Results-Oriented Government
Improvements to DHS's Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability Gao ID: GAO-05-300 March 31, 2005The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the largest government reorganization in over 50 years, involving 170,000 employees and a $40 billion budget. Given the magnitude of this effort, strategic planning is critical for DHS to ensure that it meets the nation's homeland security challenges. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which DHS's planning process and documents (1) address required elements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other good strategic planning practices and (2) reflect its homeland and non-homeland security mission responsibilities.
DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, releasing its first strategic plan in 2004 that details its mission and strategic goals. Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement exist. The creation of DHS brought together 22 agencies to coordinate the nation's homeland security efforts and to work with Congress and numerous other organizations, including federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector, to further this mission. Although DHS planning documents describe programs requiring stakeholder coordination to implement, stakeholder involvement in the planning process itself was limited. Involving stakeholders in strategic planning efforts can help create an understanding of the competing demands and limited resources, and how those demands and resources require careful and continuous balancing. As DHS updates its strategic plan, earlier and more comprehensive stakeholder consultation will help ensure that DHS's efforts and resources are targeted at the highest priorities and that the planning documents are as useful as possible to DHS and its stakeholders. While DHS's strategic plan addresses five of the six GPRA-required elements, it does not describe the relationship between annual and long-term goals. This linkage is crucial for determining whether an agency has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward achieving the intended results for its long-term goals. While DHS's strategic planning documents address most of the required elements of GPRA, not including them in the strategic plan makes it difficult for DHS and its stakeholders to identify how their roles and responsibilities contribute to DHS's mission and potentially hinders Congress's and other key stakeholders' ability to assess the feasibility of DHS's long-term goals. Additionally, several of the GPRA-required elements addressed in the strategic plan could be further developed through the adoption of additional good strategic planning practices. For example, identifying the specific budgetary, human capital, and other resources needed to achieve its goals could demonstrate the viability of the strategies and approaches presented for achieving its long-term goals. Finally, although DHS's priority is its homeland security mission--which emphasizes deterring terrorism in the United States--DHS's planning documents clearly address its responsibility for non-homeland security mission programs as well, such as its response to natural disasters. In addition, DHS planning officials said that non-homeland security responsibilities were represented in the planning process and documents due, in part, to the commitment of top leadership.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-05-300, Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-300
entitled 'Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning
Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability' which was released
on March 31, 2005.
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.
Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging
Threats and International Relations, Committee on Government Reform,
House of Representatives:
March 2005:
Results-Oriented Government:
Improvements to DHS's Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and
Accountability:
GAO-05-300:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-300, a report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on
National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations,
Committee on Government Reform, House of Representatives.:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the
largest government reorganization in over 50 years, involving 170,000
employees and a $40 billion budget. Given the magnitude of this effort,
strategic planning is critical for DHS to ensure that it meets the
nation‘s homeland security challenges. GAO was asked to assess the
extent to which DHS‘s planning process and documents (1) address
required elements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993
(GPRA) and other good strategic planning practices and (2) reflect its
homeland and non-homeland security mission responsibilities.
What GAO Found:
DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, releasing
its first strategic plan in 2004 that details its mission and strategic
goals. Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement exist. The creation
of DHS brought together 22 agencies to coordinate the nation‘s homeland
security efforts and to work with Congress and numerous other
organizations, including federal agencies, state and local governments,
and the private sector, to further this mission. Although DHS planning
documents describe programs requiring stakeholder coordination to
implement, stakeholder involvement in the planning process itself was
limited. Involving stakeholders in strategic planning efforts can help
create an understanding of the competing demands and limited resources,
and how those demands and resources require careful and continuous
balancing. As DHS updates its strategic plan, earlier and more
comprehensive stakeholder consultation will help ensure that DHS‘s
efforts and resources are targeted at the highest priorities and that
the planning documents are as useful as possible to DHS and its
stakeholders.
While DHS‘s strategic plan addresses five of the six GPRA-required
elements, it does not describe the relationship between annual and long-
term goals. This linkage is crucial for determining whether an agency
has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward achieving the
intended results for its long-term goals. While DHS‘s strategic
planning documents address most of the required elements of GPRA, not
including them in the strategic plan makes it difficult for DHS and its
stakeholders to identify how their roles and responsibilities
contribute to DHS‘s mission and potentially hinders Congress‘s and
other key stakeholders‘ ability to assess the feasibility of DHS‘s long-
term goals. Additionally, several of the GPRA-required elements
addressed in the strategic plan could be further developed through the
adoption of additional good strategic planning practices. For example,
identifying the specific budgetary, human capital, and other resources
needed to achieve its goals could demonstrate the viability of the
strategies and approaches presented for achieving its long-term goals.
Finally, although DHS‘s priority is its homeland security mission”which
emphasizes deterring terrorism in the United States”DHS‘s planning
documents clearly address its responsibility for non-homeland security
mission programs as well, such as its response to natural disasters. In
addition, DHS planning officials said that non-homeland security
responsibilities were represented in the planning process and documents
due, in part, to the commitment of top leadership.
