A number of these efforts, which are to leverage GPRAMA and our past  work, have the potential to further progress in addressing key governance  challenges. In contrast, our past work demonstrates that implementing GPRAMA  provisions can improve collaboration. According to OMB staff, removing the priority designation from CAP goals  and APGs returned them to regular performance goals, which are not  subject to quarterly data-driven reviews or updates on the results of those  reviews on Performance.gov. An inventory of federal  programs could also be a critical tool to help decision makers better  identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication across the  federal government. Agencies developed initial program inventories in May 2013, but since  then have not updated or more fully implemented these inventories. In  October 2014, we found several issues limited the completeness,  comparability, and usefulness of the May 2013 program inventories. OMB and agencies did not take a systematic approach to developing  comprehensive inventories. For example, OMB’s guidance in Circular No. OMB’s guidance also lacks specific time frames, with associated  milestones for resuming implementation of the program inventory  requirements. Another item, on the use of performance information to  streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities, is statistically  significantly lower relative to 2013, when it was introduced (from 44 to 33  percent in 2017). Federal Managers Generally Did Not Report Changes in Applying Management Practices That Promote the Use of Performance Information

In September 2005, we identified five practices that agencies can apply to  enhance the use of performance information in their decision making and  improve results: demonstrating management commitment;  communicating performance information frequently and efficiently;  improving the usefulness of performance information, such as by  ensuring the accessibility of the information; developing the capacity to use performance information; and aligning agency-wide goals, objectives, and measures. 2. We estimate that in 2017
29 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that  their agencies were investing in resources to improve the agencies’  capacity to use performance information;
28 percent of managers agreed to a great or very great extent that  their agencies were investing the resources needed to ensure that  performance data are of sufficient quality;
33 percent of managers reported that they agreed to a great or very  great extent that their agencies have sufficient analytical tools for  managers at their levels to collect, analyze, and use performance  information; and
33 percent of managers reported that they agree to a great or very  great extent that the programs they are involved with have sufficient  staff with the knowledge and skills needed to analyze performance  information. Data-driven reviews: GPRAMA requires agencies to review progress  toward APGs at least once a quarter. Our recent work and the results of our 2017 survey of federal managers  highlight areas where agencies have made progress but could take  additional action to better reflect several of these practices, thereby better  instilling results-oriented cultures. Align individual performance expectations with organizational goals:  Our 2003 report found that high-performing organizations use their  performance management systems to help individuals see the connection  between their daily activities and organizational goals. OMB agreed with these  recommendations. For those goals, this action stopped related data-driven reviews and  quarterly updates of progress on Performance.gov until new priority goals  are published next year. OMB has stated its plans to  restart implementation of those provisions in February 2018, with the start  of a new goal cycle. In addition, OMB has postponed implementation of the federal program  inventory. Doing so would help agencies prepare for  resumed implementation. As OMB determines a strategy for implementing the program  inventory and develops its guidance, considering such a systematic  approach to planning, organizing, and developing the inventory that  centers on maximizing the use and usefulness of information could help it  ensure the inventory meets GPRAMA requirements as well as the needs  of decision makers and the public. This is probably why most  federal managers were not familiar with the reviews. Identifying and  sharing practices for expanding the use of those reviews—such as for  additional agency-wide performance goals and at lower levels within  agencies—could significantly enhance the use of performance  information and drive to better and greater results. Recommendations for Executive Action

We are making the following four recommendations to OMB:  The Director of OMB should update Performance.gov to explain that  quarterly reporting on the fiscal year 2014 through 2017 CAP goals and  fiscal year 2016 and 2017 APGs was suspended, and provide the  location of final progress updates for these goals. This report assesses how implementation of  GPRAMA has affected the federal government’s progress in resolving key  governance challenges in (1) addressing crosscutting issues, (2) ensuring  performance information is useful and used in decision making, (3)  aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent  and open government. To assess implementation of GPRAMA, the questionnaire included  questions to collect respondents’ views on various provisions of  GPRAMA, such as cross-agency priority goals, agency priority goals, and  related quarterly performance reviews. The overall survey results are generalizable to the government-wide  population of managers as described above. Appendix II: Recommendations from GAO’s Work Related to the GPRA Modernization Act

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have taken  some actions to address our recommendations related to implementation  of the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA); however, the  majority of recommendations remain open. Since GPRAMA was enacted  in January 2011, we have made 100 recommendations in 18 reports to  OMB and agencies aimed at improving the act’s implementation (table  3). Managing for Results: OMB Improved Implementation of Cross-Agency  Priority Goals, But Could Be More Transparent About Measuring  Progress.
Why GAO Did This Study

Full implementation of GPRAMA could facilitate efforts to reform the federal government and make it more effective. GPRAMA includes a provision for GAO to review the act's implementation. This report assesses how GPRAMA implementation has affected the federal government's progress in resolving key governance challenges in (1) addressing cross-cutting issues, (2) ensuring performance information is useful and used, (3) aligning daily operations with results, and (4) building a more transparent and open government.
To address these objectives, GAO reviewed statutory requirements, OMB guidance, and GAO's recent work related to GPRAMA implementation and the key governance challenges. GAO also interviewed OMB staff and surveyed a stratified random sample of 4,395 federal managers from 24 agencies on various performance and management topics. With a 67 percent response rate, the survey results are generalizable to the government-wide population of managers.

What GAO Found

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and agencies have made some progress in more fully implementing the GPRA Modernization Act (GPRAMA), but GAO's work and 2017 survey of federal managers highlight numerous areas where improvements are needed.
Cross-cutting issues: Various GPRAMA provisions are aimed at addressing cross-cutting issues, such as cross-agency and agency priority goals and related data-driven reviews of progress towards those goals. To ensure alignment with the current administration's priorities, OMB's 2017 guidance removed the priority status of those goals, which stopped quarterly data-driven reviews and related public progress reports until new goals are published. OMB plans to resume implementation of these provisions in February 2018. GPRAMA also requires OMB and agencies to implement an inventory of federal programs, which could help decision makers better identify and manage fragmentation, overlap, and duplication. OMB and agencies implemented the inventory once, in May 2013. In October 2014, GAO found several issues limited the usefulness of that inventory. Since then, OMB has postponed updating the inventory, citing among other reasons the passage of subsequent laws. OMB has yet to develop a systematic approach for resuming implementation of the inventory and specific time frames for doing so. A systematic approach to developing the inventory could help ensure it provides useful information for decision makers and the public.
Performance information: Survey results show federal managers generally reported no improvements in their use of performance information in decision making for various management activities, or practices that can enhance such use, since GAO's 2013 survey. For example, the use of performance information to streamline programs to reduce duplicative activities (an estimated 33 percent in 2017) is statistically significantly lower relative to 2013 (44 percent). In contrast, managers who were familiar with and whose programs were subject to quarterly data-driven reviews reported that those reviews were used to make progress toward agency priority goals. Identifying and sharing practices to expand the use of such reviews—for other performance goals and at lower levels within agencies—could lead to increased use of performance information.
Daily operations: Agencies have made progress in developing results-oriented cultures but need to take additional actions. GAO's past work found that high-performing organizations use performance management systems to help individuals connect their daily activities to organizational goals. In 2017, about half of federal managers reported using performance information when setting expectations with employees (no change from GAO's last survey in 2013).
Transparent and open government: GAO's past work identified a number of needed improvements to Performance.gov, the central government-wide website required by GPRAMA. The site is to provide quarterly updates on priority goals in effect through September 2017, but those updates stopped in December 2016. According to OMB, the existing information for cross-agency priority goals is the final update, and agencies should publish final updates on their priority goals in annual performance reports. Performance.gov does not provide users with this information, thereby limiting the transparency and accessibility of those results.

What GAO Recommends

In addition to following through on plans to resume implementation of key GPRAMA provisions, GAO recommends that OMB (1) consider a systematic approach to developing the program inventory, (2) revise guidance to provide specific time frames for inventory implementation, (3) identify and share practices for expanding the use of data-driven reviews, and (4) update Performance.gov to explain that reporting on priority goals was suspended and provide the location of final progress updates. OMB staff agreed with these recommendations.