This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-13-228 
entitled 'Managing for Results: Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show 
Promise But Agencies Should Explore How to Involve Other Relevant 
Agencies' which was released on February 27, 2013. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as 
part of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. 
Every attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data 
integrity of the original printed product. Accessibility features, 
such as text descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes 
placed at the end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, 
are provided but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format 
of the printed version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an 
exact electronic replica of the printed version. We welcome your 
feedback. Please E-mail your comments regarding the contents or 
accessibility features of this document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

Report to Congressional Addressees: 

February 2013: 

Managing for Results: 

Data-Driven Performance Reviews Show Promise But Agencies Should 
Explore How to Involve Other Relevant Agencies: 

GAO-13-228: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-13-228, a report to congressional addressees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Given the federal government’s central role in addressing many of the 
American public’s most pressing concerns, it is critical that 
government performance is managed effectively. GAO’s previous work has 
shown that many federal agencies have struggled to adopt effective 
performance management practices. Congress took steps to improve 
federal performance management with the passage of the Government 
Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), which 
included a provision for agency leaders to conduct quarterly, data-
driven performance reviews. As part of GAO’s mandate to review GPRAMA 
implementation, this report (1) identifies practices that can promote 
successful data-driven performance reviews at the federal level and 
examines how they are being implemented at selected agencies and 
across the government, and (2) examines the impact of quarterly data-
driven performance reviews on selected agencies’ progress toward high 
priority and other performance goals. To address these objectives, GAO 
reviewed academic and policy literature; information from 
practitioners at the local, state, and federal level; and Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) guidance. GAO surveyed performance 
improvement officers at 24 federal agencies and examined review 
implementation at three agencies—-DOE, SBA, and Treasury. 

What GAO Found: 

GAO identified nine leading practices to promote successful data-
driven performance reviews-—referred to as quarterly performance 
reviews—-at the federal level. 

* Agency leaders use data-driven reviews as a leadership strategy to 
drive performance improvement. 

* Key players attend reviews to facilitate problem solving. 

* Reviews ensure alignment between agency goals, program activities, 
and resources. 

* Agency leaders hold managers accountable for diagnosing performance 
problems and identifying strategies for improvement. 

* Agency has capacity to collect accurate, useful, and timely 
performance data. 

* Agency staff have skills to analyze and clearly communicate complex 
data for decision making. 

* Rigorous preparations enable meaningful performance discussions. 

* Reviews are conducted on a frequent and regularly scheduled basis. 

* Participants engage in rigorous and sustained follow-up on issues 
identified during reviews. 

Figure: Treasury’s Deputy Secretary Leads the Department’s Quarterly 
Performance Reviews: 

[Refer to PDF for image: photograph] 

Source: Treasury. 

[End of figure] 

Most officials GAO interviewed at the Department of Energy (DOE), 
Small Business Administration (SBA), and Department of the Treasury 
(Treasury) attributed improvements in performance and decision making 
to the reviews. DOE, SBA, and Treasury officials said their reviews 
allowed different functional management groups and program areas 
within their agencies to collaborate and identify strategies which led 
to performance improvements. GAO’s survey of performance improvement 
officers indicated that there was little to no involvement in the 
reviews from other agencies that could help achieve agency goals. This 
was also true at DOE, SBA, and Treasury, where officials expressed 
concerns about including outsiders in their reviews and described 
other means of coordinating with them. However, OMB guidance—-along 
with a leading practice GAO identified—-indicates that including key 
players from other agencies can lead to more effective collaboration 
and goal achievement. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that OMB identify and share practices to use the 
reviews for interagency collaboration, when relevant, to achieve 
agency goals. OMB staff generally agreed with the recommendation. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-228]. For more 
information, contact J. Christopher Mihm at (202) 512-6806 or 
mihmj@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Background: 

Practices that Promote Successful Data-Driven Performance Reviews at 
the Federal Level: 

DOE, SBA, and Treasury Officials Attributed Improvements in 
Performance and Decision Making to Quarterly Performance Reviews, 
although Some Reported Minimal Impact: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Responses to Selected Questions from GAO's Survey on 
Agency Performance Management Positions and Responsibilities: 

Appendix III: Federal Agencies Subject to the Chief Financial Officers 
Act: 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Appendix VI: Full Text for Interactive Figure 1 on Finding the Right 
Meeting Size and Composition for Effective Performance Reviews: 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Selected Bibliography: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Question 22--To what extent does your performance improvement 
staff have each of the following competencies that OPM has identified? 

Table 2: Question 27--Does your agency conduct GPRAMA-required 
quarterly performance reviews? 

Table 3: Question 28--Did your agency conduct quarterly performance 
reviews (or similar reviews) before the GPRAMA requirement took effect 
in June 2011? 

Table 4: Question 31--How often does your agency conduct performance 
reviews (although GPRAMA requires quarterly reviews, some agencies 
have established other review cycles to meet their management needs)? 

Table 5: Question 32--How much involvement, if any, does each of the 
following officials have in your agency's quarterly performance 
reviews? 

Table 6: Question 33--For each of the following officials, has their 
involvement in agency performance management increased, remained about 
the same, or decreased as a result of your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews? 

Table 7: Question 34--How frequently do your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews include the following characteristics? 

Table 8: Question 35--How frequently do your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews include the following characteristics or practices 
and how easy or challenging has it been to implement them? 

Table 9: Question 35--How frequently do your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews include the following characteristics or practices 
and how easy or challenging has it been to implement them? 

Table 10: Information about How DOE, SBA, and Treasury Conduct Their 
Quarterly Performance Review Meetings: 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Finding the Right Meeting Size and Composition for Effective 
Performance Reviews: 

Figure 2: Treasury Linked Shorter-Term Priority Projects to 
Achievement of Goals in its Quarterly Performance Reviews: 

Figure 3: Number of PIOs Reporting That Their Agency's Reviews 
Included Selected GPRAMA Requirements More than Half the Time: 

Figure 4: Example of Materials SBA Used to Train Managers and Staff to 
Effectively Communicate Data Analysis to Decision Makers: 

Figure 5: Treasury Tracked its Own Performance on Completing Follow-up 
Items: 

Figure 6: Treasury Credits Stat Meetings with the Decision to Stop 
Minting $1 Coins for Circulation and Saving the U.S. Government 
Millions: 

Abbreviations: 

APG: Agency Priority Goal: 

CFO: Chief Financial Officer: 

COO: Chief Operating Officer: 

DOE: Department of Energy: 

FPDS-NG: Federal Procurement Database System-Next Generation: 

FMS: Financial Management Service: 

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993: 

GPRAMA: Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 
2010: 

IRS: Internal Revenue Service: 

NYPD: New York City Police Department: 

OMB: Office of Management and Budget: 

PIC: Performance Improvement Council: 

PIO: Performance Improvement Officer: 

Recovery Act: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009: 

SBA: Small Business Administration: 

Treasury: Department of the Treasury: 

[End of section] 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

February 27, 2013: 

Congressional Addressees: 

How federal agencies manage toward better performance has a 
significant effect on many of the American public's most pressing 
concerns--ranging from unemployment to food safety to national 
security. However, our previous work has shown that many federal 
agencies have struggled to adopt effective performance management 
practices. Specifically, our work over the past 15 years has indicated 
that using performance data for decision making can lead to better 
results, but in several surveys we have done, less than half of 
federal managers reported using performance data for decision making 
to a great or very great extent.[Footnote 1] In looking for solutions 
to this long-standing problem, Congress identified an effective 
management tool that has been widely adopted by local and state 
governments--data-driven performance review meetings, often referred 
to as "Stat" meetings.[Footnote 2] Congress took steps to improve 
federal performance management with the passage of the Government 
Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), which 
included a specific provision for quarterly performance reviews, 
modeled after those at the local and state level.[Footnote 3] 

As part of our mandate to review the implementation of GPRAMA, this 
report (1) identifies practices that can promote successful data-
driven performance reviews at the federal level and examines how these 
reviews are being implemented at selected agencies and across the 
government, and (2) examines the impact of quarterly data-driven 
performance reviews on selected agencies' progress toward high 
priority and other performance goals.[Footnote 4] This report is the 
second in a series that examines how agencies are implementing various 
GPRAMA requirements.[Footnote 5] 

To address the first objective, we identified practices that can 
promote successful data-driven reviews at the federal level by 
conducting a review of relevant academic and policy literature, 
including our previous reports.[Footnote 6] We refined these practices 
with additional information obtained from practitioners at the local, 
state, and federal level who shared their experiences and lessons 
learned.[Footnote 7] We also compared these practices with recent 
GPRAMA related guidance in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
Circular No. A-11 and found them broadly consistent.[Footnote 8] We 
observed two data-driven review meetings at the Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury), which was one of the agencies selected to address 
our reporting objectives. We also examined how these reviews are being 
implemented at agencies across the government by conducting a survey 
of performance improvement officers (PIO) in the 24 agencies covered 
by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 and subject to GPRAMA's 
requirements.[Footnote 9] We received responses from all 24 PIOs--a 
100 percent response rate. 

To address both objectives, we selected three agencies to examine 
implementation of GPRAMA-mandated quarterly performance reviews in 
greater depth--Department of Energy (DOE), Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and Treasury. We selected these three agencies 
because they have been performing data-driven reviews for at least one 
year and, together, use a mix of government tools--such as direct 
service, regulations, grants, loans, and tax expenditures--to achieve 
their performance goals, among other reasons.[Footnote 10] At each 
selected agency, we focused on two agency priority goals (APG) [Footnote 11] to examine how quarterly performance reviews 
affected the agency components responsible for achieving performance 
outcomes.[Footnote 12] Because the scope of our review was to examine 
data-driven performance reviews as a leadership strategy, we did not 
evaluate whether these goals were appropriate indicators of agency 
performance, sufficiently ambitious, or met other dimensions of 
quality. 

We also reviewed memorandums, internal briefings, and other materials 
agencies used to prepare for the reviews, as well as documents used 
during the reviews and follow-up materials. We conducted interviews 
with officials at OMB, the Performance Improvement Council (PIC), and 
officials involved in each agency's performance review process. 
[Footnote 13] We asked to observe at least one review meeting at each 
agency. Treasury allowed us to observe two review meetings--one 
focused on the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and one on the Internal 
Revenue Service (IRS). DOE and SBA did not allow us to observe their 
meetings, citing concerns that our presence could inhibit open 
discussion. During the interviews, we asked officials to identify any 
challenges to effective implementation they faced as the process 
evolved or any lessons they learned. We also asked officials to 
identify examples of any impacts on performance that they attributed 
to the reviews. 

We conducted our work from April 2012 to February 2013 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Background: 

The model for data-driven performance reviews was established in the 
early 1990s by New York City Police Department (NYPD) leadership as a 
strategy to reduce crime. Dubbed "CompStat," the NYPD's weekly reviews 
grew from the premise that use of crime data could enable leadership 
to make better-informed, more effective decisions. CompStat followed 
four key tenets: 

1. Accurate and timely intelligence. 

2. Effective tactics. 

3. Rapid deployment. 

4. Relentless follow-up and assessment.[Footnote 14] 

As the law enforcement community observed NYPD's improved 
accountability and bottom-line results in crime reduction, many police 
departments nationwide began to replicate CompStat in their own 
organizations. The CompStat model was subsequently adopted by many 
cities, municipalities, and some states--most notably Washington and 
Maryland--as a general performance management tool. Many of these 
efforts were patterned on the same four tenets as CompStat. 

Nearly two decades later, the Obama administration began to encourage 
the use of data-driven review meetings as a performance management 
tool through several memorandums issued by OMB in 2010 and 2011, and a 
June 2011 executive order.[Footnote 15] During this timeframe, GPRAMA 
introduced the concept of data-driven performance reviews at the 
federal level with a provision that federal agencies conduct quarterly 
performance reviews on progress toward their APGs. Specifically, 
agencies are required to assess how relevant programs and activities 
contribute to achieving APGs; categorize goals by their risk of not 
being achieved; and for those at risk, identify strategies to improve 
performance. GPRAMA also specified that the reviews must occur on at 
least a quarterly basis and involve key leadership and other relevant 
parties both within and outside the agency.[Footnote 16] GPRAMA 
required agencies to begin conducting quarterly performance reviews by 
June 2011. Some agencies began conducting data-driven reviews earlier, 
in response to the executive order, OMB guidance, or other performance 
management efforts. 

Several efforts aid agencies in implementing the GPRAMA-required 
quarterly performance reviews. The PIC established a working group on 
internal agency performance reviews. The working group meets monthly 
to share leading practices and discuss strategies for improving 
performance. Participation in the working group is voluntary and 
according to OMB, PIOs or designees from 21 agencies across the 
federal government are currently represented. In addition, OMB 
supported performance review implementation by issuing new guidance in 
OMB Circular A-11 during August 2012.[Footnote 17] 

DOE, SBA, and Treasury each had experience with data-driven 
performance reviews before the June 2011 GPRAMA implementation 
deadline. Officials at both SBA and Treasury said that when new 
leadership came in, they brought interest in data-driven decision 
making, along with key staff that were experienced at data-driven 
review or data analysis. DOE officials said that their experience with 
the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery Act) work 
led them to begin data-driven performance reviews along with the 
GPRAMA requirements. 

* DOE built on its Recovery Act-related performance reviews with the 
establishment of its quarterly performance reviews, called business 
quarterly reviews, in 2011. According to DOE officials, the Deputy 
Secretary leads the review meetings with participation by under 
secretaries, and each review covers the department's 8 priority goals, 
15 mission-related key goals, and 8 management and operations key 
goals.[Footnote 18] The Associate Deputy Secretary, who is responsible 
for agency-wide management and operations goals, also participates in 
the reviews. The review meeting follows a structured format, with the 
first half focusing on performance goals and the second half focusing 
on fiscal issues, such as budget execution. 

* SBA began conducting reviews, called quarterly performance reviews, 
during the third quarter of 2009. SBA started by holding separate 
meetings by program area but changed the review format in early 2010 
to include all program offices at each review meeting. According to 
SBA officials, the Deputy Administrator leads SBA's quarterly 
performance reviews with support from the chief operating officer 
(COO) and the PIO.[Footnote 19] The PIO also assembles the data and 
disseminates follow-up action items. Review meetings also include 
senior officials from functional management areas (e.g., information 
technology, human capital, procurement, etc.). In addition to 
discussing agency priority goals, SBA reviews cover the rest of the 
agency's performance goals and objectives, as time permits. 

