Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) federal agencies are expected to focus on achieving results and to demonstrate, in annual performance reports and budget requests, how their activities help achieve agency or governmentwide goals. In 2002, to encourage greater use of program performance information in decision making, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) created the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). PART was intended to provide a consistent approach for evaluating federal programs within the executive budget formulation process. However, because PART conclusions rely on available program performance and evaluation information, many of the initial recommendations focused on improving outcome and efficiency measures. Although GPRA and PART helped improve the availability of better performance measures, we and OMB have noted that this did not result in their greater use by the Congress or agencies. In October 2009, OMB announced a plan to strengthen federal program evaluation, noting that rigorous independent program evaluations can help determine whether government programs are achieving their intended outcomes as well as possible and at the lowest possible cost. Program evaluations are systematic studies that assess how well a program is working, and they are individually tailored to address the client’s research question. Process (or implementation) evaluations assess the extent to which a program is operating as intended. Outcome evaluations assess the extent to which a program is achieving its outcome-oriented objectives but may also examine program processes to understand how outcomes are produced. When external factors such as economic or environmental conditions are known to influence a program’s outcomes, Impact evaluations may be used to measure a program’s net effect by comparing outcomes with an estimate of what would have occurred had there been no program intervention. Thus, program evaluation can provide an important complement to agency performance data that simply track progress toward goals. In announcing the evaluation initiative, the OMB Director expressed concern that many important programs had never been evaluated, evaluations had not sufficiently shaped budget priorities or management practices, and many agencies lack an evaluation office capable of supporting an ambitious strategic research agenda. The initiative consisted of three efforts: posting information online on all agencies’ planned and ongoing impact evaluations, establishing an interagency group to promote the sharing of evaluation expertise, and funding some new agency rigorous impact evaluations and capacity strengthening efforts. As part of the fiscal year 2011 budget process, OMB allocated approximately $100 million for the evaluation initiative to support 35 rigorous program evaluations and evaluation capacity-building proposals. OMB made a similar evaluation solicitation for the fiscal year 2012 budget in which nonsecurity agencies were asked to reduce their discretionary budgets by 5 percent. The budget process evaluation initiative is focused on impact evaluations and is not intended to cover the full range of an agency’s evaluation activities. However, to be considered for additional evaluation funding, agencies must demonstrate that they are both using existing evaluation resources effectively and beginning to integrate evaluation into program planning and implementation. With significant efforts under way to increase agencies’ evaluation resources, it is especially timely now to learn how agencies with more evaluation experience prioritize their resources. A recent GAO review identified three elements that leading national research organizations consider essential to a sound federal research and evaluation program: research independence, transparency and accountability, and policy relevance. These elements align well with OMB’s new evaluation initiative and expectations for a better integration of evaluation into program design and management. In this report, we do not assess the quality of the agencies’ research agendas or their achievement of these objectives. However, we do describe practices these agencies took that were designed to achieve those elements. The Department of Education establishes policy for, administers, and coordinates most federal assistance to elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education. The department has supported educational research, evaluation, and dissemination not only since the Congress created it in 1979 but also earlier, when it was the Office of Education. For several years, two central offices in the Department of Education have been responsible for program and policy evaluation. The Policy and Program Studies Service (PPSS), in the Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development (OPEPD), advises the Secretary on policy development and review, strategic planning, performance measurement, and evaluation. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES), established in 2002 (replacing the Office of Educational Research and Improvement), is the research arm of the department. IES is charged with producing rigorous evidence on which to ground education practice and policy, with program evaluation housed primarily in the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). In 2009, the Department of Education launched a review of its evaluation activities, comparing them to those of other government agencies, seeking to build analytic capacity, and intending to use available knowledge and evidence more effectively. This review resulted in a comprehensive, departmentwide evaluation planning process and clarified the distinct evaluation responsibilities of the two offices. Starting in 2010, OPEPD was to lead the planning process, in partnership with IES, to identify the department’s key priorities for evaluation and related knowledge-building activities. Starting in fiscal year 2011, NCEE in IES will be responsible for longer-term (18 months or longer) program implementation and impact studies, while PPSS in OPEPD will focus on shorter-term evaluation activities (fewer than 18 months), policy analysis, performance measurement, and knowledge management activities. Some program offices also conduct evaluation activities separate from studies conducted by either of the central offices, such as supporting grantee evaluations or analyzing grantee performance data for smaller programs where larger- scale evaluations are not practical. The Department of Housing and Urban Development is the principal federal agency responsible for programs on housing needs, fair housing opportunities, and community improvement and development. It insures home mortgages, subsidizes housing for low- and moderate-income families, promotes and enforces fair housing and equal opportunity housing, and provides grants to states and communities to aid community development. At HUD, program evaluation is primarily centralized in one office—the Office of Policy Development and Research (PD&R)—created in 1973. It conducts a mix of surveys, independent research, demonstrations, policy analyses, and short- and long-term evaluations that inform HUD’s decisions on policies, programs, and budget and legislative proposals. PD&R provides HUD’s program offices with technical support, data, and materials relevant to their programs. Although the primary responsibility for evaluating programs falls to PD&R, some evaluation is found in program offices, such as the Office of Housing, which routinely conducts analyses to update its loan performance models for assessing credit risk and the value of its loan portfolio. In 2006, the Congress, concerned about the quality of HUD research, commissioned the National Research Council (NRC) to evaluate the PD&R office and provide recommendations regarding the course of future HUD research. A 2008 NRC report noted declining resources for data collection and research and insufficient external input to its research agenda. On the heels of the report, the scope of the current economic and housing crisis led the incoming administration to acknowledge a need both to reform and transform HUD and to sustain a commitment of flexible budget resources for these efforts. In 2009, HUD proposed a departmentwide Transformation Initiative of organizational and program management improvements to position HUD as a high-performing organization. In fiscal year 2010, much of PD&R’s research and evaluation activities are funded through a set-aside created for the initiative, which also supports program measures, demonstrations, technical assistance, and information technology projects. Evaluation planning is decentralized at the Department of Health and Human Services. We reviewed ACF and CDC because they have significant evaluation experience. HHS’s centrally located Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation (ASPE) coordinates agency evaluation activities, reports to the Congress on the department’s evaluations, and conducts studies on broad, cross-cutting issues while relying on agencies to evaluate their own programs. In some cases, ASPE conducts independent evaluations of programs housed within other HHS operating and staff divisions (for example, ACF and CDC). ACF oversees and helps finance programs to improve the economic and social well-being of families, individuals, and communities—the Head Start program is an example. It also assists state programs for child support enforcement as well as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF). The Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation (OPRE) is the principal office for managing evaluation at ACF. It also provides guidance, analysis, technical assistance, and oversight related to strategic planning, performance measurement, research, and evaluation methods. It conducts statistical, policy, and program analyses and synthesizes and disseminates research and demonstration findings. OPRE consults with outside groups on ideas that feed into program and evaluation planning. In each policy area with substantial evaluation resources, OPRE consults with a group of researchers, program partners, and other content area experts who share their knowledge and ideas for research and evaluation. CDC, as part of the Public Health Service, is charged with protecting the public health by developing and providing to persons and communities information and tools for preventing and controlling disease, promoting health, and preparing for new health threats. It supports some evaluation activities through the Public Health Service (PHS) evaluation set-aside; in 2010 the Secretary was authorized to use up to 2.5 percent of appropriations for evaluating programs funded under the PHS Act. The set-aside is also used to fund databases of the National Center for Health Statistics and programs that cut across CDC’s divisions. Presently, the divisions within CDC control most evaluation funding focused on their respective programs, but evaluation planning across CDC is currently under review. CDC recently created an Office of the Associate Director for Program which will have responsibility for supporting performance measurement and evaluation across CDC, among other duties. We interviewed staff from evaluation offices in three CDC divisions: Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Obesity (DNPAO); HIV/AIDS Prevention (DHAP); and Adolescent and School Health (DASH). These three divisions oversee cooperative agreements with state and local agencies and plan a portfolio of evaluations.