Coast Guard
Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Related Performance and Management Challenges Gao ID: GAO-09-810T July 7, 2009The U.S. Coast Guard, a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), conducts 11 statutory missions that range from marine safety to defense readiness. To enhance mission performance, the Coast Guard is implementing a modernization program to update its command structure, support systems, and business practices, while continuing the Deepwater program--the acquisition program to replace or upgrade its fleet of vessels and aircraft. This testimony discusses the Coast Guard's (1) fiscal year 2010 budget, (2) mission performance in fiscal year 2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available; and (3) challenges in managing its modernization and acquisition programs and workforce planning. This testimony is based on GAO products issued in 2009 (including GAO-09-530R and GAO-09-620T) and other GAO products issued over the past 11 years--with selected updates in June 2009--and ongoing GAO work regarding the Coast Guard's newest vessel, the National Security Cutter. Also, GAO analyzed budget and mission-performance documents and interviewed Coast Guard officials.
The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2010 budget request totals $9.7 billion, an increase of 4.2 percent over its fiscal year 2009 enacted budget. Of the total requested, about $6.6 billion (or 67 percent) is for operating expenses--the primary appropriation account that finances Coast Guard activities, including operating and maintaining multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units. This account, in comparing the 2010 budget request to the 2009 enacted budget, reflects an increase of $361 million (about 6 percent). The next two largest accounts in the 2010 budget request, at about $1.4 billion each, are (1) acquisition, construction, and improvements and (2) retired pay--with each representing about 14 percent of the Coast Guard's total request. The retired pay account--with an increase of about $125 million in the 2010 budget request compared to the 2009 enacted budget--is second only to the operating expenses account in reference to absolute amount increases, but retired pay reflects the highest percentage increase (about 10 percent) of all accounts. Regarding performance of its 11 statutory missions in fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard reported that it fully met goals for 5 missions, partially met goals for 3 missions, and did not meet goals for 3 missions. One of the fully met goals involved drug interdiction. Specifically, for cocaine being shipped to the United States via non-commercial means, the Coast Guard reported achieving a removal rate of about 34 percent compared to the goal of at least 28 percent. Search and rescue was a mission with partially met goals. The Coast Guard reported that it met one goal (saving at least 76 percent of people from imminent danger in the maritime environment) but narrowly missed a related goal (saving at least 87 percent of mariners in imminent danger) by achieving a success rate of about 84 percent. For missions with unmet goals, the Coast Guard reported falling substantially short of performance targets for only one mission--defense readiness. The Coast Guard reported meeting designated combat readiness levels 56 percent of the time compared to the goal of 100 percent. The Coast Guard continues to face several management challenges. For example, GAO reported in June 2009 that although the Coast Guard has taken steps to monitor the progress of the modernization program, development of performance measures remains in the early stages with no time frame specified for completion. Also, as GAO reported in April 2009, although the Coast Guard has assumed the lead role for managing the Deepwater acquisition program, it has not always adhered to procurement processes, and its budget submissions to Congress do not include detailed cost estimates. GAO also reported that the Coast Guard faces challenges in workforce planning, including difficulties in hiring and retaining qualified acquisition personnel. Further, GAO's ongoing work has noted that delays associated with the Coast Guard's newest vessel, the National Security Cutter, are projected to result in the loss of thousands of cutter operational days for conducting missions through 2017. The Coast Guard is working to manage this operational challenge using various mitigation strategies.
GAO-09-810T, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Related Performance and Management Challenges
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-09-810T
entitled 'Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and
Related Performance and Management Challenges' which was released on
July 7, 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 Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast
Guard, Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, July 7, 2009:
Coast Guard:
Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Related Performance and
Management Challenges:
Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
GAO-09-810T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-09-810T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on
Oceans, Atmosphere, Fisheries, and Coast Guard, Committee on Commerce,
Science, and Transportation, U.S. Senate.
Why GAO Did This Study:
The U.S. Coast Guard, a component of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), conducts 11 statutory missions that range from marine
safety to defense readiness. To enhance mission performance, the Coast
Guard is implementing a modernization program to update its command
structure, support systems, and business practices, while continuing
the Deepwater program”the acquisition program to replace or upgrade its
fleet of vessels and aircraft. This testimony discusses the Coast Guard‘
s (1) fiscal year 2010 budget, (2) mission performance in fiscal year
2008, the most recent year for which statistics are available; and (3)
challenges in managing its modernization and acquisition programs and
workforce planning. This testimony is based on GAO products issued in
2009 (including GAO-09-530R and GAO-09-620T) and other GAO products
issued over the past 11 years”-with selected updates in June 2009”-and
ongoing GAO work regarding the Coast Guard‘s newest vessel, the
National Security Cutter. Also, GAO analyzed budget and mission-
performance documents and interviewed Coast Guard officials.
