Government Reorganization: Key Questions to Assess Agency Reform Efforts
Released: 2018-07-13T00:00:00


Highlights: section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: On March 13, 2017, the President issued an executive order requiring a comprehensive reorganization of executive branch agencies. In April 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided guidance to federal agencies for developing their reform and workforce reduction proposals. Past proposals to reform and reorganize government have not always come to fruition and can take years to implement fully. GAO's prior work has shown that successful reforms or transformations depend upon following change management practices, such as agreement on reform goals, and the involvement of the Congress, federal employees, and other key stakeholders.

This report identifies the key questions that Congress, OMB, and agencies can use to assess the development and implementation of agency reforms. To meet this objective, GAO reviewed its prior work and leading practices on organizational transformations; collaboration; government streamlining and efficiency; fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; high-risk; and on other agency longstanding management challenges. GAO also identified subject matter specialists knowledgeable about issues related to government reform and strategic human capital management who reviewed and commented on GAO's draft questions.

GAO is not making recommendations to OMB in this report. OMB staff provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The nation is on a long-term, unsustainable fiscal path because it is  spending far more money than it is collecting and projected to do so going  forward. While addressing this issue will require changes to both federal  spending and revenue policies, Congress and federal agencies can act  now to strengthen the efficiency and effectiveness of federal agencies  and programs, as well as address federal activities that are high-risk or  fragmented, overlapping, or duplicative—and save billions of dollars in the  process. For more than a decade, we have highlighted the need to re- evaluate and reprioritize what the federal government does, how it does  business, and as appropriate, who conducts its business. Although these  actions alone cannot put the U.S. government on a sustainable fiscal  path, they would improve the fiscal situation and help ensure agencies  have the capacity to address ongoing and newly emerging challenges  within available resources.

The organizational transformation needed to improve the performance of  federal agencies is no easy task, however, and can take years to fully  implement. Reforming and reorganizing the federal government is a major  endeavor that can include refocusing, realigning, or enhancing agency  missions, as well as taking steps to improve services by identifying and  eliminating inefficiencies. Equally important is maintaining or improving  effectiveness and examining the impact of such proposed changes on  employees, stakeholders, and program customers. Our earlier work has  shown that effective government transformation initiatives: (1) require a  combination of people, processes, technologies, and other critical  success factors to achieve results; and (2) are dependent upon following  essential change management practices, such as the involvement of the  Congress, federal employees, and other key stakeholders.

In March 2017, the President issued an executive order requiring a  comprehensive reorganization of executive branch agencies. In April  2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided guidance to  federal agencies for developing their reform and workforce reduction  plans, as required by the President’s executive order.

In this report, we identify key questions that Congress, OMB, and  agencies should consider for the development and implementation of  agency reforms, based on our prior work. In this report, we use the term  “reforms” to broadly include any organizational changes—such as major  transformations, mergers, consolidations, and other reorganizations—and  efforts to streamline and improve the efficiency and effectiveness of  government operations.

To identify the key questions, we reviewed our prior work, including  leading practices on organizational mergers and transformations,  collaboration, government streamlining and efficiency. We also reviewed  our prior work on fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; high-risk; and  other agency longstanding management challenges. We selected those  questions that were most relevant to the agency reform efforts outlined in  OMB’s guidance. A list of these related products are in appendix I.  Additionally, we met with OMB staff to discuss their role in working with  agencies on reform efforts.

Because we drew the material in this report from prior work, we contacted  a selection of nine subject matter specialists to review the major  categories that were covered by our questions to assess that there were  no major gaps in our categories or questions and that they were  presented in the appropriate context. To identify these specialists, we considered individuals who had previously assisted us in developing key  leading practices in our work that we used to draw our questions, as well  as those that are knowledgeable in government reform, management,  and strategic human capital management issues. We shared our draft  questions with these specialists for their technical comments and views,  and incorporated their comments as appropriate. A list of these  specialists is found in appendix II.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2017 to June 2018 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: Prior to the President’s March 2017 executive order for comprehensive  government reorganization, in January 2017, the President ordered a  federal hiring freeze—providing exemptions for federal employees with  national security or public safety responsibilities. The January 2017  presidential memo also directed OMB, in consultation with the Office of  Personnel Management (OPM), to recommend a long-term plan to  reduce the size of the federal workforce through attrition. OMB’s April  2017 guidance to agencies on their reform plans lifted the federal hiring  freeze. Below is a timeline for proposed reform development and  implementation as shown in figure 1.

