These include:
Government-wide: cross-agency priority (CAP) goals. The Executive Branch Needs to Take Additional Actions to Address Crosscutting Issues, but OMB Has Increased Emphasis on Governance of Cross-Agency Priority Goals

		OMB and Agencies Continue to Miss Opportunities to Address Crosscutting Issues

Many of the meaningful results that the federal government seeks to  achieve, such as those related to protecting the environment, promoting  public health, and providing homeland security, require the coordinated  efforts of more than one federal agency, level of government, or sector. One of the GPRAMA provisions that has the  potential to help in addressing crosscutting issues is the requirement that  agencies develop inventories of their programs, though in October 2014  we reported that several issues limit the usefulness of the inventories. OMB Is Taking Steps to Enhance the Governance and Implementation of Current CAP Goals

OMB has made several improvements to its CAP goal guidance, in part in  response to our prior work, which found that OMB should strengthen CAP  goal reviews. Ensuring Performance Information Is Useful and Used by Managers Remains a Challenge, but OMB and Agencies Are Implementing Processes That May Lead to Improvements

		Agencies Continue to Face Challenges in Using Performance Information for Decision Making

We have long reported that agencies are better equipped to address  management and performance challenges when managers effectively  use performance information for decision making. However, our recent work shows that agencies continue to have  problems effectively using performance information. GPRAMA requires that reviews of progress of  agency priority goals (APG) be held at least quarterly; as this requirement  is more fully implemented, the use of performance information for  decision making should improve. Nearly all of the 22 agencies that reported  holding in-person reviews responded that they always or often use their  review meetings to assess progress on APGs and to identify goals at risk  and strategies for performance improvement. In addition, evidence-based tools—such as program evaluations and “pay  for success” funding mechanisms—can also facilitate the use of  performance information. GPRAMA  and related guidance provide several mechanisms that can help  individuals and agencies see this connection and help them contribute to  agency and government-wide goals. Data-driven and strategic reviews. Goal leaders’ Senior Executive Service performance plans. OMB and Agencies Have Not Clearly Communicated Key Performance Information, but More Effective Implementation of GPRAMA Requirements Would Improve Transparency

To operate as effectively and efficiently as possible and to make difficult  decisions to address the federal government’s fiscal and performance  challenges, Congress, the administration, and federal managers must  have ready access to reliable and complete financial and performance  information—both for individual federal entities and for the federal  government as a whole. OMB  staff stated that this information will likely not be available until agencies  start reporting on the next set of APGs (for fiscal years 2016 and  2017). OMB and Agencies Generally Agreed with GAO’s Prior Recommendations to Improve GPRAMA Implementation, but Most Have Not Yet Been Implemented

Our work examining aspects of GPRAMA implementation and its effects  on agency performance management has identified a number of areas in  which improvements are needed. However, of the 69  recommendations we have made, 55 (about 80 percent) have not yet  been implemented, while 14 recommendations (about 20 percent) have  been implemented. We made 21 recommendations to OMB and agencies between May  2012, when we issued our first report on GPRAMA implementation, and  June 2013, when we issued our previous summary report. Specifically, these 23 recommendations were included in our recent work  on data-driven reviews and the quality of performance information, and  they focus on ensuring that agency data-driven review processes and  reporting on the quality of performance information are consistent with  GPRAMA requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices. OMB staff  generally agreed with the information presented in the report, and  provided us with technical clarifications, which we have incorporated as  appropriate. Our objectives for this report were to evaluate how GPRAMA  implementation has affected progress in addressing four areas: (1)  crosscutting issues; (2) the extent to which performance information is  useful and used; (3) aligning daily operations with results; and (4)  communication of performance information. We also interviewed OMB and Performance Improvement  Council staff. Appendix II: Recommendations to OMB from GAO’s Work under the GPRA Modernization Act That Have Been Implemented

Table 4 shows recommendations we have made as part of our work  under the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) that the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) has implemented. Managing for Results: Selected Agencies Need to Take Additional Efforts  to Improve Customer Service.
Why GAO Did This Study

Effective implementation of GPRAMA can help address significant and long-standing budget, management, and performance challenges the federal government faces. This report is the latest in a series of GAO work in response to a statutory provision to review GPRAMA implementation. It examines how implementation has affected progress in addressing (1) crosscutting issues; (2) the extent to which performance information is useful and used; (3) alignment of daily operations with results; and (4) communication of performance information.
To address these objectives, GAO reviewed GPRAMA and related guidance, recent and ongoing work related to these four areas, and the status of the 69 recommendations made to OMB and agencies as part of GAO's prior work on GPRAMA implementation. GAO also interviewed OMB and Performance Improvement Council (PIC) staff. GAO included work issued since June 2013, when GAO issued the previous summary report on GPRAMA's initial implementation.
GAO is not making any new recommendations in this report. OMB and agencies generally agreed with the 69 related recommendations GAO made between 2012, when GAO issued its first report in response to the statutory provision in GPRAMA, and now, but most recommendations (about 80 percent) have not yet been implemented. GAO shared a draft of this report with OMB. OMB staff generally agreed with the information presented in the report and provided technical clarifications, which GAO incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

GAO's work over the past 2 years shows that implementation of the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA) continues to be uneven, with varying effects on agencies' performance management. Some progress has been made in areas where GAO has made prior recommendations; however, GAO has continued to identify a range of long-standing challenges in the four areas discussed below.
The executive branch still needs to take additional actions to address crosscutting issues, but the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has increased emphasis on governance of cross-agency priority (CAP) goals. For example, OMB has issued new guidance and governance for CAP goals, which cover areas where cross-agency collaboration is needed. However, more effective implementation of GPRAMA requirements, such as the requirement that agencies develop inventories of their programs, would help address crosscutting issues by providing decision makers with comprehensive program and funding information.
Ensuring performance information is useful and used by managers remains a challenge, but OMB and agencies are implementing processes that may lead to improvements. Agencies continue to have problems effectively using performance information. GAO's analysis indicates that agencies' reported use of performance information generally did not improve between 2007 and 2013. However, as OMB and agencies continue to implement data-driven and strategic review processes, the use of performance information should improve. For example, GAO found that nearly all of the 22 agencies that reported holding in-person data-driven reviews of agency priority goals (APG)—which represent agencies' highest priorities—said they use the reviews to assess progress on APGs and that they have had a positive effect on goal progress. Similarly, some agencies have increased their use of or enhanced their efforts to improve their capacity to use other evidence-based tools, such as program evaluations.
Agencies continue to face challenges linking individual and agency performance to results . GPRAMA provisions, such as the requirement that agencies identify a goal leader responsible for APG achievement, promote linkages between individual performance and agency results. GAO has recommended that agencies strengthen some mechanisms that can promote this connection, such as through Senior Executive Service performance plans. Agencies also need to take additional actions to address GAO recommendations on measuring performance in a number of areas, such as customer service.
OMB and agencies have not clearly communicated reliable and complete financial and performance information, but more effective implementation of GPRAMA requirements would improve transparency. GPRAMA requirements for reporting on the quality of performance information have the potential to improve the transparency of that information. While OMB has updated some of its guidance, improved reporting on the quality of information is not expected from the agencies until the fiscal year 2016 and 2017 reporting cycle.