* Treasury started conducting department-level performance reviews, 
called Stats, in 2010. Treasury's reviews, led by the Deputy 
Secretary, are performed on an agency component-by-component basis. 
Reviews also involve senior officials responsible for functional 
management areas such as information technology, financial management, 
and procurement, as well as policy officials.[Footnote 20] The Stat 
process is managed by Treasury's Office of the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Management and Budget, which reports to the 
PIO.[Footnote 21] The Stats cover Treasury's two priority goals along 
with a range of other department programmatic and operational goals 
and priority projects. 

Practices that Promote Successful Data-Driven Performance Reviews at 
the Federal Level: 

Agency Leaders Use Data-Driven Reviews as a Leadership Strategy to 
Drive Performance Improvement: 

[Side bar: Selected PIO Survey Results on Leadership Involvement in 
Quarterly Performance Reviews: 

* 21 of 24 PIOs reported that COOs (which typically serve as deputy 
heads) had large involvement; 

* 19 of 24 PIOs reported that designated goal leaders had large 
involvement; 

* 15 of 24 PIOs reported that the agency head had no or little 
involvement; 

* 15 of 24 PIOs reported that COO involvement in performance 
management has increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews; 

* 13 of 24 PIOs reported that goal leader involvement in performance 
management has increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews. 

Source: GAO survey results. End of side bar] 

Our analysis confirmed that to be successful, data-driven reviews 
should be used as a leadership strategy to drive performance 
improvement.[Footnote 22] Agency leadership must be directly and 
visibly engaged in the review process and invest the time necessary to 
understand and interpret the data being discussed during the meetings. 
Moreover, GPRAMA requires an agency head and deputy head to conduct 
quarterly priority progress reviews which fosters ownership and helps 
ensure that participants take the reviews seriously and that decisions 
and commitments can be made. OMB Circular No. A-11 also emphasizes the 
importance of leadership involvement in quarterly performance reviews, 
allowing the COO, the agency head, or both to conduct the review. 
[Footnote 23] 

Our survey of PIOs indicated that agency leadership, with the 
exception of agency heads, actively participated in these reviews. 
This was consistent with what we found at DOE, SBA, and Treasury. The 
sidebar at left shows the survey results on the participation of key 
positions. 

At Treasury, where we observed two Stat meetings, the Deputy Secretary 
used the Stat meetings to challenge participants to stretch toward 
ambitious performance goals and to provide possible solutions for any 
issues that were discussed. By holding separate reviews for all of 
Treasury's bureaus and key offices, the Deputy Secretary committed a 
significant amount of time to these reviews. Other Treasury officials-
-at both the department headquarters and bureau levels--were 
appreciative of the amount of time the Deputy Secretary devoted to the 
reviews. The Deputy Secretary's high-level position allowed him to 
speak with clear authority in the department and garner the attention 
of component agency leaders on performance issues. For example, during 
one review meeting that we observed, the Deputy Secretary challenged 
Treasury's bureau leaders to develop new strategies for the department 
to collect delinquent debt payments owed to the federal government. 

We did not observe quarterly performance meetings at DOE or SBA. 
However, officials we interviewed said that top leadership was 
actively driving performance discussions. At DOE, the Deputy Secretary 
led the quarterly review sessions and guided performance discussions 
with the department's under secretaries on progress made toward 
achieving their respective performance goals. DOE's Deputy Secretary 
noted that it is important that under secretaries take ownership of 
the performance review process to ensure the reviews are useful. At 
SBA, the Deputy Administrator led the reviews with support from the 
COO and PIO. According to officials, SBA's leadership asks probing 
questions of program heads concerning SBA's performance goals. 

Officials from DOE, SBA, and Treasury expressed concern about 
maintaining the continuity of leadership engagement in performance 
review meetings and pointed to ways to help ensure that the review 
process continues with transitions to new agency leadership. For 
example, officials at DOE pointed out that they have a responsibility 
to remind new leadership of the legislative requirement for 
performance reviews as well as OMB's guidance on these reviews. In 
addition, SBA officials noted that having a mix of career and 
political leadership involved in the reviews can facilitate continuity 
of the review practices since career officials generally span 
successive administrations. At Treasury, performance budgeting staff 
developed written standard operating procedures as a way to document 
the review process and pave the way for new leadership engagement at 
the department. 

To encourage new leadership to take ownership of the performance 
reviews, several agency officials noted the importance of designing 
the reviews to fit the leadership style and preferences of the 
incoming leader. For example, one official said that it is critical 
for the incoming leader of the review meetings to provide input into 
the presentation format and structure of the review based upon 
personal preferences. At Treasury, headquarters staff responsible for 
managing the performance reviews worked closely with the Deputy 
Secretary to develop a review template and meeting format that met his 
needs. 

Key Players Attend Reviews to Facilitate Problem Solving: 

Our analysis indicated that performance review meeting participants 
should include high-level leaders and managers with an agency-wide 
perspective as well as those with programmatic knowledge and 
responsibility for the specific performance issues likely to be 
raised. In addition, participants should typically include those with 
agency-wide functional management responsibilities, such as 
information technology, budget, and human capital. This enables the 
reviews to facilitate problem solving by breaking down information 
silos and providing managers from across the agency and other 
contributing organizations with a forum to communicate with each other 
and identify improvement strategies and agree upon specific next 
steps. At the city and state level, data-driven performance reviews 
typically include senior management from multiple agencies. In 
addition to the benefit of in-person meeting attendance, there is also 
value in having key players participate in other parts of the review 
process, such as the data review and analysis leading up to the 
meetings and the follow-up actions that arise from the meetings. 
Consistent with this practice, OMB's guidance directs agencies to 
include, as appropriate, relevant personnel from within and outside 
the agency in the review meetings.[Footnote 24] 

According to our survey, most PIOs--21 of 24--reported that their 
reviews included the participants needed to facilitate problem solving 
and identify performance improvements the majority of the time. 
Further, 19 PIOs reported that goal leaders had large involvement in 
their agency's performance reviews, and 15 PIOs reported that internal 
contributors to agency goals and functional management chiefs, such as 
the CFO, had large involvement in their agency's reviews. 

At DOE, SBA, and Treasury, officials said they found that including 
senior management responsible for specific mission program areas--as 
well as those with functional management responsibilities in areas 
such as budget, information technology, human capital, procurement, 
and legal counsel--enhanced performance improvement efforts at review 
meetings. For example, both DOE and Treasury officials said 
discussions with budget officials concerning performance goals 
provided an opportunity for performance issues to be discussed in the 
context of budget issues where relevant. 

However, differences in the scope of the reviews influenced which key 
players attended the review meetings. For instance, while Treasury's 
reviews focused primarily on a specific component organization, such 
as a bureau or policy office, representatives from multiple components 
attended the review meetings when the achievement of a performance 
goal crossed component lines, or when the components had other 
commonalities. One Treasury official noted that the Bureau of 
Engraving and Printing and the U.S. Mint were asked to sit in on each 
others' sessions, as they both work under the Treasurer and have 
similar operations. 

Treasury officials indicated that one of the reasons why they chose to 
focus their performance reviews on individual component agencies--such 
as IRS and the Bureau of the Fiscal Service--was that their 
performance goals are generally aligned by component rather than 
shared by components. In addition, according to a senior Treasury 
official, focusing reviews on components allows time for more in-depth 
reviews. Treasury's reviews include officials with department-level 
responsibilities in functional management areas such as budget, 
procurement, and legal counsel who can contribute to problem solving 
or who may be called on to take follow-up actions. In addition, 
Treasury officials noted that component-by-component reviews enable 
Treasury not only to have attendance from the bureau head, but also 
from more members of the bureau's leadership team, such as the bureau 
CFO and others. 

Officials said that if reviews were held with all of Treasury's 
components at one time it would be impractical to gather all key 
members of bureau leadership because of the limited time which would 
be available for discussion on any particular topic. Treasury 
officials said that their practice of using the same information 
template for the Stat review with each component enables the reviews 
to cover similar issues across components and identify actions that 
should be addressed collaboratively, even though all components do not 
participate in the review meetings at the same time. 

Conversely, at DOE and SBA, each review meeting included leadership 
participation from across all agency mission areas. However, DOE and 
SBA were similar to Treasury in that they included officials with 
agency-wide functional management responsibilities in the reviews. 
Officials noted that DOE's reviews provided an opportunity for senior 
leadership to discuss the context around their performance goals and 
improve results with help from other areas of the department. In 
addition, the presence of senior officials across DOE's programs 
provided an opportunity to share leading practices in various areas 
across program lines. At SBA, officials noted that many senior career 
officials attending these reviews had experience managing multiple 
programs and their broader experiences helped them understand and 
identify relevant performance metrics across program areas. In 
addition, officials mentioned that, in contrast to a large department 
with many discrete mission areas, SBA's programs are focused on 
achieving a relatively narrow mission of supporting small businesses, 
which creates more opportunities for cross-program collaboration. 

According to our survey results, PIOs did not see getting the right 
personnel included in the meetings as a challenge: Only 2 of 24 PIOs 
reported a challenge in including those managers or staff needed to 
facilitate problem solving and identify improvement opportunities. 
However, officials from DOE, SBA, and Treasury did note challenges in 
getting the right mix and number of participants to most effectively 
facilitate performance improvement efforts at the meetings. See figure 
1. 

Figure 1: Finding the Right Meeting Size and Composition for Effective 
Performance: 

[Refer to PDF for image: interactive graphic with 2 photographs] 

Directions: 

Rollover each table diagram below to see additional details about how 
DOE, SBA, and Treasury conduct their performance evaluation meetings: 

DOE: 
Man participants: 8; 
Additional attendees: 10-12. 

SBA: 
Average number of participants: 45-50. 

Treasury: 
Average number of participants: 20-25. 

Several officials noted challenges in achieving proper balance between 
having a small number of meeting participants, which call allow for 
more air time for each participant, compared to a larger group which 
might not be a productive use of time for those attending. 

Photographs: 

Treasury Deputy Secretary and COO Neal Wolin leads the department's 
quarterly performance reviews, with support from Assistant Secretary 
for Management Nani Coloretti, who also serves as Treasury's PIO. 

Source: GAO (information); Treasury (photos). 

In addition, balancing depth of knowledge and numbers of staff 
attending these reviews is another consideration for finding the right 
meeting size. One official pointed out that having a relatively small 
group can help participants feel more comfortable in revealing 
performance problems but that there is a risk of leaving out key 
players that need to be a part of a performance solution. 

Although officials from each agency described different approaches to 
find the right meeting size and composition for effective performance 
reviews, each agreed that it took time for them to get it right. 

A print version of the text contained in this interactive graphic is 
available in appendix VI. 

[End of figure] 

According to survey results, 16 of 24 PIOs indicated that there was 
little to no involvement in the reviews from external officials who 
contribute to the achievement of agency goals. This is consistent with 
what we found at DOE, SBA, and Treasury, as stakeholders from outside 
the agencies did not participate in their performance review meetings. 

At Treasury, officials said they addressed performance issues 
requiring external collaboration by conducting follow-up meetings with 
relevant external participants. These meetings were scheduled as part 
of Treasury's practice of following up on issues raised during the 
review sessions. For instance, during a Treasury review meeting we 
observed, the Deputy Secretary directed staff to arrange a meeting 
with OMB to help address an obstacle to achieving a performance goal. 

Likewise, DOE and SBA officials said they undertook collaborative 
actions as a result of discussions in their quarterly performance 
reviews, but neither planned to invite external representatives to 
their meetings. For example, SBA's reviews led to multiple discussions 
with other federal agencies on whether some of their government 
contracts that were going to large businesses could go to small 
businesses instead. 

Officials we interviewed cited several concerns that may explain why, 
at present, agencies are generally not including external 
participants--from other federal agencies or other relevant 
organizations--in their reviews. First, officials did not include 
external stakeholders because they wanted to keep discussions focused 
on internal problem-solving and were concerned that including external 
parties might inhibit open discussions on performance issues. Second, 
reviews at DOE, SBA, and Treasury mainly focused on goals achieved 
through internal contributors at each agency or office and officials 
noted that it would not currently be an efficient use of time to 
include external parties, even though external issues are discussed. 
One official said that the logistics of including high-ranking agency 
managers from other agencies could make it difficult to schedule 
review meetings on a timely basis. Another official who had experience 
managing data-driven performance reviews at different levels of 
government noted that city- and state-level reviews tend to be run by a 
mayor or governor with direct authority over the various agencies that 
participate in the reviews. This official pointed out that 
circumstances are different at the federal level, where an agency head 
could invite but not require outside participation and would not have 
control over the information shared or whether follow-up action was 
carried out. 

However, we have previously reported that agencies can collaborate 
more effectively across organizational lines when presented with a 
clear and compelling rationale to do so and when agency leaders 
demonstrate their commitment to working collaboratively.[Footnote 25] 
Agency goals that require the efforts of more than one agency could 
serve as such a compelling rationale--even in the absence of direct 
authority requiring such collaboration. Moreover, our prior work has 
shown that agencies which participated in various planning and 
decision-making forums together--such as interagency councils or 
planning bodies--reported that such interactions contributed to 
achieving their goals. Specifically, agencies reported that such 
participation opened lines of communication, fostered trust, and 
helped build relationships, which can in turn lead to more effective 
collaboration across agency lines.[Footnote 26] Despite the concerns 
that DOE, SBA, and Treasury raised about including external 
participants in their reviews, our survey results indicate that some 
agencies are doing so: 4 of 24 PIOs reported moderate to large 
involvement of external officials who contribute to the achievement of 
agency goals. In addition, OMB officials provided an example of two 
agencies which have been successfully making use of quarterly 
performance reviews to collaborate on their APGs. These officials told 
us that the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and Veterans 
Affairs--which both contribute to efforts to reduce veterans' 
homelessness--had conducted several Stat meetings jointly. According 
to OMB officials, program staff members from both agencies regularly 
participate in HUD Stat meetings, where they jointly analyze 
performance data to understand trends, identify best practices, and 
prioritize the actions needed to achieve veteran homelessness goals. 
Officials reported that these collaborative meetings have contributed 
to better outcomes. Moreover, officials from both OMB and the PIC 
indicated that agencies have increasingly been observing others' 
review meetings as a means of learning about different practices with 
no apparent harm to the effectiveness of the meetings. This suggests 
that the challenges, if any, to outside participation can be overcome. 

