Department of Homeland Security
A Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed to Achieve Management Integration Departmentwide Gao ID: GAO-10-318T December 15, 2009Significant management challenges exist for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as it continues to integrate its varied management processes, policies, and systems in areas such as financial management and information technology. These activities are primarily led by the Under Secretary for Management (USM), department management chiefs, and management chiefs in DHS's seven components. This testimony summarizes a new GAO report (GAO-10-131) that examined (1) the extent to which DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration that includes the characteristics recommended in GAO's earlier 2005 report, (2) how DHS is implementing management integration, and (3) the extent to which the USM is holding the department and component management chiefs accountable for implementing management integration through reporting relationships. GAO reviewed DHS plans and interviewed DHS management officials.
DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration as required by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and with the characteristics GAO recommended in a 2005 report. Although DHS stated at that time that it was developing an integration strategy it has not yet done so, in part because it has focused on building operations capacity within functional management areas. In the absence of a comprehensive management integration strategy, DHS officials stated that documents such as strategic plans and management directives address aspects of a management integration strategy and can help the department to manage its integration efforts. However, they do not generally include all of the strategy characteristics GAO identified, such as identifying the critical links that must occur among management initiatives. In addition, DHS has increased the number of performance measures for the Management Directorate, but has not yet established measures for assessing management integration across the department. Without these measures, DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and achieving management integration. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, DHS's Management Directorate has implemented management integration through certain initiatives and mechanisms to communicate and consolidate management policies, processes, and systems. For example, DHS is in the process of consolidating its financial management, acquisition, and asset management systems. The directorate has also instituted a system of management councils and governance boards to communicate information and manage specific activities related to management initiatives. The USM and department and component management chiefs are held accountable for implementing management integration through reporting relationships at three levels--between the Secretary and the USM, the USM and department chiefs, and the department and component chiefs--in which, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, USM, and department chiefs are required to provide input into performance plans and evaluations. Performance management practices for management integration between DHS's department and component management chiefs are not consistently in place. Department chiefs are not consistently providing the guidance and input required by department management directives and in accordance with performance management leading practices. Without ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs' performance plans and evaluations as required, the directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully implementing management integration.
GAO-10-318T, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed to Achieve Management Integration Departmentwide
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-318T
entitled 'Department Of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive Strategy Is
Still Needed to Achieve Management Integration Departmentwide' which
was released on December 15, 2009.
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 Oversight of Government Management, the
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, December 15, 2009:
Department Of Homeland Security:
A Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed to Achieve Management
Integration Departmentwide:
Statement of Bernice Steinhardt, Director:
Strategic Issues:
GAO-10-318T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-318T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the
District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
Significant management challenges exist for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) as it continues to integrate its varied management
processes, policies, and systems in areas such as financial management
and information technology. These activities are primarily led by the
Under Secretary for Management (USM), department management chiefs, and
management chiefs in DHS‘s seven components. This testimony summarizes
a new GAO report (GAO-10-131) that examined (1) the extent to which DHS
has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration that
includes the characteristics recommended in GAO‘s earlier 2005 report,
(2) how DHS is implementing management integration, and (3) the extent
to which the USM is holding the department and component management
chiefs accountable for implementing management integration through
reporting relationships. GAO reviewed DHS plans and interviewed DHS
management officials.
What GAO Found:
DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management
integration as required by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007 and with the characteristics GAO recommended in
a 2005 report. Although DHS stated at that time that it was developing
an integration strategy it has not yet done so, in part because it has
focused on building operations capacity within functional management
areas. In the absence of a comprehensive management integration
strategy, DHS officials stated that documents such as strategic plans
and management directives address aspects of a management integration
strategy and can help the department to manage its integration efforts.
However, they do not generally include all of the strategy
characteristics GAO identified, such as identifying the critical links
that must occur among management initiatives. In addition, DHS has
increased the number of performance measures for the Management
Directorate, but has not yet established measures for assessing
management integration across the department. Without these measures,
DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and achieving management
integration.
In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, DHS‘s Management
Directorate has implemented management integration through certain
initiatives and mechanisms to communicate and consolidate management
policies, processes, and systems. For example, DHS is in the process of
consolidating its financial management, acquisition, and asset
management systems. The directorate has also instituted a system of
management councils and governance boards to communicate information
and manage specific activities related to management initiatives.
