Managing For Results: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Leadership Roles, but Additional Training Is Needed
Published: 2013-04-16T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The performance of federal agencies is central to delivering meaningful results to the American public. GPRAMA, along with related guidance, assigned responsibilities for managing performance to key officials. It also provided a statutory basis for the existing PIC, a council made up of agency PIOs that is tasked with assisting OMB with topics related to GPRAMA. GPRAMA directed GAO to report on the act's implementation. This report, one of a series under that mandate, (1) examines the status of federal agencies' implementation of the performance management leadership roles under GPRAMA and (2) evaluates the role of the PIC in facilitating the exchange of best practices and improving agency program management and performance.
To address both objectives, GAO conducted a survey of PIOs at all 24 CFO Act federal agencies, as well as in-depth case studies of HHS and NSF, which were selected because they have differing characteristics such as size. GAO also interviewed and obtained documents from OMB staff and OPM officials.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The designation of senior-level officials to key performance management roles with responsibilities under the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) has helped elevate accountability for performance management within federal agencies and ensure high-level involvement, according to officials GAO interviewed. The 24 Chief Financial Officers (CFO) Act agencies have all assigned officials to the key management roles--chief operating officer, performance improvement officer (PIO), and goal leader--required under GPRAMA, according to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the results of GAO's PIO survey. PIOs GAO surveyed reported that most key officials were greatly involved in central aspects of performance management, such as agency quarterly performance reviews. PIOs GAO surveyed, and priority goal leaders GAO interviewed at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), reported they were supported in their responsibilities by their deputies and other staff. PIOs generally reported that their staff had competencies identified as relevant by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), such as reasoning, to a large extent, although PIOs reported that the competencies were not as widespread among their staff as the other competencies.
OPM has taken steps to work with agencies to incorporate performance management staff competencies into training. For example, OPM is working with the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) to develop a website that will include such training. However, at this time, it does not plan to assess competency gaps among agency performance management staff to inform its work. Without this information, it will be difficult for OPM, working with the PIC, to focus on the most-needed resources and facilitate their use by other agencies.
PIOs generally found that sharing of best practices and development of tips and tools are the most helpful aspects of the PIC, and reported strong agency attendance at meetings and participation in working groups. However, the PIC has not regularly collected member feedback about its performance. Additionally, although the PIC has a strategic plan in place, it has not updated it since GPRAMA was enacted. Routine member feedback and an updated strategic plan that reflects changes required by GPRAMA could help increase the PIC's effectiveness. Without these assessment tools, the PIC lacks an important basis and means for directing and evaluating its performance.
section_title: What GAO Recommends
paragraphs: GAO recommends that the Director of OPM work with the PIC to identify competency gaps for agency performance management staff and use this information to identify and share relevant agency training. GAO also recommends that the Director of OMB work with the PIC to gather regular feedback from members on its performance and update its strategic plan. OPM and OMB staff agreed with these recommendations.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The performance and results of federal agencies have a significant  impact on many issues of great importance to the American public,  ranging from public health to homeland security to training the country’s  workforce. Our previous work has found that two of the most important  elements that contribute to sustained performance improvement are a  demonstrated commitment from top agency leadership and clear lines of  accountability for making management improvements.
To focus and sustain attention on agency performance and improvement,  Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act  Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA). GPRAMA, along with related  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance, established and  defined performance management responsibilities for agency officials in  key management roles: the agency head, chief operating officer (COO),  performance improvement officer (PIO), deputy PIO, goal leader, and  deputy goal leader. The officials in these roles constitute an agency’s  performance management leadership team. GPRAMA also established in  law the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), chaired by OMB’s  Deputy Director for Management and composed of PIOs from various  federal agencies. Among other responsibilities, the PIC is charged with  facilitating the exchange of successful performance management  practices among agencies and assisting OMB in implementing certain  GPRAMA requirements.
This report is part of a series of reports under our mandate to examine  how agencies are implementing GPRAMA, such as by conducting  quarterly performance reviews to assess progress on agency priority  goals. The objectives of this report are to (1) examine the status of  federal agencies’ implementation of the performance management  leadership roles under GPRAMA, and (2) evaluate the role of the PIC in  facilitating the exchange of best practices and improving agency program  management and performance.
To address both objectives, we administered a survey of PIOs at the 24  agencies covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act)  from October 2012 through December 2012 and received responses from  all 24 PIOs. Selected results from our survey were also reported in our  February 2013 report focusing on quarterly performance reviews under  GPRAMA. In order to understand GPRAMA implementation in more  detail and put survey results in context for both objectives, we conducted  case studies of two CFO Act agencies—the Department of Health and  Human Services (HHS) and the National Science Foundation (NSF)— focusing on their implementation of performance management leadership  roles and participation in the PIC. We selected these agencies because  they have differing characteristics that may affect implementation, such  as agency size and the career status of the official in the PIO role. We  obtained documentation and conducted interviews with both agencies’  COOs, PIOs, and deputy PIOs. In addition, in order to understand the  priority goal leader role and its contributions to performance  management, we selected three of HHS’s six agency priority goals and  two of NSF’s three agency priority goals and interviewed the responsible  goal leaders. For goals that had two goal leaders assigned, we  interviewed one of the responsible goal leaders. We also interviewed  OMB staff and officials at the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)  about their work under GPRAMA, including their work with agencies and  the PIC in implementing GPRAMA.
To further address both objectives, we reviewed GPRAMA and related  OMB guidance about the key management roles and the PIC. We  reviewed information provided to us by OMB on the officials in the roles,  along with information on them that is publicly available through OMB’s  performance.gov website and agency websites.
To further address our second objective, we analyzed PIC meeting  agendas from February 2009 through September 2012, and observed  part of the September 12, 2012, PIC meeting. We interviewed the PIC’s  Executive Director and officials from the Small Agency Council and the  chair of its Performance Improvement Committee, which interacts with the  PIC. Further details of our objectives, scope, and methodology are  contained in appendix II.
We conducted our work from May 2012 to April 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: GPRAMA made a number of changes to agency performance  management roles, and provided the officials in these roles with specific  duties. Among other things, the requirements for these roles reflected  Congress’s intention to increase accountability of senior agency  leadership for performance and results. Although these roles existed at  some agencies prior to GPRAMA, it established them in law, added  responsibilities, and elevated some of them. Later OMB guidance  established additional performance management roles related to  implementation of GPRAMA. The primary roles with responsibilities  under GPRAMA and in OMB guidance are:
Agency head: GPRAMA gave each agency’s head broad  responsibility for performance management. Among other things, the  agency head is responsible for identifying agency priority goals and,  along with the COO discussed in the next paragraph, conducting  quarterly priority goal progress reviews.