While there are many approaches to managing performance to achieve 
goals that rely on multiple agencies, few are likely to provide the 
benefit of bringing together the leadership and all the key players to 
solve problems and motivate performance improvement. Moreover, when 
key players are excluded from quarterly performance reviews, agencies 
may be missing opportunities to have all the relevant parties 
participate in developing solutions to performance problems. Instead, 
agencies will need to rely on potentially duplicative parallel 
coordination mechanisms, which could result in less than optimal 
performance improvement strategies. 

Reviews Ensure Alignment between Agency Goals, Program Activities, and 
Resources: 

Our analysis showed that quarterly performance reviews should be used 
to align an organization's resources, programs, and activities to 
ensure they are contributing to the achievement of agency goals. To 
help ensure that reviews are focusing on the appropriate interim goals 
and measures, agencies can develop models that describe the logical 
relationship between an agency's inputs, activities, outputs, and 
outcomes. These logical relationships, sometimes called logic models, 
should be periodically assessed to determine if outcomes are being 
achieved as expected, and should be revised if necessary. 

Our survey results indicated that PIOs do not find goal alignment to 
be a challenging aspect of implementing quarterly performance reviews, 
with 13 of 24 PIOs reporting that ensuring alignment between 
performance reviews and strategic goals and performance objectives was 
easy. Only one PIO reported this as being a challenge. Moreover, 22 
PIOs reported that the majority of their reviews are aligned with 
strategic goals and performance objectives. 

Consistent with our survey results, we found that DOE, SBA, and 
Treasury had selected performance metrics, initiatives, and other 
areas of focus in their reviews that were linked to the accomplishment 
of APGs and other goals, such as strategic plan objectives and key 
operational goals. Officials from both DOE and Treasury described the 
processes they undertook to choose useful performance information to 
frame the performance review discussion. For example, DOE narrowed its 
list of more than 190 performance measures to provide leadership with 
a focused view of the department's key goals, while also providing 
sufficient depth of information to be meaningful. Treasury officials 
responsible for designing the department's quarterly performance 
reviews described extensive interactions with the Deputy Secretary and 
the bureaus to identify performance measures that could be used to 
promote discussion of performance issues and opportunities for 
improvement. 

In addition, the three agencies described efforts to use logic models, 
project milestones, and other approaches to identify early information 
on how they were progressing toward long-term outcome goals, which 
officials said could be challenging to monitor. For example, DOE's 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy created a template 
for program managers to develop logic models linking program inputs 
and outputs to longer-term performance objectives, such as achieving 
clean generation of 80 percent of the nation's electricity by 2035. 
DOE identified outputs or intermediate outcomes that contribute to the 
clean generation of energy, such as reducing the cost of solar energy, 
which the department measures to indicate progress toward its 2035 
goal. According to officials, logic models helped program staff 
communicate a coherent story about how the program's key activities 
contribute to its goals. 

At Treasury, performance budgeting staff said they included the status 
of priority projects--such as IRS plans to develop a streamlined, user-
friendly website--in its quarterly performance review information (see 
figure 2). Officials explained that these priority projects were 
designated as such because Treasury sees them as the critical path to 
achieving agency priority goals and other key longer-term outcomes, 
which could not always be tracked on a quarterly basis. For example, 
the Deputy Secretary wanted to monitor the status of IRS's website 
update because it is seen to be a lever toward the agency's priority 
goal to improve the voluntary tax compliance rate, which can only be 
measured with data that lags by approximately five years. 

Figure 2: Treasury Linked Shorter-Term Priority Projects to Achievement 
of Goals in its Quarterly Performance Reviews: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

Highlighted on the illustration: 

How project aligns with APG, Cross-Agency Priority Goal, or Strategic 
Plan goal is made explicit. 

How project is logically related to achievement of a higher-order goal. 

Key milestones toward completion of priority project are identified 
and performance is monitored at Treasury's quarterly performance 
reviews. 

Source: GAO analysis of Treasury information. 

[End of figure] 

Agency Leaders Hold Managers Accountable for Diagnosing Performance 
Problems and Identifying Strategies for Improvement: 

Our analysis showed that because data-driven reviews are to foster 
improved performance, the focus of accountability should be on the 
responsible manager's role in addressing problems and bringing about 
positive change. Agency leaders should hold goal leaders and other 
responsible managers accountable for knowing the progress being made 
in achieving goals and, if progress is insufficient, understanding why 
and having a plan for improvement. If data is insufficient for gauging 
progress, managers should be held accountable for improving the 
quality of the data so that it is sufficient for decision making. 
Managers should also be held accountable for identifying and 
replicating effective practices to improve performance. In addition, 
the goals addressed in the reviews should be aligned with managers' 
and staff's individual performance goals to create a line of sight 
that reinforces the connection between strategic goals and day-to-day 
activities of managers and staff.[Footnote 27] 

GPRAMA introduced specific roles and responsibilities for agency 
heads, COOs, PIOs, and goal leaders in conducting quarterly 
performance reviews.[Footnote 28] For each APG, agency heads and COOs, 
with support from the PIO, must: 

* review with the appropriate goal leader the progress achieved during 
the most recent quarter, overall trend data, and the likelihood of 
meeting the planned level of performance; 

* assess whether relevant organizations, program activities, 
regulations, policies, and other activities are contributing as 
planned to agency priority goals; 

* categorize agency priority goals by risk of not achieving the 
planned level of performance; and: 

* identify prospects and strategies for performance improvement, 
including any needed changes to agency program activities, 
regulations, policies, or other activities for agency priority goals 
at greatest risk of not meeting the planned level of performance. 

Across the government, a majority of PIOs reported that their agency's 
reviews met these GPRAMA requirements, as indicated in figure 3. 

Figure 3: Number of PIOs Reporting That Their Agency's Reviews 
Included Selected GPRAMA Requirements More than Half the Time: 

[Refer to PDF for image: horizontal bar graph] 

GPRAMA Requirement: Information on progress and trends relevant to 
achievement of priority goals; 
Number reporting: 23. 

GPRAMA Requirement: Assessment of whether relevant organizations, 
programs, regulations, policies, etc., are contributing as planned 
toward goals. 
Number reporting: 20. 

GPRAMA Requirement: Discussion of strategies for performance 
improvement; 
Number reporting: 19. 

GPRAMA Requirement: Assessment of risk of not achieving priority goals 
and for the highest-risk goals; 
Number reporting: 18. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

[End of figure] 

Our survey results indicated that most PIOs--21 of 24--reported using 
the reviews to identify actionable opportunities for performance 
improvement at least half the time. 

Consistent with the survey results, DOE, SBA, and Treasury reported 
that top agency leadership held officials accountable for identifying 
performance problems and opportunities for improvement. For example, 
Treasury officials said--and the sessions we observed confirmed--that 
their Stat meetings focus on performance and are a vehicle for the 
Deputy Secretary to challenge bureau heads to ensure their bureaus 
continually improve. For example, the Deputy Secretary reported that 
many of the bureaus had not reviewed their management metrics, such as 
internal controls, diversity issues and employee survey scores, for 
some time and the Stat reviews are an opportunity to engage the 
bureaus on these issues. At the Stat reviews we attended, we observed 
the Deputy Secretary discussing such management metrics. For example, 
he asked bureau leadership to explain why their scores on a government-
wide employee satisfaction survey had dipped during the past year, 
questioned a decline in survey response rates, and discussed specific 
next steps that he could take to support plans for improvement. 

At DOE, officials said that their quarterly performance reviews 
focused on areas where they were not on track to meet performance 
goals and ways to address this. One official at DOE noted that the 
Deputy Secretary expected the under secretaries to be accountable for 
all of their goals at the meeting. At SBA, officials said the focus of 
the meetings is to fix problems and that it is important to be 
prepared because the Administrator asks probing questions and managers 
are called out when progress is not being made and asked to explain 
what is being done to resolve the issues. 

Each agency also reported taking steps to ensure that managers' 
individual performance objectives are aligned with priority and other 
agency performance goals. For example, SBA's performance agreements 
incorporate performance objectives which cascade from the agency's 
priority goals and other performance goals and are aligned with its 
strategic plan. Samples of performance agreements we reviewed 
identified "performance elements linked to organizational goals." For 
example, a district manager had a performance objective to hold 
outreach events to connect small businesses to contracting 
opportunities. This objective clearly links to SBA's APG to increase 
small business participation in government contracting. 

Agency Has Capacity to Collect Accurate, Useful, and Timely 
Performance Data: 

Our analysis indicated that the capacity to collect and analyze 
accurate, useful, and timely data is critical to successful data-
driven reviews. Agencies should track both outputs and outcomes. 
Agencies should also look for opportunities to leverage data produced 
by other agency components or outside entities. In addition, having 
the capacity to disaggregate data according to demographic, 
geographic, or other relevant characteristics can aid in highlighting 
significant variation, which can help meeting participants to pinpoint 
problems and identify solutions. Agencies also need to plan for the 
time and resources required to generate and communicate performance 
data in a timely manner. Easy access to relevant databases and systems-
generated analysis, such as providing analysts with the ability to 
develop performance reports without relying on information technology 
staff, can streamline the data collection and analysis processes. 

While having accurate, timely, and useful data available is critical 
to successful performance reviews, 16 of 24 PIOs reported that this 
was a challenge--more than any other practice we asked about. However, 
all 16 of those PIOs also responded that accurate, timely, and useful 
data is available for their agency's reviews about half the time or 
more, which may indicate that some agencies have found ways to address 
this challenge. 

Our review of DOE, SBA, and Treasury illustrates how agencies can 
overcome some challenges to data availability. Our analysis of 
quarterly performance review documents indicated that each agency was 
producing data-rich analyses that identified trends and potential 
performance issues. However, agency officials described initial 
challenges in these areas and said that improving their capacities for 
data collection and analysis took time. For example, SBA's Office of 
Government Contracting and Business Development collects data on the 
percentage of all federal agency contracts being awarded to small 
businesses.[Footnote 29] The office is dependent on a General Services 
Administration database, the Federal Procurement Database System-Next 
Generation (FPDS-NG), for its information. SBA officials were 
concerned about the quality of the data since each federal agency 
enters its own information. To address this concern, SBA officials 
said they provided agencies with individualized reports of potential 
anomalies in their small business contracting data. This process 
allowed agencies to verify and correct if necessary the anomalies 
before SBA published the annual Small Business Procurement Scorecard 
report.[Footnote 30] For example, if an agency listed a contract in 
FPDS-NG as a small business set-aside at the same time that the agency 
listed the contract as an open procurement competition, this would be 
flagged. SBA would then notify the responsible agency and give it an 
opportunity to correct the anomaly in FPDS-NG. In addition, SBA noted 
instances where performance data lag behind the performance review 
cycle. For example, the Department of Defense holds its procurement 
data back from FPDS-NG for one quarter for national security purposes. 
SBA officials said that instead of waiting for the next quarter, they 
obtain preliminary information from the Department of Defense. 

Agency Staff Have Skills to Analyze and Clearly Communicate Complex 
Data for Decision Making: 

Our analysis indicated that agencies need staff with the skills to 
assess performance data for coverage and quality and to identify key 
trends, areas of strong or weak performance, and possible causal 
factors. In addition, those messages need to be effectively 
communicated to management and staff that will play a role in 
identifying and solving performance problems and making related 
decisions. Analysts and managers should carefully consider the type 
and amount of information that will be useful for performance reviews, 
as well as how to present the information to audiences with varying 
levels of technical or quantitative skills. Providing the right amount 
of easy-to-understand performance information can promote effective 
decision making during the quarterly performance reviews. For example, 
focusing the presentation on the message the data tell about 
performance, using well-designed graphics, and grounding the data in 
relevant context are effective communication techniques. 

Our PIO survey results included information on 15 specific 
competencies associated with performance improvement 
responsibilities.[Footnote 31] For each of these competencies, the 
majority of PIOs reported the competencies were present among 
performance improvement staff to a large extent. However, survey 
results were less positive about 2 competencies specifically related 
to analytic abilities. Of the 24 PIOs, 9 reported that performance 
measurement competencies and 10 reported that organizational 
performance analysis competencies were present among their performance 
improvement staff to a small or moderate extent. 

PIOs at DOE, SBA, and Treasury each described the teams they had 
assembled to support their performance improvement efforts. For 
example, SBA's Deputy PIO had performance analysts to support the 
quarterly performance reviews and many other performance management 
activities, such as the production of a weekly dashboard of key 
performance metrics. However, SBA officials acknowledged that some 
staff were less comfortable working with data and they perceived this 
as a skills gap that needed to be addressed. These officials said they 
are addressing this through a combination of training and hiring. For 
example, as part of its leadership training, SBA began developing 
courses related to "decision support;" officials said the courses were 
designed to lead to competencies in spreadsheet development and 
analysis, presentation delivery, development of decision support 
datasets, and other analytic and presentation skills. Participants 
began training in late summer of 2012 with courses titled Principles 
of Analytics and Analytic Boot Camp. 

Having staff with abilities to communicate analyses effectively is an 
important factor in successful performance reviews, and most PIOs--22 
of 24--reported that data and relevant analyses are presented 
effectively to participants in their agency's reviews about half the 
time or more. However, 11 of those 22 PIOs also reported that 
effective presentation of data and relevant analysis was challenging--
the second largest challenge cited by the PIOs among the practices we 
asked about. 

Consistent with our survey results, officials we interviewed at SBA 
and Treasury described the challenges they faced in developing skills 
sets that bridge the gap between data analysis and effective 
communication. At SBA, the Office of Performance Management developed 
internal training to help SBA managers improve their ability to 
communicate the message that the data suggest. One official recounted 
initial struggles to interpret data and then effectively communicate 
the key points relevant to performance improvement to those who were 
not analysts. He noted that the SBA Administrator told senior 
management that a "data dump" was not helpful, which helped them to 
realize what was needed. Training was developed to move managers and 
staff beyond basic analytic skills, with a focus on structuring 
presentations effectively, using data to drive management decisions, 
and in general, "telling your story so you're drawing out insights, 
rather than just summarizing facts." See figure 4. 

Figure 4: Example of Materials SBA Used to Train Managers and Staff to 
Effectively Communicate Data Analysis to Decision Makers: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

SBA Competition Checklist: Criteria to Consider for Data-Driven 
Presentations: 

Mastery Area: Structuring the Presentation; 
Feature: Does the presentation build a compelling, coherent story? 
Feature: Does the presentation identify (and prioritize) the most 
appropriate issues for analyzing a specific management question? 

Mastery Area: Communicating the Data; 
Feature: Does the presentation incorporate relevant data/evidence to 
inform a management decision? 
Feature: Is the data presented in a visually-compelling format that 
sends a clear message? 

Mastery Area: Synthesizing Findings & Developing Recommendations; 
Feature: Does the presentation surface interesting, high-level 
insights supported by the data; 
Feature: Does the presentation provide actionable recommendations (or 
options) for management to consider for improving SBA's 
operations/programs? 

Source: SBA. 

[End of figure] 

At Treasury, performance budgeting staff developed a PowerPoint 
presentation template that was distributed to each bureau to complete 
in advance of the Stat meetings. The template provided a uniform data 
collection tool that incorporated data presentation design principles, 
to guide the bureaus in effectively communicating their message to the 
Deputy Secretary. For example, templates for line charts prompted 
bureaus to indicate whether the desired trend line direction was up or 
down, since this is not always immediately apparent to high-ranking 
reviewers who may not have the depth of background into the particular 
program or operation. According to a Treasury official, designing an 
effective presentation is as important as doing relevant, high-quality 
data analysis. One official pointed out, "If no one reads or 
understands the analysis, it doesn't matter how good it was." 

SBA and Treasury officials responsible for managing the reviews also 
described challenges in balancing presentation uniformity with the 
need to provide context that varies. These officials noted that 
consistency was key to making performance information quick and easy 
to absorb, especially for leadership that has limited time to review 
such information. However, SBA noted that the down side of consistency 
is people's tendencies to tune out information that appears to be 
repetitive. SBA's PIO and COO said they have to continually look for 
ways to keep the performance review meetings engaging to participants 
and that "meeting fatigue" can be a problem. Further, several bureau 
officials at Treasury we interviewed said that while they understood 
the need for uniformity, the templates did not always provide them 
with enough flexibility to provide sufficient context for their 
performance information. While bureau officials we interviewed said 
that the process and template had improved over time, some felt that 
in the early days of the Stat reviews, they were so limited in their 
ability to "tell their story" to the Deputy Secretary that they did 
not think he was getting an accurate understanding of the issues. 
However, our review of multiple Stat documents indicated that there 
was a specific page in the template left open for issues the bureaus 
wanted to raise, and further, that some bureaus appended information 
to the template to provide additional context. 

Rigorous Preparations Enable Meaningful Performance Discussions: 

Our analysis found that sufficient preparation for the performance 
review meeting is critical for a successful review. Key participants 
must be prepared to discuss agenda items related to their performance 
measures and progress toward goals as well as any other issues to be 
addressed. The time allotted to prepare for reviews also provides a 
prompt for participants to continuously update their performance data, 
assess progress toward their performance goals, and develop a response 
to any performance issues identified. Also, data to be presented 
during the reviews must be fully vetted prior to the meeting so that 
participants can focus discussions on data trends and analysis rather 
than on whether the data itself is correct. 

According to our survey results, 22 of 24 PIOs reported that review 
participants are adequately prepared for performance reviews more than 
half the time, and 20 reported that, overall, it is not challenging 
for participants to be prepared for the reviews. Nevertheless, several 
agency officials from DOE, SBA, and Treasury said that there was a 
significant time investment in preparing information and coordinating 
among managers and analysts across headquarters and components or 
offices. Officials at Treasury noted that the process of preparing for 
the reviews forced the department and its component agencies to 
closely examine performance data and make sure they could explain it 
to the Deputy Secretary, and said this process was a valuable part of 
the performance review. As one bureau-level official explained, nobody 
wants to go before the Deputy Secretary with data that indicates a 
performance problem, unless they are able to explain the issue and 
show that they have already thought of strategies for improvement. As 
a result, preparing for the reviews sometimes prompted participants to 
conduct additional analysis and have advance discussions on how to 
address performance problems. 

At DOE, SBA, and Treasury, we found several practices in place to 
prepare participants for review meetings. Officials at each agency 
stressed the importance of meeting preparation to ensure that the 
review sessions were productive. For example, Treasury employed a 
rigorous pre-meeting process which started with the performance 
budgeting staff developing a PowerPoint template, in consultation with 
the Deputy Secretary, specifying the performance information to be 
provided by each component agency for its Stat session. Treasury 
officials said that performance budgeting staff then met with 
component staff to discuss the new template and any changes. The 
templates we reviewed were organized into several categories, such as 
priority projects, management metrics, and other issues, and were 
distributed in advance of the Stat meeting and used as the meeting 
agenda. Treasury officials said there were typically several rounds of 
revisions to the PowerPoint template prior to the review session, with 
management and analysts at the component level coordinating with their 
counterparts at the department. Officials said that one of the goals 
of developing the template was to ensure that all participants are 
fully prepared and able to engage in meaningful discussions about 
performance. In particular, one official explained that a guiding 
principle is that none of the participants should ever be surprised by 
any of the topics to be discussed. In advance of each review session, 
Treasury's Deputy Secretary reviews the completed document along with 
an explanatory briefing memo prepared by performance budgeting staff, 
which provides relevant context for any issues, suggests lines of 
questioning, and highlights particular decisions to be made. 
Performance budgeting staff also review the completed Stat template 
with component staff to discuss the contents and ensure that the 
component is aware of issues likely to be brought to the attention of 
the Deputy Secretary. Treasury's senior officials emphasized the 
importance of ensuring that data discussed at the meeting were 
sufficiently vetted during meeting preparation so as not to spend time 
during the sessions determining whether the information is correct. 
Several officials pointed to instances in early review meetings that 
used valuable meeting time on data issues because department-level and 
component staff disagreed on baseline data used during the reviews. 

DOE's pre-meeting practices included briefings with the Deputy 
Secretary and under secretaries and development of a Business 
Quarterly Review binder that included descriptions of the program 
offices' performance and budget information, a list of attendees, and 
background notes, as well as a list of actions from the previous 
performance review. 

Reviews Are Conducted on a Frequent and Regularly Scheduled Basis: 

Our analysis showed that in-person meetings which are both frequent 
and regularly scheduled are a defining characteristic of data-driven 
reviews. Regularly scheduled meetings foster a culture of performance 
management and continuous improvement. The frequency of the meeting 
schedule should depend on the urgency of the problems to be fixed, 
frequency with which the data are collected, and speed with which 
agency action can have an impact on these data. GPRAMA requires that 
starting no later than June 2011, agencies must conduct meetings at 
least quarterly, but agencies may meet more frequently if it meets 
their needs. 

According to our survey, all 24 of the PIOs reported that their 
agencies were conducting performance reviews at least quarterly, with 
7 of those 24 reporting conducting reviews more frequently. At DOE, 
SBA, and Treasury, we found each agency had frequent, regularly 
scheduled performance review meetings. Treasury's Deputy Secretary met 
separately with each of the bureaus two or three times a year. 
Generally, one or two of the meetings with each Treasury bureau 
focused on performance, and the other meetings focused on budget. 
Treasury also holds Stat meetings on certain department-wide goals 
related to human capital, procurement, and strategic sourcing. As a 
result, Treasury conducted more than three dozen performance review 
meetings throughout the year, with more than 100 reviews conducted as 
of November 2012. DOE and SBA both met quarterly with representatives 
from across their entire departments. 

Our survey results indicated that while holding performance reviews as 
scheduled is generally occurring, it may present challenges at some 
agencies. Of 24 PIOs, 20 reported that their agency held the 
performance reviews as scheduled more than half the time, with 2 of 
these PIOs reporting scheduling as a challenge. In addition, the 4 
PIOs who reported that this practice was occurring about half of the 
time or less also reported that it was a challenge. 

Experiences at Treasury illustrated how it can be challenging to 
schedule performance review meetings with high-ranking officials. At 
one bureau, officials said that last-minute cancellations due to the 
Deputy Secretary's schedule caused inefficiencies since extensive 
meeting preparations, including performance data analyses, had to be 
redone each time. Officials from this bureau also commented that the 
performance review meetings sometimes coincided with times during 
which the bureau had heavy workloads. The officials noted that 
scheduling all of the meetings at the beginning of the year would be 
helpful so that they could plan around them. According to Treasury 
officials, currently sessions are scheduled 4 to 8 weeks in advance. 

SBA found that it was best to schedule a standing date for the 
performance review meetings, which are held on the third Tuesday after 
the end of every quarter, rather than try to coordinate with numerous 
senior officials' schedules every time. By selecting this meeting 
time, SBA was also able to leverage an existing weekly operations 
meeting, rather than scheduling a separate meeting for the quarterly 
performance review. 

Participants Engage in Rigorous and Sustained Follow-up on Issues 
Identified During Reviews: 

Rigorous and sustained follow-up on issues identified during the 
meetings is also critical to ensure the success of the reviews as a 
performance improvement tool. Important follow-up activities include 
identifying the individual or office responsible for each action item 
as well as who will be monitoring the follow-up. Follow-up actions 
should be included as agenda items for subsequent reviews to hold 
responsible officials accountable for addressing the issues raised and 
communicating what was done. 

According to our survey results, follow-up activities are generally 
occurring even though some PIOs reported that this practice was 
challenging. In particular, 21 of 24 PIOs reported that follow-up 
activities occurred at their agencies more than half the time. 
Although 7 PIOs reported that follow-up activities were challenging, 5 
of those 7 PIOs also reported that this practice was occurring more 
than half the time, which may indicate that some agencies have found 
ways to overcome these challenges. 

DOE, SBA, and Treasury each had a different approach to ensure that 
follow-up items were carried out as agreed to at the review meetings 
and to ensure responsible parties were held accountable. At DOE, post-
meeting activities included asking program offices questions that were 
generated by their review and assigning an analyst from headquarters 
performance staff to work with mission program staff to prepare 
answers to these follow-up questions and have them ready for the next 
performance review meeting. According to an SBA official, follow-up 
action items were typically discussed at weekly operations meetings, 
which helped officials to integrate their action plans into these 
other performance discussions. One example of an SBA follow-up item 
was to develop new strategies related to increasing federal contracts 
with small businesses. Officials said they ranked agencies by the 
total dollar value of contracts they issued, and they targeted 
procurement representatives at the top seven purchasing agencies for 
their outreach efforts. 

At Treasury, its performance budgeting staff generated follow-up 
memorandums immediately after the review meetings, naming action 
items, responsible parties, and due dates. The status of follow-up 
items from the previous review meetings was also incorporated into the 
materials for the next review meeting so the Deputy Secretary could 
see if there was any lagging action. In addition, performance 
budgeting staff tracked overall performance on post-review follow-up 
to ensure that this part of the process was being managed effectively 
(see figure 5). 

Figure 5: Treasury Tracked its Own Performance on Completing Follow-up 
Items: 

[Refer to PDF for image: table] 

QPR Follow-Up Measure Tracker[A]: 

Year: FY 2011; 
Session: Total; 
Percent Completed Items: 96%; 
Closed, Completed: 138; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 1; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 5; 

Year: FY 2011; 
Session: Fall; 
Percent Completed Items: 98%; 
Closed, Completed: 40; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 0; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 1. 

Year: FY 2011; 
Session: Winter; 
Percent Completed Items: 95%; 
Closed, Completed: 21; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 0; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 1. 

Year: FY 2011; 
Session: Spring; 
Percent Completed Items: 96%; 
Closed, Completed: 43; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 0; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 2. 

Year: FY 2011; 
Session: Summer; 
Percent Completed Items: 94%; 
Closed, Completed: 34; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 1; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 1. 

Year: FY 2012; 
Session: Total; 
Percent Completed Items: 83%; 
Closed, Completed: 116; 
Open, Active: 17; 
Open, Inactive: 4; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 3%. 

Year: FY 2012; 
Session: Fall; 
Percent Completed Items: 98%; 
Closed, Completed: 39; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 1; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 0. 

Year: FY 2012; 
Session: Winter; 
Percent Completed Items: 86%; 
Closed, Completed: 18; 
Open, Active: 0; 
Open, Inactive: 1; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 2. 

Year: FY 2012; 
Session: Spring; 
Percent Completed Items: 83%; 
Closed, Completed: 29; 
Open, Active: 5; 
Open, Inactive: 0; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 1. 

Year: FY 2012; 
Session: Summer; 
Percent Completed Items: 68%; 
Closed, Completed: 30;
Open, Active: 12; 
Open, Inactive: 2; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 0. 

Year: FY 2013; 
Session: Total; 
Percent Completed Items: 29%; 
Closed, Completed: 18; 
Open, Active: 45; 
Open, Inactive: 0; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 0. 

Year: FY 2013; 
Session: Fall; 
Percent Completed Items: 29%; 
Closed, Completed: 18; 
Open, Active: 45; 
Open, Inactive: 0; 
Other, No Longer Relevant: 0. 

Source: Treasury. 

[End of figure] 

Several officials from Treasury and SBA noted the importance of 
receiving feedback from meeting participants to help improve the 
review process. For example, Treasury conducted a formal feedback 
meeting with bureau heads after the first round of review meetings and 
learned that components wanted more data from the department's 
performance staff to help substantiate their program performance. More 
recently, Treasury developed a survey to obtain formal feedback from 
participants and other management and staff that contribute to the 
review process. The survey included questions on the amount of time 
invested in preparation and follow-up and asked respondents to rate 
their satisfaction with various aspects of the review process, 
including the template design and the guidance provided by performance 
budget staff. Respondents were also asked to rate the importance of 
the various aspects of the review to their bureau or office, among 
other questions. According to Treasury officials who manage the Stat 
reviews, they have made specific improvements based on the survey 
results, such as sending out templates earlier to give components more 
time to prepare. 

