The first round of  APGs was publicly reported in February 2012, and they were to be  completed by the end of fiscal year 2013. GPRAMA also established in law the Performance Improvement Council  (PIC), chaired by OMB’s Deputy Director for Management and composed  of performance improvement officers from various federal agencies. Goal Leaders Are Carrying out Their Roles and Responsibilities on Goal Progress, but Their Performance Plans Do Not Always Hold Them Directly Accountable

		Goal Leaders are Generally Highly-Placed within Their Organizations and Reported a Range of Roles and Responsibilities

The goal leaders for the goals in our sample were, in general, placed at  high levels within their agencies and so were in senior leadership  positions that enabled them to drive progress on their APGs. Goal Leaders Report Varied Effects from Goal Leader Designation, but Identified Benefits in Conjunction with Other Related GPRAMA Requirements

A majority of the goal leaders we interviewed said the goal leader  designation had positive effects on goal progress and achievement. OMB also directed agencies to appoint deputy goal leaders because the  position may help provide continuity in the event that the goal leader  leaves the agency, and also provides a point of contact for OMB,  particularly in situations in which the designated goal leader is very highly  placed in the agency. Of the 47 APGs in  our sample, 20 (slightly more than 40 percent) had a change in goal  leader during this time period. Although most of the goal leaders we interviewed had formal deputy goal  leaders in place, 11 of the 46 (24 percent) did not. Although other agency staff may fulfill many of the roles  that a deputy goal leader would, officially designating a deputy goal  leader would be consistent with OMB’s view that deputies serve a key  role in implementing APGs. OMB staff agreed with our  recommendation. As of June 2014, OMB and Performance Improvement Council (PIC)  staff reported that agencies continue to work to implement this recommendation through  a PIC working group that is intended to help agencies share best practices for conducting  QPRs, but did not have a specific timeframe in place for full implementation:  To better leverage agency quarterly performance reviews as a mechanism to manage  performance toward agency priority and other agency-level performance goals, the  Director of OMB—working with the PIC and other relevant groups—should identify and  share promising practices to help agencies extend their QPRs to include, as relevant,  representatives from outside organizations that contribute to achieving their agency  performance goals. HUD refers to their QPRs as “HUDStat.”

		Goal Leaders Recognized the Contributions Different Types of Programs Made to Their APGs, but There Are Limited Mechanisms for Sharing Information Across Agencies

GPRAMA requires the agency head and chief operating officer, with the  support of the performance improvement officer, to assess whether  relevant organizations, program activities, regulations, policies, and other  activities are contributing as planned to the agency’s APGs, and to  identify these contributing programs for publication on Performance.gov. Goal Leaders Identified Some Common Challenges and Practices in Goal Management, but Share This Information to a Limited Extent

		Goal Leaders Identified Some Common Challenges and Practices in Managing Goals, but Have Limited Exchange of Information with Other Goal Leaders

Goal leaders we interviewed identified several common challenges in  managing APGs. In these cases, most examples involved sharing  information with officials with whom they work on issues related to their  APGs. Performance plans are a tool for ensuring that  officials are evaluated on and held accountable for defined outcomes, but  the majority of the performance plans we reviewed did not fully reflect  responsibility for APGs. Although other mechanisms, such as QPRs, also  promote accountability, agencies that do not clearly link goal leader and  deputy performance plans with APGs may be missing opportunities to  ensure that goal leaders and deputies are held accountable for goal  progress. To better promote the sharing of information among goal leaders and  their deputies, we recommend that the Director of OMB work with the PIC  to further involve agency priority goal leaders and their deputies in  sharing information on common challenges and practices related to  agency priority goal management. While  this is true, the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 established the goal  leader position in law and assigned specific responsibilities to goal  leaders. The objectives of this report are to: (1) evaluate  the roles and responsibilities of agency priority goal leaders in managing  goal progress and the extent to which they are held accountable for  achievement of priority goals; (2) review the extent to which priority goal  leaders collaborate with other programs and agencies that contribute to  the achievement of the priority goals; and (3) describe any challenges  and practices identified by priority goal leaders in managing goals, and  evaluate the extent to which they exchange this information with other  priority goal leaders. The sample we  selected included nearly half (47) of these APGs. To address our second objective, we obtained and analyzed  documentation from goal leaders related to collaboration, such as  minutes and agenda of meetings during 2012 and 2013 at which APGs  were discussed, and records of agency analysis of different program  types that contribute to APGs, such as grants.
Why GAO Did This Study

Leadership involvement and accountability are important factors driving successful performance improvement in government. GPRAMA established the role of the agency priority goal leader and assigned accountability for achieving APGs to these officials.
This report is one of a series in which GAO, as required by GPRAMA, reviewed the act's implementation. It assesses (1) the roles and responsibilities of agency priority goal leaders in managing goal progress and the extent to which they are held accountable for goal achievement; (2) the extent to which goal leaders collaborate with other programs and agencies that contribute to APG achievement; and (3) any challenges and practices identified by goal leaders, and the extent to which they exchange this information with their peers.
To address all three objectives, GAO examined nearly half (47 of 103) of the APGs for 2012 and 2013, and analyzed relevant documentation. GAO also interviewed the goal leaders and other relevant officials for each of the 47 selected goals.

What GAO Found

Agency priority goal leaders GAO interviewed were generally highly-placed within their agencies—for example, several were heads of agencies—and reported a range of responsibilities related to managing agency priority goals (APG), such as laying out goal strategies. A majority of the goal leaders said the goal leader designation had benefits for their APGs, such as greater visibility for the goal. Several also believed that there were benefits to designating the goal leader position in conjunction with other requirements from the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), such as reviewing priority goal progress at least quarterly. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) directs agencies to appoint deputy goal leaders. Deputy goal leaders manage day-to-day implementation of APGs and provide continuity in the event of goal leader turnover. From the time the APGs were published in February 2012 to the end of fiscal year 2013 (when they were to have been achieved), about 40 percent of the APGs GAO examined had a change in goal leader, while about 30 percent had a change in the deputy position. In addition, although most of the 46 goal leaders GAO interviewed had formal deputy goal leaders in place, 11 (24 percent) did not. Without a designated deputy goal leader, agencies lack a formally designated official to fill a key role in goal implementation. Individual performance plans are one of several mechanisms to provide goal leader and deputy goal leader accountability for APGs. Most goal leaders and all deputy goal leaders had performance plans. These plans covered a range of responsibilities, but generally did not fully reflect their APGs. In fact, many did not refer to the APG. Performance plans that link more directly to APGs could help ensure that officials are evaluated on and held responsible for APG progress and outcomes.
Goal leaders collaborated with officials from outside their agencies to drive progress on APGs. However, some goal leaders reported that these outside contributors were not included in the quarterly performance reviews. Goal leaders also reported that a variety of different types of programs, such as grant and regulatory programs, contributes to their APGs. However, they reported few mechanisms for sharing information with other agencies related to assessing these programs. Further, for a variety of reasons agencies have focused less attention on identifying the tax expenditures that contribute to their APGs. These findings are consistent with prior recommendations GAO made to OMB regarding GPRAMA implementation. OMB has taken some steps to address the recommendations.
Goal leaders identified some common challenges and practices in managing APGs, but shared this information to a limited extent. For example, goal leaders commonly cited resource constraints as a challenge, and practices related to measuring goal progress as helpful. One of the roles of the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), a council made up of agency performance improvement officers and chaired by OMB, is to facilitate information exchange. The PIC has shared tools and information with goal leaders; however PIC staff's primary points of contact are agencies' performance improvement officers and their deputies. Overall, goal leaders and their deputies have had little direct interaction with the PIC. More direct outreach from PIC staff could facilitate information sharing among goal leaders and their deputies, and help ensure that they do not miss opportunities to better manage their APGs.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that OMB work with agencies to (1) ensure that they appoint deputy goal leaders; and (2) more clearly link goal leaders' and deputies' performance plans to APGs, and work with the PIC to further involve goal leaders and deputies in information-sharing related to APGs. OMB staff generally agreed with GAO's recommendations.