Post on 09-Apr-2017
CREATING ALIGNMENT BETWEEN THE CENTER AND AGENCIES
Mark Bussow Office of Management and Budget Executive Office of the President
• The Center: White House offices (POTUS/VP, OMB, Policy Councils), General Services Administration, Office of Personnel Management
• Agencies: Focus primarily on 24 major Federal agencies, which are diverse on multiple levels • Mission • Size (Budget/personnel/geographic reach/management
capacity) • Organizational complexity (e.g., mission diversity,
subcomponent autonomy, distinctive cultural norms) • Types of activities (direct services, research, regulatory,
grants, contracts, etc.) • Legal autonomy • Political context • Management process maturity
2
• Quarterly Performance Reporting on Central Site (Performance.Gov)
Goals Timing Performance Reviews
Current Number
1. Federal Cross-Agency Priority (CAP) Goals
Every 4 years (next in Feb 2018)
Quarterly reviews by OMB Director/PIC
16
2. Agency Priority Goals (APGs)
Every 2 years (next in Feb 2018)
Quarterly reviews by agency COO/PIO
99
3. Strategic Goals and Objectives
Every 4 years (next in Feb 2018)
Annual strategic reviews/Risk Mgmt by agencies and OMB
380
Context: the Federal Performance Framework
4
President’s Budget Agency Strategic Review
Risk Profiles FedStat
HR Stat
Tech Stat
Agency Priority Goals
SES performance management and
awards
Employee Engagement Reviews
GS performance management and
awards
WHCOS led high level review of priorities and major risks
OMB and agency data-driven reviews
Individual Performance
POTUS- Engagement
High Impact IT List
Acq- Stat
Alternative Pay Plan performance
management/awards
Comprehensive Assessment of Mission and Management Performance, and Key Risks, Aligned with Budget Formulation
Bench-marking
Context: Overview of OMB and Agency Reviews
Priorities We Are Tracking
Portfolio-stat
GAO High Risk List
CAP Goals
OMB Work Plan
• Need for agency ownership • Accommodating diversity • Promoting innovation • Expertise needed • Political risk • Need for capacity
5
• Each policy and process is different • Getting the right balance is key (sometimes is zero-sum) • Your choices will impact relationships
• Leadership / Administration priority • Need for consistency • Cross-cutting issues • Confidence in theory of change/design • Need for accountability
Some factors to consider
Centralizing Factors Decentralizing Factors
When deciding
6
Support
(Example: Strategic
Reviews/ERM)
Negotiation (Example:
APGs)
Legal Compliance
(Example: Annual
Performance Report)
Command and Control
(Example: CAP Goals)
Central Ownership Lower Higher
Hig
her
Low
er
Age
ncy
Ow
ners
hip
Determining your policy structure
7
Determining your governance structure
Central organizational structures OMB: Authority, Policy and Process
Performance Improvement Council (PIC): Operations and best practices
Coordination Mechanisms Bi-weekly policy check-ins PIC working Groups OMB policy rollout meetings Summits and workshops PIO Principals meetings Community Meetings
Agencies Chief Operating Officers (COOs)
Performance Improvement Officers (PIOs) Goal Leaders
Senior agency leaders typically focused on policy, communications, budget, legislation —
not delivery of results
To achieve the Administration’s goals, we need leaders to focus on driving results
through improved implementation
1. Why Agency Priority Goals?
Agency Priority Goal Overview
Engage Agency Heads
Identify Goal Leaders Action Plans Quarterly
Updates Data-Driven Performance
Reviews
Public Updates on
website
Senior Goal Leader
Goal Lieutenant
Quarterly Targets
Quarterly Milestones
Agency Reviews
OMB Reviews based on:
Quarterly Data,
OMB Surveys,
Goal Leader Surveys on Likelihood of Success
Progress on Priority Goals Reported on Website
3-8 set by agency heads Ambitious, Meaningful Measurable Within Current Budget/Legislation
Identify problems Strategy Measures Milestones Contributing Programs Management Review Processes
10
2. Why Cross-Agency Priority Goals (CAP Goals)?
12
Ingredients Outcomes
Right Goal Faster Decisions
Senior Level Attention Better Decisions
Engaged Goal Team Barriers Removed
Clear Focus Increased Coordination
Defined Delivery Chain
Increased Accountability
More Visibility
• Tool to address the longstanding challenge of tackling horizontal problems across vertical organizational silos.
• We have existing inter-agency processes for budget, legislation, and policy decisions, but lack mechanisms for coordinating implementation activities across multiple agencies
What are CAP Goals? • Presidential priorities which are long-term in nature. Set one year after a
new term begins. We currently are in our second round of CAP goals with a 4-year time horizon.
How we implement and hold people accountable? • Establish Co-Goal Leaders and Deputy Goal Leaders from both EOP and
Agencies • Develop action plans with metrics, quarterly milestones, governance
structures and contributing programs • Goal Leaders responsible for reviewing progress regularly with contributing
programs. OMB reviews progress quarterly with monthly deep dives; public updates reported each quarter on performance.gov to increase accountability
FY16 President’s Budget proposed additional capacity for cross-agency work. • Realized lack of capacity was major risk to long-term success. • Two proposals released in February – 1) New $15 million fund to support
cross-agency activities for CAP Goals; 2) New White House Leadership
CAP Goal Overview 13
3. Why Strategic Reviews? • Too often, there is not sufficient questioning on the
results/impact of Federal programs.