The USM and department and component management chiefs are held
accountable for implementing management integration through reporting
relationships at three levels”between the Secretary and the USM, the
USM and department chiefs, and the department and component chiefs”in
which, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, USM, and
department chiefs are required to provide input into performance plans
and evaluations. Performance management practices for management
integration between DHS‘s department and component management chiefs
are not consistently in place. Department chiefs are not consistently
providing the guidance and input required by department management
directives and in accordance with performance management leading
practices. Without ensuring that the management chiefs provide input
into component chiefs‘ performance plans and evaluations as required,
the directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully
implementing management integration.
What GAO Recommends:
In the report, GAO recommended that once a management integration
strategy is developed, DHS should establish performance measures for
assessing management integration, and implement its performance
management policies between the department and component management
chiefs. DHS‘s USM commented that DHS is taking certain actions to
address GAO‘s recommendations.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-318T] or key
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202)
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov or David Maurer at (202)512-9627 or
maurerd@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to
discuss our report, which is being released today, on the actions that
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken towards integrating
its various management processes, systems, and people, both within and
across areas such as information technology, financial management,
acquisition, and human capital, as well as in its administrative
services.[Footnote 1] These activities are primarily led by the Under
Secretary for Management (USM), departmental management chiefs, and
management chiefs in DHS's seven components.[Footnote 2] It is
critically important that DHS work to unify and strengthen its
management functions because the effectiveness of these functions will
ultimately affect its ability to fulfill its various missions.
After the department was first created, you asked us to assess the
status of DHS's management integration. In our 2005 report, we noted
that DHS had made progress in addressing its departmentwide management
integration through the issuance of guidance and plans to assist the
integration of each individual management function within the
department.[Footnote 3] However, we observed that DHS had the
opportunity to expand upon those efforts by implementing a more
comprehensive and sustained approach to management integration
departmentwide. In particular, we recommended that DHS develop an
overarching strategy for management integration, and, in response, DHS
stated that it was developing such a strategy. Subsequently, the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11
Commission Act) required DHS to develop a strategy for management
integration.[Footnote 4]
Additionally in our 2005 report, we suggested that Congress might want
to consider whether DHS's USM has the authority to drive, implement,
and ensure accountability for management integration departmentwide.
More specifically, we suggested that Congress might want to continue
monitoring whether it needed to provide additional leadership
authorities to the USM or create a Chief Operating Officer/Chief
Management Officer (COO/CMO) position, with provisions for a term
appointment and performance agreement, that could help elevate,
integrate, and institutionalize DHS's management initiatives. The 9/11
Commission Act designated the USM as the CMO for the department and
principal advisor on management-related matters to the Secretary. We
have previously suggested that agencies engaged in major transformation
efforts and those agencies experiencing particularly significant
challenges in integrating disparate organizational cultures, such as
DHS, could also be good candidates for having COO/CMO-type positions in
place.[Footnote 5]
In light of these prior recommendations and requirements, you asked us
to revisit DHS's progress. This testimony, which summarizes our report
to you, discusses:
* the extent to which DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for
management integration that includes the characteristics recommended in
our 2005 report;
* how DHS is implementing management integration, and:
* the extent to which DHS's USM is holding the department and component
management chiefs accountable for implementing management integration
through reporting relationships.
In summary, in the more than 6 years since its establishment, DHS has
taken actions that could help it transform its organization and
integrate its management functions to establish a unified department.
In particular, the department has developed common policies,
procedures, and systems within individual management functions, such as
human capital and information technology, that help to vertically
integrate its component agencies. However, DHS has placed less emphasis
on integrating horizontally, and bringing together these multiple
management functions across the department. Moreover, DHS has not yet
fully developed a comprehensive management integration strategy, as we
have recommended and is required by law. DHS could also improve the
extent to which it is measuring its progress on management integration,
and holding its management chiefs accountable for implementing
management integration.
To conduct the work for our report, we reviewed DHS's strategies and
plans and interviewed management officials in DHS's headquarters, seven
components, and one directorate--the National Protection and Programs
Directorate (NPPD).[Footnote 6] To address the extent to which DHS
developed a management integration strategy, we assessed whether DHS
documents and plans included the characteristics recommended in our
2005 report for a management integration strategy, which required that
the strategy:
* look across the initiatives within each of the management functional
units;
* clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these
initiatives;
* identify trade-offs and set priorities;
* set implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of
these initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and:
* identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved.