Chief operating officer: The COO role existed at agencies prior to  GPRAMA’s enactment, with responsibilities such as improving agency  management and performance outlined in two presidential  memoranda. GPRAMA maintained these previously established  responsibilities, and added others to bring them in line with other  GPRAMA requirements. It also required that the deputy agency head  or equivalent serve as COO.
Performance improvement officer: The PIO role was created by a  2007 executive order. GPRAMA established the role in law and  elevated it, specifying that it be given to a “senior executive” at each  agency and that the PIO report directly to the agency’s COO. The  various duties of the PIO include advising the agency head and COO  on goal-setting and measurement and reviewing progress toward  agency priority goals.
Deputy performance improvement officer: The deputy PIO role was  not included in GPRAMA, but later OMB guidance directed agencies  with a PIO who is a political appointee or other official with a limited- term appointment to also appoint a career senior executive as deputy  PIO.
Goal leader: GPRAMA directs agencies to identify a goal leader who  is responsible for each priority goal and make this information  available to OMB to be published online. Leaders for agency priority  goals are identified, with their photos, on the performance.gov  website. A similar position existed at some agencies prior to  GPRAMA, as earlier OMB guidance had encouraged agencies to  identify officials who were responsible for High Priority Performance  Goals (these goals have since been renamed as agency priority  goals).
Deputy goal leader: The deputy goal leader role was not included in  GPRAMA, but later OMB guidance directed agencies to identify a  deputy goal leader to support the goal leader. In cases where the  goal leader was a political appointee, OMB encouraged agencies to  assign a career senior executive as the deputy.
GPRAMA also assigned responsibilities to OPM related to agency  performance management. By January 2012, the agency was to identify  skills and competencies needed by government personnel for setting  goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance  information for improving government efficiency and effectiveness.  GPRAMA also directed OPM, by January 2013, to incorporate these  competencies into relevant position classifications and to work with each  agency to incorporate the skills and competencies into employee training.
OMB has a leadership and coordinating role in agency implementation of  GPRAMA. OMB issued guidance on implementation through memoranda  and in Circular A-11. Under GPRAMA, OMB is to ensure the operation  of a public website that includes information on cross-agency priority  goals and agency priority goals, among other performance-related  information. This information is included on the performance.gov website.  OMB’s Deputy Director for Management, or his or her designee, is  directed to chair the PIC and preside at its meetings, determine meeting  agendas, direct its work, and establish and direct its subgroups.
GPRAMA also included specific requirements for the PIC. The PIC was  initially created by a 2007 executive order, but GPRAMA established it in  law and included additional specific responsibilities. In addition to  directing OMB’s Deputy Director for Management to chair the PIC,  GPRAMA specified that council membership include the PIOs from the 24  CFO Act agencies, as well as any other PIOs and individuals identified by  OMB’s Deputy Director for Management. The PIC’s duties are detailed in  GPRAMA and later OMB guidance and include facilitating the exchange  of useful practices and developing tips and tools to strengthen agency  performance management. According to the PIC’s Executive Director, the  PIC and the Executive Director are supported by two federal employees  and four contractors. The PIC also typically has two to four detailees from  other federal agencies. The PIC is administratively located within the  General Service Administration’s Office of Executive Councils. According  to a PIC staff member, the Office of Executive Councils provides  infrastructure, analytical support, and project management capacity to the  PIC and other interagency management councils, such as the Chief  Financial Officers Council.
section_title: Agencies Have Elevated Performance Management Roles, but Performance Staff Competency Assessment and Training Are Needed
subsections: section_title: Designation of Senior- Level Officials to Key Performance Management Roles Has Helped to Elevate Accountability for Agency Performance
paragraphs: The 24 CFO Act agencies have all assigned senior-level officials to the  key performance management roles—chief operating officer,  performance improvement officer, and goal leader—required under  GPRAMA, according to OMB and the results of our PIO survey. Figures  1 and 2 illustrate the performance management leadership teams at HHS  and NSF, respectively.
Chief operating officer. GPRAMA’s requirement that each agency’s  deputy head, or equivalent, take on the role of COO helped to ensure  high-level involvement in performance management. GPRAMA required  the COO to be involved in activities such as quarterly performance  reviews. As we discuss later, most (21) PIOs we surveyed reported that  their agencies’ COOs were involved in quarterly performance reviews to a  large extent. The COOs at both HHS and NSF told us they were  involved in selecting their agencies’ priority goals and they chaired the  quarterly performance review meetings. HHS’s COO said that he  considered it his role to make sure that everyone in the agency paid  attention to performance and knew that he considered it important. NSF’s  COO said that she saw performance management as a primary concern  and integrally connected to all aspects of her work at NSF.
Performance improvement officer. Although the PIO role existed prior  to GPRAMA, PIOs were not required to report directly to the COO until  GPRAMA was enacted. GPRAMA elevated the role by putting this  requirement in place. According to our PIO survey, at 8 agencies the PIO  who was already in place took on the additional responsibilities required  by GPRAMA. At the other 16 agencies, the current PIO began in the  role after the implementation of GPRAMA.
All PIOs we surveyed reported that they have other agency roles in  addition to being the PIO. Most PIOs (21) reported that these roles gave  them access and authority that has been helpful in the PIO role, and most  (20) reported that these roles gave them knowledge and experience that  has been helpful in the PIO role. These roles included planning,  administration, management, and budget and finance. The PIOs at HHS  and NSF were both also chief financial officers (CFO), and told us that  their other agency roles helped them in their PIO roles. HHS’s PIO said  that her joint role allowed her to align budget development with  performance management—she made sure that the budget was built so  that dollars were spent on efforts that would be able to perform well.  NSF’s PIO told us that the two roles worked well together because much  of the data used to evaluate performance at the agency was maintained  by the agency’s budget division, which also reports to her in her CFO  capacity.
NSF’s COO noted that the PIO role at NSF was designated for reasons  relating more to the individual, including the PIO’s past experience with  performance management, than to her role as CFO. The COO said that  NSF’s next PIO may not necessarily be the person in the CFO role.  Although it was common for the PIOs we surveyed to also have the CFO  role, PIOs whose other roles were in planning, administration, and  management reported that those roles were helpful as well.
Nearly all PIOs (23) reported that their level of authority and access to  agency leadership helped them perform their duties. Additionally, almost  half of surveyed PIOs (11) reported directly to the agency head in their  non-PIO role; they had even higher level authority and access to  leadership than the PIO role alone would have provided. OMB staff  added that because they were senior level officials, PIOs had the  authority and ability to assemble the right people to implement  performance management at their agencies.
Our survey results did not indicate great differences between political  appointees and career civil servants in carrying out PIO duties. OMB  staff told us that the requirement that agencies with political appointee  PIOs have career civil servant deputy PIOs was in place to address the  higher likelihood of turnover among political appointees. However, our  PIO survey results did not indicate great differences in either time spent  on PIO duties or turnover so far. Additionally, nearly all the agencies (22),  not just those with political appointee PIOs, have chosen to designate  deputy PIOs.