What GAO Recommends:
To make DHS a more results-oriented agency and allow for public
oversight and accountability, GAO recommends that the Secretary ensure
that (1) DHS consult directly with external stakeholders, including
Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, and the
private sector, in its next strategic planning process and (2) DHS‘s
next strategic plan includes a description of the relationship between
annual performance goals and long-term goals, as required by GPRA, and
adopt a number of good strategic planning practices. In commenting on a
draft of this report, DHS generally agreed with GAO‘s recommendations
and provided additional information that was incorporated, as
appropriate.
[Hypelink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-300].
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 512-6543 or
[Hyperlink, steinhardtb@gao.gov].
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
DHS Planning Has Made Progress, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist:
DHS's Homeland Security Mission Is a Priority, but Plans Also Address
Other Responsibilities:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Table:
Table 1: GPRA-Required Elements of Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans:
Abbreviations:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
FYHSP: Future Years Homeland Security Program:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
Letter March 31, 2005:
The Honorable Christopher Shays:
Chairman, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and
International Relations:
Committee on Government Reform:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
To address the federal government's challenge of responding to threats
against the homeland, President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act
of 2002,[Footnote 1] creating the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). DHS, which began operations in March 2003, is the largest
government reorganization in over 50 years, involving 22 federal
agencies, 170,000 employees, and a $40 billion budget. While DHS is
intended to coordinate and centralize the leadership of many homeland
security activities, homeland security is a shared responsibility of
numerous partners, including other federal agencies, state and local
governments, and the private sector. Considering the breadth of this
responsibility, strategic planning is especially important to clearly
identify how stakeholders' responsibilities and activities align to
address homeland security efforts. Without thoughtful and transparent
planning that involves key stakeholders, DHS may not be able to
implement its programs effectively.
Given the implications of such an undertaking, you asked us to assess
DHS's planning process and the results of this process. Specifically,
we reviewed (1) the extent to which DHS's planning process and
associated documents addressed the required elements of the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reflected good strategic
planning practices and (2) the extent to which DHS's planning documents
reflect both its homeland security and non-homeland security mission
responsibilities.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed numerous DHS planning documents
and planning guidance. We also reviewed the requirements contained in
GPRA and accompanying committee report language, strategic planning
practices based on prior GAO work, and guidance from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for developing strategic plans. In
addition, we interviewed DHS officials responsible for agencywide
planning, as well as those responsible for planning in DHS's
directorates and component agencies. For more information on our scope
and methodology, see appendix I.
We performed our work from April 2004 through February 2005 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, releasing
its first strategic plan in 2004 that details its mission and strategic
goals. Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement exist. Although
DHS's planning documents describe programs requiring stakeholder
coordination to effectively implement them, stakeholder involvement in
the planning process itself was limited. Given the many other
organizations at all levels of government and in the private sector
whose involvement is key to meeting homeland security goals, earlier
and more comprehensive stakeholder involvement in DHS's planning
process is essential to the success of DHS's planning efforts. In
developing the strategic plan, DHS officials did not consult with other
federal agencies with which DHS shares responsibility for homeland
security initiatives. In addition, DHS officials had only limited
consultation with nonfederal stakeholders, providing a draft of the
plan to the Homeland Security Advisory Council for their review. Though
DHS officials briefed congressional stakeholders on the strategic
planning progress, they did not consult directly with Congress while
developing the department's mission statement or strategic goals. DHS
officials acknowledge that they should consult more with key
stakeholders in future planning efforts. Such involvement is important
to ensure that stakeholders help identify and agree on how their daily
operations and activities contribute to fulfilling DHS's mission.
DHS's strategic plan addresses five of the six GPRA-required elements-
-a mission statement, long-term goals, strategies to achieve the goals,
external key factors, and program evaluations--but does not describe
the relationship between annual and long-term goals. The linkage
between annual and long-term goals is crucial for determining whether
an agency has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward
achieving the intended results of its long-term goals. DHS officials
said that because of the limited time available to create the strategic
plan, they decided not to include a discussion of annual performance
goals in order to achieve broad consensus among agency components on
DHS's mission and long-term strategic goals and objectives. While the
Performance Budget Overview, which serves as the overview of DHS's
fiscal year 2005 annual performance plan, includes such a description,
not including this in the strategic plan makes it difficult for DHS
officials and stakeholders to identify how their roles and
responsibilities contribute to DHS's mission. In addition, while DHS's
planning process followed a number of good practices and its plan
contained most of the GPRA-required elements, these could be further
developed through the implementation of additional good strategic
planning practices.
Finally, although its priority is its homeland security mission--which
emphasizes counterterrorism efforts in the United States--DHS's
planning documents clearly address its responsibility for its non-
homeland security mission programs as well. For example, a goal in the
strategic plan is "Service: Serve the public effectively by
facilitating lawful trade, travel, and immigration." In addition,
component agency officials said DHS's top leadership helped ensure that
the non-homeland security mission programs received appropriate
attention in the planning documents and planning process.