We also reviewed DHS's performance goals and measures for fiscal years
2008 and 2009, and assessed these goals and measures against Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requirements to determine
the extent to which they provided a framework for assessing management
integration across the department.[Footnote 7] Additionally, we
examined DHS performance agreements and performance management
activities against requirements set forth in law and in DHS policies.
These requirements include the need for input from senior to
subordinate officials for performance agreements and evaluations, and
the alignment of goals and objectives in a "line of sight" that shows
how individual performance contributes to organizational goals.
This statement is based on our performance audit which was conducted
from September 2008 through November 2009 in accordance with generally
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit
objectives.
Background:
In 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as
a high-risk area because it represented an enormous undertaking that
would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner.
[Footnote 8] The department has remained on our high-risk list since
2003.[Footnote 9] Most recently, in our January 2009 high-risk update,
we reported that, although DHS had made progress in transforming into a
fully functioning department, its transformation remained high risk
because it had not yet developed a comprehensive plan to address the
transformation, integration, management, and mission challenges we
identified since 2003.[Footnote 10]
The Management Directorate, which is led by the USM, includes the Chief
Financial Officer (CFO), the Chief Security Officer (CSO), the Chief
Human Capital Officer (CHCO), the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO),
the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO), and the Chief Information Officer
(CIO). They are referred to as the departmental management chiefs. In
addition to the department's Management Directorate, each of the seven
DHS component agencies has its own component management chief for the
procurement, financial, human capital, information technology,
administrative, and security management areas. [Footnote 11] Figure 1
shows the DHS Management Directorate's organizational structure.
Figure 1: DHS Management Directorate's Organizational Structure:
[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart]
Top level:
Under Secretary for Management;
* Deputy Under Secretary;
* Chief of Staff.
Second level, reporting to the Under Secretary for Management:
* Chief Financial Officer[A];
* Chief Security Officer;
* Chief Human Capital Officer;
* Chief Administrative Officer;
* Chief Procurement Officer;
* Chief Information Officer.
Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.
[A] The Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (§
3 of Pub. L. No. 108-330, 118 Stat. 1275, 1276 (Oct. 16, 2004)) made
DHS subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No.
101-576, 104 Stat. 2838, Nov. 15, 1990), which requires the DHS CFO to
also report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security.
[End of figure]
Departmental Plans and Documents Address Aspects of Management
Integration, but DHS Has Not Yet Developed a Comprehensive Strategy:
The 9/11 Commission Act requires DHS to develop a strategy for
management integration as part of the department's integration and
transformation to create a more efficient and orderly consolidation of
functions and personnel in the department.[Footnote 12] In our 2005
report, we recommended that DHS develop an overarching management
integration strategy for the department that would, at a minimum,
contain such characteristics as identifying the linkages among
management initiatives, trade-offs and priorities, and potential
efficiencies.[Footnote 13] Although DHS stated at that time that it was
developing an integration strategy, it has not yet developed a
comprehensive strategy for management integration that is consistent
with statute and that contains all of the characteristics we identified
in 2005. According to DHS's USM, the department has not yet done so
because, in part, the Management Directorate has focused on building
the management operations capacity within the functional areas, such as
financial management and information technology. The Management
Directorate has not yet focused on integration across the functional
areas and has not clearly or systematically identified trade-offs and
linkages among initiatives in different functional areas.
According to DHS's USM, Chief of Staff, and department and component
management chiefs, in the absence of a comprehensive management
integration strategy, various departmental documents collectively
contribute to the department's strategy for implementing and achieving
management integration. These documents are discussed in detail in our
report. In particular, DHS officials identified (1) departmentwide
documents that provide guidance that relate to management integration
across the department, such as DHS's Integrated Strategy for High Risk
Management and Management Directorate Strategic Plan;[Footnote 14] and
(2) documents for management of functional areas.
With regard to functional area documents, DHS officials indicated that
both management directives and functional area strategic plans contain
elements of the department's strategy for achieving management
integration. DHS issued management directives for each of the six
department management chiefs--the CAO, CFO, CHCO, CIO, and CPO
management directives were issued in 2004 (with updates for the CIO and
CPO in 2007 and 2008, respectively); the management directive for CSO
was issued in 2006. These directives communicate standard definitions
of the management chiefs' respective roles and responsibilities; define
the concept of "dual accountability" for both mission accomplishment
and functional integration as the shared responsibility of the heads of
DHS's individual agencies or components and the department management
chiefs; and establish the need for the department management chiefs,
along with the heads of agencies, to annually recommend and establish
integration milestones for the consolidation of the chiefs' functions.
Functional area strategic plans generally discuss, among other things,
the missions and goals of the department management chiefs and the link
between the goals and objectives in each functional area strategic plan
and the goals and objectives in DHS's Strategic Plan. Among the six
department chiefs, four have issued strategic plans for their
functional areas--the CAO, CIO, CHCO, and CSO.[Footnote 15]
While some of the documents DHS officials identified as contributing to
the department's strategy for implementing and achieving management
integration address some of the characteristics we have previously
identified for such a strategy, these documents, either individually or
taken together, do not include all of the characteristics we have
identified. The documents described by DHS officials as contributing to
the department's strategy for achieving management integration can
provide high-level guidance for integration efforts and can help the
department to manage those efforts. Moreover, the Management
Directorate Strategic Plan and other departmentwide documents, for
example, set performance goals, measures, and targets for achieving
certain management initiatives. Such elements as goals, objectives,
milestones, performance targets, and priorities documented in these
plans and strategies can help the department to manage, implement, and
monitor the specific initiatives to which these elements apply. They
can also help to guide efforts to consolidate policies, processes, and
systems within each management functional area. However, among the
documents cited by DHS officials as being part of the department's
management integration strategy, DHS has not yet looked across the
management initiatives within management functional areas to identify
the critical links that must occur among these initiatives to integrate
the department's management functions both within and across functional
areas. Furthermore, the documents generally do not identify the
priorities, trade-offs, and potential efficiencies among management
initiatives, nor do they set implementation goals and a time line for
monitoring the progress of initiatives to ensure the critical links
occur when needed. Thus, when considered either individually or
together, these documents do not constitute a management integration
strategy containing all of the characteristics we have identified.
In addition, although DHS has developed some performance goals and
measures to measure management activities, it has not yet established
measures for assessing management integration across the department.
For example, DHS has increased the number of departmentwide performance
measures for the Management Directorate in support of Goal 5 of DHS's
Strategic Plan.[Footnote 16] Specifically, since fiscal year 2008, DHS
has added 13 new measures and retired 3 others for the Management
Directorate in support of its strategic plan, going from 5 performance
measures for the Management Directorate in fiscal year 2008 to 15
measures in fiscal year 2009. These measures relate to activities in
functional areas but do not help to measure management integration. DHS
officials told us that the department's current measures do not allow
the department to gauge the status of management integration and that
the department has focused on the development of measures for
departmental components, offices, and directorates--such as a measure
for the attrition rate for career senior executive service personnel
and a measure for the percentage of improper payments collected.
However, these performance measures do not allow the department to
assess its progress in achieving departmental goals for management
integration within and across functional areas. DHS officials stated
that the department's goal is to develop a set of measures that will
help the department assess its management integration. Without such a
set of measures, DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and
achieving management integration both within and across its functional
areas. A comprehensive strategy for management integration that clearly
sets implementation goals and time lines could help the department
establish measures for assessing its management integration. We are
continuing to work with DHS to review and provide input on the
department's performance measures used to assess the department's
progress in its mission and management areas.
DHS's Management Directorate Has Taken Actions to Communicate and
Consolidate Management Policies, Processes, and Systems:
While DHS does not have a comprehensive management strategy, its
Management Directorate is working to consolidate management policies,
processes, and systems and it has instituted a system of management
councils and governance boards. The Management Directorate has
developed and implemented departmentwide policies to replace policies
from each of the legacy agencies that make up DHS in all six management
functions. For example, the DHS CFO's office launched an online
Financial Management Policy Manual tool, which serves as the single
authoritative guide on financial management and the foundation for
departmentwide financial management knowledge sharing and
standardization. According to officials from the DHS CFO's office, the
Financial Management Policy Manual is part of its approach to integrate
within the financial management function and is critical to enable
financial management employees to carry out their duties and
responsibilities effectively and efficiently.
The Management Directorate also has other initiatives under way to
consolidate its management systems. For example, the Transformation and
Systems Consolidation (TASC) initiative is the department's current
effort to consolidate its financial management, acquisition, and asset
management systems. DHS has been working to consolidate its financial
management systems since the department was first created.
Through various management councils, the Management Directorate shares
information related to the implementation of management initiatives,
solicits feedback from the components, and provides a forum for
coordination between component management offices. Each management
chief chairs a functional council to address issues pertaining to that
management function. Likewise, the USM chairs a Management Council made
up of the DHS management chiefs and a representative from each
component that discusses issues of departmentwide importance, such as
training and development programs. The Management Directorate has also
taken steps toward consolidating some management processes and
established governance boards to manage the processes in the areas of
acquisition, information technology, financial management, and resource
allocation.
Performance Management Practices Could Be More Consistently Applied
Departmentwide to Strengthen Reporting Relationships between Department
and Component Management Chiefs:
The USM and department and component management chiefs are held
accountable for implementing management integration through reporting
relationships at three levels--between the Secretary and the USM, the
USM and department management chiefs, and the department and component
management chiefs--in which, among other things, the Secretary of
Homeland Security, USM, and department chiefs are required to provide
input into performance plans and evaluations. Our prior work has shown
that, to be successful, transformation efforts must align individual
performance expectations with organizational goals.[Footnote 17] In the
case of transforming and integrating DHS, the USM, department, and
component management chiefs must align their goals and activities
through performance management practices in support of DHS's management
integration goals. In our review, we found that performance management
practices for management integration between DHS's department and
component management chiefs are not consistently in place. Department
chiefs are not consistently providing the guidance and input required
by department management directives and in accordance with performance
management leading practices. The inconsistent application of such
guidance and practices presents challenges to institutionalizing
individual accountability and enabling the effective exercise of
authority at the department. Without ensuring that the management
chiefs provide input into component chiefs' performance plans and
evaluations as required, the Management Directorate cannot be sure that
component chiefs are fully implementing management integration.
For the first level of reporting relationships involving the Secretary
and the USM, the 9/11 Commission Act requires the USM to enter into an
annual performance agreement with the Secretary and be subject to an
annual performance evaluation.[Footnote 18] We found that the Deputy
Secretary provided input into the USM's performance plan in October
2007, and conducted a performance evaluation in 2008 based on this
agreement. According to DHS officials, the Deputy Secretary conducted
the performance agreement and evaluation--rather than the Secretary--
based on delegated responsibilities for the performance of management
reform as the department's chief operating officer. Further, the
performance objectives in the USM's agreement and evaluation are linked
to strategic plans, and include references to several efforts related
to management integration.
For the second level of reporting relationships involving the USM and
department management chiefs, five department management chiefs report
directly to the USM, and the CFO has a dual reporting relationship to
the Secretary and the USM.[Footnote 19] We found that the department
management chiefs' performance agreements supported higher level
Management Directorate goals and objectives, and included references to
management integration-related activities. Fiscal year 2009 was the
first year that the USM provided a common objective to department
management chiefs related to management support for the expansion of
NPPD. In addition, the agreements consistently include objectives
related to management integration.
For the third level of reporting relationships involving the department
and component management chiefs, the component management chiefs report
directly to their component agency heads, while also having a "dotted
line," or indirect, reporting relationship to their respective
department management chief.[Footnote 20] The arrangement of component
heads and department chiefs both supporting integration of management
functions is referred to as "dual accountability." Under the dual
accountability system, management directives require the department
management chiefs to provide written performance objectives to the
component management chiefs at the start of each performance cycle and
feedback to the component rating official on the component chief's
accomplishment of objectives. We found that all the department
management chiefs except for the CSO said that they specifically
established annual priorities for their function. At an individual
level, however, we found that only two department chiefs--the CAO and
CPO--said that they provided individual input to their component chiefs
at the beginning of their performance cycle. The USM told us the
functional councils have improved their development of common
management goals for their functions, but have not yet consistently
followed through by putting those goals into individual performance
plans. She stated the department's management chiefs would be including
this information in component chiefs' performance plans for 2010. With
regard to the department chiefs providing feedback to the component
rating official, the CFO, CSO, and CAO told us that they provided input
into component chiefs' performance appraisals, while the CIO and CPO
did not provide input. The CHCO said that, due to his limited tenure in
the position, he could not state whether input had occurred. The CPO
stated that he would be providing input beginning with the fiscal year
2010 performance appraisals. The USM said that departmental chiefs'
input into component chiefs' performance appraisals would be a priority
in the future.
GAO Recommendations:
In our new report, we reiterated our 2005 recommendation, not yet fully
implemented, that DHS develop a comprehensive management integration
strategy. We recommended that once the strategy is developed, DHS's USM
should establish performance measures to assess progress made in
achieving departmentwide management integration. We also recommended
that the Under Secretary take several actions to implement existing
performance management mechanisms--such as having the departmental
management chiefs provide written input into component chiefs'
performance plans and evaluations, and strengthening linkages between
department goals and objectives in individual performance plans for
component management chiefs--to ensure that the Management Directorate
can exercise its authority and leadership to implement a management
integration strategy.
