	Background

GPRAMA requires OMB to coordinate with agencies to develop long- term, outcome-oriented federal government priority goals for a limited  number of crosscutting policy areas and management improvement areas  every 4 years. Participants engage in rigorous and sustained follow-up on issues identified during reviews. In addition to requiring quarterly reviews,  GPRAMA requires that OMB make information available on “a single  website” (now known as Performance.gov) for each CAP goal on the  results achieved during the most recent quarter, and overall trend data  compared to the planned level of performance. OMB and Goal Leaders Established Processes for Reviewing Cross- Agency Priority Goal Progress, but Not All Review Processes Were Consistent with Requirements and Leading Practices

		OMB Established a Quarterly Process for Reviewing Progress on CAP Goals, but Did Not Consistently Outline Improvement Strategies Where Goal Achievement Was at Risk

GPRAMA Requirement for OMB Progress Reviews  GPRAMA requires that, not less than quarterly, the Director of OMB, with the support of the PIC,  shall review progress on the CAP goals, including progress during the most recent quarter,  overall trends, and the likelihood of meeting the planned level of performance. A lack of specific information about the steps  being taken to mitigate identified risk areas and improve performance  could hinder the ability of OMB leadership—and others—to adequately  track the status of efforts to address identified deficiencies or risks and to  hold officials accountable for taking necessary actions. Some Goal Leaders Used Review Processes Broadly Consistent with Leading Practices, and Noted Their Positive Effects on Performance, Accountability, and Collaboration

Instituting review processes consistent with the leading practices we  previously identified can help ensure that reviews include meaningful  performance discussions, provide opportunities for oversight and  accountability, and drive performance improvement. Leadership Involvement. Other Goal Leaders Did Not Use Review Processes Consistent with the Full Range of Leading Practices for Reviews

We found that the processes used by other CAP goal leaders to engage  agency officials in the review of progress, which are summarized in  appendix IV, did not reflect the full range of leading practices. OMB reported performance information in the quarterly CAP goal status  updates it published on Performance.gov. For  example, while updates for 8 of the 14 goals included data that indicated  performance towards the identified overall planned level of performance,  only 3 also contained annual or quarterly targets that allowed for an  assessment of interim progress. Updates for the other 6 of the 14 goals  did not report on performance towards the goal’s primary performance  target because the goal was established without a quantitative target or  because goal managers were unable to collect the data needed to track  performance. The incomplete picture of progress that many of  the updates gave limited the ability of goal leaders and others to ensure  accountability for the achievement of targets and milestones. While OMB and CAP goal leaders instituted  processes for reviewing progress on the interim CAP goals, if GPRAMA  requirements and leading practices for reviews are not consistently  followed, it may result in missed opportunities to improve performance,  hold officials accountable for achieving identified goals and milestones,  and ensure agency officials are coordinating their activities in a way that  is directed towards the achievement of shared goals and milestones. To ensure that OMB and CAP goal leaders include all key contributors  and can track and report fully on progress being made towards CAP  goals overall and each quarter, we recommend that the Director of OMB  direct CAP goal leaders to take the following four actions:  Identify all key contributors to the achievement of their goals;  Identify annual planned levels of performance and quarterly targets for  each CAP goal;
Develop plans to identify, collect, and report data necessary to  demonstrate progress being made towards each CAP goal or develop  an alternative approach for tracking and reporting on progress  quarterly; and
Report the time frames for the completion of milestones; the status of  milestones; and how milestones are aligned with strategies or  initiatives that support the achievement of the goal. OMB staff generally agreed to consider our  recommendations. Due to the timing of our work, we  focused on the implementation of the reporting and review requirements  for the 14 interim cross-agency priority (CAP) goals established in  February 2012.about progress made towards the interim CAP goals; and (2) how, if at  all, quarterly progress reflected GPRAMA requirements and leading  practices for data-driven reviews, as well as how they contributed to  improved cross-agency performance and collaboration. Specifically, this report assesses (1) what is known  To address these objectives, we interviewed representatives of 13 of the  14 interim goals. Cybersecurity

Officials from National  Institute of Standards and  Technology, General  Services Administration  (GSA), DHS, National  Security Staff, Office of  Management and Budget  (OMB) and Performance  Improvement Council. Some sub-goal leaders would hold in-person meetings with officials from contributing  agencies to, among other things, review progress on identified goals and milestones.
Why GAO Did This Study

The federal government faces complex, high-risk challenges, such as protecting our nation's critical information systems. Effectively managing these challenges is essential for national and economic security and public health and safety. However, responsibility for addressing these challenges often rests with multiple agencies. To effectively address them, shared goals and cross-agency collaboration are fundamental.
This report responds to GAO's mandate to evaluate the implementation of GPRAMA. It assesses (1) what is known about progress made towards the interim CAP goals; and (2) how, if at all, quarterly progress reviews reflected GPRAMA requirements and leading practices for reviews, as well as how reviews contributed to improved cross-agency performance and collaboration. To address these objectives, GAO analyzed CAP goal status updates and other documents from OMB and CAP goal progress-review meetings, and interviewed OMB staff and CAP goal representatives. GAO compared this information to GPRAMA requirements and to leading practices for performance reviews previously reported on by GAO.

What GAO Found

CAP Goal Progress. The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to coordinate with agencies to: (1) establish outcome-oriented, federal government priority goals (known as cross-agency priority, or CAP, goals) with annual and quarterly performance targets and milestones; and (2) report quarterly on a single website now known as Performance.gov the results achieved for each CAP goal compared to the targets. In February 2012, OMB identified 14 interim CAP goals and subsequently published five quarterly updates on the status of the interim CAP goals on Performance.gov. While updates for eight of the goals included data that indicated performance towards an overall planned level of performance, only three also contained annual or quarterly targets that allowed for an assessment of interim progress. Updates for the other six goals did not report on progress towards a planned level of performance because the goals lacked either a quantitative target or the data needed to track progress. The updates on Performance.gov also listed planned activities and milestones contributing to each goal, but some did not include relevant information, including time frames for the completion of specific actions and the status of ongoing efforts. The incomplete information in the updates provided a limited basis for ensuring accountability for the achievement of targets and milestones.
OMB Quarterly Progress Reviews. GPRAMA also requires that OMB—with the support of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC)—review CAP goal progress quarterly with goal leaders. OMB instituted processes for reviewing progress on the goals each quarter, which involved the collection of data from goal leaders and the development of a memorandum for the OMB Director. However, the information included in these memorandums was not fully consistent with GPRAMA requirements. For example, GPRAMA requires OMB to identify strategies for improving the performance of goals at risk of not being met, but this was not consistently done. Without this information, OMB leadership and others may not be able to adequately track whether corrective actions are being taken, thereby limiting their ability to hold officials accountable for addressing identified risks and improving performance.
Leading Practices for Reviews. At the CAP-goal level, goal leaders for two CAP goals and one sub-goal instituted in-person progress reviews with officials from contributing agencies that were broadly consistent with the full range of leading practices for reviews, such as leadership involvement in reviews of progress on identified goals and milestones, and rigorous follow-up on issues identified through these reviews. In these cases, goal managers reported there were positive effects on performance, accountability, and collaboration. In contrast, review processes used by other goal leaders did not consistently reflect the full range of leading practices. Effective review processes consistently engage leaders and agency officials in efforts to identify and address performance deficiencies, and to ensure accountability for commitments. Thus, not using them may result in missed opportunities to hold meaningful performance discussions, ensure accountability and oversight, and drive performance improvement.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is making seven recommendations to OMB to improve the reporting of performance information for CAP goals and ensure that CAP goal progress reviews meet GPRAMA requirements and reflect leading practices. OMB staff generally agreed to consider GAO's recommendations.