• To ensure agencies conduct a comprehensive assessment of all outcomes, OMB worked with agencies to develop an annual “strategic review” using strategic objectives as the unit of analysis.
The Strategic Reviews will:
• Identify opportunities for budget decision making, reform proposals, executive actions, communications opportunities, etc.
• Synthesize a broad evidence and information base (indicators, evaluations, risk management, partner contributions, external factors, research, etc.) and prioritize findings for decision-making
• Make meaningful distinctions in performance, such as identifying 10-20% of areas of noteworthy progress and
15
3. Strategic Review Process & Timeline 16
Agency Methodology Developed
Agency Conducts Review
OMB Engagement
Agency Submission Publication
• Annual Performance Report includes findings and Performance Plan proposes improvement actions
• President’s Budget reflects key proposals
• Agencies provide OMB a “summary of findings” from their review for deliberation
• OMB provides feedback and priorities for policy and budget development
• Agencies assess each objective
• Agency leaders determine proposed changes to operations or budget and legislative proposals
• Agencies develop a method to assess progress
• OMB reviews method
• Agency budget and performance submissions incorporate findings and OMB feedback
Winter Spring May Sept. Feb.
The “strategic review”
3. Why Strategic Reviews?
Performance Plan: What did we want to
happen? Performance Report: What
actually happened?
Retrospective Decision Point
Evaluation: What would have happened without us, and why did things
occur like they did?
Reporting, Review, & Evaluation
Learning • What happened and why • Lessons learned • Research and improved understanding • Exploration and innovation
Planning & Foresight Target
Projection
Baseline
Improvement Actions • Changes to strategy and tactics • Operational improvements • Budget and legislative proposals
Prospective
Target
Actual
Data lag
Policy lag
Impact
Implementation
Risks Opportunities Evidence, Evaluation, and Measurement
Backward Looking
Forward Looking
• Are strategies having the intended impact?
• Were outcome targets met? • How big of impact did the program
have compared to what would have happened otherwise?
• Were there unintended outcomes as a result of the strategies employed?
• Were output targets met? • Was the program cost effective? • Were there unanticipated challenges
in program design, delivery or implementation?
• What organizational, process and technical factors presented challenges?
• Did we have adequate mission support?
• Have their been any significant innovations from our partners or peers we can replicate?
• Are there any new technologies becoming available?
• Do we anticipate any changes in our level of support from key partners?
• Are there any upcoming changes to human capital or resource levels?
• Are there changes in anticipated need?
• Are there any external factors which could disrupt progress?
• Are there changes in anticipated need?
• Are there any external factors which contribute to progress?
Conceptual Model
Summary of Strategic Review Findings
19
Mission 1 Prevent Terrorism and
Enhance Security
Mission 2 Secure and Manage
Our Borders
Mission 3 Enforce and Administer Our Immigration Laws
Mission 4 Safeguard and Secure
Cyberspace
Mission 5 Strengthen National Preparedness and
Resilience
Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks
Goal 1.2: Prevent and Protect Against the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of CBRN Materials and Capabilities
Goal 1.3: Reduce Risk to the Nation’s Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and Events
Goal 2.1: Secure U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Border and Approaches
Goal 2.2: Safeguard and Expedite Lawful Trade and Travel
Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations and Other Illicit Actors
Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System
Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration
Goal 4.1: Strengthen the Security and Resilience of Critical Infrastructure against Cyber Attacks and other Hazards
Goal 4.2: Secure the Federal Civilian Government Information Technology Enterprise
Goal 4.3: Advance Cyber Law Enforcement, Incident Response, and Reporting Capabilities
Goal 4.4: Strengthen the Cyber Ecosystem
Goal 5.1: Enhance National Preparedness
Goal 5.2: Mitigate Hazards and Vulnerabilities
Goal 5.3: Ensure Effective Emergency Response
Goal 5.4: Enable Rapid Recovery
Noteworthy Progress
Satisfactory Progress
Focus Areas for Improvement
Summary of Findings- Safety Despite the lowest level of transportation fatalities in in the past two decades, DOT is tracking some troubling trends:
• Nearly 5,000 non-vehicle occupants were killed in 2014. – Pedestrian and bicyclist fatalities have been on a steady increase since 2009. – Non-occupant fatalities have increased by 2% since 2009.
• Public Transit fatalities have increased from 2009-2014 – Transit ridership has grown by 25%, but fatalities have only increased by 0.2%. – Transit riders are 40 times LESS likely to be involved in a fatal accident than car and
truck passengers.
• DOT sets a high bar for safety – Toward Zero Deaths – DOT continues to study human factors that contribute to unsafe behavior, including
distraction, impairment, and system design. – DOT continues to promote technology and innovation to improve safety.
Impact
Implementation
Risks Opportunities
Evidence, Evaluation, and Measurement
Backward Looking Forward Looking
• Are strategies having the intended impact?
• Were outcome targets met? • How big of impact did the program have
compared to what would have happened otherwise?
• Were there unintended outcomes as a result of the strategies employed?
• Were output targets met? • Was the program cost effective? • Were there unanticipated challenges in
program design, delivery or implementation?
• What organizational, process and technical factors presented challenges?
• Have their been any significant innovations from our partners or peers we can replicate?
• Are there any new technologies becoming available?
• Do we anticipate any changes in our level of support from key partners?
• Are there any upcoming changes to human capital or resource levels?
• Are there changes in anticipated need?
• Are there any external factors which could disrupt progress?
• Are there changes in anticipated need?
• Are there any external factors which contribute to progress?
Example summary of findings