The document discusses creating alignment between the federal government's central offices and agencies. It notes the diversity among agencies in terms of size, mission, activities, and autonomy. The central offices, like OMB, aim to promote alignment through quarterly performance reporting, priority goal-setting, strategic reviews, and regular meetings. Achieving the right balance between centralized direction and decentralized execution is key. The governance structure involves central leadership and coordination mechanisms between OMB and agency leaders.

1. CREATING ALIGNMENT BETWEEN
THE CENTER AND AGENCIES
Mark Bussow
Office of Management and Budget
Executive Office of the President

2. • 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

3. • 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. 4
President’s Budget
Agency Strategic Review
Risk Profiles
FedStat
HR
Stat
Tech
Stat
Agency
Priority
Goals
SES performance
management and
awards
Employee
Engageme
nt 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

5. • 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. 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
HigherLower
AgencyOwnership
Determining your policy structure

7. 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

8. APPENDIX

9. 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?

10. 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/Legisl
ation
Identify
problems
Strategy
Measures
Milestones
Contributing
Programs
Manageme
nt Review
Processes
10

11. Some results

12. 2. Why Cross-Agency Priority Goals (CAP Goals)?
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

13. 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
CAP Goal Overview
13

14. 15 CAP Goals: Deep Dives, Dashboards, 16 WH Leadership
Development Fellows, and $15M CAP Goal Fund

15. 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

16. 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”

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. 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.

21. Impact
Implementation
Risks
Opportunitie
s
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