A DHS official said the department concurred with our report. In
addition, DHS's USM provided information on steps the department was
taking or planning to take to develop a strategy for management
integration, as we had recommended in our 2005 report, and to link this
strategy to the Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals
for the management chiefs. Specifically, the USM said that she is
leading the process for developing a detailed, measurable plan that
will include the actions and milestones necessary to accomplish
management integration at the department. Additionally, the USM stated
that the integration plan will be tied to the SES performance
appraisals for each management chief for the fiscal year 2010
performance cycle, and that the plan will also serve as the required
annual performance agreement between the Secretary and the USM.
Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee,
this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to
any questions you may have.
Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements:
For further information regarding this statement, please contact
Bernice Steinhardt, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6543 or
steinhardtb@gao.gov or David Maurer, Director, at (202) 512-9627 or
maurerd@gao.gov. Points of contact for our Offices of Congressional
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this
report. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include
Sarah Veale, Assistant Director; Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director;
S. Mike Davis; Barbara Lancaster; Jared Hermalin; Susan Sato; and David
Fox.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Taken Toward
Management Integration, but A Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-131] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 20, 2009).
[2] DHS's seven component agencies include the Transportation Security
Administration (TSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and
Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard,
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
[3] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained
Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005).
[4] Section 2405 of Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007).
[5] GAO, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-34] (Washington, D.C.:
Nov. 1, 2007).
[6] We selected NPPD because it (1) had the largest budget in fiscal
year 2008 among all of the DHS directorates and offices, (2) has a
structure of management chiefs similar to DHS's component agencies, and
(3) has a unique relationship to the Management Directorate because the
directorate directly provides management services to NPPD that normally
occur within component agencies, such as hiring and acquisition
support.
[7] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993).
[8] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: January
2003). The high-risk areas we have identified include (1) implementing
and transforming DHS, (2) the National Flood Insurance Program, (3)
managing federal real property, (4) strategic human capital management,
(5) information-sharing mechanisms to improve homeland security, and
(6) protecting the federal government's information systems and
critical infrastructure.
[9] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: January
2005); and GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.: January
2007).
[10] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January
2009).
[11] Management chiefs in the component agencies for the acquisition
and procurement function are referred to as Component Acquisition
Executives (CAE) and Heads of Contracting Authority (HCA),
respectively. The CAE is the senior acquisition official within the
component, responsible for management and oversight of all component
acquisition functions (excluding contracting). The HCA is the senior
contracting official within the component, responsible for management
and oversight of all component contracting functions, under the
authority delegated by the CPO.
[12] Pub.L. No. 110-53, § 2405.
[13] As previously mentioned, the characteristics include: (1) look
across the initiatives within each of the management functional units;
(2) clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these
initiatives; (3) identify trade-offs and set priorities; (4) set
implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of these
initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and (5)
identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved.
[14] DHS Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management is intended to be
a corrective action plan outlining the department's framework for its
transformation efforts and methods by which the department will seek to
improve performance in high-risk areas we have identified since 2003.
DHS's Management Directorate Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009 through
2014 sets out the Management Directorate's vision, core values, guiding
principles, goals and objectives, as well as the organizational
structure and responsibilities of the Management Directorate and
department management chiefs.
[15] The CAO strategic plan is for fiscal years 2008-2012, the CIO
strategic plan is for fiscal years 2009-2013, and the CHCO strategic
plan is for fiscal years 2009-2013. The CSO strategic plan does not
include any dates.
[16] DHS, One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: U.S. Department
of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013
(Washington, D.C.: 2008).
[17] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[18] Section 2405 of Pub. L. No. 110-53, 6 U.S.C.§ 341 (c).
[19] Although the USM conducts the DHS CFO's performance evaluation,
the CFO reports to both the Secretary of Homeland Security and the USM,
as established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-
296, 116 Stat. 2135, Nov. 25, 2002 (6 U.S.C. § 342) and the Department
of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (31 U.S.C. § 901
(b)(1)(G)).
[20] Responsibilities of the component management chiefs may not
correspond directly with responsibilities of the department chiefs in
all management functions.
[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 Phone:
The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO‘s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO‘s Web site,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm].
Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537.
Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional
information.
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:
