Department of Homeland Security
Progress Made in Implementation of Management Functions, but More Work Remains Gao ID: GAO-08-646T April 9, 2008The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began operations in March 2003 with missions that include preventing terrorist attacks from occurring within the United States, reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing damages from attacks that occur, and helping the nation recover from any attacks. GAO has reported that the implementation and transformation of DHS is an enormous management challenge. GAO's prior work on mergers and acquisitions found that successful transformations of large organizations, even those faced with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7 years to achieve. This testimony addresses (1) the progress made by DHS in implementing its management functions; and (2) key issues that have affected the department's implementation efforts. This testimony is based on GAO's August 2007 report evaluating DHS's progress between March 2003 and July 2007; selected reports issued since July 2007; and GAO's institutional knowledge of homeland security and management issues.
Within each of its management areas--acquisition, financial, human capital, information technology, and real property management--DHS has made some progress, but has also faced challenges. DHS has recognized the need to improve acquisition outcomes and taken some positive steps to organize and assess the acquisition function, but continues to lack clear accountability for the outcomes of acquisition dollars spent. The department also has not fully ensured proper oversight of its contractors providing services closely supporting inherently government functions. DHS has designated a Chief Financial Officer and taken actions to prepare corrective action plans for its internal control weaknesses. However, DHS has been unable to obtain an unqualified audit opinion of its financial statements, and for fiscal year 2007 the independent auditor identified significant deficiencies in DHS's internal control over financial reporting. DHS has taken actions to implement its human capital system by, for example, issuing a departmental training plan and human capital operational plan. Among other things, DHS still needs to implement a human capital system linked to its strategic plan, establish a market-based and more performance-oriented pay system, and seek more routine feedback from employees. DHS has taken actions to develop information technology management controls, such as developing an information technology human capital plan and developing policies to ensure the protection of sensitive information. However, DHS has not yet fully implemented a comprehensive information security program or a process to effectively manage information technology investments. DHS has developed an Asset Management Plan and established performance measures consistent with Federal Real Property standards. However, DHS has yet to demonstrate full implementation of its Asset Management Plan or full use of asset management inventory information. Various cross-cutting issues have affected DHS's implementation efforts. For example, DHS has not yet updated its strategic plan and put in place structures to help it manage for results. Accountability and transparency are critical to effectively implementingDHS's management functions. GAO has experienced delays in obtaining access to needed information from DHS, though over the past year, GAO's access has improved. GAO is hopeful that planned revisions to DHS's guidance for working with GAO will streamline our access to documents and officials. DHS's 5 year anniversary provides an opportunity for the department to review how it has matured as an organization. As part of our broad range of work, GAO will continue to assess DHS's progress in addressing high-risk issues. In particular, GAO will continue to assess the progress made by the department in its transformation efforts and whether any progress made is sustainable over the long term.
GAO-08-646T, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation of Management Functions, but More Work Remains
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-08-646T
entitled 'Department Of Homeland Security: Progress Made in
Implementation of Management Functions, but More Work Remains' which
was released on April 9, 2008.
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.
Testimony:
Before the Subcommittee on Management, Investigations, and Oversight,
Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 2:00 p.m. EST:
Wednesday, April 9, 2008:
Department Of Homeland Security:
Progress Made in Implementation of Management Functions, but More Work
Remains:
Statement of Norman J. Rabkin:
Managing Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
GAO-08-646T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-08-646T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Management, Investigations, and Oversight, Committee on Homeland
Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) began operations in March
2003 with missions that include preventing terrorist attacks from
occurring within the United States, reducing U.S. vulnerability to
terrorism, minimizing damages from attacks that occur, and helping the
nation recover from any attacks. GAO has reported that the
implementation and transformation of DHS is an enormous management
challenge. GAO‘s prior work on mergers and acquisitions found that
successful transformations of large organizations, even those faced
with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at least 5 to 7
years to achieve. This testimony addresses (1) the progress made by DHS
in implementing its management functions; and (2) key issues that have
affected the department‘s implementation efforts. This testimony is
based on GAO‘s August 2007 report evaluating DHS‘s progress between
March 2003 and July 2007; selected reports issued since July 2007; and
GAO‘s institutional knowledge of homeland security and management
issues.
What GAO Found:
Within each of its management areas”acquisition, financial, human
capital, information technology, and real property management”DHS has
made some progress, but has also faced challenges.
* DHS has recognized the need to improve acquisition outcomes and taken
some positive steps to organize and assess the acquisition function,
but continues to lack clear accountability for the outcomes of
acquisition dollars spent. The department also has not fully ensured
proper oversight of its contractors providing services closely
supporting inherently government functions.
* DHS has designated a Chief Financial Officer and taken actions to
prepare corrective action plans for its internal control weaknesses.
However, DHS has been unable to obtain an unqualified audit opinion of
its financial statements, and for fiscal year 2007 the independent
auditor identified significant deficiencies in DHS‘s internal control
over financial reporting.
* DHS has taken actions to implement its human capital system by, for
example, issuing a departmental training plan and human capital
operational plan. Among other things, DHS still needs to implement a
human capital system linked to its strategic plan, establish a market-
based and more performance-oriented pay system, and seek more routine
feedback from employees.
* DHS has taken actions to develop information technology management
controls, such as developing an information technology human capital
plan and developing policies to ensure the protection of sensitive
information. However, DHS has not yet fully implemented a comprehensive
information security program or a process to effectively manage
information technology investments.
* DHS has developed an Asset Management Plan and established
performance measures consistent with Federal Real Property standards.
However, DHS has yet to demonstrate full implementation of its Asset
Management Plan or full use of asset management inventory information.
Various cross-cutting issues have affected DHS‘s implementation
efforts. For example, DHS has not yet updated its strategic plan and
put in place structures to help it manage for results.
Accountability and transparency are critical to effectively
implementing DHS‘s management functions. GAO has experienced delays in
obtaining access to needed information from DHS, though over the past
year, GAO‘s access has improved. GAO is hopeful that planned revisions
to DHS‘s guidance for working with GAO will streamline our access to
documents and officials.
DHS‘s 5 year anniversary provides an opportunity for the department to
review how it has matured as an organization. As part of our broad
range of work, GAO will continue to assess DHS‘s progress in addressing
high-risk issues. In particular, GAO will continue to assess the
progress made by the department in its transformation efforts and
whether any progress made is sustainable over the long term.
What GAO Recommends:
While this testimony contains no new recommendations, GAO has made over
900 recommendations to DHS over the past 5 years to strengthen
departmental operations. DHS has implemented some of these
recommendations and is in the process of implementing others.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-08-646T]. For more
information, contact Norm Rabkin at (202) 512-8777 or rabkinn@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear today to discuss the Department
of Homeland Security's (DHS) efforts to implement its management
functions. DHS began operations in March 2003 with missions that
include preventing terrorist attacks from occurring within the United
States, reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing damages
from attacks that occur, and helping the nation recover from any
attacks. The department has initiated and continued the implementation
of various policies and programs to address these missions as well as
its nonhomeland security functions.[Footnote 1] DHS has also taken a
number of actions designed to integrate its management functions and to
transform its component agencies into an effective cabinet-level
department. Prior to the creation of DHS, we testified on whether the
reorganization of government agencies might better address the nation's
homeland security needs.[Footnote 2] At that time, we identified that
the nation had a unique opportunity to create an effective and
performance-based organization to strengthen the nation's ability to
protect its borders and citizens. We noted that the magnitude of the
challenges that the new department would face would require substantial
time and effort to overcome, and that the implementation of the new
department would be extremely complex.
In 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as
high risk because it represented an enormous undertaking that would
require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner.[Footnote
3] We further identified that the components that became part of the
department already faced a wide array of existing challenges, and any
failure to effectively carry out its mission would expose the nation to
potentially serious consequences. In designating the implementation and
transformation of DHS as high risk, we noted that building an effective
department would require consistent and sustained leadership from top
management to ensure the needed transformation of disparate agencies,
programs, and missions into an integrated organization. Our prior work
on mergers and acquisitions, undertaken before the creation of DHS,
found that successful transformations of large organizations, even
those faced with less strenuous reorganizations than DHS, can take at
least 5 to 7 years to achieve.
