Program evaluations are systematic studies that use research methods to address specific questions about program performance. Evaluation is closely related to performance measurement and reporting. Whereas performance measurement entails the ongoing monitoring and reporting of program progress toward preestablished goals; program evaluation typically assesses the achievement of a program’s objectives and other aspects of performance in the context in which the program operates. In particular, evaluations can be designed to isolate the causal impacts of programs from other external economic or environmental conditions in order to assess a program’s effectiveness. Thus, an evaluation study can provide a valuable supplement to ongoing performance reporting by measuring results that are too difficult or expensive to assess annually, explaining the reasons why performance goals were not met, or assessing whether one approach is more effective than another. Evaluation can play a key role in program planning, management, and oversight by providing feedback on both program design and execution to program managers, legislative and executive branch policy officials, and the public. In our 2013 survey of federal managers, we found that while only about a third had recent evaluations of their programs or projects, the majority of those who had evaluations reported that they contributed to understanding program performance, sharing what works with others, and making changes to improve program management or performance. GPRAMA made changes to agency performance management roles, planning and review processes, and reporting intended to ensure that agencies used performance information in decision making and were held accountable for achieving results and improving government performance. The act required the 24 CFO Act agencies and OMB to establish agency and governmentwide cross-agency priority goals, review progress on those goals quarterly, and report publicly on their progress and strategies to improve performance, as needed, on a governmentwide performance website. It also encouraged a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of those strategies by requiring agencies to identify and coordinate the program activities, organizations, regulations, policies, and other activities—both internal and external—that contribute to each agency priority goal. GPRAMA, along with related OMB guidance, established and defined performance management responsibilities for agency officials in key management roles: the Chief Operating Officer (COO), the PIO, and a goal leader responsible for coordinating efforts to achieve the cross-agency and agency priority goals. The PIO role was created in 2007 by executive order. GPRAMA established the role in law and specified that it be given to a “senior executive” at each agency who reports directly to the agency’s COO or to its deputy agency head. The PIO is to advise the head of the agency and the COO on goal setting, measurement, and reviewing progress on the agency priority goals. OMB guidance gave PIOs a central role in promoting agency use of evaluation and other evidence to improve program performance, describing their roles as “. . . driving performance improvement efforts across the organization, by using goal-setting, measurement, analysis, evaluation and other research, data-driven performance reviews on progress, cross-agency collaboration, and personnel performance appraisals aligned with organizational priorities.” “Help components, program office leaders and goal leaders to identify and promote adoption of effective practices to improve outcomes, responsiveness and efficiency, by supporting them in . . . securing evaluations and other research as needed . . . and creating a network for learning and knowledge sharing about successful outcome- focused, data-driven performance improvement methods across all levels of the organization and with delivery partners.” The act also charged the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), and OMB with responsibilities to improve agency performance management capacity. The PIC is an interagency council that was created by executive order, but GPRAMA established it in law and specified that it would be chaired by the OMB Deputy Director for Management and that membership would include the PIOs from all 24 CFO Act agencies, as well as any others. The PIC’s duties include facilitating agencies’ exchange of successful practices and the development of tips and tools to strengthen agency performance management, and assisting OMB in implementing certain GPRAMA requirements. The PIC holds “principals only” and broader meetings open to other agency staff, has formed several working groups that focus on issues relating to implementing GPRAMA and related guidance, and provides a networking forum for staff from different agencies who are working on similar issues. In 2012 through 2014, OMB and the PIC supported several interagency forums on evaluation and evidence that were open to all federal agency staff. The act charged OPM with (1) identifying key skills and competencies needed by federal employees for developing goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using performance information for improving governmental efficiency and effectiveness; (2) incorporating those skills and competencies into relevant position classifications; and (3) working with agencies to incorporate these skills and competencies into agency training. OPM identified core competencies for performance management staff, PIOs, and goal leaders and published them in a January 2012 memorandum. OPM identified relevant existing position classifications that are related to the competencies and worked with the PIC Capacity Building working group to develop related guidance and tools for agencies. In December 2012, the PIC released a draft Performance Analyst position design, recruitment, and selection toolkit. OPM worked with the Chief Learning Officers Council and the PIC Capacity Building working group to develop a website—the Training and Development Policy wiki—that lists some resources for personnel performance management and implementing GPRAMA. OPM is currently conducting pilot studies through 2015, in collaboration with the Chief Human Capital Officers Council, of how to build staff capacity in several competencies identified as mission critical across government, including data analysis. OPM officials also noted that they make databases, such as the Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey, available to agencies for their staff to use in program evaluations. OMB has taken several steps to help agencies develop evaluation capacity by issuing guidance, promoting the exchange of evaluation expertise through the PIC, and working selectively with certain agencies. Since 2009, OMB has issued several memorandums urging efforts to strengthen the use of rigorous impact evaluation, and demonstrate the use of evidence and evaluation in budget submissions, strategic plans, and performance plans. In May 2012, OMB encouraged agencies to designate a high-level official responsible for evaluation who could develop and manage the agency’s research agenda and provide independent input to agency policymakers on resource allocation and to program leaders on program management. In July 2013, the Directors of OMB, the Domestic Policy Council, the Office of Science and Technology Policy, and the Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, jointly issued a memorandum encouraging agencies to adopt an “evidence and innovation agenda”: applying existing evidence on what works, generating new knowledge, and using experimentation and innovation to test new approaches to program delivery. In particular, the memorandum encouraged agencies to exploit existing administrative data to conduct low-cost experiments, and implement outcome-focused grant designs and research clearinghouses to catalyze innovation and learning. OMB staff established an interagency group to promote sharing of evaluation expertise, and organized a series of workshops and interagency collaborations. The workshops addressed issues such as potential procedural barriers to evaluation (e.g., the Paperwork Reduction Act information collection reviews) and promising practices for collecting evidence (e.g., developing a common evidence framework). OMB staff facilitated the collaboration of staff from the Department of Education and the National Science Foundation in developing common standards of evidence for reviewing research proposals, and another group of agencies in developing a common framework of standards for reviewing completed evaluations. Studies of organization or government evaluation capacity have found that it requires analytic expertise and access to credible data as well as organizational support both within and outside the organization to ensure that credible, relevant evaluations are produced and used. Our survey found levels of evaluation expertise, support, and use uneven across the government. For example, 7 of the 24 agencies have central leaders responsible for evaluation; in contrast, 7 agencies reported having no recent evaluations for any of their performance goals. To address our first objective and guide our assessment of agency evaluation capacity, we reviewed the research and policy literature on evaluation capacity, including assessments of agencies in Canada and the United Kingdom, and guidance from the American Evaluation Association (AEA) and the United Nations Evaluation Group. While the details vary, these frameworks commonly emphasize three general categories of elements of organizational, especially national, evaluation capacity: An enabling environment supporting the use of evidence in management and policymaking: credible information and statistical systems, legislation or policies to institutionalize monitoring and evaluation, public interest in evidence of government performance, and senior leadership commitment to transparency, accountability, and managing for results. Organizational resources to support the supply and use of credible evaluations: a senior evaluation leader; an evaluation office with clearly defined roles and responsibilities, a stable source of funding, and independence; an evaluation agenda, policies and tools to ensure study credibility and utility; staff expertise and access to experts; and collaboration with program managers and stakeholders. Evaluation results and use: evaluation quality and credibility; coverage of the agency’s key programs or goals; transparent reporting and public dissemination of reports; recommendation follow-up; and the use of evaluation results in program management, policy making, and budgeting. To learn about federal agencies’ evaluation capacity, we surveyed the PIOs or their deputies at the 24 CFO Act agencies because of the central role GPRAMA and OMB assigned them to promote agency performance assessment and improvement efforts. Our 2012 survey of PIOs found that they held senior leadership positions and that most of them were involved in the central aspects of agency performance management to a large extent. Although the PIO position was created in 2007, only one of the initial PIOs continued to hold this position at the time of our 2014 survey. Half had started serving in this position within the past 2 years. Many of our survey respondents held key senior leadership positions in their agencies: 8 PIOs served as the agency’s Chief Financial Officer, another 4 as Assistant Secretary or Deputy for Administration or Management.