In order to make DHS a more results-oriented agency and allow for
public oversight and accountability, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security ensure that DHS's next strategic planning process
include direct consultation with external stakeholders, including
Congress, federal agencies, state and local governments, and the
private sector. In addition, we recommend that the Secretary ensure
DHS's next strategic plan includes a description of the relationship
between annual performance goals and long-term goals, as required by
GPRA. Finally, we recommend that the next strategic plan incorporate
several additional good strategic planning practices: a timeline for
achieving long-term goals; a description of the specific budgetary,
human capital, and other resources needed to achieve those goals; a
schedule of program evaluations planned; and a discussion of strategies
to ameliorate the effect of any key external factors.
We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of Homeland
Security for comment. DHS generally agreed with our recommendations and
provided additional comments for consideration. While acknowledging
that consultation with nonfederal stakeholders was limited, DHS pointed
out that it had had some consultation with a departmental advisory
group. We revised the draft to acknowledge this consultation. Further,
DHS implied that its Future Years Homeland Security Program document
(FYHSP)--a 5-year resource plan--includes information on the
relationship between annual performance goals and long-term goals,
suggesting that this information need not be included in the strategic
plan. However, the FYHSP contains information regarding the programs
that support the strategic goals rather than a description of how the
annual performance goals relate to the long-term goals. Moreover, we
continue to believe that this information should be contained in the
strategic plan--as required by GPRA--rather than in separate documents
to provide a readily accessible and clear linkage of the department's
annual goals to its overall strategic goals. Additionally, DHS was
concerned that our recommendation implied that it had not used good
strategic planning practices. We have added language to make clear that
we recognize that DHS employed a number of good planning practices and
that it should adopt additional ones in the future. In addition, we
received technical comments from DHS, which we incorporated where
appropriate. Official comments from DHS are provided in full in
appendix II.
Background:
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 outlines DHS's responsibilities for
initiatives supporting both a homeland security and a non-homeland
security mission. DHS's homeland security mission is to prevent, reduce
vulnerability to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United
States. DHS's non-homeland security mission--also referred to as non-
terrorism-related responsibilities--includes programs such as the Coast
Guard's marine safety responsibilities and the Emergency Preparedness
and Response Directorate's natural disaster response functions.
GAO has previously identified strategic planning as one of the critical
success factors for new organizations. As part of its transformation,
we noted that DHS should engage in strategic planning through the
involvement of stakeholders; assessment of internal and external
environments; and an alignment of activities, core processes, and
resources to support mission-related outcomes.[Footnote 2] We have
reported that the mission and strategic goals of a transforming
organization like DHS must become the focus of the transformation,
define its culture, and serve as the vehicle for employees to unite and
rally around.[Footnote 3] The mission and strategic goals must be clear
to employees, customers, and stakeholders to ensure they see a direct
personal connection to the transformation.
Congress enacted GPRA to focus the federal government on achieving
results and providing objective, results-oriented information to
improve congressional decision making. Under GPRA, strategic plans are
the starting point and basic underpinning for results-oriented
management. GPRA requires that an agency's strategic plan contain six
key elements, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: GPRA-Required Elements of Federal Agencies' Strategic Plans:
Required element: (1) A comprehensive agency mission statement;
Definition: A concise summary of what the agency does, as required by
law.
Required element: (2) Agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all
major functions and operations;
Definition: An explanation of what results are expected, described in a
way that allows for a future assessment.
Required element: (3) Approaches (or strategies) and the various
resources needed to achieve the goals and objectives;
Definition: A brief description of the operational processes, staff
skills, and technologies, as well as the human capital, information,
and other resources needed.
Required element: (4) A description of the relationship between the
long-term goals and objectives and the annual performance goals;
Definition: An outline of the type, nature, and scope of performance
goals and how those goals relate to the long-term goals.
Required element: (5) An identification of key factors, external to the
agency and beyond its control, that could significantly affect the
achievement of the strategic goals;
Definition: A description of external factors that may affect goal
achievement and would allow Congress and the agency to judge the
likelihood of achieving the strategic goals.
Required element: (6) A description of how program evaluations were
used to establish or revise strategic goals and a schedule for future
evaluations;
Definition: Objective, informal assessments of the results, impact, or
effects of a program or policy.
Sources: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and OMB
guidance.
[End of table]
In addition, GPRA requires agencies to consult with Congress and
solicit the input of others as they develop these plans.