In August 2007, we reported on the progress DHS had made since its
inception in implementing its management and mission
functions.[Footnote 4] We identified specific actions that DHS was to
achieve based on legislation, homeland security presidential
directives, DHS strategic planning documents, and other sources, and
reported on the progress the department made in implementing these
actions.
My testimony today addresses (1) the progress made by DHS in
implementing its management functions in the areas of acquisition,
financial, human capital, information technology, and real property
management; and (2) key issues that have affected the department's
implementation efforts. My statement is based on the results of our
August 2007 report evaluating the extent to which DHS has achieved
congressional and Administration expectations set out for them in its
management and mission areas; selected products we issued on DHS since
July 2007; and our institutional knowledge of homeland security and
various government organizational and management issues. For our August
2007 report on DHS progress, we conducted our work from September 2006
to July 2007. In April 2008, we updated this work with selected
reports. We conducted our work 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.
Summary:
DHS has made progress in implementing its management functions in the
areas of acquisition, financial, human capital, information technology,
and real property management. However, we have identified challenges
remaining in each of these areas.
* DHS has made some progress in strengthening its acquisition
management functions. For example, DHS has recognized the need to
improve acquisition outcomes and taken some positive steps to organize
and assess the acquisition function, but continues to lack clear
accountability for the outcomes of acquisition dollars spent. The
department also has not fully ensured proper oversight of its
contractors providing services closely supporting inherently government
functions.
* In the area of financial management, although it has designated a
Chief Financial Officer and taken steps to prepare corrective action
plans for its internal control weaknesses, DHS has been unable to
obtain an unqualified audit opinion on its financial statements, and
for fiscal year 2007, the independent auditor issued a disclaimer on
DHS's financial statements and identified significant deficiencies--
the majority of which were so serious they qualified as material
weaknesses--in DHS's internal control over financial reporting. DHS
needs to subject all its financial statements to annual audits and
correct the identified internal control weaknesses.
* DHS has taken steps to implement its human capital system. For
example, in July 2005 DHS issued a departmental training plan and in
April 2007 issued its Fiscal year 2007 and 2008 Human Capital
Operational Plan. However, DHS still needs to implement a human capital
system that links to its strategic plan, implement more effective
processes to recruit and hire employees with needed skills, establish a
market-based and more performance-oriented pay system, seek more
routine feedback from employees, and implement its training plan.
* DHS has undertaken efforts to establish various information
technology management controls and capabilities. For example, DHS
organized information technology management in the Office of the Chief
Information Officer, developed an information technology human capital
plan that is largely consistent with federal guidance and best
practices, and developed policies and procedures to ensure the
protection of sensitive information. However, DHS has not fully
implemented a comprehensive information security program. Furthermore,
it has not yet fully aligned all of its investments with a
comprehensive enterprise architecture or implemented a process to
effectively manage its information technology investments.
* In the area of real property management, DHS has developed an Asset
Management Plan, developed a generally complete real property data
inventory, submitted this inventory for inclusion in the governmentwide
real property database, and established performance measures consistent
with Federal Real Property standards. However, in August 2007 we
reported that DHS had yet to demonstrate full implementation of its
asset management plan and full use of asset inventory information and
performance measures in management decisionmaking.
A variety of cross-cutting issues have affected DHS's efforts to
implement its management functions. For example, DHS has not issued an
updated strategic plan and has not yet fully developed adequate
performance measures or put in place structures to help ensure that the
agency is managing for results. Accountability and transparency are
critical to effectively implementing DHS's management functions. We
have experienced delays in obtaining access to needed information from
DHS components, though over the past year, our access has improved in
certain areas. We are hopeful that planned revisions to its
departmental guidance for working with us and its Office of Inspector
General (IG) will streamline our access to needed documents and agency
officials.
Background:
In July 2002, President Bush issued the National Strategy for Homeland
Security. The strategy 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 occur. The strategy further identified a
plan to strengthen homeland security through the cooperation and
partnering of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations
on an array of functions. It also specified a number of federal
departments, as well as nonfederal organizations, that have important
roles in securing the homeland, with DHS having key responsibilities in
implementing established homeland security mission areas. This strategy
was updated and reissued in October 2007.
In November 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was enacted into
law, creating DHS. The act defined the department's missions to include
preventing terrorist attacks within the United States; reducing U.S.
vulnerability to terrorism; and minimizing the damages, and assisting
in the recovery from, attacks that occur within the United States. The
act further specified major responsibilities for the department,
including the analysis of information and protection of infrastructure;
development of countermeasures against chemical, biological,
radiological, and nuclear, and other emerging terrorist threats;
securing U.S. borders and transportation systems; and organizing
emergency preparedness and response efforts. DHS began operations in
March 2003. Its establishment represented a fusion of 22 federal
agencies to coordinate and centralize the leadership of many homeland
security activities under a single department.[Footnote 5]
We have evaluated many of DHS's management functions and programs since
the department's establishment, and have issued over 400 related
products. In particular, in August 2007, we reported on the progress
DHS had made since its inception in implementing its management and
mission functions.[Footnote 6] We also reported on broad themes that
have underpinned DHS's implementation efforts, such as agency
transformation, strategic planning, and risk management. Over the past
five years, we have made over 900 recommendations to DHS on ways to
improve operations and address key themes, such as to develop
performance measures and set milestones for key programs and implement
internal controls to help ensure program effectiveness. DHS has
implemented some of these recommendations, taken actions to address
others, and taken other steps to strengthen its mission activities and
facilitate management integration.
DHS Has Made Progress in Implementing Its Management Functions, but Has
Faced Challenges in Its Implementation Efforts:
DHS has made progress in implementing its management functions in the
areas of acquisition, financial, human capital, information technology,
and real property management. Overall, DHS has made more progress in
implementing its mission functions--border security; immigration
enforcement; immigration services; and aviation, surface
transportation, and maritime security; for example--than its management
functions, reflecting an initial focus on implementing efforts to
secure the homeland. DHS has had to undertake these critical missions
while also working to transform itself into a fully functioning cabinet
department--a difficult undertaking for any organization and one that
can take, at a minimum, 5 to 7 years to complete even under less
daunting circumstances. As DHS continues to mature as an organization,
we have reported that it will be important that it works to strengthen
its management areas since the effectiveness of these functions will
ultimately impact its ability to fulfill its mission to protect the
homeland.
Acquisition Management. DHS's acquisition function includes managing
and overseeing nearly $16 billion in acquisitions to support its broad
and complex missions, such as information systems, new technologies,
aircraft, ships, and professional services. DHS has recognized the need
to improve acquisition outcomes and taken some positive steps to
organize and assess the acquisition function, but continues to lack
clear accountability for the outcomes of acquisition dollars spent. A
common theme in our work on acquisition management is DHS's struggle to
provide adequate support for its mission components and resources for
departmentwide oversight. DHS has not yet accomplished its goal of
integrating the acquisition function across the department. For
example, the structure of DHS's acquisition function creates ambiguity
about who is accountable for acquisition decisions because it depends
on a system of dual accountability and cooperation and collaboration
between the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) and the component heads. In
June 2007, DHS officials stated that they were in the process of
modifying the lines of business management directive, which exempts the
Coast Guard and the Secret Service from complying, to ensure that no
contracting organization is exempt.[Footnote 7] This directive has not
yet been revised.
In September 2007, we reported on continued acquisition oversight
issues at DHS, identifying that the department has not fully ensured
proper oversight of its contractors providing services closely
supporting inherently government functions.[Footnote 8] The CPO has
established a departmentwide program to improve oversight; however, DHS
has been challenged to provide the appropriate level of oversight and
management attention to its service contracting and major investments,
and we continue to be concerned that the CPO may not have sufficient
authority to effectively oversee the department's acquisitions. DHS
still has not developed clear and transparent policies and processes
for all acquisitions. Concerns have been raised about how the
investment review process has been used to oversee its largest
acquisitions, and the investment review process in still under
revision. We have ongoing work reviewing oversight of DHS's major
investments which follows-up on our prior recommendations.[Footnote 9]
Regarding the acquisition workforce, our work and the work of the DHS
IG has found acquisition workforce challenges across the department; we
have ongoing work in this area as well.
Financial Management. DHS's financial management efforts include
consolidating or integrating component agencies' financial management
systems. DHS has made progress in addressing financial management and
internal control weaknesses and has designated a Chief Financial
Officer, but the department continues to face challenges in these
areas. However, since its establishment, DHS has been unable to obtain
an unqualified or "clean" audit opinion on its financial statements.
For fiscal year 2007, the independent auditor issued a disclaimer on
DHS's financial statements and identified eight significant
deficiencies in DHS's internal control over financial reporting, seven
of which were so serious that they qualified as material weaknesses.
[Footnote 10] DHS has taken steps to prepare corrective action plans
for its internal control weaknesses by, for example, developing and
issuing a departmentwide strategic plan for the corrective action plan
process and holding workshops on corrective action plans. While these
are positive steps, DHS and its components have not yet fully
implemented corrective action plans to address all significant
deficiencies--including the material weaknesses-- identified by
previous financial statement audits. According to DHS officials, the
department has developed goals and milestones for addressing these
weaknesses in its internal control over financial reporting. Until
these weaknesses are resolved, DHS will not be in position to provide
reliable, timely, and useful financial data to support day-to-day
decision making.
Human Capital Management. DHS's key human capital management areas
include pay, performance management, classification, labor relations,
adverse actions, employee appeals, and diversity management. DHS has
significant flexibility to design a modern human capital management
system, and in October 2004 DHS issued its human capital strategic
plan. DHS and the Office of Personnel Management jointly released the
final regulations on DHS's new human capital system in February 2005.
Although DHS intended to implement the new personnel system in the
summer of 2005, court decisions enjoined the department from
implementing certain labor management portions of the system. DHS has
since taken actions to implement its human capital system. In July 2005
DHS issued its first departmental training plan, and in April 2007, it
issued its Fiscal Year 2007 and 2008 Human Capital Operational Plan.
This plan identifies five department priorities--hiring and retaining a
talented and diverse workforce; creating a DHS-wide culture of
performance; creating high-quality learning and development programs
for DHS employees; implementing a DHS-wide integrated leadership
system; and being a model of human capital service excellence. DHS has
met some of the goals identified in the plan, such as developing a
hiring model and a communication plan. However, more work remains for
DHS to fully implement its human capital system. For example, DHS has
not yet taken steps to fully link its human capital planning to overall
agency strategic planning nor has it established a market-based and
more performance-oriented pay system. DHS has also faced difficulties
in developing and implementing effective processes to recruit and hire
employees. Although DHS has developed its hiring model and provided it
to all components, we reported in August 2007 that DHS had not yet
assessed components' practices against the model.[Footnote 11]
Furthermore, employee morale at DHS has been low, as measured by the
results of the 2006 U.S. Office of Personnel Management Federal Human
Capital Survey. DHS has taken steps to seek employee feedback and
involve them in decision making by, for example, expanding its
communication strategy and developing an overall strategy for
addressing employee concerns reflects in the survey results. In
addition, although DHS has developed a department-level training
strategy, it has faced challenges in fully implementing this strategy.
Information Technology Management. DHS's information technology
management efforts should include:
* developing and using an enterprise architecture, or corporate
blueprint, as an authoritative frame of reference to guide and
constrain system investments;
* defining and following a corporate process for informed decision
making by senior leadership about competing information technology
investment options;
* applying system and software development and acquisition discipline
and rigor when defining, designing, developing, testing, deploying, and
maintaining systems;
* establishing a comprehensive, departmentwide information security
program to protect information and systems;
* having sufficient people with the right knowledge, skills, and
abilities to execute each of these areas now and in the future; and:
* centralizing leadership for extending these disciplines throughout
the organization with an empowered Chief Information Officer.
DHS has undertaken efforts to establish and institutionalize the range
of information technology management controls and capabilities noted
above that our research and past work have shown are fundamental to any
organization's ability to use technology effectively to transform
itself and accomplish mission goals. For example, DHS has organized
roles and responsibilities for information technology management under
the Chief Information Officer. DHS has also developed an information
technology human capital plan that is largely consistent with federal
guidance and associated best practices. In particular, we reported that
the plan fully addressed 15 and partially addressed 12 of 27 practices
set forth in the Office of Personnel Management's human capital
framework. However, we reported that DHS's overall progress in
implementing the plan had been limited. With regard to information
technology investment management, DHS has established a management
structure to help manage its investments. However, DHS has not always
fully implemented any of the key practices our information technology
investment management framework specifies as being needed to actually
control investments. Furthermore, DHS has developed an enterprise
architecture, but we have reported that major DHS information
technology investments have not been fully aligned with DHS's
enterprise architecture. In addition, DHS has not fully implemented a
comprehensive information security program. While it has taken actions
to ensure that its certification and accreditation activities are
completed, the department has not shown the extent to which it has
strengthened incident detection, analysis, and reporting and testing
activities.
Real Property Management. DHS's responsibilities for real property
management are specified in Executive Order 13327, "Federal Real
Property Asset Management," and include the establishment of a Senior
Real Property Officer, development of an asset inventory, and
development and implementation of an asset management plan and
performance measures. In June 2006, the Office of Management and Budget
upgraded DHS's Real Property Asset Management Score from red to yellow
after DHS developed an Asset Management Plan, developed a generally
complete real property data inventory, submitted this inventory for
inclusion in the governmentwide real property inventory database, and
established performance measures consistent with Federal Real Property
Council standards.[Footnote 12] DHS also designated a Senior Real
Property Officer. However, in August 2007 we reported that DHS had yet
to demonstrate full implementation of its asset management plan and
full use of asset inventory information and performance measures in
management decision making.[Footnote 13]
Cross-cutting Issues Have Hindered DHS's Implementation Efforts:
Our work has identified various cross-cutting issues that have hindered
DHS's progress in its management areas. We have reported that while it
is important that DHS continue to work to strengthen each of its core
management functions, it is equally important that these key issues be
addressed from a comprehensive, departmentwide perspective to help
ensure that the department has the structure and processes in place to
effectively address the threats and vulnerabilities that face the
nation. These issues include agency transformation, strategic planning
and results management, and accountability and transparency.
Agency Transformation. In 2007 we reported that DHS's implementation
and transformation remained high risk because DHS had not yet developed
a comprehensive management integration strategy and its management
systems and functionsæespecially related to acquisition, financial,
human capital, and information technology managementæwere not yet fully
integrated and wholly operational.[Footnote 14] We have recommended,
among other things, that agencies on the high-risk list produce a
corrective action plan that defines the root causes of identified
problems, identifies effective solutions to those problems, and
provides for substantially completing corrective measures in the near
term. Such a plan should include performance metrics and milestones, as
well as mechanisms to monitor progress. In March 2008 we received a
draft of DHS's corrective action plan and have provided the department
with some initial feedback. We will continue to review the plan and
expect to be able to provide additional comments on the plan in the
near future.
Strategic Planning and Results Management. DHS has not always
implemented effective strategic planning efforts, has not yet issued an
updated strategic plan, and has not yet fully developed adequate
performance measures or put into place structures to help ensure that
the agency is managing for results. DHS has developed performance goals
and measures for some of its programs and reports on these goals and
measures in its Annual Performance Report. However, some of DHS's
components have not developed adequate outcome-based performance
measures or comprehensive plans to monitor, assess, and independently
evaluate the effectiveness of their plans and performance. Since
issuance of our August 2007 report, DHS has begun to develop
performance goals and measures for some areas in an effort to
strengthen its ability to measures its progress in key management and
mission areas. We commend DHS's efforts to measure its progress in
these areas and have agreed to work with the department to provide
input to help strengthen established measures.
Accountability and Transparency. Accountability and transparency are
critical to the department effectively integrating its management
functions and implementing its mission responsibilities. We have
reported that it is important that DHS make its management and
operational decisions transparent enough so that Congress can be sure
that it is effectively, efficiently, and economically using the
billions of dollars in funding it receives annually.[Footnote 15] We
have encountered delays at DHS in obtaining access to needed
information, which have impacted our ability to conduct our work in a
timely manner. Since we highlighted this issue last year to this
subcommittee, our access to information at DHS has improved. For
example, TSA has worked with us to improve its process for providing us
with access to documentation. DHS also provided us with access to its
national level preparedness exercise. Moreover, in response to the
provision in the DHS Appropriations Act, 2008, that restricts a portion
of DHS's funding until DHS certifies and reports that it has revised
its guidance for working with GAO.[Footnote 16] DHS has provided us
with a draft version of its revised guidance. We have provided DHS with
comments on this draft and look forward to continuing to collaborate
with the department.
