Agencies Have Made Progress Implementing Key Requirements for Priority Goals, but Some Information Is Incomplete

		Agencies Have Implemented Several Requirements Related to Priority Goals

For each APG, agencies were required, by GPRAMA or OMB guidance,  to make available to OMB for publication on Performance.gov and in their  strategic plans or performance plans (1) a performance goal with a target  level of performance to be achieved in a 2-year time frame; (2) an  explanation of how the goal contributes to agency strategic goals; and (3)  the identification of an agency official as the goal leader responsible for  achieving the goal. Agencies identified external contributors for 73 of the 102 APGs. However, it was not always clear why  external contributors were not identified for 29 of the 102 APGs. Similarly, although we did not analyze whether agencies  included all relevant internal and external contributors for their APGs, our  work on potential areas of fragmentation, overlap, and duplication helped  identify several examples where agencies did not list relevant external  contributors. Agencies Did Not Provide Milestones with Scheduled Completion Dates for Many Priority Goals

The act requires each APG to have clearly defined quarterly milestones— scheduled events signifying the completion of a major deliverable or a set  of related deliverables or a phase of work. Without clearly defined milestones, agencies may have difficulty  demonstrating that they have properly planned the actions needed, and  are tracking progress, to accomplish their APGs. However, it is unclear when SBA  intends to complete these actions. Agencies also did not always  identify external contributors to their APGs. In addition, most  agencies did not describe how their APGs contribute to CAP goals. OMB’s guidance does not adequately reflect that agencies should  describe this linkage. Without clear targets,  which enable a comparison of results against planned performance, it is  unclear if agency managers have the information they need to determine  if they are making sufficient progress toward each APG—a practice our  past work has shown can actually lead to increased use of information  and improved results. Although  OMB’s 2012 A-11 guidance directs agencies to develop quarterly  milestones for their APGs and outlines near-term and longer-term  timeframes those milestones should cover, the guidance does not state  that agencies should provide specific completion dates for their  milestones. To ensure that agencies can (1) compare actual results to planned  performance on a more frequent basis, as appropriate, and (2)  demonstrate how they plan to accomplish their goals as well as contribute  to the accomplishment of broader federal efforts, we recommend the  Director of OMB revise relevant guidance documents to provide a definition of what constitutes “data of significant value;” direct agencies to develop and publish on Performance.gov interim  quarterly performance targets for their APG performance measures  when the above definition applies; direct agencies to provide and publish on Performance.gov  completion dates, both in the near term and longer term, for their  milestones; and direct agencies to describe in their performance plans how the  agency’s performance goals—including APGs—contribute to any of  the CAP goals. In addition, as OMB works with agencies to enhance Performance.gov to  include additional information about APGs, we recommend that the  Director of OMB ensure that agencies adhere to OMB’s guidance for  website updates by providing  complete information about the organizations, program activities,  regulations, tax expenditures, policies, and other activities—both  within and external to the agency—that contribute to each APG; and a description of how input from congressional consultations was  incorporated into each APG. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope & Methodology

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires us to review  the act’s implementation at several critical junctures, and this report is  part of a series of reviews planned around the requirement. Our specific  objectives for this report were to (1) examine the extent to which agencies  have implemented selected planning and reporting requirements and  leading practices related to agency priority goals (APG); and (2) comment  on the priority goals of several selected agencies based on our prior work  and that of relevant agency inspectors general (IGs) and identify our  relevant open recommendations and matters for congressional  consideration. In addition, for the first objective, we reviewed and assessed the  implementation of selected planning and reporting requirements for 102  of the 103 APGs developed by the 24 agencies selected by OMB and that  were released concurrently with the President’s fiscal year 2013 budget  on Performance.gov.requirements we used to assess implementation included whether the  goal: (1) supports a federal government priority goal (also known as  cross-agency priority or CAP goals); (2) contributes to agency strategic  goals; (3) reflects input from congressional consultations; (4) identifies the  federal organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other  activities—both within and external to the agency—that contribute to the  APG; (5) has a clearly identified agency official as the goal leader; (6) has  targets for a 2-year timeframe; (7) has interim quarterly targets; and (8)
The key GPRAMA planning and reporting  has clearly defined quarterly milestones. To address the second objective, we selected 5 of the 24 agencies that  developed APGs—the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS),  Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Transportation (DOT), and  Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)— based on several factors, including the number and variety of types of  federal programs involved in achieving the goals, such as direct service,  grant, and regulatory programs, and whether the APGs were related to  any of the CAP goals. In October 2012, HUD addressed these  recommendations by issuing detailed guidance. GAO-12-34. VA agreed with this recommendation. Many of these weaknesses continue.
Why GAO Did This Study

GAOs work has repeatedly shown that federal agencies must coordinate better to achieve common outcomes. The act established a more crosscutting and integrated approach to achieving results and improving performance, including a requirement that agencies identified by OMB establish APGs. The act directs GAO to review its implementation at several junctures; this report is part of a series doing so. This report (1) examines the extent to which 24 agencies identified by OMB implemented selected requirements related to 102 APGs, and (2) comments on the 21 APGs of five selected agencies, based on prior GAO and IG work, including the status of relevant open recommendations. To address these objectives, GAO reviewed the acts requirements for APGs, OMB guidance, APG information from Performance.gov and related agency documents; and interviewed OMB officials. GAO selected DHS, HUD, DOT, VA, and OPM for their variety of APG program types and linkage to CAP goals. For each agency, GAO reviewed its past work, as well as that of IGs, related to the APGs and updated the status of open recommendations.

What GAO Found

For 102 agency priority goals (APGs) for 2012 to 2013 that GAO reviewed, agencies implemented three GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (the act) requirements. Agencies identified (1) a target level of performance within a 2-year time frame; (2) how their APGs contribute to their strategic goals; and (3) an agency official responsible for achieving each APG. These represent important accomplishments, but information about other requirements is incomplete:
Agencies did not fully explain the relationship between APGs and crosscutting efforts. The act directs agencies to identify federal organizations, programs, and activities that contribute to each APG. Agencies identified internal contributors to their APGs, but did not identify external contributors for 34 of 102 APGs. In some cases the APGs appeared to be internally focused; however, in others GAO's work has shown there are external contributors, but none were listed. In addition, the act requires agencies to identify how, if at all, an APG contributes to any cross-agency priority (CAP) goals set by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Although 29 of 102 APGs appeared to support a CAP goal, only two described the link. When agencies do not identify external contributors or links to crosscutting efforts, it is unclear whether agencies are coordinating to limit overlap and duplication.
Most APGs had performance measures, but many lacked interim targets. The act requires agencies to develop quarterly targets for APGs if they provide data of significant value at a reasonable level of burden. However, OMB's guidance does not fully address this. Without interim targets when appropriate, agencies cannot demonstrate that they are comparing actual results against planned performance on a sufficiently frequent basis to address performance issues as they arise.
Agencies did not identify milestones with completion dates for many APGs. The act requires agencies to develop and publish milestones--scheduled events for completing planned actions--for their APGs. However, OMB's guidance does not direct agencies to provide specific completion dates for their milestones. For 39 of 102 APGs, agencies did not provide milestones with clear completion dates for the next quarter or the remainder of the goal period. Without milestones, agencies are unable to demonstrate that they have properly planned for the actions needed to accomplish their goals and are tracking progress.
Most agencies did not describe how APGs reflect congressional input. The act directs agencies to describe for each APG how input from consultations with Congress was incorporated. However, only one agency provided a description. Without transparency regarding congressional input, there is less assurance that meaningful consultations with Congress are occurring.
GAO commented on all 21 of the APGs from the Departments of Homeland Security (DHS), Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Transportation (DOT), and Veterans Affairs (VA), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), based on past GAO and inspectors general (IG) work. The most frequent theme in the comments is that agencies continue to face the long-standing challenge of measuring performance and collecting accurate performance data.

What GAO Recommends

GAO makes recommendations to OMB to improve APG implementation by revising its guidance to better reflect interim target, milestone, and CAP goal alignment requirements; and ensure that agencies provide complete information about external contributors to their APGs and describe congressional input on APG development. OMB staff agreed with these recommendations.