According to OMB’s April 2017 guidance, the agency reform plans were  intended to accomplish several objectives, including creating a lean,  accountable, more efficient government, focusing on efficiency and  effectiveness and delivering programs of highest needs to citizens, and  aligning the federal workforce to meet the needs of today and the future,  among other things.

Each agency’s proposed reform plan was to include proposals to improve  efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in four categories: (1)  eliminate activities; (2) restructure and merge activities; (3) improve  organizational efficiency and effectiveness; and (4) workforce  management. To support these proposed reforms, OMB asked agencies  to conduct an analysis, among other things, to consider if there was a  unique federal role or whether some or all services, activities, or functions  could be better performed by another entity, such as a state, local or tribal  government or the private sector. Additionally, according to OMB’s April  2017 guidance, the draft agency proposed reform plan should be aligned  with the agency strategic plan. Agency strategic plans were to be  released with the President’s fiscal year 2019 budget.

The final reforms included in the fiscal year 2019 budget also were to be  reflected in the agencies’ human capital operating plans and information  technology strategic plans, based on OMB guidance we reviewed. In  March 2018, OMB released the President’s Management Agenda (PMA),  which provided updated information on the status of government  reorganization efforts and is connected with these reform efforts. The  PMA also identified a set of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals, required  under the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), to target those  areas where multiple agencies must collaborate to effect change and  report progress in a manner the public can easily track.

In addition to the agency reform proposals, OMB was also required by the  March 2017 executive order to develop a comprehensive government- wide reform plan, including both legislative proposals and administrative  actions based on agency reform plans, OMB-coordinated crosscutting  proposals, and public input. According to a document provided by OMB  staff, OMB solicited public comments beginning in April 2017 through  June 2017 to inform the development of the government-wide reform  plan. OMB staff told us they provided these comments to the appropriate  agencies.

The March 2018 PMA stated that, in the months ahead, the  administration plans to share additional reorganization proposals  designed to refocus programs around current and future needs.  According to OMB guidance, once the government-wide reform proposals  are finalized, it will, in coordination with the President’s Management  Council, establish a way to track the progress of the reforms. To track  progress of the reforms, OMB’s guidance stated that it will leverage the  federal performance planning and reporting framework originally put into  place by the Government Performance Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and  significantly enhanced by GPRAMA, through the use of CAP goals,  agency priority goals, and Performance.gov.

section_title: Key Questions to Assess Agency Reforms
paragraphs: Given the potential benefits and challenges developing and implementing  agency reform efforts, Congress and the executive branch need the tools  and information to help evaluate agencies’ reform proposals and ensure  they are effectively implemented. Congress’s role in reviewing agency  proposed reforms will be critical to the success of making significant  changes in how the government operates.