Concluding Observations:
DHS is now 5 years old, a key milestone for the department. Since its
establishment, DHS has had to undertake actions to secure the border
and the transportation sector and defend against, prepare for, and
respond to threats and disasters while simultaneously working to
transform itself into a fully functioning cabinet department. Such a
transformation is a difficult undertaking for any organization and can
take, at a minimum, 5 to 7 years to complete even under less daunting
circumstances.
Nevertheless, DHS's 5-year anniversary provides an opportunity for the
department to review how it has matured as an organization. As part of
our broad range of work reviewing DHS management and mission programs,
we will continue to assess in the coming months DHS's progress in
addressing high-risk issues. In particular, we will continue to assess
the progress made by the department in its transformation and
information sharing efforts, and assessing whether any progress made is
sustainable over the long term. Further, as DHS continues to evolve and
transform, we will review its progress and performance and provide
information to Congress and the public on its efforts.
This concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to answer any
questions you and the Subcommittee Members may have.
GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
For further information about this testimony, please contact Norman J.
Rabkin, Managing Director, Homeland Security and Justice, at 202-512-
8777 or rabkinn@gao.gov. Other key contributors to this statement were
Cathleen A Berrick, Anthony DeFrank, Rebecca Gambler, and Thomas
Lombardi.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] Examples of nonhomeland security functions include Coast Guard
search and rescue and naturalization services.
[2] GAO, Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-957T] (Washington,
D.C.: July 17, 2002).
[3] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.:
January 2003).
[4] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on
Implementation of Mission and Management Functions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454] (Washington, D.C.: Aug.
17, 2007).
[5] These 22 agencies, offices, and programs were U.S. Customs Service;
U.S. Immigration and Naturalization Service; Federal Protective
Service; Transportation Security Administration; Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center; Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service; Office for Domestic Preparedness; Federal Emergency Management
Agency; Strategic National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical
System; Nuclear Incident Response Team; Domestic Emergency Support
Team; National Domestic Preparedness Office; Chemical, Biological,
Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures Program; Environmental
Measures Laboratory; National BW Defense Analysis Center; Plum Island
Animal Disease Center; Federal Computer Incident Response Center;
National Communications System; National Infrastructure Protection
Center; Energy Security and Assurance Program; Secret Service; and U.S.
Coast Guard.
[6] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454].
[7] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress and Challenges in
Implementing the Department's Acquisition Oversight Plan, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-900] (Washington, D.C.: June
13, 2007).
[8] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Improved Assessment and
Oversight Needed to Manage Risk of Contracting for Selected Services,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-990] (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 17, 2007).
[9] GAO, Homeland Security: Successes and Challenges in DHS's Efforts
to Create an Effective Acquisition Organization, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GA0-05-179] (Washington, D.C.: Mar.
29, 2005).
[10] A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination
of significant deficiencies, that result in more than a remote
likelihood that a material misstatement of the financial statements
will not be prevented or detected. A significant deficiency is a
control deficiency, or combination of control deficiencies, that
adversely affects the entity's ability to initiate, authorize, record,
process, or report financial data reliably in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles such that there is more than a remote
likelihood that a misstatement of the entity's financial statements
that is more than inconsequential will not be prevented or detected.
[11] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454].
[12] The administration's agency scorecard for real property management
was established in fiscal year 2004 to measure each agency's progress
in implementing Executive Order 13327 on "Federal Real Property Asset
Management."
[13] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454].
[14] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.:
January 2008).
[15] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-454].
[16] Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008, Pub. L. No. 110-161, Div.
E, 121 Stat. 1844, 2042 (2007) (requiring further that DHS define in a
memorandum to its employees the roles and responsibilities of the DHS
IG).
[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 Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]
and select "E-mail Updates."
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: [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:
Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov:
(202) 512-4400:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street NW, Room 7125:
Washington, D.C. 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, D.C. 20548:
