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. 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. 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 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? 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? 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? 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. 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? 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? 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. 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? 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? 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? 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? 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. 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. 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.

Summary: 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.