing for Results: A Guide for Using the GPRA Modernization Act to  Help Inform Congressional Decision Making. GAO-12-621SP.  Washington, D.C.: June 15, 2012.
Managing for Results: GAO’s Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting  Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. GAO-12-620R.  Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2012.  2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap, and  Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue.  GAO-12-342SP. Washington, D.C.: February 28, 2012.
Designing Evaluations: 2012 Revision. GAO-12-208G. Washington, D.C.:  January 2012.
Performance Measurement and Evaluation: Definitions and  Relationships. GAO-11-646SP. Washington, D.C.: May 2011.
Employment and Training Administration: More Actions Needed to  Improve Transparency and Accountability of Its Research Program.  GAO-11-285. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2011.
Opportunities to Reduce Potential Duplication in Government Programs,  Save Tax Dollars, and Enhance Revenue. GAO-11-318SP. Washington,  D.C.: March 1, 2011.
Program Evaluation: Experienced Agencies Follow a Similar Model for  Prioritizing Research. GAO-11-176. Washington, D.C.: January 14, 2011.
Employment and Training Administration: Increased Authority and  Accountability Could Improve Research Program. GAO-10-243.  Washington, D.C.: January 29, 2010.
Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration  on Using Performance Information to Improve Results. GAO-08-1026T.  Washington, D.C.: July 24, 2008.
Performance Budgeting: PART Focuses Attention on Program  Performance, but More Can Be Done to Engage Congress. GAO-06-28.  Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005.
Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance  Information for Management Decision Making. GAO-05-927. Washington,  D.C.: September 9, 2005.
Performance Budgeting: Observations on the Use of OMB’s Program  Assessment Rating Tool for the Fiscal Year 2004 Budget. GAO-04-174.  Washington, D.C.: January 30, 2004.
Program Evaluation: An Evaluation Culture and Collaborative  Partnerships Help Build Agency Capacity. GAO-03-454. Washington,  D.C.: May 2, 2003.
Program Evaluation: Studies Helped Agencies Measure or Explain  Program Performance. GAO/GGD-00-204. Washington, D.C.: September  29, 2000.