GPRAMA Requirement for Quarterly Priority Progress Reviews   GPRAMA requires that, not less than quarterly, at all agencies required to develop agency  priority goals, the head of the agency and Chief Operating Officer, with the support of the  agency Performance Improvement Officer, shall:   For each agency priority goal, review with the appropriate goal leader the progress  achieved during the most recent quarter, overall trends, and the likelihood of meeting  the planned level of performance;
Coordinate with relevant personnel within and outside the agency that contribute to  the accomplishment of each agency priority goal;
Assess whether relevant organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and  other activities are contributing as planned to the agency priority goals;
Categorize agency priority goals by risk of not achieving the planned level of  performance; and  For agency priority goals at greatest risk of not meeting the planned level of  performance, identify prospects and strategies for performance improvement,  including any needed changes to agency program activities, regulations, policies, or  other activities. Nine Leading Practices Identified by GAO That Can Be Used to Promote Successful  Data-Driven Performance Reviews
Reviews are conducted frequently and regularly. Most Agencies Reported Conducting Data-Driven Reviews Consistent with Requirements, Guidance, and Leading Practices

		Nearly All Agencies Reported Holding Regular Data-Driven Review Meetings at Least Quarterly

GPRAMA Requirement: Quarterly Reviews   GPRAMA requires that agency leaders conduct reviews on progress toward agency  priority goals (APGs) not less than quarterly. Of the 23 CFO Act agencies surveyed, 20 agencies reported that they  hold data-driven review meetings at least quarterly, with some agencies  holding them more frequently. A Few Agencies Reported Conducting Less Frequent in- Person Reviews

OMB guidance is clear that reviews should be held in person to bring  together senior leaders and officials involved in all levels of program  delivery. Homeland Security. Health and Human Services. Therefore,  progress on each APG is only reviewed by officials from State in  an in-person review meeting once a year. As GPRAMA requirements and OMB guidance are clear that in-person  review meetings should be held at least once a quarter, and that progress  on each APG should be reviewed each quarter in these meetings, the  approaches of these four agencies – DHS, HHS, State, and USDA – are  not consistent with requirements for the frequency and expected  characteristics of reviews. A Few Agencies Reported Their COOs Do Not Lead Reviews

USDA, the Department of Defense (DOD), and State reported in our  survey that the agency head or COO does not lead meetings that are  used to review progress on APGs, as specified by GPRAMA and OMB  guidance. Twenty-one out of 22 agencies reported that their goal leaders always or  often participate in review meetings. All 22 agencies reported that they always or often collect data on APG  performance measures and milestones in advance of their review  meetings. After data have been collected and analyzed, they must be effectively communicated to  participants. Furthermore, all 22 agencies also reported that they  always or often distribute these materials to participants for review before  the meetings. Through our survey, we found that most agencies reported they always or  often use their review meetings to assess progress and contributions, and  identify goals at risk. SBA reported through our  survey that participants would rarely identify and agree on specific  follow-up actions to be taken after meetings. Most Agencies Reported Review Meetings Have Positively Affected Performance, Collaboration, Accountability, and Efficiency

The results of our survey on agency data-driven review practices indicate  that review meetings have had positive effects on progress toward  agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold  agency officials accountable for progress toward goals, and the ability to  identify opportunities to improve agency operations. Sustaining Positive Effects of Reviews Requires Ongoing Leadership Commitment, Institutionalizing Review Processes, and Demonstrating Value to Participants

As reported through our survey and discussions with agency officials,  data-driven review meetings can improve agency performance and  results by increasing leadership oversight and management capacity to  use performance information, focusing attention on goals and priorities,  identifying areas where targeted improvements are needed, and  improving communication and collaboration across an agency. These  practices are consistent with requirements, guidance, and leading  practices. Recommendations for Executive Action

To help ensure that agency review processes provide frequent, regular  opportunities to assess progress on agency priority goals (APG), and are  conducted in a manner consistent with GPRA Modernization Act of 2010  (GPRAMA) requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices, we  recommend the following actions:
That the Secretary of Agriculture work with the COO and PIO to  modify the Department’s review processes to ensure that review  meetings: (1) are held at least quarterly; (2) are led by the agency  head or COO; (3) involve APG leaders; (4) and involve, as  appropriate, agency officials with functional management  responsibilities. DHS, HHS, and USDA concurred with our recommendations. DOD and State concurred with all but one recommendation—to ensure  the COO leads the reviews—with which they partially concurred. For  these reasons, we believe that these recommendations to follow  requirements and guidance remain valid. Specifically, this report examines (1) the extent to which agencies are  conducting data-driven performance reviews in a manner consistent with  GPRAMA requirements, Office of Management and Budget (OMB)  guidance, and leading practices; and (2) how agency data-driven  performance reviews have affected performance, collaboration,  accountability, and efficiency within agencies, and how positive effects  can be sustained.
Why GAO Did This Study

How federal leaders manage the operations and performance of their agencies significantly affects their ability to achieve important outcomes critical to public health and safety. GAO's previous work has identified weaknesses in agencies' use of performance information that can hinder achievement of critical results.
This report is part of GAO's response to a statutory requirement to review GPRAMA implementation. It examines (1) the extent to which agencies are conducting data-driven performance reviews consistent with GPRAMA requirements, OMB guidance, and leading practices; and (2) how reviews have affected performance, collaboration, accountability, and efficiency in agencies, and how positive effects can be sustained.
GAO surveyed PIOs at 23 agencies, followed up to clarify responses, and interviewed officials involved in reviews at 5 agencies. These agencies were selected based on size and the extent to which leaders use reviews, as reported on a 2013 survey. GAO also reviewed OMB guidance and relevant documentation from agencies.

What GAO Found

The GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA) requires that federal agencies review progress on agency priority goals (APG) at least once a quarter. GPRAMA requires that reviews be conducted by top agency leaders, involve APG goal leaders and other contributors, and be used to identify at-risk goals and strategies to improve performance. While GPRAMA requires that agencies conduct reviews, it also required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to prepare guidance on its implementation. Since 2011, OMB has provided guidance on how reviews should be conducted, specifying they should be held in person. Further, GAO previously identified nine leading practices for reviews.
Agencies Reported Review Practices Consistent with Requirements and Guidance. Of the 23 agencies GAO surveyed, most reported conducting data-driven reviews consistent with requirements, guidance, and leading practices. Specifically, most agencies reported:
conducting data-driven review meetings at least once a quarter, with several agencies holding them more frequently (20 agencies);
conducting Chief Operating Officer (COO)-led reviews, or reviews led jointly by the COO and Performance Improvement Officer (PIO) (19);
always or often involving PIOs (22) and APG goal leaders (21) in reviews;
always or often collecting and analyzing relevant data in advance of reviews, and incorporating these data into meeting materials (22);
always or often using review meetings to assess APG progress (20); and
always or often identifying follow-up actions to be taken after review meetings (18), an action that is positively correlated with the reported impact of reviews on agency performance improvement.
Agency Review Practices Inconsistent with Requirements and Guidance. Some agency practices were inconsistent with requirements or guidance. For instance, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reported that it does not hold in-person reviews, and the Departments of Agriculture (USDA) and Health and Human Services (HHS) reported that they do not hold regular, in-person reviews each quarter. The Department of State (State) reported that progress on each APG is only reviewed in an in-person review once a year, rather than each quarter, as required. The Department of Defense (DOD), USDA, and State also reported that their reviews are not led by their agency heads or COO. DOD also reported it rarely identifies follow-up actions to be taken after meetings.
Agencies Reported Positive Effects of Reviews . Most agencies reported their reviews have had positive effects on progress towards agency goals, collaboration between agency officials, the ability to hold officials accountable for progress, and efforts to improve the efficiency of operations. According to agency officials, reviews can bring together people, analytical insights, and resources to rigorously assess progress on goals or milestones, develop collaborative solutions to problems, enhance individual and collective accountability for performance, and review efforts to improve efficiency. Agencies reported that sustaining these effects requires ongoing leadership commitment, institutionalizing review processes, and demonstrating value to participants.

What GAO Recommends

To ensure that agency reviews are consistent with requirements, guidance, and leading practices, GAO is making recommendations to five agencies. DHS, HHS, and USDA concurred with the recommendations. DOD and State concurred with all but one recommendation—to ensure the COO leads the reviews—with which they partially concurred. GAO believes these recommendations are valid, as discussed in the report.