SBA also solicited feedback from meeting participants and made some 
changes as a result. For example, an SBA official said that the agency 
used to schedule its quarterly performance review meeting after all 
the data were available, which was 45 days after the end of each 
quarter. However, the official said that participants wanted the 
meeting to be held when the majority of the data was available--only 
one of its offices' data lagged--to allow them to take any needed 
action on a timely basis. As a result, the officials said SBA started 
scheduling the quarterly review meeting on the third Tuesday after the 
end of each quarter and conducting a separate meeting with the one SBA 
office that receives its data after that date.[Footnote 32] 

DOE, SBA, and Treasury Officials Attributed Improvements in 
Performance and Decision Making to Quarterly Performance Reviews, 
although Some Reported Minimal Impact: 

Reviews Fostered Intra-agency Collaboration and Problem Solving to 
Improve Performance: 

DOE, SBA, and Treasury officials said their quarterly performance 
reviews allowed different functional management groups and program 
areas within each agency to share information and ideas for 
performance improvement. Officials said these reviews helped them to 
solve problems that were impeding progress toward performance goals or 
to develop new performance improvement strategies. In some cases, 
officials were able to point to specific performance improvements that 
they attributed to the reviews. 

DOE officials said that quarterly reviews helped them take a more 
critical look at subordinate activities contributing to the 
achievement of their APGs. For instance, they examined barriers to 
achieving their weatherization goals and found they could produce 
better results by targeting not only individual homes but also 
multiuse buildings for retrofitting. Therefore, they created a program 
to leverage resources from nonprofit and private sector organizations 
focused on large scale retrofit projects for buildings. In another 
example, DOE identified barriers to achieving its solar energy cost 
reduction APG related to slow local permitting processes for solar 
installations along with other local-level activities that contributed 
toward the goal. To address these barriers, DOE funded a new program 
called the Rooftop Solar Challenge in which teams develop actions 
plans to standardize permit processes, update planning and zoning 
codes, improve standards for connecting solar power to the electric 
grid, and increase access to financing. Officials said they expected 
these new approaches to improve DOE's performance in reducing solar 
energy costs. 

According to officials, performance reviews at DOE also facilitated 
information sharing across the agency that led to better results. For 
example, officials said discussions at DOE's quarterly performance 
reviews led offices to share effective procurement practices. In this 
case, offices have been sharing best practices related to strategic 
sourcing to identify areas of cost reduction.[Footnote 33] For 
example, a recent reorganization between Environmental Management and 
National Nuclear Security Administration presented an opportunity for 
Environmental Management to leverage existing capabilities in 
strategic sourcing. The performance reviews have allowed for 
additional DOE-wide discussions on strategic sourcing lessons-learned 
and partnerships to potentially achieve greater efficiencies and cost 
savings. 

Another example provided by SBA officials illustrated how using the 
reviews to increase visibility of the small business contracting goal 
at higher management levels led to the adoption of new performance 
improvement strategies. After discussing contracting goal data at a 
quarterly review, officials said the Administrator and Deputy 
Administrator decided to call department secretaries at those federal 
agencies with the most potential for awarding small business contracts 
to emphasize the importance of the goal. Officials said other 
strategies, such as providing more training for procurement center 
representatives, who, among other things, assist small businesses in 
obtaining federal contracts, came out of discussion at the reviews. 
[Footnote 34] Officials said they anticipated that the new strategies 
that came out of the reviews would lead to better performance toward 
the small business contracting goal. 

SBA officials also provided an example that illustrated how the 
reviews facilitated intra-agency collaboration that improved SBA's 
bottom line. Officials said that during a quarterly performance review 
meeting, the head of the Office of Capital Access described 
anticipated staffing shortfalls and the head of SBA's Office of 
Disaster Assistance noted that he expected to have staff members 
available during the slower season in disaster assistance work, which 
is cyclical in nature. SBA's Administrator instructed the two offices 
to work together, and as a result, officials said they were able to 
reduce the Office of Capital Access's labor costs by 20 to 30 percent 
compared to the cost of paying employees overtime or hiring temporary 
contractor labor. 

Leadership Communication of Priorities at Reviews Motivated 
Performance Improvements: 

DOE, SBA, and Treasury officials said the quarterly performance 
reviews provided a venue for top leadership to directly communicate 
their priorities and the priorities of the administration, which led 
to performance improvements in these areas. For example, at Treasury, 
nearly all of the bureau-level officials we interviewed said the Stat 
meetings were valuable because they allowed for a firsthand 
understanding of the Deputy Secretary's priorities for their bureaus. 
[Footnote 35] Bureau officials said that the Deputy Secretary used 
these meetings to challenge their performance targets and approaches 
to addressing performance problems and to identify new opportunities 
for improvement. For example, the Bureau of the Public Debt 
Commissioner said that upon hearing about the Deputy Secretary's 
interest in one of his ideas for improving how the agency communicates 
its bond pricing approach to customers, he moved ahead with developing 
an actionable strategy which he believes will ultimately lead to 
better customer service. Treasury officials said the Stat review 
process improved decision making by creating an environment where 
meaningful discussions on improving performance were held, citing 
performance improvements at the U.S. Mint as an example (see figure 6). 

Figure 6: Treasury Credits Stat Meetings with the Decision to Stop 
Minting $1 Coins for Circulation and Saving the U.S. Government 
Millions[A]: 

[Refer to PDF for image: information] 

Treasury's Deputy Secretary said that it was a Stat session with the 
U.S. Mint that first led him to question the direction they had been 
taking with the $1 coin. Performance data he reviewed for the meeting 
indicated that the Mint was producing 400 million new $1 coins 
annually, while the Federal Reserve already had 1.4 billion existing 
ones in storage and was considering a costly expansion to house the 
growing inventory. Digging deeper, he learned that the Federal Reserve 
had previously estimated that there were enough $1 coins to meet 
demand for more than a decade.[B] He and other Treasury officials 
explained the reason for the imbalance. Because the Mint does not bear 
the burden of storing the oversupply of coins, it has no signal to 
stop production. Officials noted that this is a good example of how 
having the meeting run by the highest level of leadership—-with a 
governmentwide perspective-—is one reason that Stat reviews can be a 
catalyst for better decision making leading to better outcomes. The 
Deputy Secretary ordered additional analysis to determine the true 
costs to the U.S. government as a whole. Ultimately, the Treasury 
Secretary stopped the minting of $1 coins for circulation, saving an 
estimated $50 million in coin production and storage costs. 

Source: GAO (information); Treasury (image). 

[A] GAO's prior work indicated that while stopping production of $1 
coins may save millions of dollars in production costs in the short 
term, eliminating $1 notes and replacing them with a $1 coin will have 
a larger net benefit over time. See GAO, 2012 Annual Report: 
Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and Fragmentation, Achieve 
Savings, and Enhance Revenue, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP] (Washington D.C: Feb. 2012). 

[B] This estimate was based on the assumption that demand would remain 
at 2011 levels. 

[End of figure] 

Citing another example, Treasury officials said that the Deputy 
Secretary had made contracting with small business a department-wide 
priority. Although increasing small business participation in 
government contracting was a SBA priority goal, Treasury, like all 
federal agencies subject to the Small Business Act, had its own target 
to meet to contribute to the goal.[Footnote 36] Officials attributed 
increases in the department's percentage of contracts with small 
businesses--Treasury was the only agency to achieve all of its fiscal 
year 2011 SBA small business prime contracting goals--to the Deputy 
Secretary's "relentless attention" at the Stat meetings. At every Stat 
session with every bureau, the Deputy Secretary reviewed the 
individual bureau's performance against the small business target 
goals.[Footnote 37] Officials said that Treasury's chief procurement 
officer was present at every Stat meeting to facilitate goal 
achievement. 

The Financial Management Service (FMS) Commissioner cited another 
example of how the Stat meetings provided a venue for the Deputy 
Secretary to communicate his priorities, which led to better 
performance. FMS has been pursuing several priority projects to 
modernize its payments, collections, and central accounting systems 
that serve federal agencies across the government. For example, one 
project is to replace a paper process that many agencies use to accept 
vendor invoices with a central invoicing system. FMS' analysts 
estimated that a central invoicing system could save the federal 
government $400 to $500 million annually, as well as provide vendors 
with online access to the status of their payments. FMS piloted the 
new system with the Bureau of Engraving and Printing. The new system 
enabled the Bureau of Engraving and Printing to pay their vendors more 
quickly than before, which resulted in the vendors having to provide 
"prompt pay" discounts. The decision was made to move forward 
government-wide, but to start with Treasury's own bureaus. Following a 
Stat meeting in which the FMS Commissioner cited delays in adoption by 
other Treasury bureaus, the Deputy Secretary made it clear that 
implementing the new system was a priority. The FMS official said 
that, while he believed the adoption of the new system would have 
happened eventually even without the Stat meetings, he credited the 
Stat meetings with speeding up the process by three to four years. 

A small number of Treasury bureau officials we interviewed had mixed 
views on whether the Stat meetings had actually improved performance, 
with some pointing out that certain performance improvements may have 
occurred without the Stat meetings. For example, Treasury leadership 
said they used the Stat sessions to closely monitor the consolidation 
of Bureau of the Public Debt and FMS into a single bureau, the Bureau 
of the Fiscal Service. Some officials thought they would have achieved 
the various consolidation milestones and goals without the Stat 
reviews and one said that the reviews added another layer of reporting 
that was time consuming. However, Treasury department officials noted 
that component management may not be aware of how the Deputy Secretary 
uses the reviews to better understand performance issues, including, 
in some cases, to ensure that the department is providing necessary 
support to improve performance. 

Conclusions: 

Our review of DOE, SBA, and Treasury--as well as our survey of 24 
PIOs--indicated that data-driven quarterly performance reviews hold 
promise as an effective management tool at the federal level. However, 
unlike city- and state-level data-driven reviews, which typically 
include representatives from multiple agencies, officials at DOE, SBA, 
and Treasury viewed their quarterly performance review meetings as an 
internal management tool and therefore did not open the reviews to 
outside participation. Officials said they relied on other means of 
collaborating with outside agencies and other partners that contribute 
to achieving cross-cutting goals. Furthermore, the majority of PIOs we 
surveyed indicated that there was little to no involvement in the 
reviews from external officials who could contribute to achieving 
agency goals. Successful data-driven performance reviews, which 
require extensive preparation and significant leadership time, do not 
come without a cost, so it is critical that agencies implement their 
reviews in a way that maximizes their effectiveness. As the 
implementation of the various GPRAMA provisions continues, agencies 
may need to reevaluate the most effective way to engage outside 
contributors in the quarterly performance review process for APGs and 
other performance goals that depend on other organizations to achieve 
desired outcomes. While there are many approaches to managing 
performance toward such goals, agency quarterly performance reviews 
could provide opportunities to bring together the leadership and all 
the key players needed to improve cross-agency and internal agency 
performance. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOE, OMB, SBA, and Treasury for 
review and comment. Each agency provided technical comments which we 
incorporated as appropriate. OMB staff generally concurred with the 
recommendation in our report. DOE and Treasury provided written 
comments, which are reproduced in appendixes IV and V, agreeing with 
our conclusions. 

Recommendation for Executive Action: 

To better leverage agency quarterly performance reviews as a mechanism 
to manage performance toward agency priority and other agency-level 
performance goals, we are recommending that the Director of the Office 
of Management and Budget--working with the Performance Improvement 
Council and other relevant groups--identify and share promising 
practices to help agencies extend their quarterly performance reviews 
to include, as relevant, representatives from outside organizations 
that contribute to achieving their agency performance goals. 

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 
committees and the Secretaries of Energy and Treasury, the 
Administrator of SBA, and the Director of OMB. In addition, the report 
is available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov. Contact points for our 
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on 
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions 
to this report are listed in appendix VII. 

Signed by: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director, Strategic Issues: 

List of Congressional Addressees: 

The Honorable Thomas R. Carper: 
Chairman: 
The Honorable Tom Coburn: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Mark R. Warner: 
Chairman: 
Task Force on Government Performance, Committee on the Budget: 
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Elijah Cummings: 
Ranking Member: 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

As part of our mandate to review the implementation of the Government 
Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), our 
reporting objectives were to (1) identify practices that can promote 
successful data-driven reviews at the federal level and examine how 
these reviews are being implemented at selected agencies and across 
the government, and (2) examine the impact of quarterly data-driven 
performance reviews on selected agencies' progress toward high 
priority and other performance goals.[Footnote 38] This report is the 
second in a series that examines how agencies are implementing various 
GPRAMA requirements.[Footnote 39] 

To identify practices that can promote successful data-driven reviews 
at the federal level, we conducted a review of relevant academic and 
policy literature, including our previous reports.[Footnote 40] Based 
on our literature review, we developed a broad set of practices 
associated with the major contributors to success for data-driven 
reviews. We refined these practices with additional information 
obtained from practitioners at the local, state, and federal level who 
shared their experiences and lessons learned.[Footnote 41] As part of 
this engagement, we also compared these practices with recent GPRAMA-
related guidance in the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) 
Circular No. A-11 and found them broadly consistent.[Footnote 42] We 
observed two data-driven review meetings at the Department of the 
Treasury (Treasury), which was one of the agencies selected to address 
our reporting objectives. 

To examine how these reviews are being implemented at agencies across 
the government, we surveyed the performance improvement officer (PIO) 
at each of the 24 federal agencies subject to the Chief Financial 
Officers (CFO) Act.[Footnote 43] We surveyed these agencies because 
GPRAMA directs us to focus on them in our reporting on the act. 
Additionally, several provisions of the act apply specifically to 
these agencies, including that the Performance Improvement Council 
(PIC) include them as members. We received responses from 24 PIOs--a 
100 percent response rate. 

The web-based survey was administered from October 18, 2012, to 
December 14, 2012. Respondents were sent an e-mail invitation to 
complete the survey on a GAO web server using a unique username and 
password. During the data collection period, we sent reminder e-mails 
and made phone calls to nonresponding agencies. Because this was not a 
sample survey, it has no sampling errors. The practical difficulties 
of conducting any survey may also introduce nonsampling errors, such 
as difficulties interpreting a particular question, which can 
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. We took steps 
to minimize nonsampling errors by pretesting the questionnaire in 
person with PIOs and Deputy PIOs at three different agencies. We 
conducted pretests to make sure that the questions were clear and 
unbiased, the data and information were readily obtainable, and the 
questionnaire did not place an undue burden on respondents. We made 
appropriate revisions to the content and format of the questionnaire 
after the pretests and independent review. All data analysis programs 
used to generate survey results were independently verified for 
accuracy. Additionally, in reviewing the answers from agencies, we 
confirmed that PIOs had correctly bypassed inapplicable questions 
(skip patterns). Based on our findings, we determined that the survey 
data are sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this engagement. 

To evaluate how effectively selected agencies are applying the 
practices of data-driven reviews in their GPRAMA-mandated quarterly 
performance reviews, and the effectiveness of these reviews toward 
achieving agency priority and other performance goals, we chose three 
agencies--Department of Energy (DOE), Small Business Administration 
(SBA), and Department of the Treasury (Treasury). 

Because one of our goals was to describe challenges and lessons 
learned that will be useful to as many federal agencies as possible--
as well as to the administration and to Congress--we selected agencies 
for case study that could provide a new illustration of challenges or 
lessons learned, that is, agencies that were not the recent or current 
subject of GAO or other public administration or public policy case 
studies. We also looked for agencies that could provide broadly 
applicable case illustrations, based on the scope of their mission, 
organizational complexity, and the mix of government tools--such as 
direct service, regulations, grants, loans, and tax expenditures--used 
to achieve their performance goals.[Footnote 44] 

In addition, we excluded agencies that were undergoing significant 
management changes--such as leadership turnover or consolidation 
review--that could prevent us from gaining a clear picture of 
performance management or could interfere with our ability to make 
practicable recommendations. We also excluded agencies that had less 
than one year of experience in conducting data-driven reviews at the 
time that we started our field work. 

At each selected agency, we focused on two agency priority goals (APG) 
[Footnote 45] to examine how quarterly performance reviews affected 
the agency components responsible for achieving performance outcomes. 
Because the scope of our review was to examine data-driven performance 
reviews as a leadership strategy, we did not evaluate whether these 
goals were appropriate indicators of agency performance, sufficiently 
ambitious, or met other dimensions of quality. The following are the 
complete sets of the agencies' 2013 APGs. An asterisk indicates the 
ones we focused on in our review: 

DOE: 

* Save low-income families money and energy through weatherization 
retrofits.* 

* Reduce the department's Cold War legacy environmental footprint. 

* Reduce the cost of batteries for electric drive vehicles to help 
increase the market for plug-in-hybrids and all electric vehicles and 
thereby reduce petroleum use and greenhouse gas emissions. 

* Make solar energy as cheap as traditional sources of electricity.* 

* Reduce consumer energy use and costs for household appliances. 

* Prioritization of scientific facilities to ensure optimal benefit 
from federal investments. 

* Make significant progress toward securing the most vulnerable 
nuclear materials worldwide within four years. 

* Maintain the U.S. nuclear weapons stockpile and dismantle excess 
nuclear weapons to meet national nuclear security requirements as 
assigned by the President through the Nuclear Posture Review. 

SBA: 

* Process business loans as efficiently as possible.* 

* Increase small business participation in government contracting.* 

* Process disaster assistance applications efficiently. 

* Expand access to long term capital. 

Treasury: 

* Increase electronic transactions with the public to improve service, 
prevent fraud, and reduce costs.* 

* Increase voluntary tax compliance.* 

To address both of our objectives, we reviewed memorandums, internal 
briefings, and other materials agencies used to prepare for the 
reviews, as well as documents used during the reviews and follow-up 
materials. We conducted interviews with officials at OMB, the 
Performance Improvement Council, and senior-level officials involved 
in each agency's performance review process to gain various 
perspectives on these reviews.[Footnote 46] 

* DOE: We met with the Deputy Secretary, who also serves as DOE's 
chief operating officer (COO), and other senior-level officials 
including but not limited to the PIO, the Deputy PIO, and budget 
officials.[Footnote 47] In addition, we met with two APG goal leaders: 
the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and the Deputy 
Assistant Secretary for Renewable Energy. 

* SBA: We met with senior-level officials, including but not limited 
to the SBA's PIO, Deputy PIO, and COO. In addition, we met with SBA's 
Associate Administrator/Office of Capital Access, who serves as the 
goal leader for one of the AGPs we reviewed. 

* Treasury: We met with the Deputy Secretary, who also serves as 
Treasury's COO, and other senior-level officials at the department 
level, including the PIO, who also serves as the CFO, the Deputy PIO, 
and budget officials. We also met with senior-level officials at 
Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service, Bureau of the Public Debt, 
Financial Management Service, and the Internal Revenue Service. 
[Footnote 48] 

In addition, we met with the Assistant Fiscal Secretary who serves as 
the goal leader for one of the APGs we reviewed. 

We asked to observe at least one review meeting at each agency. 
Treasury allowed us to observe two of its quarterly performance review 
meetings--one focused on the Bureau of the Fiscal Service and one on 
the Internal Revenue Service. DOE and SBA did not allow us to observe 
their meetings, citing concerns that our presence could inhibit open 
discussion. During the interviews, we asked officials to identify any 
challenges to effective implementation they faced as the process 
evolved or any lessons they learned. We also asked officials to 
identify examples of any impacts on performance that they attributed 
to the reviews. 

We conducted our work from April 2012 to February 2013 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 
require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, 
appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings 
and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the 
evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Responses to Selected Questions from GAO's Survey on 
Agency Performance Management Positions and Responsibilities: 

To address several research objectives related to implementation of 
the Government Performance and Results Act Modernization Act of 2010 
(GPRAMA)[Footnote 49] we distributed a web-based survey to the 
performance improvement officer (PIO) at each of the 24 agencies 
subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act.[Footnote 50] We received 
responses from all 24 PIOs. There were 45 survey questions; tables 1 
through 9 below show questions and responses for the nine questions 
that were directly applicable to the research objectives in this 
report. We will publish the full survey results in a report in the 
spring of 2013 on the implementation of key management positions under 
GPRAMA. For more information about our methodology for designing and 
distributing the survey, see appendix I. 

Table 1: Question 22--To what extent does your performance improvement 
staff have each of the following competencies that OPM has identified? 

Competencies: Accountability; 
Large extent: 18; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Small extent: 1; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Attention to Detail; 
Large extent: 20; 
Moderate extent: 4; 
Small extent: 0; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Customer Service; 
Large extent: 19; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Small extent: 2; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Influencing/Negotiating; 
Large extent: 17; 
Moderate extent: 5; 
Small extent: 2; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Information Management; 
Large extent: 14; 
Moderate extent: 8; 
Small extent: 2; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Oral Communication; 
Large extent: 21; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Small extent: 0; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Organizational Awareness; 
Large extent: 20; 
Moderate extent: 4; 
Small extent: 0; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Organizational Performance Analysis; 
Large extent: 14; 
Moderate extent: 8; 
Small extent: 2; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Partnering; 
Large extent: 19; 
Moderate extent: 4; 
Small extent: 1; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Performance Measurement; 
Large extent: 15; 
Moderate extent: 7; 
Small extent: 2; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Planning and Evaluating; 
Large extent: 13; 
Moderate extent: 8; 
Small extent: 3; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Problem Solving; 
Large extent: 20; 
Moderate extent: 2; 
Small extent: 2; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Reasoning; 
Large extent: 21; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Small extent: 0; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Technical Competence; 
Large extent: 19; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Small extent: 1; 
No extent: 1; 
No opinion: 0. 

Competencies: Written Communication; 
Large extent: 21; 
Moderate extent: 3; 
Small extent: 0; 
No extent: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[End of table] 

Table 2: Question 27--Does your agency conduct GPRAMA-required 
quarterly performance reviews? 

Number of Responses: 
Yes: 24; 
No: 0. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[End of table] 

Table 3: Question 28--Did your agency conduct quarterly performance 
reviews (or similar reviews) before the GPRAMA requirement took effect 
in June 2011? 

Number of Responses: 
Yes: 20; 
No: 4. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[End of table] 

Table 4: Question 31--How often does your agency conduct performance 
reviews (although GPRAMA requires quarterly reviews, some agencies have 
established other review cycles to meet their management needs)? 

Number of Responses: 
Less often than quarterly: 0; 
Quarterly: 17; 
More often than quarterly: 7. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Question 32--How much involvement, if any, does each of the 
following officials have in your agency's quarterly performance 
reviews? 

Official: Agency Head; 
Large involvement: 4; 
Moderate involvement: 5; 
Small involvement: 9; 
No involvement: 6; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Chief Operating Officer; 
Large involvement: 21; 
Moderate involvement: 2; 
Small involvement: 1; 
No involvement: 0; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Performance Improvement Officer; 
Large involvement: 23; 
Moderate involvement: 1; 
Small involvement: 0; 
No involvement: 0; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Deputy Performance Improvement Officer; 
Large involvement: 20; 
Moderate involvement: 1; 
Small involvement: 1; 
No involvement: 0; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 2. 

Official: Goal Leaders; 
Large involvement: 19; 
Moderate involvement: 2; 
Small involvement: 3; 
No involvement: 0; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Management Chiefs; 
Large involvement: 15; 
Moderate involvement: 8; 
Small involvement: 1; 
No involvement: 0; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Internal-to-agency contributors to goals; 
Large involvement: 15; 
Moderate involvement: 7; 
Small involvement: 2; 
No involvement: 0; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: External-to-agency contributors to goals; 
Large involvement: 1; 
Moderate involvement: 3; 
Small involvement: 9; 
No involvement: 7; 
No opinion: 0; 
Not applicable: 4. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[End of table] 

Table 6: Question 33--For each of the following officials, has their 
involvement in agency performance management increased, remained about 
the same, or decreased as a result of your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews? 

Official: Agency Head; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 2; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
19; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 2; 
Not applicable: 1. 

Official: Chief Operating Officer[A]; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 15; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
6; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 2; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Performance Improvement Officer; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 16; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
7; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 1; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Deputy Performance Improvement Officer; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 11; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
10; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 1; 
Not applicable: 2. 

Official: Goal Leaders; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 13; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
10; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 1; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: Management Chiefs; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 8; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
14; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 1; 
Not applicable: 1. 

Official: Internal-to-agency contributors to goals; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 9; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
14; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
No opinion: 1; 
Not applicable: 0. 

Official: External-to-agency contributors to goals; 
Increased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 0; 
Remained about the same as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 
9; 
Decreased as a result of quarterly performance reviews: 1; 
No opinion: 3; 
Not applicable: 11. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[A] There were 23 responses to this question. 

[End of table] 

Table 7: Question 34--How frequently do your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews include the following characteristics? 

Characteristic: Reviews include information on progress and trends 
relevant to achievement of priority goals; 
More than half the time: 23; 
About half the time: 1; 
Less than half the time: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic: Reviews include coordination with personnel inside and 
outside agency, as relevant to achievement of priority goals; 
More than half the time: 16; 
About half the time: 4; 
Less than half the time: 3; 
No opinion: 1. 

Characteristic: Reviews include assessment of whether relevant 
organizations, programs, regulations, policies, etc. are contributing 
as planned toward goals; 
More than half the time: 20; 
About half the time: 2; 
Less than half the time: 2; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic: Reviews include assessment of risk of not achieving 
priority goals and for the highest-risk goals; 
More than half the time: 18; 
About half the time: 4; 
Less than half the time: 2; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic: Reviews include discussion of strategies for 
performance improvement; 
More than half the time: 19; 
About half the time: 5; 
Less than half the time: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[End of table] 

Table 8: Question 35--How frequently do your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews include the following characteristics or practices 
and how easy or challenging has it been to implement them? 

Characteristic of Practice: Accurate, timely, and useful data is 
available for the reviews; 
More than half the time: 18; 
About half the time: 6; 
Less than half the time: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Participants are adequately prepared for 
the reviews; 
More than half the time: 22; 
About half the time: 1; 
Less than half the time: 1; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Reviews are held routinely as scheduled; 
More than half the time: 20; 
About half the time: 3; 
Less than half the time: 1; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Reviews are aligned with strategic goals 
and performance objectives; 
More than half the time: 22; 
About half the time: 1; 
Less than half the time: 1; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Leadership actively participates in the 
reviews[A]; 
More than half the time: 22; 
About half the time: 1; 
Less than half the time: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Reviews include those managers/staff 
needed to facilitate problem solving and identify improvement 
opportunities; 
More than half the time: 21; 
About half the time: 3; 
Less than half the time: 0; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Data and relevant analyses are presented 
effectively to participants of the reviews; 
More than half the time: 16; 
About half the time: 6; 
Less than half the time: 1; 
No opinion: 1. 

Characteristic of Practice: Reviews strike a balance between 
motivating improvement and holding participants accountable; 
More than half the time: 17; 
About half the time: 5; 
Less than half the time: 0; 
No opinion: 2. 

Characteristic of Practice: Actionable opportunities for performance 
improvement are identified through the reviews; 
More than half the time: 13; 
About half the time: 8; 
Less than half the time: 3; 
No opinion: 0. 

Characteristic of Practice: Follow up takes place after the reviews so 
that all action items arising from reviews are addressed; 
More than half the time: 21; 
About half the time: 2; 
Less than half the time: 1; 
No opinion: 0. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Notes: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. We are reporting the survey responses for how easy or 
challenging it has been to implement the characteristics or practices 
separately in table 9. 

[A] There were 23 responses to this question. 

[End of table] 

Table 9: Question 35--How frequently do your agency's quarterly 
performance reviews include the following characteristics or practices 
and how easy or challenging has it been to implement them? 

Question: Characteristics or Practices; Easy: [Empty]; Neither easy nor 
challenging: [Empty]; Challenging: [Empty]; No opinion: [Empty]. 

Question: Accurate, timely, and useful data is available for the 
reviews; Easy: 2; Neither easy nor challenging: 6; Challenging: 16; No 
opinion: 0. 

Question: Participants are adequately prepared for the reviews; Easy: 
5; Neither easy nor challenging: 15; Challenging: 4; No opinion: 0. 

Question: Reviews are held routinely as scheduled; Easy: 10; Neither 
easy nor challenging: 8; Challenging: 6; No opinion: 0. 

Question: Reviews are aligned with strategic goals and performance 
objectives; Easy: 13; Neither easy nor challenging: 9; Challenging: 1; 
No opinion: 1. 

Question: Leadership actively participates in the reviews[A]; Easy: 12; 
Neither easy nor challenging: 8; Challenging: 2; No opinion: 1. 

Question: Reviews include those managers/staff needed to facilitate 
problem solving and identify improvement opportunities; Easy: 10; 
Neither easy nor challenging: 12; Challenging: 2; No opinion: 0. 

Question: Data and relevant analyses are presented effectively to 
participants of the reviews; Easy: 2; Neither easy nor challenging: 10; 
Challenging: 11; No opinion: 1. 

Question: Reviews strike a balance between motivating improvement and 
holding participants accountable; Easy: 4; Neither easy nor 
challenging: 12; Challenging: 6; No opinion: 2. 

Question: Actionable opportunities for performance improvement are 
identified through the reviews; Easy: 6; Neither easy nor challenging: 
11; Challenging: 5; No opinion: 2. 

Question: Follow up takes place after the reviews so that all action 
items arising from reviews are addressed; Easy: 4; Neither easy nor 
challenging: 12; Challenging: 7; No opinion: 1. 

Source: GAO survey results. 

Note: Unless otherwise indicated, the number of responses to each 
question is 24. 

[A] The number of responses to this question is 23. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Federal Agencies Subject to the Chief Financial Officers 
Act: 

* Department of Agriculture: 

* Department of Commerce: 

* Department of Defense: 

* Department of Education: 

* Department of Energy: 

* Department of Health and Human Services: 

* Department of Homeland Security: 

* Department of Housing and Urban Development: 

* Department of the Interior: 

* Department of Justice: 

* Department of Labor: 

* Department of State: 

* Department of Transportation: 

* Department of the Treasury: 

* Department of Veterans Affairs: 

* Agency for International Development: 

* Environmental Protection Agency: 

* General Services Administration: 

* National Aeronautics and Space Administration: 

* National Science Foundation: 

* Nuclear Regulatory Commission: 

* Office of Personnel Management: 

* Small Business Administration: 

* Social Security Administration: 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of the Treasury: 

Department of The Treasury: 
Assistant Secretary: 
Washington, D.C. 

February 11, 2013: 

J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director: 
Strategic Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Mihm: 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the draft report entitled 
Managing for Results: Agencies Can Enhance Data-Driven Performance 
Reviews by Exploring Ways to Involve Relevant Agencies in Achieving 
Goals. We appreciate GAO's in-depth review of the Treasury 
Department's performance review process. 

As detailed in the report, Treasury instituted quarterly performance 
reviews ("Stats") in March 2010. These reviews align priorities and 
expectations, encourage data-driven decision-making, and drive 
accountability. We believe Treasury's Stat process provides detailed 
and accurate performance data for the Treasury bureaus and offices 
allowing Treasury leadership to gain visibility into priority areas in 
order to more effectively manage the Department. The reviews have 
brought a more disciplined and focused protocol to organizational 
performance reviews across the Department, and the results are 
overwhelmingly positive. Bureaus and offices have cited the value of 
regularly scheduled opportunities to discuss significant issues with 
Treasury leadership and to receive real-time, across-the-table 
support, guidance, and feedback. 

As noted in the report, performance reviews require a significant time 
investment by Treasury leadership and staff, including extensive 
preparation and follow-up. We found that this level of rigor in 
preparation and follow-up yields additional benefits, including deeper 
engagement and problem solving with bureaus and offices on key 
initiatives, clarification of performance priorities and goals, and 
improved staff level coordination and communication. 

We were pleased to read that GAO's findings emphasized the importance 
of inter-agency collaboration. We believe this is a critical component 
to problem solving in government, and we have taken every opportunity 
to work with other agencies in our efforts to improve outcomes. We 
worked with the Federal Reserve on a matter of currency and coin 
inventory; with the Department of Homeland Security on the procurement 
of security equipment; and with the Department of Justice on tax 
issues. Treasury has also been an active participant and leader in 
numerous reviews coordinated by OMB, such as AcquisitionStat, 
PortfolioStat, and HR Stat as well as Cross-Agency Priority Goals such 
as government-wide critical skills gaps. We have also used the 
quarterly performance review process to review performance and create 
collaboration among Treasury components by holding cross-bureau/office 
sessions focused on specific key issues, such as Strategic Sourcing 
for cost-effective acquisition or Human Resources to meet Treasury-
wide metrics. 

We thank you for the opportunity to provide information and insights 
into Treasury's Stat process. The entire Treasury team is very proud 
to be recognized for our accomplishments, and we look forward to the 
opportunity to provide additional updates going forward. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Nani Coloretti: 
Assistant Secretary for Management and Performance Improvement Officer: 
Department of the Treasury: 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Energy: 

Department of Energy: 
Washington, DC 20585: 

February 12, 2013: 

Mr. J. Christopher Mihm: 
Managing Director: 
Strategic Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Mihm: 

Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the draft audit 
report Managing for Results: Agencies Can Enhance Data-Driven 
Performance Reviews By Exploring Ways to Involve Relevant Agencies in 
Achieving Goals (GAO-13-288, February 2013). 

We appreciate the feedback and insights provided by the Government 
Accountability Office throughout the evaluation. We look forward to 
working with the Office of Management and Budget and the Performance 
Improvement Council on developing improvements in sharing best 
practices with other agencies. 

If there are any questions, you may contact Dr. Hugh Chen, Director, 
Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation, at (202) 586-1911. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Alison L. Doone: 
Deputy Chief Financial Officer: 

cc: 
Laura Miller Craig: 
Elizabeth Curda: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: Full Text for Interactive Figure 1 on Finding the Right 
Meeting Size and Composition for Effective Performance Reviews: 

This appendix includes the print version of the text contained in 
interactive figure 1. 

Several officials noted challenges in achieving the proper balance 
between having a small number of meeting participants, which can allow 
more air time for each participant, compared to a larger group which 
might not be a productive use of time for those attending. 

Picture: Treasury Deputy Secretary and COO Neal Wolin (top) leads the 
department's quarterly performance reviews, with support from 
Assistant Secretary for Management Nani Coloretti, who also serves as 
Treasury's PIO. 

In addition, balancing depth of knowledge and numbers of staff 
attending these reviews is another consideration for finding the right 
meeting size. One official pointed out that having a relatively small 
group can help participants feel more comfortable in revealing 
performance problems but that there is a risk of leaving out key 
players that need to be part of a performance solution. Officials from 
each agency described different approaches to finding the right 
meeting size and composition for effective performance reviews, with 
several officials acknowledging that it takes time to get it right. 

Table 10 contains the rollover information from interactive figure 1 
about how the Department of Energy (DOE), the Small Business 
Administration (SBA), and the Department of the Treasury (Treasury) 
conduct their quarterly performance review meetings. 

Table 10: Information about How DOE, SBA, and Treasury Conduct Their 
Quarterly Performance Review Meetings: 

Main participants: 
DOE: 7; 
SBA: Included in average number of participants below; 
Treasury: Included in average number of participants below. 

Average number of participants: 
DOE: 10-12; 
SBA: 45-50; 
Treasury: 20-25. 

Meeting lead: 
DOE: Deputy Secretary with support from Budget Director and PIO; 
SBA: Deputy Administrator with support of COO and PIO; 
Treasury: Deputy Secretary. 

Performance Improvement: 
DOE: PIO and Deputy PIO; 
SBA: PIO, Deputy PIO, performance analysts; 
Treasury: PIO, Deputy PIO, performance budgeting analysts. 

Management chiefs: 
DOE: Director, Office of Management (Goal Leader); CHCO (Goal Leader); 
CIO (Goal Leader); CFO; 
SBA: COO, CFO/PIO, CHCO, CIO; Note: SBA's CFO also serves as its PIO; 
Treasury: Budget Director, CHCO, CFO, CIO, Senior Procurement 
Executive, among other chiefs who may be invited on a review-by-review 
basis; Note: Treasury's PIO also serves as its CFO. 

Component or Office Leadership: 
DOE: Under Secretary of Energy (Goal Leader); Under Secretary, Office 
of Science (Goal Leader); Undersecretary for Nuclear Security & 
Administrator for National Nuclear Security Administration (Goal 
Leader); 
SBA: Associate Administrators (Goal Leader), Assistant Administrators; 
Treasury: Commissioner (Goal Leader), Deputy Commissioner (may be Goal 
Leader), Bureau CFO, and other Bureau management chiefs--such as the 
Bureau CIO--when appropriate. 

Goal Leaders; 
DOE: Management Chiefs and Component/Office leadership serve as goal 
leaders (see above); 
SBA: Associate Administrators serve as goal leaders (see above); 
Treasury: Component/Office leadership serve as goal leaders (see 
above). 

Additional Internal Participants; 
DOE: Other Goal Leaders, Management Chiefs, and Performance and Budget 
staff who support the reviews; 
SBA: Chief of Staff, Deputy Chief of Staff, General Council; 
Directors, Senior Advisors, Program Analysts; 
Treasury: Legislative Affairs, General Counsel, Policy Officials. 

Outside participants; 
DOE: None; 
SBA: None; 
Treasury: None. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix VII: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

J. Christopher Mihm, (202) 512-6806 or mihmj@gao.gov: 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Elizabeth Curda and Laura Miller Craig managed this assignment. 
Darnita Akers, Virginia Chanley, Don Kiggins, and Bob Yetvin made 
contributions to all aspects of the report. Kim Gianopoulos, Kay 
Kuhlman, Judith Kordahl, Jill Lacey, Sarah M. McGrath, Tim Minelli, 
Kathleen Padulchick, William B. Shear, Albert Sim, and Meredith 
Trauner also provided assistance. In addition, Sabrina Streagle 
provided legal support and Donna Miller developed the report's 
graphics. 

[End of section] 

Selected Bibliography: 

Behn, Robert. "Collaborating for Performance: Or Can There Exist Such 
a Thing as CollaborationStat?" International Public Management 
Journal, vol. 13, no. 4 (2010): 429-470. 

Behn, Robert. "The Core Drivers Of CitiStat: It's Not Just About the 
Meetings and the Maps," International Public Management Journal, vol. 
8, no. 3 (2005): 295-319. 

Behn, Robert. "The Varieties of CitiStat," Public Administration 
Review, vol. 66, no. 3 (2006): 332-340. 

Behn, Robert. "What All Mayors Would Like to Know About Baltimore's 
CitiStat Performance Strategy," IBM Center for the Business of 
Government Managing for Performance and Results Series (Washington, 
D.C.: 2007). 

Campbell, Mary. "Bringing Performance Excellence to the Public Sector: 
Washington State's Odyssey," ASQ World Conference on Quality and 
Improvement Proceedings, vol. 59 (2005): 279-288. 

Esty, Daniel, and Reece Rushing. "The Promise of Data-Driven 
Policymaking," Issues in Science and Technology, vol. 23, no. 4 
(Summer 2007): 67-72. 

Fillichio, Carl. "Getting Ahead of the Curve: Baltimore and CitiStat," 
Public Manager, vol. 34, no. 2 (Summer 2005): 51-53. 

Godown, Jeff. "The CompStat Process: Four Principles for Managing 
Crime Reduction," The Police Chief, vol. LXXVI, no. 8 (August 2009), 
accessed on September 5, 2012, [hyperlink, 
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display
&article_id=1859&issue_id=82009]. 

Griffith, John, and Gadi Dechter. "Performance Reviews That Work: Four 
Case Studies of Successful Performance Review Systems in the Federal 
Government," Center for American Progress (Washington, D.C.: February 
2011). 

Hatry, Harry and Elizabeth Davies, "A Guide to Data-Driven Performance 
Reviews," IBM Center for the Business of Government Improving 
Performance Series (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 

Henderson, Lenneal. "The Baltimore CitiStat Program: Performance and 
Accountability," IBM Endowment for the Business of Government Managing 
For Results Series (Arlington, VA: May 2003). 

Kettl, Donald. "China Looks West for Performance Management," 
Governing, August 2011, [hyperlink, 
http://www.governing.com/columns/potomac-chronicle/china-looks-west-
performance-management.html]. 

Kingsley, Christopher. "Smart Cities: PerformanceSTAT at 15," 
University of Pennsylvania Fels Institute of Government (Philadelphia, 
PA; October 2010). 

Malinowski, Chris, and Sasha Page. "Top 10 Performance Measurement Dos 
and Don'ts," Government Finance Review, vol. 20, no. 5 (October 2004): 
28+. 

Moynihan, Donald, and Stéphane Lavertu. "Do Performance Reforms Change 
How Federal Mangers Manage?" The Brookings Institution Issues in 
Governance Studies Series, 52 (Washington, D.C.: October 2012). 

O'Connell, Paul, and Daniel Forrester. "Think Differently: Update Your 
Stats to Unlock Outcomes," The Public Manager, vol. 38, no. 4 (Winter 
2009-2010): 5-9. 

O'Connell, Paul. "Using Performance Data for Accountability: The New 
York City Police Department's CompStat Model of Police Management," 
The PricewaterhouseCoopers Endowment for the Business of Government 
Managing for Results Series (Arlington, VA: 2001). 

Partnership for Public Service. "From Data to Decisions: The Power of 
Analytics," IBM Center for the Business of Government (Washington, 
D.C.: November 2011). 

Perez, Teresita and Reece Rushing. "The CitiStat Model: How Data-
Driven Government Can Increase Efficiency and Effectiveness," Center 
for American Progress (Washington, D.C.: April 2007). 

Queensland Audit Office. Better Practice Guide Performance Reviews. 
Brisbane, Australia: 2010. 

Sanger, Mary Bryna. "From Measurement to Management: Breaking through 
the Barriers to State and Local Performance," Public Administration 
Review, S1 (December 2008): S70-85. 

Scofield, Jennifer. "Asking Why Cuyahoga CountyStat," Government 
Finance Review, vol. 27, no. 6 (December 2011): 40-43. 

Serpas, Ronal, and Matthew Morley. "The Next Step in Accountability-
Driven Leadership: "CompStating" the CompStat data," The Police Chief, 
vol. LXXV, no. 5 (May 2008), accessed on September 5, 2012, 
[hyperlink, 
http://www.policechiefmagazine.org/magazine/index.cfm?fuseaction=display
_arch&article_id=1501&issue_id=52008]. 

Shane, Jon. "Compstat Process," FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin, vol. 73, 
no. 4 (April 2004): 12-21. 

Sharp, Cathy, Jocelyn Jones, and Alison Smith. "What Do We Measure and 
Why? An Evaluation of the Citistat Model of Performance Management and 
its Applicability to the Scottish Public Sector," Scottish Executive 
Social Research (Edinburgh, UK: 2006). 

Solan, David. "The EPAStat Quarterly Report and Lessons Learned," 
Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 33, no. 2 (December 
2009): 222-240. 

Steinberg, Harold. "Using Performance Information to Drive Performance 
Improvement," Association of Government Accountants Corporate Partner 
Advisory GroupResearch Series: Report No. 29 (Alexandria, VA: 2011). 

Useem, Greg. "Moving from Reporting Performance Information to Using 
It," Government Finance Review, vol. 25, no. 2 (April 2009): 47-50. 

Weitzman, Beth, Diana Silver, and Caitlyn Brazill. "Efforts to Improve 
Public Policy and Programs through Data Practice: Experiences in 15 
Distressed American Cities," Public Administration Review, vol. 66, 
no. 3 (May/June 2006): 386-399. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing Interagency 
Collaborative Mechanisms. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. Washington, D.C.: September 
27, 2012: 

Strategic Sourcing: Improved and Expanded Use Could Save Billions in 
Annual Procurement Costs. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-919]. Washington, D.C.: September 
20, 2012: 

Solar Energy: Federal Initiatives Overlap but Take Measures to Avoid 
Duplication. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-843]. 
Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2012. 

Entrepreneurial Assistance: Opportunities Exist to Improve Programs' 
Collaboration, Data-Tracking, and Performance Management. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-819]. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 
2012. 

Managing for Results: GAO's Work Related to the Interim Crosscutting 
Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620R]. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 
2012. 

2012 Annual Report: Opportunities to Reduce Duplication, Overlap and 
Fragmentation, Achieve Savings, and Enhance Revenue. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-342SP]. Washington D.C: February 
28, 2012. 

Department of Energy: Additional Opportunities Exist to Streamline 
Support Functions at NNSA and Office of Science Sites. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-255]. Washington, D.C.: January 31, 
2012. 

Small Business Administration: Progress Continues in Addressing 
Reforms to the Disaster Loan Program. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-253T]. Washington, D.C.: November 
30, 2011. 

U.S. Coins: Replacing the $1 Note with a $1 Coin Would Provide a 
Financial Benefit to the Government. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-11-281]. Washington, D.C.: March 4, 
2011. 

Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-Oriented and 
Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1011T]. Washington, D.C.: September 
24, 2009. 

Government Performance: Lessons Learned for the Next Administration on 
Using Performance Information to Improve Results. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T]. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 
2008. 

Results Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual 
Performance and Organizational Success. [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488]. Washington, D.C.: March 14, 
2003. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] See GAO, Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-
Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-1011T] (Washington, 
D.C.: Sept. 24, 2009); and Government Performance: Lessons Learned for 
the Next Administration on Using Performance Information to Improve 
Results, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-1026T] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jul. 24, 2008). 

[2] For the purposes of this report, we define data-driven performance 
review meetings as "regularly scheduled, structured, data-driven 
meetings to review performance indicators with department or program 
personnel." See Harry Hatry and Elizabeth Davies, "A Guide to Data-
Driven Performance Reviews," IBM Center for the Business of Government 
Improving Performance Series, (Washington, D.C.: 2011). 

[3] Pub. L. No.111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). In 1993, Congress 
passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Pub. L. No. 
103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993), as part of a statutory framework aimed at 
improving federal government management. GPRA required federal 
agencies to develop strategic plans with long-term goals, performance 
plans with annual goals and measures, and performance reports on prior 
year performance. GPRAMA amends GPRA to create a new government-wide 
performance management framework with several provisions--including 
the one for agency quarterly performance reviews--intended to increase 
federal agencies' use of performance information to improve their 
performance and results. 

[4] 31 U.S.C. § 1121(b). 

[5] See GAO, Managing for Results: GAO's Work Related to the Interim 
Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620R] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 2012). We will issue additional work on implementation of 
agency priority goals, agency performance management infrastructure, 
and other GPRAMA requirements at a later date. 

[6] See bibliography. 

[7] These practitioners included participants in the Performance 
Improvement Council working group on agency reviews and Stat managers 
at the municipal level. The Performance Improvement Council is an 
interagency committee composed of agency performance improvement 
officers charged with assisting the Office of Management and Budget 
with topics related to GPRAMA and facilitating the exchange of useful 
performance management practices among agencies. 

[8] In August 2012 OMB revised OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, 
Submission, and Execution of the Budget (Aug. 3, 2012). The revisions 
included guidance for federal agencies related to the preparation and 
submission of strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 
program performance reports, in addition to information on 
implementing data-driven performance reviews. OMB Cir. No. A-11, at § 
270. 

[9] The survey also included questions on PIOs' and other key 
officials' characteristics, their involvement in performance 
management under GPRAMA, and other topics. These results will be 
included in our pending report on agency performance management 
infrastructure. See appendix III for a full list of agencies surveyed. 

[10] For additional details on our criteria for selecting case study 
agencies, see appendix I. 

[11] Every 2 years, GPRAMA requires agency heads from the Chief 
Financial Officers Act agencies, as well as any additional agencies 
designated by OMB, to identify agency priority goals from the 
performance goals of the agency. These goals should reflect the 
highest priorities of the agency as determined by the agency head. 31 
U.S.C. § 1120(b)(1). 

[12] See appendix I for a complete list of DOE's, SBA's, and 
Treasury's 2012 to 2013 APGs. 

[13] GPRAMA established in law the Performance Improvement Council to 
assist OMB with topics related to GPRAMA. Council membership includes 
OMB's Deputy Director for Management as chairperson, performance 
improvement officers from the 24 Chief Financial Officers Act 
agencies, and others as determined by the Deputy Director of 
Management. 31 U.S.C. § 1124(b). 

[14] Former NYPD commissioner William Bratton and his deputy 
commissioner, Jack Maple, were the architects of CompStat. See 
bibliography for additional information on their work. 

[15] Exec. Order No. 13576, Delivering an Efficient, Effective, and 
Accountable Government, 76 Fed. Reg. 35,297 (June 16, 2011). 

[16] Although the legislation refers to them as "quarterly performance 
reviews," agencies may conduct these reviews on a regularly occurring 
basis more frequently than quarterly. GPRAMA requires these reviews to 
be conducted by an agency head and chief operating officer among other 
provisions. 

[17] See OMB Circular No. A-11, at § 270. Our pending report on agency 
performance management infrastructure will examine the role of the PIC. 

[18] Under GPRAMA, agencies are required to identify a goal leader who 
is responsible for achieving each agency priority goal. 31 U.S.C. § 
1120(b)(1)(C). At DOE, agency under secretaries typically serve as 
goal leaders in addition to relevant deputy assistant secretaries or 
program managers. In addition, DOE's deputy secretary also serves as 
its chief operating officer. 

[19] SBA's PIO also serves as its associate administrator for 
performance management, chief financial officer, and chief acquisition 
officer. 

[20] At Treasury, officials said that the PIO may lead the meeting in 
the absence of the Deputy Secretary if it is determined that issues to 
be discussed do not need be addressed at the deputy secretary level; 
otherwise, the review meeting will be rescheduled. Treasury's PIO also 
serves as the department's assistant secretary for management and the 
department's chief financial officer. 

[21] Treasury's Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Management and Budget includes the Offices of Performance Budgeting 
and Strategic Planning and Performance Improvement. We use the term 
"performance budgeting staff" in this report to refer to managers and 
staff in these offices. 

[22] For an explanation of data-driven performance reviews as a 
leadership strategy, see, Robert Behn, "Designing Performancestat: Or 
What Are the Key Strategic Choices That a Jurisdiction or Agency Must 
Make When Adapting the CompStat/CitiStat Class of Performance 
Strategies?," Public Performance & Management Review, vol. 32, no. 2 
(2008): 206-235. 

[23] Under the section entitled "How should frequent data-driven 
performance reviews be conducted?" the guidance states: "The agency 
head and/or COO with the support of the PIO and his/her office should 
review with the appropriate goal leader the progress achieved during 
the most recent quarter, overall trend data, and the likelihood of 
meeting the planned level of performance." OMB Circ. No. A-11, at § 
270.5. 

[24] OMB Circ. No. A-11, at § 270.5: "The agency head and/or COO with 
the support of the PIO and his/her office should include, as 
appropriate, relevant personnel within and outside the agency who 
contribute to the accomplishment of each Agency Priority Goal (or 
other priority)." 

[25] GAO, Managing for Results: Key Considerations for Implementing 
Interagency Collaborative Mechanisms, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 27, 
2012); and Results-Oriented Government: Practices That Can Help 
Enhance and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-15] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 21, 
2005). 

[26] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-1022]. 

[27] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between 
Individual Performance and Organizational Success, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-488] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 14, 
2003). 

[28] 31 U.S.C. § 1121(b). 

[29] Specifically, the mission of SBA's Office of Government 
Contracting and Business Development is to create an environment for 
maximum participation by small, disadvantaged, service-disabled 
veteran-owned, woman-owned, and HUBZone businesses in federal 
government contract awards and large prime subcontract awards. 

[30] The annual scorecard is an assessment tool to (1) measure how 
well federal agencies reach their small business and socioeconomic 
prime contracting and subcontracting goals, (2) provide accurate and 
transparent contracting data, and (3) report agency-specific progress. 

[31] GPRAMA required the Office of Personnel Management to identify 
key skills and competencies needed by federal government personnel for 
developing goals, evaluating programs, and analyzing and using 
performance information for the purpose of improving government 
efficiency and effectiveness. The Office of Personnel Management 
identified the 15 competencies specifically related to performance 
improvement staff; for survey results on all of these, see appendix II. 

[32] According to SBA officials, small businesses can submit their 
data to the SBA Office of Entrepreneurial Development up to 30 days 
after the end of each quarter, and the office needs additional time to 
process the data before the quarterly performance review meeting. 

[33] For more information on strategic sourcing and other streamlining 
efforts at DOE, see GAO, Department of Energy: Additional 
Opportunities Exist to Streamline Support Functions at NNSA and Office 
of Science Sites, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-255] 
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 2012). 

[34] SBA established an online training website called the Government 
Contracting Classroom where small businesses can learn to participate 
in the federal contracting process and also where contracting officers 
can learn more about SBA's programs and contracting policies. 

[35] We interviewed officials at IRS, the Bureau of the Public Debt, 
the Financial Management Service, and the Bureau of the Fiscal 
Service. During our review, Treasury was consolidating the Bureau of 
the Public Debt and the Financial Management Service within the new 
Bureau of the Fiscal Service to share a single administrative, 
management, and leadership structure. 

[36] 15 U.S.C. § 644(g). 

[37] The statutory goal for aggregate small business contracting 
government-wide is 23 percent of the total value of all prime contract 
awards for each fiscal year. This is an SBA agency priority goal--not 
a formal Treasury agency priority goal--but Treasury leadership chose 
to make it an internal priority goal in order to meet its statutory 
requirement and negotiated target agreement with SBA. 

[38] 31 U.S.C. § 1121(b). 

[39] See GAO, Managing for Results: GAO's Work Related to the Interim 
Crosscutting Priority Goals under the GPRA Modernization Act, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-12-620R] (Washington, 
D.C.: May 2012). We will issue additional work on implementation of 
agency priority goals, agency performance management infrastructure, 
and other GPRAMA requirements at a later date. 

[40] We drafted our initial set of practices based on our analysis of 
a collection of 26 articles we identified as relevant to the 
successful implementation of data-driven reviews. See the bibliography 
for selected examples of articles we reviewed. 

[41] These practitioners included participants in the Performance 
Improvement Council working group on agency reviews and Stat managers 
at the municipal level. The Performance Improvement Council is an 
interagency committee composed of agency performance improvement 
officers charged with assisting the Office of Management and Budget 
with topics related to GPRAMA and facilitating the exchange of useful 
performance management practices among agencies. 

[42] In August 2012 OMB revised OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, 
Submission, and Execution of the Budget (Aug. 3, 2012). The revisions 
included guidance for federal agencies related to the preparation and 
submission of strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 
program performance reports, in addition to information on 
implementing data-driven performance reviews. OMB Cir. No. A-11, at § 
270. 

[43] The survey also included questions on PIOs' and other key 
officials' characteristics, their involvement in performance 
management under GPRAMA, and other topics. These results will be 
included in our pending report on agency performance management 
infrastructure. See appendix III for a list of the 24 federal agencies 
subject to the CFO Act. 

[44] We reviewed agency priority goals and categorized each one using 
a widely-recognized public administration framework for our analysis 
based on Lester Salamon's book. Lester M. Salamon, ed., The Tools of 
Government: A Guide to the New Governance, (New York, N.Y.: Oxford 
University Press: 2002). 

[45] Every 2 years, GPRAMA requires agency heads from the CFO Act 
agencies, as well as any additional agencies designated by OMB, to 
identify agency priority goals from the performance goals of the 
agency. These goals should reflect the highest priorities of the 
agency as determined by the agency head. 31 U.S.C. § 1120(b)(1). 

[46] GPRAMA established in law the Performance Improvement Council to 
assist OMB with topics related to GPRAMA. Council membership includes 
OMB's Deputy Director for Management as chairperson, performance 
improvement officers from the 24 CFO Act agencies, and others as 
determined by the Deputy Director of Management. 31 U.S.C. § 1124(b). 

[47] For example, these interviews included program officials 
responsible for the achievement of agency priority performance goals. 

[48] According to the President's FY 2013 budget request, the 
Secretary of the Department of the Treasury is planning to consolidate 
two bureaus within Treasury's Bureau of the Fiscal Service--the Bureau 
of the Public Debt and the Financial Management Service--to share a 
single administrative, management, and leadership structure. This 
consolidation process is scheduled to begin in 2013. 

[49] Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011). In 1993, Congress 
passed the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Pub. L. No. 
103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993), as part of a statutory framework aimed 
at improving federal government management. GPRA required federal 
agencies to develop strategic plans with long-term goals, performance 
plans with annual goals and measures, and performance reports on prior 
year performance. GPRAMA amends GPRA to create a new governmentwide 
performance management framework with several provisions--including 
the one for agency quarterly performance reviews--intended to increase 
federal agencies' use of performance information to improve their 
performance and results. 

[50] 31 U.S.C. §901(b). See appendix III for a list of the 24 federal 
agencies subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act. 

[End of section] 

GAO’s Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the 
performance and accountability of the federal government for the 
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates 
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, 
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, 
and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is 
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and 
reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO’s website [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, 
testimony, and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] and select 
“E-mail Updates.” 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of 
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the 
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black 
and white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s 
website, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, 
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

Connect with GAO: 

Connect with GAO on facebook, flickr, twitter, and YouTube.
Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.
Visit GAO on the web at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 
Website: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]; 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov; 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470. 

Congressional Relations: 

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

Public Affairs: 
Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548. 

[End of document]