The National Strategy for Homeland Security, a foundation of DHS's
strategic plan, set forth overall objectives to prevent terrorist
attacks within the United States, reduce America's vulnerability to
terrorism, and minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from
attacks that may occur. The strategy sets forth a plan to improve
homeland security through the cooperation of federal, state, local, and
private sector organizations in an array of functions, with DHS having
a prominent role in coordinating these functions. In addition, the
strategy states that the United States "must carefully weigh the
benefit of each homeland security endeavor and only allocate resources
where the benefit of reducing risk is worth the amount of additional
cost." We have advocated a risk management approach to guide the
allocation of resources and investments for improving homeland
security.[Footnote 4] Specifically, a risk management approach would
provide a decision support tool to help DHS establish and prioritize
security program requirements, planning, and resource allocations.
DHS's own strategic planning process began in July 2003, with the
creation of the Strategic Plan Development Group. The group consisted
of officials from 15 separate DHS components and offices, including
general counsel and directors of strategic planning from across DHS. By
the fall of 2003, the group had created a draft strategic plan with
goals and objectives for each component. However, according to
officials involved, the group members were authorized to represent
their component agencies but not to negotiate priorities in order to
create departmentwide goals. Such a discussion was needed to develop a
departmentwide document. Consequently, following the work of the
Strategic Plan Development Group, DHS's Deputy Secretary brought DHS
senior leaders together in December 2003 to develop DHS's vision,
mission, and strategic goals and achieve senior leadership ownership of
the strategic plan.
DHS issued its first departmentwide strategic plan in February 2004.
The plan includes DHS's vision and mission, core values, and guiding
principles. In addition, the plan describes DHS's seven strategic goals
and corresponding objectives. A summary paragraph that describes the
general approaches DHS will take to achieve each objective is also
included. According to several senior DHS officials, the strategic plan
was the primary guidance followed for DHS's management
integration.[Footnote 5] In addition to the strategic plan, DHS
officials identified four other documents as the key planning documents
for the department. These documents are as follows.
* Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget Overview. This is the overview of
DHS's Congressional Budget Justification for fiscal year 2005 and
serves as the overview of DHS's fiscal year 2005 annual performance
plan, in compliance with GPRA. The document describes the performance
levels associated with the department's Fiscal Year 2005 President's
Budget to Congress. For each strategic goal it includes means and
strategies, as well as performance goals, measures, and targets. In
addition, this document identifies the program and lead organization
responsible for each performance goal.
* DHS's Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Future Years Homeland Security Program
(FYHSP). Developed pursuant to Section 874 of the Homeland Security
Act, the fiscal year 2005-2009 FYHSP, dated May 2004, is a 5-year
resource plan that outlines departmental priorities and the
ramifications of program and budget decisions. The FYHSP includes a
general discussion of the nation's threats and vulnerabilities,
including a description of current and future terrorist techniques and
tactics; types of weapons and threats terrorists may use; and potential
terrorist targets and timing of an attack. In addition, the FYHSP
includes a brief discussion of the inflation factors and economic
assumptions based on underlying guidance provided by OMB. The FYHSP
lays out projected resource requirements through fiscal year 2009 for
each strategic goal and includes a table aligning programs to the
strategic goals. Finally, the FYHSP includes a description of
performance priorities for each strategic goal. DHS's 2006-2010 FYHSP
was issued to Congress on March 4, 2005. It is designated "For Official
Use Only," and is thus not publicly available. DHS expects to update
the FYHSP annually.
* DHS's Milestones Report. The Milestones Report is an internal DHS
planning document containing performance goals linked to the long-term
strategic goals described in the strategic plan. For each performance
goal, the Milestones Report provides annual milestones for fiscal years
2005 through 2009. In addition, the Milestones Report aligns specific
programs with the strategic goals and identifies what percentage of
program funding is allocated to addressing these strategic
goals.[Footnote 6]
* DHS's themes and owners papers. The themes and owners papers are
internal planning documents that address DHS's top seven priorities
during its second year of existence, March 2004 through March 2005, as
identified by the former Secretary of Homeland Security. DHS
directorates were identified as the "owner," or lead group, for
addressing a "theme," or priority, and directorate officials submitted
a proposal detailing how they would address the theme in the coming
year. The themes addressed are (1) stronger information sharing and
infrastructure protection, (2) standards for interoperable equipment,
(3) integrated border and port security systems, (4) new technologies
and tools, (5) more prepared communities, (6) improved customer service
for immigrants, and (7) 21ST century department.
DHS Planning Has Made Progress, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist:
DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, but future
efforts can be improved. While DHS's planning documents discuss the
need for stakeholder coordination during program implementation,
stakeholder involvement was limited during the strategic planning
process. While the strategic plan included five of the six GPRA-
required elements, it did not describe the relationship of annual goals
to long-term goals. However, DHS's planning process continues to
develop and mature as the department's transformation continues.
DHS's Planning Documents Were Developed with Limited Stakeholder Input:
The process of developing DHS's strategic plan and other strategic
planning documents involved minimal consultation with key stakeholders,
including Congress, other federal agencies, state and local
governments, and the private sector. GPRA requires that agency
officials solicit the input of stakeholders as they develop their
strategic plans. Further, stakeholder involvement during the planning
process is important to ensure DHS's efforts and resources are aligned
with other federal and nonfederal partners with shared responsibility
for homeland security and that they are targeted at the highest
priorities. Such involvement is also important to ensure stakeholders
help identify and agree on how their daily operations and activities
contribute to DHS's mission. Additionally, DHS's planning documents
describe areas where DHS needs to coordinate with stakeholders to
implement its programs, achieve its goals and objectives, and meet its
homeland security and non-homeland security responsibilities. The
importance of consultation to DHS was recently underscored in GAO's
High-Risk Series: An Update,[Footnote 7] in which we designated as high
risk the establishment of appropriate and effective information-sharing
mechanisms to improve homeland security. While this area has received
increased attention, the federal government still faces formidable
challenges sharing information among stakeholders in an appropriate and
timely manner to minimize risk.
Though DHS officials briefed congressional stakeholders on the
strategic planning progress, they did not consult directly with
Congress while developing the department's mission statement or
strategic goals. DHS officials said that when briefed, congressional
stakeholders requested that the strategic plan include more detail,
including specific performance goals and measures. However, according
to DHS officials, these goals and measures were not included in order
to meet OMB's time frame for issuing the plan. To meet this time frame,
DHS decided to keep the plan's content at a high level and focus on
achieving broad consensus among agency components on DHS's mission and
long-term strategic goals and objectives. Nevertheless, DHS officials
acknowledged that Congress should be more involved in future planning
efforts. As we previously reported, Congress needs to be considered a
partner in shaping agency goals at the outset, since it is a key user
of performance information[Footnote 8] and to ensure that congressional
priorities are addressed in the planning documents. We have suggested
that agencies consult with congressional stakeholders at least once
every new Congress in order to clarify performance
expectations.[Footnote 9]
Further, DHS officials said they did not consult with other federal
agencies responsible for shared homeland security initiatives in
developing the strategic plan. We have reported that a focus on results
implies that federal programs contributing to the same or similar
results should be closely coordinated to ensure that goals are
consistent.[Footnote 10] Stakeholder consultation in strategic planning
efforts can help create a basic understanding of the competing demands
that confront most agencies, the limited resources available to them,
and how those demands and resources require careful and continuous
balancing. The National Strategy for Homeland Security identifies six
federal agencies responsible for 43 homeland security initiatives.
While DHS was identified as the agency with lead responsibility for a
majority of these initiatives, there were multiple lead agencies for 12
of these initiatives. For example, DHS and the State Department share
lead responsibility for the initiative "create 'smart borders.'" As
part of this initiative, the strategy states that DHS would improve
information provided to consular offices so that individual applicants
can be checked in databases and would require visa-issuance procedures
to reflect threat assessments. These shared initiatives require that
DHS look beyond its organizational boundaries and coordinate with other
agencies to ensure that their efforts are aligned in order to meet
consistent goals. However, to ensure that the shared initiatives have
common goals, and that the goals are appropriate, consultation during
the planning stage is vital.
Finally, DHS had limited consultation with nonfederal stakeholders,
such as state and local governments and the private sector, in its
strategic planning process. Nonfederal stakeholder involvement in DHS's
strategic planning process is vital considering that state and local
governments have primary responsibility as first responders for
homeland security and approximately 85 percent of the nation's critical
infrastructure is privately owned. DHS officials explained that
expanded involvement of nonfederal stakeholders was not practical
within OMB's time frame for completing the strategic plan. Instead, DHS
provided a draft of the strategic plan to a departmental advisory
group, the Homeland Security Advisory Council, for its review and
comment.[Footnote 11] Further, DHS component agency planning officials
said that instead of consulting directly with nonfederal stakeholders,
officials from DHS components were expected to represent stakeholder
views when providing their input to the strategic plan. For example,
officials in DHS's Private Sector Office were expected to represent the
opinions of private sector officials based on the office's work with
private sector representatives.
Relationship between Annual and Long-term Goals Not Addressed in DHS's
Strategic Plan:
DHS's strategic plan addressed five of the six GPRA-required elements,
but did not include a description of the relationship between annual
and long-term goals. We have reported that this linkage is critical for
determining whether an agency has a clear sense of how it will assess
progress toward achieving the intended results for its long-term
goals.[Footnote 12] DHS and OMB officials said the decision to keep the
content of the strategic plan at a high level, and not include a
discussion of annual performance goals, was necessary to achieve broad
consensus among agency components on DHS's mission and long-term
strategic goals. Although the Performance Budget Overview linked
specific annual goals and performance measures to the long-term
strategic goals, not including a description of how the annual goals
relate to the long-term goals in the strategic plan makes it difficult
for DHS and its stakeholders to identify how their roles and
responsibilities contribute to DHS's mission and potentially limits
Congress's and other key stakeholders' ability to assess the
feasibility of DHS's long-term goals. OMB continues to work with DHS to
develop performance measures and goals that are critical to DHS's
integrated mission and reinforce the crosscutting responsibilities of
component agencies.
Several of the GPRA-required elements addressed in DHS's strategic plan
could be further developed through the implementation of additional
good strategic planning practices. Specifically, DHS's plan describes
long-term agencywide goals and objectives but does not include a
timeline for achieving these goals. For example, the first strategic
goal in DHS's strategic plan is "Awareness: Identify and understand
threats, assess vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and
disseminate timely information to our homeland security partners and
the American public." There are four objectives related to this goal,
but there is no description of when to expect results or when a goal
assessment would be completed. However, the Milestones Report includes
a timeline for expected results of programs that address the long-term
goals, with performance measures and targets for each long-term goal
through fiscal year 2009. Adding this information to the strategic plan
would therefore require little additional effort and would make the
plan itself a more useful document.
In addition, the strategic plan generally describes strategies and
approaches to achieve the long-term strategic goals but does not
include the specific budgetary, human capital, or other resources
needed. For example, the first objective under the second strategic
goal, "Prevention," states that DHS plans to "secure our borders
against terrorists, means of terrorism, illegal drugs, and other
illegal activity." The approach to achieve this objective requires "the
appropriate balance of personnel, equipment and technology." However,
the description does not include details on the specific personnel,
equipment, and technology that would be needed. Although the sensitive
nature of some homeland security information may limit the level of
detail, including such resource-related information in the strategic
plan is critical for understanding the viability of the strategies
presented to achieve the long-term goals.
Further, the impact of program evaluations on the development of
strategic goals could be discussed in greater detail in the strategic
plan. Inclusion of these components is necessary to ensure the validity
and reasonableness of DHS's goals and strategies as well as for
identifying factors likely to affect performance. Evaluation can be a
critical source of information for Congress and others in assessing (1)
the appropriateness and reasonableness of goals; (2) the effectiveness
of strategies by supplementing performance management data with impact
evaluation studies; and (3) the implementation of programs, such as
identifying the need for corrective action. Rather than identifying
specific program evaluations and providing a schedule of evaluations,
the strategic plan states only that DHS planned to (1) integrate
strategy and execution; (2) assess performance, evaluate results, and
report progress; (3) collaborate; and (4) refine. The plan did not
include a description of the evaluations used to develop DHS's
strategic goals, nor did DHS address how future evaluations would be
used to revise the goals and objectives.
Finally, DHS identified some key factors that may affect its ability to
achieve its strategic goals and objectives, an element required by
GPRA. However, based on our prior review of agency strategic plans,
this element could be further developed with an explanation of the
actions DHS intends to take to mitigate these factors.[Footnote 13] For
example, DHS identified the need for "international cooperation" as a
key factor that can significantly affect the achievement of its goals.
To make its plan more useful, DHS could include in its next update a
discussion of how the department might work together with other federal
agencies to help obtain international cooperation in achieving shared
goals.
DHS's Homeland Security Mission Is a Priority, but Plans Also Address
Other Responsibilities:
DHS planning documents specify that DHS's homeland security mission--
which emphasizes counterterrorism efforts--is the key driver of
planning and budgeting decisions. For example, the fiscal year 2005
FYHSP, DHS's long-term resource allocation plan, states, "the
Department's overriding priority is to defend and protect the homeland
from terrorism." In addition, the DHS strategic plan states that the
DHS strategic goals and objectives are directly linked to accomplishing
the three objectives of the National Strategy for Homeland Security:
(1) prevent terrorist attacks within the United States, (2) reduce
America's vulnerability to terrorism, and (3) minimize the damage and
recover from attacks that do occur.
However, these planning documents also address DHS's non-homeland
security mission in areas such as immigration services and disaster
relief. For example, see the following.
* DHS's strategic plan includes the following strategic goal: "Service:
Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, travel, and
immigration." The focus of this goal is to improve service to those
individuals immigrating to and visiting the United States.
* The Milestones Report includes the following performance goal:
"Eliminate the application backlog by the end of FY 2006. Achieve 6
month cycle time for all applications." This goal focuses specifically
on improving the efficiency of DHS's processing of citizenship and
immigration applications.
* The Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget Overview includes the
following performance measure: "international air passengers in
compliance with agricultural quarantine regulations (percent
compliant)." The focus of this measure is to safeguard against
potentially dangerous nonnative species entering the United States.
In addition, planning officials in DHS's component agencies that
address the non-homeland security mission said these responsibilities
were fairly represented in the planning process and documents. They
attributed this, in part, to the efforts of senior leadership. For
example, prior to a strategic planning meeting in December 2003 for
senior officials, senior leadership developed "straw man" mission
statements that included both homeland security and non-homeland
security missions. According to DHS officials responsible for planning,
this was done to ensure that one role was not neglected for the sake of
another and both were represented in the final mission statement.
Conclusions:
Given the enormity and importance of DHS's transformation, having a
strategic plan that outlines and defines DHS's mission and goals is
vital. While DHS has made progress in its efforts to date, improvements
to its strategic planning process would help to ensure DHS's efforts
and resources are aligned with other federal and nonfederal partners
with shared responsibility for homeland security.
Earlier and more comprehensive stakeholder involvement in DHS's
planning process is perhaps the most important area for improvement.
Consultation with stakeholders during the planning process creates a
shared understanding of what needs to be achieved, resulting in more
useful and transparent planning documents and helping ensure the
success of stakeholder partnerships. Just as important, stakeholder
consultation in strategic planning efforts can help create a basic
understanding of the competing demands that confront most agencies, the
limited resources available to them, and how those demands and
resources require careful and continuous balancing.
Congress enacted GPRA to focus the federal government on achieving
results and providing objective, results-oriented information to
improve congressional decision making. While the body of DHS's
strategic planning documents address most of the required elements of
GPRA, not having all of the required elements in its strategic plan
limits Congress's and other key stakeholders' ability to assess the
feasibility of DHS's long-term goals. While DHS followed a number of
good planning practices, by adopting others it could improve the
strategic plan's usefulness with little extra effort.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To make DHS a more results-oriented agency and allow for public
oversight and accountability, we recommend that the Secretary of
Homeland Security take the following three actions. First, ensure that
DHS's next strategic planning process includes direct consultation with
external stakeholders, including Congress, federal agencies, state and
local governments, and the private sector.
Second, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure
that DHS's next strategic plan--the agency's primary public planning
document--includes a description of the relationship between annual
performance goals and long-term goals, as required by GPRA.
Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure
that DHS's next strategic plan further develop the GPRA-required
elements addressed by adopting additional good strategic planning
practices. Specifically, the Secretary should ensure that the strategic
plan includes a timeline for achieving long-term goals; a description
of the specific budgetary, human capital, and other resources needed to
achieve those goals; a schedule of program evaluations planned; and a
discussion of strategies to ameliorate the effect of any key external
factors.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
On February 25, 2005, we provided a draft of this report to the
Secretary of Homeland Security. On March 14, 2005, we received written
comments from DHS that are reprinted in appendix II. In addition, we
received technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate.
DHS generally agreed with our recommendations, and provided additional
comments for our consideration.
While DHS officials acknowledged that expanded involvement of
nonfederal stakeholders was not practical within OMB's time frame, they
pointed out that they sought to consult with nonfederal stakeholders by
providing a draft to the Homeland Security Advisory Council for its
review and comment. We revised the draft to acknowledge this
consultation. DHS officials stated that they plan to seek more
interaction with nonfederal stakeholders during the next plan revision.
Further, in response to our recommendation, DHS implied that its FYHSP
includes information on annual performance goals and long-term goals,
suggesting that this information need not be included in the strategic
plan. However, the FYHSP contains information regarding the programs
that support its strategic goals rather than a description of how the
annual performance goals relate to the long-term goals. Moreover, we
continue to believe that this information should be contained in the
strategic plan--as required by GPRA--rather than in separate documents
to provide a readily accessible and clear linkage of the department's
annual goals to its overall strategic goals. As we noted earlier, the
FYHSP is not a public document, available only for official use, making
it of limited value for accountability purposes.
Additionally, DHS was concerned that our recommendation to adopt a
number of good planning practices implied that it had not used good
strategic planning practices. We have added language to make clear that
we recognize that DHS employed a number of good planning practices and
that it should adopt additional ones in the future.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days
after its issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of this
report to the Secretary of Homeland Security and other interested
parties. Copies will also be available at no charge on GAO's Web site
at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202)
512-6543 or [Hyperlink, steinhardtb@gao.gov] or Kimberly Gianopoulos at
[Hyperlink, gianopoulosk@gao.gov]. Major contributors to this report
included Benjamin Crawford, Chelsa Gurkin, and Amy W. Rosewarne.
Sincerely yours,
Bernice Steinhardt:
Director, Strategic Issues:
[End of section]
Appendixes:
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology:
The objectives of this report were to assess (1) the extent to which
the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) planning process and
documents address required elements of the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reflect good strategic planning
practices and (2) whether DHS's planning process and documents reflect
attention to homeland security and non-homeland security mission
responsibilities.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed numerous DHS planning documents
and related material and interviewed numerous DHS officials. Our review
of planning materials included the Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2005
Performance Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Future Years
Homeland Security Program, Milestones Report, and themes and owners
papers. In addition, we reviewed the National Strategy for Homeland
Security.
To meet our first objective, we relied on requirements contained in
GPRA and accompanying committee report language[Footnote 14] and
planning practices based on prior GAO work, guidance to agencies from
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for developing strategic
plans,[Footnote 15] and DHS internal planning guidance. We then
reviewed DHS's planning documents to identify where the GPRA-required
elements could be found. To meet our second objective, we reviewed
these planning documents to determine if they addressed both DHS's
homeland security and non-homeland security mission responsibilities.
In addition, we interviewed officials at OMB, as well as DHS officials
responsible for agencywide planning in its Office of the Deputy
Secretary and Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. We also
interviewed officials responsible for planning in DHS's directorates
and component agencies. Specifically, we met with officials in the
Border and Transportation Security Directorate, the Science and
Technology Directorate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (part
of the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate), the Coast
Guard, the Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration,
the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Private Sector
Office, and the Office of State and Local Government Coordination. To
meet our first objective, we interviewed officials about the process
used to create the planning documents. To meet our second objective, we
interviewed officials about the process for ensuring accountability for
DHS's homeland security and nonhomeland security mission
responsibilities.
Written comments from DHS are included in appendix II. We conducted our
work from April 2004 through February 2005 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
United States Department of Homeland Security:
March 14, 2005:
Ms. Bernice Steinhardt:
Director, Strategic Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Ms. Steinhardt:
RE: GAO-05-300, Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS'
Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability (GAO Job
Code 450314):
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft report. We
generally agree with the recommendations and are already implementing
them. The draft acknowledges the progress made in the Department of
Homeland Security's planning effort and recognizes that Department
planning efforts and related documents address our responsibility for
both homeland security and non-homeland security mission programs.
While we generally agree with the recommendations, we offer a few
comments for your consideration. GAO recommends that the Department of
Homeland Security's (DHS) next strategic planning process include
direct consultation with external stakeholders, including Congress,
federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector.
DHS agrees with the value of increasing stakeholder input upfront in
developing and updating the strategic plan. However, the draft report
does not accurately reflect DHS consultation with non-federal
stakeholders. For its first ever strategic plan, DHS officials
consulted with the Homeland Security Advisory Council, whose membership
includes leaders from state, local, academic and private sectors. Given
the short timeframe DHS officials had to develop the first strategic
plan, expanded involvement of stakeholders was not practical. DHS will
seek more interaction with Congress, other federal agencies, and state,
local and private sectors with its next plan revision. DHS is currently
working with the Departments of State, Energy, Defense, Justice, and
others in developing a long range strategic planning framework. This
framework will include significant involve-ment by state, local, and
private sectors.
GAO also recommends the strategic plan include a description of the
relationship between annual performance goals and long-term goals, a
timeline to achieve the goals and a description of the resources needed
to achieve the goals. The high level strategic plan published in
February 2004, developed by the Department's top leadership, provided
the framework and direction to guide the Department's plans and
activities. The Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) provides
the five-year resource loaded performance plan to support the goals and
objectives of the strategic plan and the budget serves as the annual
execution plan. The FYHSP reflects DHS's approach to aligning resources
and performance plans and milestones to meet the goals and objectives
of the strategic plan.
GAO recommends that DHS' next strategic plan further develop the GPRA-
required elements addressed by adopting good strategic planning
practices. The Department already has adopted several good strategic
planning practices and has developed all the GPRA required elements of
a strategic plan. As written, the recommendation infers that we have
not used good strategic planning practices.
In developing the FYHSP, we implemented a step-by-step strategic
decision-making process that links the threat assessments, risk
management, resource constraints, and the policy intentions of our
leadership to the thousands of detailed readiness actions needed to
meet the missions of the Department of Homeland Security. All programs
supported in the FYHSP must have long-term goals, performance measures
and annual milestones. Programs must yield demonstrable results that
explain and justify how they will further mission achievement. DHS
submitted the FY 2006-FY2010 FYHSP to Congress on March 4, 2005.
We are providing technical comments and suggested clarifications to
your office under separate cover that should be incorporated into the
final report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Steven Pecinovsky:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
(450314):
FOOTNOTES
[1] Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-296, November 25,
2002.
[2] GAO, Homeland Security: Agency Plans, Implementation, and
Challenges Regarding the National Strategy for Homeland Security, GAO-
05-33 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 14, 2005).
[3] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington,
D.C.: July 2, 2003).
[4] See GAO, Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management
Approach, GAO-02-150T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 12, 2001); Homeland
Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness Efforts,
GAO-02-208T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2001); and GAO-05-33.
[5] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained
Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).
[6] According to the Milestones Report, each program has a primary
strategic goal that it supports, but can support up to three strategic
goals.
[7] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.:
January 2005).
[8] GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[9] GAO-04-38.
[10] GAO-04-38.
[11] The Homeland Security Advisory Council provides advice and
recommendations to the Secretary on matters related to homeland
security. The council consists of leaders from state and local
government, first responder communities, the private sector, and
academia.
[12] GAO-04-38.
[13] GAO-04-38.
[14] Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, Committee on
Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, S. Rep. No. 58, 103d Cong.
1ST Sess. (1993).
[15] OMB Circular No. A-11, Part 6, Preparation and Submission of
Strategic Plans, Annual Performance Plans, and Annual Program
Performance Reports.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