To assist Congress in its oversight role, we organized our prior work and  leading practices into the following four broad categories that can help the  Congress assess proposed reforms. Figure 2 describes the four broad  categories, relevant sub-categories of questions, and selected key  questions in more detail below.
subsections: section_title: Goals and Outcomes of Reforms
paragraphs: Lessons learned from prior federal reform and reorganization efforts  suggest that reforming government is an immensely complex activity that  requires agreement on both the goals to be achieved and the means for  achieving them. Because many current federal programs and policies  were designed decades ago to respond to trends and challenges that  existed at the time of their creation, it makes sense to periodically conduct  fundamental reviews of major programs and policy areas to ensure they  continue to meet current goals and emerging trends. It is also important to  determine the appropriate level of government, or the roles of the non- profit or private sectors, in achieving these goals. Our prior work shows  that establishing a mission-driven strategy and identifying specific desired  outcomes to guide that strategy are critical to achieving intended  results. In other words, what is the agency trying to achieve with its  reforms?
subsections: section_title: Determining the Appropriate Role of the Federal Government
paragraphs: It is important for agencies to reexamine the role of the federal  government in carrying out specific missions and programs, policies, and  activities by reviewing their continued relevance and determining whether  the federal government is best suited to provide that service or if it can be  provided by some other level of government or sector more efficiently or  effectively. Another key aspect of shifting federal activities to other levels  of government is how well the federal government fully considered the  potential effects reforms might have on state and local governments,  especially from a budgetary and fiscal standpoint. For example, how  should the federal government act directly, or in partnership with another  level of government or a non-profit organization, to achieve the identified  outcomes? Defining the appropriate federal role also involves examining  the federal government’s relationships with key state, local, non-profit,  and private sector partners. For example, agencies should assess  whether there are alternatives for managing their programs effectively  across intergovernmental and organizational boundaries, as well as which  level of government has the capacity to deliver on the nation’s needs and  priorities today and in the future.

How well have the proposed reforms indicated the likely result of the  elimination, merging, or restructuring of activities with other levels of  government or sectors?

To what extent have the proposed reforms included consideration for  other levels’ of government or sectors’ ability or likelihood to invest  their own resources to address the underlying challenges?

To what extent have the proposed reforms included goals to transfer a  particular responsibility to another level of government—such as state  or local government—or sector, and has the agency made the case  that such a transfer could improve the overall accomplishment of  public purpose?

To what extent have the proposed reforms considered if a new  mechanism is needed to integrate and coordinate programs between  levels of government? If so, what statutory or regulatory changes  would be needed to support such a transfer in responsibilities and to  address concerns such as cost-sharing or funding?

To what extent has the agency identified any risks of using  contractors to perform agency activities, and if so, has it developed  appropriate risk mitigating strategies?

section_title: Establishing Goals and Outcomes
paragraphs: When considering government reforms, our prior work has identified  useful principles, such as designing proposed reforms to achieve specific,  identifiable goals that encourage decision makers to reach a shared  understanding of the purpose of the reforms. Agreement on specific goals  can help decision makers determine what problems genuinely need to be  fixed, how to balance differing objectives, and what steps need to be  taken to create, not just short-term advantages but long-term gains. Part  of determining if agencies have successfully identified the goals of their  proposed reforms is to determine whether the agency has built a  business case analysis that presents facts and supporting details among  competing alternatives.

To what extent has the agency established clear outcome-oriented  goals and performance measures for the proposed reforms?

To what extent has the agency shown that the proposed reforms align  with the agency’s mission and strategic plan?

To what extent has the agency considered and resolved any agency  crosscutting or government-wide issues in developing their proposed  reforms? For example, what are the implications of proposed reforms  on other agencies?

To what extent has the agency considered the likely costs and  benefits of the proposed reforms? If so, what are they?

To what extent has the agency considered how the upfront costs of  the proposed reforms would be funded?

To what extent has the agency included both short-term and long- term efficiency initiatives in the proposed reforms?

section_title: Process for Developing Reforms
paragraphs: Successful reforms require an integrated approach that involves  employees and key stakeholders and is built on the use of data and  evidence. Reforms should also address agency management challenges,  such as those we have identified as fragmented, duplicative, or  overlapping, or in our high-risk program, or by agency Inspectors  General.
subsections: section_title: Involving Employees and Key Stakeholders
paragraphs: Our prior work has shown that it is important for agencies to directly and  continuously involve their employees, the Congress, other key  stakeholders—such as other federal partners, state and local  governments, and members of the public—in the development of any  major reforms. Involving employees, customers, and other stakeholders  helps facilitate the development of reform goals and objectives, as well as  incorporating insights from a frontline perspective and increases customer  acceptance of any changes. We have also identified leading practices for  open innovation strategies, defined as the use of activities and  technologies to harness ideas, expertise, and resources of those outside  an organization to address an issue or achieve specific goals.

How and to what extent has the agency consulted with the Congress,  and other key stakeholders, to develop its proposed reforms?

How and to what extent has the agency engaged employees and  employee unions in developing the reforms (e.g., through surveys,  focus groups) to gain their ownership for the proposed changes?

How and to what extent has the agency involved other stakeholders,  as well as its customers and other agencies serving similar customers  or supporting similar goals, in the development of the proposed  reforms to ensure the reflection of their views?

How and to what extent has the agency considered the views of state  and local governments that would be affected by the proposed  reforms?

How and to what extent have agencies gathered the views of the  public and incorporate these views in the proposed reforms?

Is there a two-way continuing communications strategy that listens  and responds to concerns of employees regarding the effects of  potential reforms?

How will the agency publicize its reform goals and timeline, and report  on its related progress?

section_title: Using Data and Evidence
paragraphs: We have reported that agencies are better equipped to address  management and performance challenges when managers effectively  use data and evidence, such as from program evaluations and  performance data that provide information on how well a program or  agency is achieving its goals. When reforming a given program, the use  of data and evidence is critical from setting program priorities and  allocating resources to taking corrective action to solve performance  problems and ultimately improve results. We have also stated that full  and effective implementation of GPRAMA could facilitate efforts to reform  the federal government and make it more efficient, effective, and  accountable. GPRAMA also provides important tools that can help  decision makers address challenges facing the federal government.

What data and evidence has the agency used to develop and justify  its proposed reforms?

How has the agency determined that the evidence contained  sufficiently reliable data to support a business case or cost-benefit  analysis of the reforms?

How, if at all, were the results of the agency’s strategic review process  used to help guide the proposed reforms?

How, if at all, were the results of the agency’s enterprise risk  management process used to help guide the proposed reforms?

section_title: Addressing Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication
paragraphs: In our prior work, we have identified areas where agencies may be able to  achieve greater efficiency or effectiveness by reducing or better  managing programmatic fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. For  additional details on assessing areas of fragmentation, overlap, and  duplication, see our evaluation and management guide.

To what extent has the agency addressed areas of fragmentation,  overlap, and duplication—including the ones we identified—in  developing its reform proposals?

To what extent have the agency reform proposals helped to reduce or  better manage the identified areas of fragmentation, overlap, or  duplication?

To what extent has the agency identified cost savings or efficiencies  that could result from reducing or better managing areas of  fragmentation, overlap, and duplication?

section_title: Addressing High Risk Areas and Longstanding Management Challenges
paragraphs: Reforms improving the effectiveness and responsiveness of the federal  government often require addressing longstanding weaknesses in how  some federal programs and agencies operate. For example, agency  reforms provide an opportunity to address the high-risk areas and  government-wide challenges we have called attention to that are  vulnerable to fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement, or are in need of  transformation.

What management challenges and weaknesses are the reform efforts  designed to address?

How specifically has the agency considered high-risk issues, agency  Inspector General’s major management challenges, and other  external and internal reviews in developing its reform efforts?

Have the agency’s efforts to address those challenges been  consistent with the proven approach GAO has found to resolve high  risk issues? Agencies can show progress by addressing GAO’s five  criteria for removal from the High-Risk List: leadership commitment,  capacity, action plan, monitoring, and demonstrated progress. The  five criteria form a road map for efforts to improve and ultimately  address high-risk issues.

How has the agency identified and addressed critical management  challenges in areas such as information technology, cybersecurity,  acquisition management, and financial management that can assist in  the reform process?

How does the agency plan to monitor the effects proposed reforms  will have on high risk areas?

Has the agency addressed ways to decrease the risk of fraud, waste,  and abuse of programs as part of its proposed reforms?

In addition, agencies should also draw upon our past recommendations,  including GAO priority open recommendations and those from their own  Inspectors General, to address management challenges.

How have findings and open recommendations from GAO and the  agency Inspectors General been addressed in the proposed reforms?

How has the agency addressed GAO’s priority open  recommendations, which are those that warrant priority attention from  heads of key departments and agencies?

section_title: Implementing the Reforms
paragraphs: Our prior work on organizational transformations show that incorporating  change management practices improves the likelihood of successful  reforms. Moreover, it is also important to recognize agency cultural  factors that can either help or inhibit reform efforts and how change  management strategies may address these potential issues. We have  also reported that organizational transformations, such as reforms, should  be led by a dedicated team of high-performing leaders within the agency.  Finally, our prior work also shows that fully implementing major  transformations can span several years and must be carefully and closely  managed.
subsections: section_title: Leadership Focus and Attention
paragraphs: Has the agency designated a leader or leaders to be responsible for  the implementation of the proposed reforms?

Has agency leadership defined and articulated a succinct and  compelling reason for the reforms (i.e., a case for change)?

How will the agency hold the leader or leaders accountable for  successful implementation of the reforms?

Has the agency established a dedicated implementation team that  has the capacity, including staffing, resources, and change  management, to manage the reform process?

section_title: Managing and Monitoring
paragraphs: How has the agency ensured their continued delivery of services  during reform implementation?

What implementation goals and a timeline have been set to build  momentum and show progress for the reforms? In other words, has  the agency developed an implementation plan with key milestones  and deliverables to track implementation progress?

Has the agency ensured transparency over the progress of its reform  efforts through web-based reporting on key milestones?

Has the agency put processes in place to collect the needed data and  evidence that will effectively measure the reforms’ outcome-oriented  goals?

How is the agency planning to measure customer satisfaction with the  changes resulting from its reforms?

section_title: Strategically Managing the Federal Workforce
paragraphs: As part of its reform effort, OMB also required agencies to develop a long- term workforce reduction plan and a plan to maximize employee  performance as part of the April 2017 reform guidance. Specifically, OMB  required agencies to develop proposals intended to improve performance,  increase accountability, and reduce the size and costs of the federal  workforce. Our prior work has found that at the heart of any serious  change management initiative are the people—because people define the  organization’s culture, drive its performance, and embody its knowledge  base. Experience shows that failure to adequately address—or often  even consider—a wide variety of people and cultural issues can lead to  unsuccessful change.
subsections: section_title: Employee Engagement
paragraphs: Research on both private- and public-sector organizations has found that  increased levels of engagement—generally defined as the sense of  purpose and commitment employees feel toward their employer and its  mission—can lead to better organizational performance. Additionally, we  found that agencies can sustain or increase their levels of employee  engagement and morale, even as employees weather difficult external  circumstances. In a previous review of trends in federal employee  engagement, as seen in figure 2 below, we identified six key drivers of  engagement based on our analysis of selected questions in the Federal  Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS).

What do FEVS results show for the agency’s current employee  engagement status both overall and disaggregated to lower  organizational levels?

How does the agency plan to sustain and strengthen employee  engagement during and after the reforms?

How specifically is the agency planning to manage diversity and  ensure an inclusive work environment in its reforms, or as it considers  workforce reductions?

section_title: Strategic Workforce Planning
paragraphs: Strategic workforce planning should precede any staff realignments or  downsizing, so that changed staff levels do not inadvertently produce  skills gaps or other adverse effects that could result in increased use of  overtime and contracting.

To what extent has the agency conducted strategic workforce  planning to determine whether it will have the needed resources and  capacity, including the skills and competencies, in place for the  proposed reforms or reorganization?

How has the agency assessed the effects of the proposed agency  reforms on the current and future workforce and what does that  assessment show?

To what extent does the agency track the number and cost of  contractors supporting its agency mission and the functions those  contractors are performing?

How has the agency ensured that actions planned to maintain  productivity and service levels do not cost more than the savings  generated by reducing the workforce?

What succession planning has the agency developed and  implemented for leadership and other key positions in areas critical to  reforms and mission accomplishment?

To what extent have the reforms included important practices for  effective recruitment and hiring such as customized strategies to  recruit highly specialized and hard-to-fill positions?

What employment- and mission-related data has the agency identified  to monitor progress of reform efforts and to ensure no adverse impact  on agency mission, and how is it using that data?

section_title: Workforce Reduction Strategies
paragraphs: Before implementing workforce reduction strategies, it is critical that  agencies carefully consider how to strategically downsize the workforce  and maintain the staff resources to carry out its mission. Agencies should  consider long-term staffing plans and associated personnel costs,  organizational design and position structures and the appropriateness of  backfilling positions as they become vacant.

To what extent has the agency considered skills gaps, mission  shortfalls, increased contracting and spending, and challenges in  aligning workforce with agency needs prior to implementing workforce  reduction strategies?

In situations when “early outs” and “buyouts” are proposed, to what  extent has the agency linked proposed early outs and buyouts to  specific organizational objectives, including the agency’s future  operational, restructuring, downsizing, or other reform goals?

section_title: Employee Performance Management
paragraphs: Performance management systems are used to plan work and set  individual employee performance expectations, monitor performance,  develop capacities to perform, and rate and incentivize individual  performance. In addition, performance management systems can help  the organization manage employees on a daily basis and help to ensure  that individual employees understand the “line of sight” between their  performance and organizational results.  Effective performance  management systems provide supervisors and employees with the tools  they need to improve performance.

To what extent has the agency aligned its employee performance  management system with its planned reform goals?

How has the agency included accountability for proposed change  implementation in the performance expectations and assessments of  leadership and staff at all levels?

As part of the proposed reform development process, to what extent  has the agency assessed its performance management to ensure it  creates incentives for and rewards top performers, while ensuring it  deals with poor performers?

To what extent has the agency taken action to address employees  with unacceptable performance and increase the use of alternative  dispute resolution to address workplace disputes that involve  disciplinary or adverse actions?

section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Director of the Office of  Management and Budget for review and comment. OMB staff provided  technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the appropriate  congressional committees, the Director of the Office of Management and  Budget, and other interested parties. This report will also be 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 J. Christopher Mihm  at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov or Robert Goldenkoff at   (202) 512-2757 or goldenkoffr@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of our report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix III.

section_title: Appendix 1: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Organizational Transformation and Streamlining Government   GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing  Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, GAO-12-1022 (Washington,  D.C.: Sep. 27, 2012).

GAO, Streamlining Government: Questions to Consider When Evaluating  Proposals to Consolidate Physical Infrastructure and Management  Functions, GAO-12-542 (Washington, D.C.: May 23, 2012).

GAO, Government Efficiency and Effectiveness: Opportunities for  Improvement and Considerations for Restructuring, GAO-12-454T  (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 21, 2012).

GAO, Streamlining Government: Key Practices from Select Efficiency  Initiatives Should Be Shared Governmentwide, GAO-11-908  (Washington, D.C.: Sep 30, 2011).

GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers  and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: Jul.  2, 2003).

GAO, A Call For Stewardship: Enhancing the Federal Government's  Ability to Address Key Fiscal and Other 21st Century Challenges,  GAO-08-93SP (Washington, D.C.:  Dec. 17, 2007).

GAO, 21st Century Challenges: Reexamining the Base of the Federal  Government, GAO-05-325SP (Washington, D.C.:  Feb. 1, 2005).

GAO, Regulatory Programs: Balancing Federal and State Responsibilities  for Standard Setting and Implementation, GAO-02-495 (Washington,  D.C.: Mar. 20, 2002).

Fragmentation, Duplication, and Overlap  GAO, 2018 Annual Report: Additional Opportunities to Reduce  Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication and Achieve Other Financial  Benefits, GAO-18-371SP (Washington, D.C.:  Apr. 26, 2018).

GAO, Fragmentation, Overlap, and Duplication: An Evaluation and  Management Guide, GAO-15-49SP (Washington, D.C.:  Apr. 14, 2015).

High-Risk and Major Management Challenges  GAO, High-Risk Series: Progress on Many High-Risk Areas, While  Substantial Efforts Needed on Others, GAO-17-317 (Washington, D.C.:  Feb. 15, 2017).

GAO, Managing for Results: Selected Agencies’ Experiences in  Implementing Strategic Reviews, GAO-17-740R (Washington, D.C.: Sep.  7, 2017).

GAO, Enterprise Risk Management: Selected Agencies' Experiences  Illustrate Good Practices in Managing Risk, GAO-17-63 (Washington,  D.C.: Dec. 1, 2016).

GAO, Managing for Results: Practices for Effective Agency Strategic  Reviews, GAO-15-602 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 29, 2015).

Contracting and National Security Acquisitions   GAO, Federal Procurement: Smarter Buying Initiatives Can Achieve  Additional Savings, but Improved Oversight and Accountability Needed,  GAO-17-164 (Washington, D.C.:  Oct. 26, 2016).

GAO, Framework for Assessing the Acquisition Function At Federal  Agencies, GAO-05-218 (Washington, D.C.:  Sep. 1, 2005).

GAO, Improper Payments: Strategy and Additional Actions Needed to  Help Ensure Agencies Use the Do Not Pay Working System as Intended,  GAO-17-15 (Washington, D.C.:  Oct. 14, 2016).

GAO, Financial Management Systems: Experience with Prior Migration  and Modernization Efforts Provides Lessons Learned for New Approach,  GAO-10-808 (Washington, D.C.: Sep. 8, 2010)

GAO, Financial Management Systems: Additional Efforts Needed to  Address Key Causes of Modernization Failures, GAO-06-184  (Washington, D.C.:  Mar.15, 2006).

GAO, Executive Guide: Creating Value Through World-class Financial  Management (Supersedes AIMD-99-45), AIMD-00-134 (Washington,  D.C.:  Apr.1, 2000).

GAO, Information Technology: Further Implementation of FITARA  Related Recommendations Is Needed to Better Manage Acquisitions and  Operations, GAO-18-234T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 15, 2017).

GAO, Information Technology: Opportunities for Improving Acquisitions  and Operations, Highlights of a Forum Convened by the Comptroller  General of the United States, GAO-17-251SP (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11,  2017).

GAO, Cybersecurity: Federal Efforts Are Under Way That May Address  Workforce Challenges, GAO-17-533T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2017).

GAO, IT Workforce: Key Practices Help Ensure Strong Integrated  Program Teams; Selected Departments Need to Assess Skill Gaps,  GAO-17-8 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 30, 2016).

GAO, Federal Chief Information Security Officers: Opportunities Exist to  Improve Roles and Address Challenges to Authority, GAO-16-686  (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 26, 2016).

GAO, Digital Service Programs: Assessing Results and Coordinating with  Chief Information Officers Can Improve Delivery of Federal Projects,  GAO-16-602 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 15, 2016).

GAO, Information Technology Reform: Billions of Dollars in Savings Have  Been Realized, but Agencies Need to Complete Reinvestment Plans,  GAO-15-617 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 15, 2015).

Strategically Managing the Federal Workforce  GAO, Federal Workforce: Additional Analysis and Sharing of Promising  Practices Could Improve Employee Engagement and Performance,  GAO-15-585 (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 14, 2015).

GAO, Federal Workforce: OPM and Agencies Need to Strengthen Efforts  to Identify and Close Mission-Critical Skills Gaps, GAO-15-223  (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 30, 2015).

GAO, Federal Workforce: Improved Supervision and Better Use of  Probationary Periods Are Needed to Address Substandard Employee  Performance, GAO-15-191 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 6, 2015).

GAO, Results-Oriented Management: OPM Needs to Do More to Ensure  Meaningful Distinctions Are Made in SES Ratings and Performance  Awards, GAO-15-189 (Washington, D.C.:  Jan. 22, 2015)

GAO, Human Capital: Strategies to Help Agencies Meet Their Missions in  an Era of Highly Constrained Resources, GAO-14-168  (Washington, D.C.:   May 7, 2014).

GAO, Human Capital: Agencies Are Using Buyouts and Early Outs with  Increasing Frequency to Help Reshape Their Workforces, GAO-06-324  (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 31, 2006).

GAO, Issues Related to Poor Performers in the Federal Workplace,  GAO-05-812R (Washington, D.C.: June 29, 2005).

GAO, Human Capital: A Guide for Assessing Strategic Training and  Development Efforts in the Federal Government (Supersedes  GAO-03-893G), GAO-04-546G (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 1, 2004).

GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for Effective Strategic Workforce  Planning, GAO-04-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 11, 2003).

GAO, Results-Oriented Culture: Creating a Clear Linkage between  Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO-03-488  (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 2003).

GAO, Federal Downsizing: Effective Buyout Practices and Their Use in  FY 1997, GGD-97-124 (Washington, D.C.: Jun. 30, 1997).

GAO, Performance Management: How Well Is the Government Dealing  With Poor Performers?, GGD-91-7(Washington, D.C.: Oct. 2, 1990).

GAO, Recent Government-Wide Hiring Freezes Prove Ineffective in  Managing Federal Employment, FPCD-82-21 (Washington, D.C: Mar. 10,  1982).

GAO, Key Issues: Ensuring the Security of Federal Information Systems  and Cyber Critical Infrastructure and Protecting the Privacy of Personally  Identifiable Information - High Risk Issue, accessed April 24, 2018,  https://www.gao.gov/key_issues/ensuring_security_federal_information_s ystems/issue_summay  GAO, Key Issues, Duplication and Cost Savings, Action Tracker,  https://www.gao.gov/duplication/overview#t=1, accessed April 24,  2018,an online tool for monitoring the progress federal agencies and  Congress have made in addressing the actions identified in GAO's annual  Duplication and Cost Savings reports.

section_title: Appendix II: Subject Matter Specialists

section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts

section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the above contact, Sarah E. Veale, Assistant Director,  Thomas Gilbert, Assistant Director, and Carole J. Cimitile, Analyst-in- Charge, supervised the development of this report. Layla Y. Moughari,  Steven Putansu, and Robert Robinson made significant contributions to  this report. Kayla Robinson provided legal counsel.

Fast facts: A March 2017 executive order requiring executive branch agency reorganization is intended to improve efficiency and effectiveness. If it works, it could save billions of dollars—but similar reform efforts in the past have not always come to fruition.

Our prior work on government reform indicates that agencies can change if they

follow an effective process

allocate sufficient implementation resources

consider workforce needs during and after the reform

In this report, we provide questions that Congress can ask in its critical oversight role to determine whether agencies are on track for effective change.

Question-summary annotations: questions: question: How did the President mandate the reorganization of executive branch agencies?
answer: On March 13, 2017, the President issued an executive order requiring a comprehensive reorganization of executive branch agencies.
child_questions: question: How has OMB started carrying out the executive order?
answer: In April 2017, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) provided guidance to federal agencies for developing their reform and workforce reduction proposals.

question: To what extent have past reforms been successful?
answer: Past proposals to reform and reorganize government have not always come to fruition and can take years to implement fully.
child_questions: question: What factors do successful reforms depend upon?
answer: GAO's prior work has shown that successful reforms or transformations depend upon following change management practices, such as agreement on reform goals, and the involvement of the Congress, federal employees, and other key stakeholders.

questions: question: What does this report cover?
answer: This report identifies the key questions that Congress, OMB, and agencies can use to assess the development and implementation of agency reforms.
child_questions: question: What prior work did GAO review for this report?
answer: To meet this objective, GAO reviewed its prior work and leading practices on organizational transformations; collaboration; government streamlining and efficiency; fragmentation, overlap, and duplication; high-risk; and on other agency longstanding management challenges.

question: How did GAO solicit feedback about this report?
answer: GAO also identified subject matter specialists knowledgeable about issues related to government reform and strategic human capital management who reviewed and commented on GAO's draft questions.