Goal leader. Agencies assigned senior-level officials with expertise in the  goal to take on the role of priority goal leader. This was true at HHS and  NSF, and was also true across agencies, according to OMB staff.
Officials at NSF and HHS said that priority goals had senior-level leaders  who helped to bring attention and resources to the goal. For example, the  U.S. Assistant Secretary for Health was one of two goal leaders for HHS’s  priority goal on reducing tobacco consumption. He previously worked on  tobacco cessation at the state level, was a public health professor, and  published journal articles on tobacco control and health promotion. The  goal’s other leader told us that because the Assistant Secretary was  widely known within the public health community, his involvement brought  respect and attention to the goal.
As discussed previously, the PIO and goal leader positions were filled by  senior-level agency officials. Most of these officials had other  responsibilities, such as serving as a CFO. HHS and NSF officials told us  that while the PIO and goal leader roles were performed by senior-level  officials at the highest levels of the agency, they relied on deputies who  generally managed the day-to-day aspects of performance management.
Deputy performance improvement officer. Nearly all (22) of the CFO  Act agencies have assigned officials to the Deputy PIO role, according to  our PIO survey. Both HHS and NSF have assigned staff to the deputy  PIO role. Officials at HHS and NSF also told us that PIOs tended to  provide high-level vision and oversight and be a voice for performance  management at their agencies, while deputy PIOs handled the day-to-day  management of performance management for the agency. According to  officials at HHS and NSF, responsibilities of deputy PIOs at these  agencies included, among other things, coordinating with priority goal  leaders, preparing for agency quarterly performance reviews, and  attending PIC meetings, as appropriate. PIOs reported that most deputies  devoted half or more of their time to performance-related duties.
Deputy PIOs also had other roles and titles at agencies, similar to the  PIOs. Based on our analysis of their other titles, deputy PIOs most  commonly had other roles also related to performance, while others filled  roles in areas such as budget and finance and administration and  management.
Deputy goal leader. HHS and NSF both assigned officials to deputy goal  leader roles to support most of their goal leaders. As with the  PIO/deputy PIO division, the goal leaders at our case study agencies  were senior-level officials. According to agency officials, goal leaders  provided high-level vision and oversight and lent their influence to ensure  that the goal was prioritized, while their deputy goal leaders managed the  goal on a day-to-day basis. For example, deputy goal leaders at these  agencies were responsible for monitoring staff carrying out the goal and  preparing reports on the goal for quarterly performance reviews. Two goal  leaders we spoke with—one at HHS and one at NSF—had two deputy  goal leaders. Moreover, at NSF, one goal leader we spoke with was  supported by a deputy from a different operating division. The goal  leader told us that this structure provided a cross-agency perspective and  facilitated coordination.
PIOs reported that they and other key performance management officials  at their agencies were involved in central aspects of performance  management. We asked PIOs whether agency heads, COOs, PIOs,  deputy PIOs, and goal leaders had large, moderate, small, or no  involvement in four primary tasks that summarize the performance  management responsibilities required by GPRAMA: performance measurement and analysis; communicating agency progress toward goals; and agency quarterly performance reviews.  strategic and performance planning and goal setting;  As shown in figure 3, the PIOs we surveyed reported that most  performance management officials had large involvement in these key  tasks.
Officials at HHS and NSF emphasized the importance of commitment to  performance management at all levels, which was in part reflected in  officials’ involvement in these key aspects. PIOs who reported large  involvement for themselves generally reported larger involvement for  other officials, suggesting that agencies with a strong commitment to  performance management were following this philosophy.
section_title: OPM Has Identified Competencies for Performance Management Staff, but Competency Assessment and Additional Training Would Be Beneficial
paragraphs: GPRAMA directed OPM to take certain actions to support agency hiring  and training of performance management staff. As noted earlier, OPM, in  consultation with the PIC, was charged with three responsibilities under  GPRAMA: (1) identify key skills and competencies needed by  performance management staff; (2) incorporate these skills and  competencies into relevant position classifications; and (3) work with  agencies to incorporate these key skills into agency training. OPM has  completed its work on its first two responsibilities, and is working to  support agency training.
OPM identified 15 core competencies for performance management staff,  in accordance with GPRAMA, and published them in a January 2012  memorandum from the OPM Director. (See app. III for a list of the  competencies with definitions.) OPM also identified competences needed  by PIOs and goal leaders. A manager of classification and assessment  policy at OPM told us that OPM’s work to identify these competencies  included a review of GPRAMA and related information. OPM also worked  with a PIC working group focused on capability building to review the  competencies it identified.
Figure 4 shows PIOs’ responses to our survey question about the extent  to which their staff had these competencies.
PIOs generally reported that their staff had the competencies identified by  OPM to a large extent, although they reported that the competencies  below were not as widespread as others:
Performance measurement: the knowledge of the principles and  methods for evaluating program or organizational performance using  financial and nonfinancial measures.
Information management: the ability to identify a need for information,  know how to gather information and organize and maintain  information or information management systems.
Organizational performance analysis: the knowledge of the methods  and tools used to analyze program, organizational, and mission  performance.
Planning and evaluating: the ability to organize work, set priorities,  and determine resource requirements. This includes determining  short- or long-term goals and strategies to achieve them, coordinating  with other organizations or parts of the organization to accomplish  goals, and monitoring progress and evaluating outcomes.
Some individual agencies found competency gaps in similar areas. HHS’s  Deputy PIO told us that further improvement of HHS’s performance staff’s  analytical skills would help the agency to more effectively implement  GPRAMA. Also, as we reported in February 2013, Small Business  Administration officials identified a skills gap among some of their staff in  working with data.
OPM officials had planned to develop a competency assessment tool that  could be used to determine needs at each individual agency.  Developing the tool was identified as a critical and manageable “next  step” at a January 2012 meeting focused on incorporating key  performance management competencies into agency training. Meeting  participants included OMB, OPM, and agency members of the Chief  Learning Officers (CLO) Council, which facilitates collaboration among  CLOs. OPM officials told us that they took action to follow up on other  “next steps” related to training identified at the meeting, which are  discussed in the following section. However, an OPM official relayed to us  that at this time, OPM does not plan to conduct a formal competency  assessment using a competency assessment tool. A group manager in  OPM’s Training and Executive Development division told us that the  agency is focused on identifying critical skills gaps across the federal  government. She said that some of the government-wide skills that OPM  plans to focus on are related to skills needed for performance  management, such as data analysis.
OPM identified relevant position classifications that are related to the  competencies for performance management staff, and worked with the  PIC Capability Building working group to develop related guidance and  tools for agencies. A manager of Classification and Assessment Policy at  OPM told us that the competencies best fit into an existing classification  series for management and program analysts. In addition, OPM worked  with the PIC’s Capability Building working group to develop position  descriptions for performance management staff. In December 2012, the  Capability Building working group released to agencies a draft  performance analyst position design, recruitment, and selection toolkit.  The draft toolkit included position description templates for performance  analysts, job opportunity announcement templates, and recruiting  resources, among other information. NSF officials told us that they found  the Capability Building working group’s performance analyst position  description helpful and used it to develop the agency’s deputy PIO  position, which has been recently filled. The toolkit may also be of use to  other agencies planning to hire new performance management staff.  About half (11) of PIOs reported that their agencies planned to hire new  staff, in addition to training existing staff, in order to address competency  gaps.
According to OPM, the 15 core competencies for performance  management staff are moderately to highly trainable, and OPM has taken  steps to work with agencies to incorporate the competencies into training  programs for relevant staff. Most (18) PIOs reported that their agencies  planned to train staff in order to strengthen their performance  management competencies. OPM’s Director stated in a January 2012  memorandum that the agency would work with CLOs to incorporate  GPRAMA competencies into agency training programs. OPM worked  with the CLO Council and the PIC Capability Building working group to  develop a website—the Training and Development Policy Wiki—that lists  some training resources for performance management staff. OPM also  sponsored two webcasts focused on sharing agency experiences using  performance management tools. A manager in OPM’s Training and  Executive Development division told us that OPM was developing an  interactive, online course focused on writing measurable performance  goals that align with organizational goals, which she expected would be  completed by July 2013. According to the official, both the webcasts and  the work on the online course were the result of “next steps” identified at  the January 2012 meeting between OPM, OMB, and members of the  CLO Council.
OPM Human Resources specialists said they were also working to help  the PIC to develop a website with more extensive resources, including  information on training as well as performance management career path  information. According to OPM officials and the PIC’s Executive Director,  the PIC will develop the content for this website and it will be modeled on  OPM’s Human Resources University website, which provides human  resources career path information and links to related training. A  Workforce Development Manager at OPM said the agency will support  the PIC on the technical aspects of the site based on its experience  developing the Human Resources University site. According to OMB staff  and OPM, the performance management website is scheduled to launch  by the end of 2013.
In addition to OPM’s actions on performance management training,  individual agencies have taken action to develop their own performance  management training to address competency gaps. For example, as we  described in our recent report on quarterly performance reviews, SBA  developed courses focused on skills such as spreadsheet development  and analysis, presentation delivery, and other analytic and presentation  skills.
According to our survey of PIOs, less than half (9) of the PIOs we  surveyed rated the level of access to and availability of performance  management training at their agencies as helpful, as shown in figure 5.
OPM’s efforts so far to work with agencies to incorporate performance  improvement skills and competencies into agency training have been  relatively broad-based and have not been informed by specific  assessments of agency training needs. As described earlier, the agency  has not followed through on its plan to measure agency staff competency  levels in key areas required for performance management. Our survey  results suggest that certain areas need to be improved, but without a  more comprehensive assessment, it will be difficult for OPM to target its  efforts—both to identify training that addresses agency needs, and to  make training available through its performance website, which is under  development, or through other means.
section_title: PIOs and Selected Agencies Found the PIC Useful, but Additional Planning and Performance Assessment Are Needed
subsections: section_title: PIOs Reported that the Most Helpful Aspects of the PIC Were Sharing of Best Practices and Development of Tips and Tools
paragraphs: PIOs we surveyed generally found the PIC’s work to be helpful to their  agencies. We asked the PIOs to rate the helpfulness of selected functions  that GPRAMA and OMB guidance direct the PIC to perform. As shown in  figure 6, PIOs generally rated the PIC’s work in these areas as helpful.  The PIC’s work promoting communication and developing tools  incorporated several practices that our past work has identified as  necessary for building collaborative working relationships. These include  establishing means to operate across agency boundaries and identifying  and addressing needs by leveraging resources.
Most (17) PIOs we surveyed reported that they have been able to apply  successful practices and other information and tools shared by the PIC.  PIOs surveyed reported some examples of information shared by the PIC  that they applied at their agencies, including information on performance  management positions, goal-setting, and quarterly performance reviews.
PIOs we surveyed and agency officials we interviewed reported that the  PIC has been particularly helpful in facilitating the exchange of successful  practices among agencies. An OMB staff member told us that facilitating  this type of exchange was the PIC’s greatest strength, and that doing so  also helped the group identify best practices. As shown in figure 6, just  over half of PIOs reported that the PIC was very helpful in this area.  Senior agency officials we interviewed and PIOs we surveyed provided  examples of ways in which the PIC facilitated information exchange. For  example, a PIO we surveyed reported that his agency’s approach to  quarterly performance reviews was informed by examples shared by  other agencies in the PIC’s Internal Agency Reviews working group.
An OMB staff member told us that in addition to helping agencies, the  PIC’s facilitation of information exchange has benefitted OMB. One of the  tasks GPRAMA charged the PIC with was submitting recommendations  to streamline and improve performance management policies and  requirements to OMB. PIOs we surveyed generally reported that this  function was helpful to their agencies. An OMB staff member told us that  the PIC helped OMB staff determine best practices and use that  information to inform policy. For example, they said that in response to  feedback from PIC members, OMB added information on “other  indicators” to its 2012 Circular A-11 guidance.
Another area in which PIOs reported that the PIC was particularly helpful  was in developing and providing tips, tools, training, and other capacity- building mechanisms. Half of PIOs reported that the PIC was very helpful  in this area. PIOs we surveyed and officials we interviewed reported  various ways in which their agencies have used PIC information. For  example, five of the PIOs we surveyed reported that their agencies used  PIC information on goal setting.
section_title: PIOs Reported Strong Agency Participation in the PIC and in Its Working Groups
paragraphs: The PIC holds two types of meetings—a “principals only” meeting open to  PIOs only, and a broader meeting open to PIOs as well as other agency  staff—both of which are well attended, according to PIOs we surveyed.  OMB staff told us that these two types of meetings were generally held on  alternating months. As shown in figure 7, most of the PIOs we surveyed  told us that they regularly attended the “principals only” PIC meetings.  OMB staff told us that in order to encourage senior-level attendance,  PIOs were not permitted to send substitutes in their place. Most PIOs also  reported that their deputies or other staff members regularly attended the  broader PIC meetings. OMB staff estimated that two to three  representatives from each agency typically attended these meetings. In  our previous work, we identified regular participation in activities such as  meetings as an important feature of effective collaboration.
Agency participation in PIC working groups was also strong, and PIOs  and other agency officials reported using information and products shared  through working groups. The PIC established five working groups, three  of which were actively meeting at the time of our review, to focus on  specific topics (see table 1). According to the PIC’s Executive Director,  PIC working groups focused on issues related to implementation of  GPRAMA and related guidance and provided a forum for staff from  different agencies who were working on similar issues to connect with  each other. He told us that the PIC identified the working group topics  based on informal input from PIC members, though the council might in  the future solicit more formal input through a survey. Agencies could also  participate in separate OMB working groups that focused on informing  policy and guidance. For example, at the time of our review, an OMB  working group was focusing on informing guidance for strategic planning  required under GPRAMA.
In addition to the three working groups described in table 1, there were  two PIC working groups—the Goal Setting and the Benefits Processing  working groups—that no longer regularly met, according to OMB staff.  OMB and PIC staff said that these groups could restart again in the  future, if agency needs arise. The Goal Setting working group focused on  helping agencies set priority goals for fiscal year 2013, and produced a  draft guide to goal setting. OMB staff said that the group may start  meeting again to focus on strategic goals and objectives or on the next  round of priority goal setting. In addition, the Benefits Processing working  group, which focused on promoting consistency in agencies’ benefits  processing, was no longer regularly meeting because it had completed its  tasks.
Most (18) PIOs we surveyed reported that they or other staff members  from their agencies participated in at least one working group, with some  agencies participating in multiple groups and one agency participating in  all five. These 18 agencies participated in an average of three working  groups each, according to PIOs. PIOs reported that they generally did not  participate personally in working groups. At HHS, the Deputy PIO said  that both he and members of his team participate in working groups. PIOs  we surveyed and agency officials we interviewed reported using working  group products or information. For example, a PIO reported on the survey  that she used the Goal Setting group’s guide on developing priority goals.
section_title: The PIC Coordinated with Small Agencies and Interagency Management Councils
paragraphs: According to representatives of small agencies, PIC and OMB staff  effectively coordinated with them and were receptive to their feedback.  GPRAMA directed the PIC to coordinate with nonmember agencies,  which include most small agencies. According to a representative of the  Small Agency Council (SAC), a management association of small  agencies, PIC meetings generally addressed issues affecting the CFO  Act agencies. She said that she understood the PIC’s focus, as larger  agencies generally have more consistency in their implementation of  GPRAMA requirements. However, she further stated that smaller  agencies may require more assistance due to their more diverse missions  and fewer resources. Although the broader PIC meetings were open to all  agencies, the SAC representative told us that few small agencies found  that the PIC met their needs. Instead, PIC and OMB staff communicated  with small agencies through the SAC’s Performance Improvement  Committee, which was established in March 2011. This committee is  similar to the PIC in its attention to implementation of GPRAMA, but  meeting objectives focus on issues facing small agencies. According to  SAC representatives, the committee functions as a way for small  agencies to give voice to their concerns, as well as a forum for OMB and  the PIC to focus on the needs of small agencies, which may have unique  issues in implementing GPRAMA and other requirements. SAC  representatives told us that they have been satisfied with the support  provided by OMB and the PIC in both of these areas. SAC Performance  Improvement Committee meeting agendas from recent months included  presentations from PIC and OMB staff. For example, a recent meeting  included presentations from OMB staff on updated guidance contained in  OMB’s Circular A-11 and on small agencies’ use of the performance.gov  website.
In addition to coordinating with non-member agencies, GPRAMA directed  the PIC to coordinate with other interagency management councils. While  two PIOs we surveyed reported that this coordination was very helpful,  most (16) rated this function as moderately helpful.
section_title: The PIC’s Functions Are Established in GPRAMA and Guidance, but It Has Not Routinely Assessed its Performance
paragraphs: GPRAMA and OMB guidance specify the PIC’s functions and roles, but  the PIC has not regularly assessed how well it has been fulfilling these  roles. GPRAMA directed the PIC to perform several functions, such as  helping agencies share practices that have led to performance  improvements. According to the PIC’s Executive Director, the PIC  conducted a survey of PIOs prior to the enactment of GPRAMA. It also  surveyed attendees of a January 16, 2013, PIC meeting, one of the  broader meetings that is open to PIOs as well as other agency staff. The  survey covered topics such as participants’ expectations for the meeting  and assessments of the usefulness of the agenda items covered.  However, the PIC has not done this on a regular basis, or gathered  member feedback about its overall performance. As we have previously  reported, practices that help to sustain collaboration include having  federal agencies create the means to monitor and evaluate their  collaborative efforts to enable them to identify areas for improvement.  Although our survey indicated that PIOs generally found the PIC’s work  helpful in selected areas, without more comprehensive and regular  assessment of member opinions, it will be difficult for the PIC to ensure  that, going forward, it is meeting its members’ current and emerging  needs. The PIC’s Executive Director, who started in this position in  November 2012, told us that he was considering conducting a survey of  PIC members as well as administering evaluation forms at the end of  every meeting. Regularly soliciting feedback allows organizations to  monitor member input on an ongoing basis. For example, the SAC  Performance Improvement Committee administers an evaluation form at  each of its meetings. These forms allow members to rate the usefulness  of the meeting and their satisfaction with particular aspects of it and to  suggest topics for upcoming meetings.
Without formal and regular member feedback, the PIC is missing  opportunities to tap a resource for identifying topics for future working  groups and PIC meetings. PIC staff told us that identification of working  group topics and meeting agenda items was generally based on informal  input. Our review of PIC meeting agendas from February 2009 through  September 2012 showed that since the enactment of GPRAMA in  January 2011, both the “principals only” and broader PIC meetings  focused on issues related to GPRAMA implementation. Going forward,  PIC members’ needs will naturally evolve as GPRAMA implementation  deepens within agencies and new questions and issues arise. The PIC’s  Executive Director told us that the topic areas covered by the PIC in the  future will most likely include new issues related to GPRAMA  implementation, and an increased emphasis on cross-agency  connections.
Additionally, the PIC has not updated its strategic plan since GPRAMA  was enacted in January 2011. OMB staff provided us with a copy of the  PIC’s Strategic Action Plan, which was implemented in January 2009 and  covered fiscal years 2009 through 2013. This plan included four strategic  goals, along with objectives and implementing strategies for each. OMB  staff also provided us with information from a 2010 update of the strategic  plan that focused on two new PIC goals. As we have previously  reported, practices that help ensure effective collaboration include the use  of strategic plans as tools to drive collaboration and establish goals and  strategies for achieving results. Our prior work also identified several  leading practices in federal strategic planning, among them that  organizations involve stakeholders in strategic planning. Although the  PIC has a strategic plan in place, the PIC last updated the plan prior to  the enactment of GPRAMA. An up-to-date strategic plan that incorporates  the input of its members and reflects the changes in federal performance  management required by GPRAMA could help the PIC be reasonably  assured that it has established a framework to effectively guide and  assess its work. The PIC’s Executive Director told us that he intended to  work with the PIC to update the strategic plan, which will be informed by  PIC member feedback.
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. Through our PIO  survey, we found that officials with responsibilities under GPRAMA were  greatly involved in central, key aspects of performance management.  These officials were supported by performance management staff, and  PIOs reported that they were generally satisfied with their staff skills.  However, our survey results showed that PIOs believed that certain  competencies could be strengthened. OPM planned to directly assess  performance management competency gaps at agencies, but has not yet  done so. An assessment directly focused on performance management  competencies could provide information on any gaps and inform  agencies’ efforts to address them. OPM could also use this information to  ensure that its work with agencies to incorporate competencies into  training for agency staff, as required by GPRAMA, is effective. In  particular, this information could inform OPM’s coordination of the sharing  of training resources among agencies, both through its Training and  Development Policy Wiki website and the website planned for  performance management professionals. Through these websites, OPM  could target resources to areas in which it has identified competency  gaps. Such sharing of agency training resources offers the opportunity to  maximize efficiency, and OPM is well positioned to play a coordinating  role in this area through its expertise and relationships with the PIC and  CLO Council. OPM has worked with these councils related to training  under GPRAMA in the past. Additionally, the councils include  representatives from across government with expertise in performance  management and training, so they provide OPM with the ability to  efficiently obtain input and share resources on performance management  training.
The PIC plays a significant role in agency implementation of GPRAMA,  and our survey results indicate that PIOs generally found the PIC helpful  to their agencies. Both GPRAMA and related OMB guidance described  the PIC’s functions, but the PIC has not regularly collected member  feedback on its own performance, and has not updated its strategic plan  since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011. Functions such as creating  working groups and developing meeting agendas have been based on  informal feedback. Regularly collecting formal feedback from members,  such as through a survey, would help the PIC identify areas in which it  could ensure it maintains its usefulness, as well as new areas on which  member agencies would like for it to focus its meetings and working  groups. Obtaining such feedback would allow the PIC to monitor its  performance and identify issues as they arise. This will be particularly  important as agencies become more accustomed to GPRAMA processes  and their needs change. In addition, the PIC lacks an up-to-date strategic  plan. Its most recent update was in 2010, so it does not reflect any  changes in goals or priorities that may have resulted from GPRAMA. An  up-to-date plan could provide the PIC with a basis for directing and  evaluating its performance in implementing GPRAMA. A strategic plan  that incorporates input from PIC members could also serve as a tool for  encouraging collaboration and reinforcing accountability.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To improve performance management staff capacity to support  performance management in federal agencies, we recommend that the  Director of OPM, in coordination with the PIC and the CLO Council, work  with agencies to take the following three actions:  Identify competency areas needing improvement within agencies.  Identify agency training that focuses on needed performance  management competencies.
Share information about available agency training on competency  areas needing improvement.
To ensure that the PIC has a clear plan for accomplishing its goals and  evaluating its progress, we recommend that the Director of OMB work  with the PIC to take the following two actions:
Conduct formal feedback on the performance of the PIC from member  agencies, on an ongoing basis.
Update its strategic plan and review the PIC’s goals, measures, and  strategies for achieving performance, and revise them if appropriate.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Acting Director of OMB, Director  of OPM, Secretary of HHS, and Director of NSF for review and comment.  OMB staff agreed with our recommendation that it work with the PIC to  conduct regular feedback on the PIC’s performance, and update the  PIC’s strategic plan and review the PIC’s goals, measures, and strategies  for achieving performance. The staff also provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate. OPM agreed with our  recommendation that it identify competency areas needing improvement  in agencies, and use this information to identify and share information  about training that focuses on needed performance management  competencies. OPM explained that it will work with agencies, and in  particular with PIOs, to assess the competencies of the performance  management workforce. OPM also stated that it will support the use of  the PIC’s performance learning website to facilitate the identification and  sharing of training related to competencies in need of improvement.  OPM’s written comments are reprinted in appendix V.
HHS did not have comments. NSF provided technical comments, which  we incorporated.
We are sending copies of this report to the Acting Directors of OMB,  OPM, and NSF, and the Secretary of HHS, as well as the 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 VI.
section_title: Appendix I: Agencies Subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act
section_title: Appendix II: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010  (GPRAMA) requires GAO to review the act’s implementation, and this  report is part of a series of reviews planned around the requirement. The  objectives of this report are to (1) examine the status of federal agency  implementation of the performance management leadership roles under  GPRAMA; and (2) evaluate the role of the PIC in facilitating the exchange  of best practices and improving program management and performance.
To achieve our objectives, we focused our review on the 24 agencies  covered by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (CFO Act). Several  provisions of GPRAMA apply specifically to these agencies, including that  the Performance Improvement Council (PIC) include them as members.  We focused our examination of performance management leadership on  the management roles that have specific responsibilities under GPRAMA  and related OMB guidance, with the exception of agency head. These are  the chief operating officer (COO), performance improvement officer (PIO),  deputy PIO, priority goal leader, and deputy goal leader. In looking at the  PIC, we evaluated its role in facilitating the exchange of best practices  and improving agency program management and performance. GPRAMA  and related OMB guidance charge the PIC with performing several  additional functions, such as supporting OMB in implementing  requirements related to federal government priority goals, also referred to  as cross-agency priority goals. We did not include these other functions in  our review.
To address both objectives, we conducted a survey of PIOs at the 24  CFO Act agencies. Through our survey, we collected information  regarding PIOs’ and other key officials’ characteristics, their involvement  in performance management under GPRAMA, and PIO and agency  participation in the PIC. Appendix IV presents the survey questions we  asked, and summarizes the responses we received. We received  responses from all 24 PIOs (a 100 percent response rate). Selected  results from our survey were also reported in another GAO report that  focused on quarterly performance reviews under GPRAMA. We  administered the web-based survey from October 18, 2012 to December  14, 2012. Respondents were sent an e-mail invitation to complete the  survey on a GAO web server using a unique username and password.  During the data collection period, we sent reminder e-mails and made  phone calls to nonresponding agencies. Because this was not a sample  survey, it has no sampling errors. The practical difficulties of conducting  any survey may also introduce nonsampling errors, such as difficulties  interpreting a particular question, which can introduce unwanted  variability into the survey results. We took steps to minimize nonsampling  errors by pretesting the questionnaire in person with PIOs and deputy  PIOs at three different agencies. We conducted these pretests to make  sure that the questions were clear and unbiased, the data and information  were readily obtainable, and that the questionnaire did not place an  undue burden on respondents. Additionally, a senior methodologist within  our office independently reviewed a draft of the questionnaire prior to its  administration. We made appropriate revisions to the content and format  of the questionnaire after the pretests and independent review. All data  analysis programs used to generate survey results were independently  verified for accuracy. Additionally, in reviewing the answers from  agencies, we confirmed that PIOs had correctly bypassed inapplicable  questions (skip patterns). Based on our findings, we determined that the  survey data were sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
In addition, in order to understand GPRAMA implementation in more  detail and put survey results in context for both objectives, we conducted  in-depth studies of two agencies’ implementation of performance  management leadership roles under GPRAMA and participation in the  PIC—the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the  National Science Foundation (NSF). We selected these two agencies  because they have differing characteristics that may affect  implementation, such as agency size and the career status of the official  in the PIO role. HHS is a relatively large agency when ranked according  to annual budget and number of staff, while NSF is a relatively small  agency. Additionally, HHS’s PIO is a political appointee, while NSF’s PIO  is a career civil servant. In making our selection, we excluded agencies  with certain characteristics, including those with a PIO that was relatively  new to the role at the time of our survey and agencies that had been the  subject of recent case studies on performance management by us or  other organizations. We conducted interviews with both selected  agencies’ COOs, PIOs, and deputy PIOs.
In addition, in order to understand the priority goal leader role and its  contributions to performance management, we selected three of HHS’s  six priority goals and two of NSF’s three priority goals and interviewed the  responsible goal leaders. We selected these goals on the basis of several  characteristics that may affect their management. These include: (1)  number of priority goal leaders—we selected some goals with one leader  and some with multiple leaders; (2) number of agency components  involved in the goal—we selected goals with varying numbers of  components and other stakeholders involved; (3) type of goal—we  selected some process goals and some outcome goals; and (4)  relationship to cross-agency priority goals—we included one goal in our  set that relates to a cross-agency priority goal. The three goals we  selected for HHS were: (1) improve the quality of early childhood  education: (2) improve patient safety; and (3) reduce cigarette smoking.  The two goals we selected for NSF were: (1) develop a diverse and highly  qualified science and technology workforce; and (2) increase  opportunities for research and education through public access to high- value digital products of NSF-funded research. For priority goals in which  two leaders were assigned, we interviewed one of the responsible  leaders. In several cases, deputy/ lieutenant goal leaders also attended  the interviews.
We also addressed our first objective by reviewing GPRAMA and OMB  guidance related to the key management roles. We reviewed information  provided to us by OMB on the officials in the roles, along with information  on them that is publically available through OMB’s performance.gov  website and agency websites. We also interviewed OMB staff and  officials at OPM about their work under GPRAMA, including their work  with agencies in implementing GPRAMA. To understand agencies’  perspectives and experiences in implementing the performance  management leadership roles under GPRAMA, we analyzed relevant  results from our survey of PIOs and included related questions in our  interviews with officials at HHS and NSF. We also obtained relevant  documentation, such as meeting agendas, from these two agencies.
To address our second objective, we reviewed GPRAMA and related  OMB guidance on the PIC. We analyzed PIC meeting agendas from  February 2009 through September 2012, and we observed part of the  September 12, 2012, PIC meeting. We also reviewed documents related  to the PIC and its working groups and website, and interviewed OMB and  PIC staff. We also interviewed OPM officials about their work with the  PIC. To understand agencies’ participation in and use of the PIC, we  analyzed relevant results from our survey of PIOs and included related  questions in our interviews with officials at HHS and NSF. We also  interviewed the PIC’s Executive Director, and officials from the Small  Agency Council and the chair of its Performance Improvement  Committee, which interacts with the PIC.
We conducted our work from May 2012 to April 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.
section_title: Appendix III: Core Competencies for Performance Management Staff
paragraphs: In a January 2012 memorandum, OPM’s Director identified 15  competencies that are essential for performance management staff to  have in order to perform their roles. The memorandum included the  following definitions of each competency.
Accountability - Holds self and others accountable for measurable high- quality, timely, and cost-effective results. Determines objectives, sets  priorities, and delegates work. Accepts responsibility for mistakes.  Complies with established control systems and rules.
Attention to Detail - Is thorough when performing work and  conscientious about attending to detail.
Customer Service - Works with clients and customers (that is, any  individuals who use or receive the services or products that your work unit  produces, including the general public, individuals who work in the  agency, other agencies, or organizations outside the Government) to  assess their needs, provide information or assistance, resolve their  problems, or satisfy their expectations; knows about available products  and services; is committed to providing quality products and services.
Influencing/Negotiating - Persuades others; builds consensus through  give and take; gains cooperation from others to obtain information and  accomplish goals.
Information Management - Identifies a need for and knows where or  how to gather information; organizes and maintains information or  information management systems.
Oral Communication - Expresses information (for example, ideas or  facts) to individuals or groups effectively, taking into account the audience  and nature of the information (for example, technical, sensitive,  controversial); makes clear and convincing oral presentations; listens to  others, attends to nonverbal cues, and responds appropriately.
Organizational Awareness - Knows the organization’s mission and  functions, and how its social, political, and technological systems work  and operates effectively within them; this includes the programs, policies,  procedures, rules, and regulations of the organization.
Organizational Performance Analysis - Knowledge of the methods,  techniques, and tools used to analyze program, organizational, and  mission performance; includes methods that deliver key performance  information (for example, comparative, trend, diagnostic, root cause,  predictive) used to inform decisions, actions, communications, and  accountability systems.
Partnering - Develops networks and builds alliances; collaborates across  boundaries to build strategic relationships and achieve common goals.
Performance Measurement - Knowledge of the principles and methods  for evaluating program or organizational performance using financial and  nonfinancial measures, including identification of evaluation factors (for  example, workload, personnel requirements), metrics, and outcomes.
Planning and Evaluating - Organizes work, sets priorities, and  determines resource requirements; determines short- or long-term goals  and strategies to achieve them; coordinates with other organizations or  parts of the organization to accomplish goals; monitors progress and  evaluates outcomes.
Problem Solving - Identifies and analyzes problems; weighs relevance  and accuracy of information; generates and evaluates alternative  solutions; makes recommendations.
Reasoning - Identifies rules, principles, or relationships that explain facts,  data, or other information; analyzes information and makes correct  inferences or draws accurate conclusions.
Technical Competence - Uses knowledge that is acquired through  formal training or extensive on-the-job experience to perform one’s job;  works with, understands, and evaluates technical information related to  the job; advises others on technical issues.
Written Communication - Writes in a clear, concise, organized, and  convincing manner for the intended audience.
section_title: Appendix IV: Results from Survey of Performance Improvement Officers
subsections: section_title: Performance Improvement Officer (You and Your Role)
paragraphs: Please note: Please provide what you personally believe is the most correct answer to each question, even if it is different from the  opinions of others at your agency.  1. Besides Performance Improvement Officer (PIO), what other title(s), if any, do you have (e.g. CFO)?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  2. When did you start serving in the position(s) you identified in Question 1?  3. Which of the following best describes your hiring status?  4. Who do you report to in the role(s) you identified in Question 1?  (check all that apply)
Number of  respondents  24  4a. If other, please specify:  Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  5. When did you start serving as PIO at your agency?  6. Who do you report to in your role as PIO?   (check all that apply)  1. Chief Operating Officer (i.e. Deputy Secretary or equivalent)  6a. If other, please specify:  Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  7. How many PIOs has your agency had (including yourself) since GPRAMA was enacted in January 2011?  8. On average, how much time per month do you spend performing duties related to your role as PIO?
If other factors specified in question 10, what was each additional factor?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  11. To what extent, if at all, are PIO responsibilities considered in your annual performance expectations and appraisals?
Not applicable  - no annual  performance  expectations  or appraisals  1  12. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the effectiveness of the PIO role?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
Deputy Performance Improvement Officer(s)
13. Does your agency have a Deputy Performance Improvement Officer(s)?
Yes - we have  2 Deputy  Performance  Improvement  Officers  2  14. When was the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer position created at your agency?  15. How many Deputy PIOs has your agency had (including the current person in that position) since GPRAMA was enacted  in January 2011?
Number of  respondents  22  16. What other title(s), if any, does each Deputy Performance Improvement Officer have?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  17. Who does each Deputy Performance Improvement Officer report to in the role(s) identified in question 16?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  18. On average, how much time per month does each Deputy PIO spend performing duties related to his/her role as PIO?
Number of  DPIOs  Listed by  Agencies  24  19. When did the Deputy Performance Improvement Officer start in his/her position?
Number of  DPIOs  Listed by  Agencies  24  20. To what extent, if at all, are Deputy PIO responsibilities specifically considered in his/her annual performance  expectations and appraisals?
Not applicable  - no annual  performance  expectations  or appraisals  21. What suggestions, if any, do you have for improving the effectiveness of the Deputy PIO role?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
See Appendix IV for explanations of competencies.
subsections: section_title: 22k. Planning and Evaluating
paragraphs: Number of  respondents  24  23. What are your plans, if any, to strengthen staff competencies?
Not applicable  -  competencies  are not  sufficiently  available, but  no action is  planned  1  23a. If other, please specify:  Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
GPRAMA provides senior agency officials with specific duties and responsibilities related to performance management and  achievement of performance goals. The key agency officials identified in the Act are Agency Head, Chief Operating Officer (COO) who  is the Deputy Secretary or equivalent position; Performance Improvement Officer (PIO); and Goal Leader. Later guidance from the  Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs agencies that have a political appointee serving as the PIO to appoint a career senior  executive to serve as Deputy PIO. The following questions address these roles and their responsibilities at your agency.  24. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in strategic and performance planning and goal  setting?
No opinion   Not applicable  2 0  No opinion   Not applicable  0 0  25. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in performance measurement and analysis?
No opinion   Not applicable  2 0  No opinion   Not applicable  0 0  26. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in communicating agency progress toward goals,  both internally and externally?
section_title: Quarterly Performance Reviews
paragraphs: As of June 2011, GPRAMA required agencies to review progress toward its priority goals on at least a quarterly basis. The quarterly  performance reviews are to involve key leadership and other relevant parties and should, at minimum, focus on the agency's priority  goals. They are to include reviewing progress and trends, coordinating within and outside the agency, assessing agencies’, activities',  and policies’' contributions to goals, categorizing goals by risk, and identifying strategies for improvement.
When we refer to "quarterly performance reviews" in the following questions, we refer to all aspects of the regularly-scheduled reviews  required under GPRAMA, including preparation, review, and follow-up. Some agencies refer to these reviews as "stat" reviews.  Additionally, although we refer to them as "quarterly performance reviews," agencies may conduct these reviews on a regularly  occurring basis more frequently than quarterly.  27. Does your agency conduct GPRAMA-required quarterly performance reviews?  28. Did your agency conduct quarterly performance reviews (or similar reviews) before the GPRAMA requirement took effect  in June 2011?  29. When did your agency begin conducting quarterly reviews?
Two PIOs did not respond to this question.  30. How does your agency conduct its quarterly performance reviews?  31. How often does your agency conduct performance reviews (although GPRAMA requires quarterly reviews, some agencies  have established other review cycles to meet their management needs)?
Number of  respondents  24  31a. How often?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  32. How much involvement, if any, does each of the following officials have in your agency's quarterly performance reviews?
No opinion   Not applicable  4 0  33. For each of the following officials, has their involvement in agency performance management increased, remained about  the same, or decreased as a result of your agency's quarterly performance reviews?
section_title: Performance Improvement Council
paragraphs: GPRAMA establishes in law the Performance Improvement Council (PIC). The PIC is an interagency council made up of agency PIOs  that is charged with assisting OMB with topics related to GPRAMA and facilitating the exchange of useful practices among agencies.  36. How often do you attend the every-other-month Performance Improvement Council meetings that are for PIOs only (not  deputies or staff)?
Rarely or  never  attend  meetings   2  37. How often do you attend the every-other-month Performance Improvement Council meetings that are open to PIOs,  Deputy PIOs, and staff?
Rarely or  never  attend  meetings   12  38. How often does a Deputy PIO or another representative(s) from your agency attend the every-other-month Performance  Improvement Council meetings that are open to PIOs, Deputy PIOs, and staff?
Rarely or  never  attend  meetings   1  39. Which of the following working groups of the Performance Improvement Council do/did you actively participate in  personally as the PIO? (check all that apply)
Number of  respondents  24  3. Internal Agency Reviews working group  6. I do not personally participate in any working groups  39a. If other working group, please specify:  Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  40. In which of the following working groups of the Performance Improvement Council do/did other representatives from your  agency actively participate? (check all that apply)
If other aspect(s) specified in question 41, what was each additional aspect?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  42. To what extent are you able to apply successful practices and other information and tools shared by the PIC to your  agency's performance management?  42a. Please provide an example or examples of case(s) in which you have applied successful practices and other information  and tools shared by the PIC in your agency.
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  43. What suggestions do you have for improving the effectiveness of the PIC, if any?
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.  44. Please provide any comments that would expand upon your responses to any of the questions in the survey.
Data for this question is intentionally not reported because it is difficult to summarize and/or could identify respondents.
section_title: Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgements
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above, Sarah Veale, Assistant Director,  and Kathleen Padulchick, Analyst-in-Charge, supervised the development  of this report. Virginia Chanley, Lois Hanshaw, Linda Kohn, Jill Lacey,  Albert Sim, and Meredith Trauner made significant contributions to all  aspects of this report.