What GAO Found:
The Coast Guard‘s fiscal year 2010 budget request totals $9.7 billion,
an increase of 4.2 percent over its fiscal year 2009 enacted budget. Of
the total requested, about $6.6 billion (or 67 percent) is for
operating expenses”the primary appropriation account that finances
Coast Guard activities, including operating and maintaining
multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units. This account, in
comparing the 2010 budget request to the 2009 enacted budget, reflects
an increase of $361 million (about 6 percent). The next two largest
accounts in the 2010 budget request, at about $1.4 billion each, are
(1) acquisition, construction, and improvements and (2) retired pay”
with each representing about 14 percent of the Coast Guard‘s total
request. The retired pay account”with an increase of about $125 million
in the 2010 budget request compared to the 2009 enacted budget”is
second only to the operating expenses account in reference to absolute
amount increases, but retired pay reflects the highest percentage
increase (about 10 percent) of all accounts.
Regarding performance of its 11 statutory missions in fiscal year 2008,
the Coast Guard reported that it fully met goals for 5 missions,
partially met goals for 3 missions, and did not meet goals for 3
missions. One of the fully met goals involved drug interdiction.
Specifically, for cocaine being shipped to the United States via non-
commercial means, the Coast Guard reported achieving a removal rate of
about 34 percent compared to the goal of at least 28 percent. Search
and rescue was a mission with partially met goals. The Coast Guard
reported that it met one goal (saving at least 76 percent of people
from imminent danger in the maritime environment) but narrowly missed a
related goal (saving at least 87 percent of mariners in imminent
danger) by achieving a success rate of about 84 percent. For missions
with unmet goals, the Coast Guard reported falling substantially short
of performance targets for only one mission”defense readiness. The
Coast Guard reported meeting designated combat readiness levels 56
percent of the time compared to the goal of 100 percent.
The Coast Guard continues to face several management challenges. For
example, GAO reported in June 2009 that although the Coast Guard has
taken steps to monitor the progress of the modernization program,
development of performance measures remains in the early stages with no
time frame specified for completion. Also, as GAO reported in April
2009, although the Coast Guard has assumed the lead role for managing
the Deepwater acquisition program, it has not always adhered to
procurement processes, and its budget submissions to Congress do not
include detailed cost estimates. GAO also reported that the Coast Guard
faces challenges in workforce planning, including difficulties in
hiring and retaining qualified acquisition personnel. Further, GAO‘s
ongoing work has noted that delays associated with the Coast Guard‘s
newest vessel, the National Security Cutter, are projected to result in
the loss of thousands of cutter operational days for conducting
missions through 2017. The Coast Guard is working to manage this
operational challenge using various mitigation strategies.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO previously has made recommendations to improve planning and other
aspects of the Deepwater program, and DHS is in various stages of
implementing them. GAO provided a copy of the information in this
statement to DHS and incorporated technical comments as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-810T] or key
components. For more information, contact Stephen Caldwell at (202) 512-
9610 or caldwells@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year
2010 budget, mission performance, and related management challenges.
For many years, we have provided Congress with information and
observations on the Coast Guard's budget and related issues. Consistent
with this approach, this statement will include information from our
prior and ongoing work to help provide perspective as appropriate. As
you know, the Coast Guard has grown considerably since 2002 to meet new
homeland security missions while continuing to carry out its
traditional missions such as marine safety and search and rescue
operations. In addition to a substantial budget increase over these
years, the Coast Guard has faced a myriad of new management challenges,
which we have identified in previous reports.[Footnote 1]
To help perform its missions, the Coast Guard is currently implementing
several important programs, including an effort to modernize its
command structure and mission-support processes, while continuing the
Deepwater program--the long-term, multibillion-dollar acquisition
program to upgrade or replace the service's aging fleet of vessels and
aircraft. Given the history of performance and management problems
associated with the Deepwater program, such as cost breaches, schedule
slips, and design defects, the Coast Guard has initiated several major
changes to its acquisition efforts that present a new set of challenges
that must be managed effectively.
This statement discusses:
* the Coast Guard's budget for fiscal year 2010, and additional funds
received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(Recovery Act[Footnote 2]);
* the Coast Guard's mission performance in fiscal year 2008, the most
recent year for which statistics are available;[Footnote 3] and:
* various challenges confronting the Coast Guard in managing its
modernization program, workforce planning efforts, and large-scale
acquisition projects.
This statement is based in part on our prior work completed over the
past 11 years--with selected updates in June 2009--that collectively
address a number of the Coast Guard's programmatic and management
initiatives. The scope of our prior work included reviews of program
documents, such as the Coast Guard's Blueprint for Acquisition Reform;
[Footnote 4] analysis of applicable program databases; and interviews
with Coast Guard officials at headquarters and field units in domestic
and international locations.[Footnote 5] In assessing the Coast Guard's
budget request for fiscal year 2010, we reviewed the President's budget
request for that year and related Coast Guard documents, including the
U.S. Coast Guard Posture Statement, issued in May 2009.[Footnote 6] The
scope of our review did not include evaluating whether the proposed
funding levels were appropriate for the Coast Guard's stated needs. We
also reviewed the Coast Guard's most recent performance report, which
presents mission-specific statistics for fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 7]
In identifying and discussing various management challenges confronting
the Coast Guard, we focused especially on the information presented in
our recently issued products regarding the service's modernization
program and the large-scale Deepwater acquisition program.[Footnote 8]
Also, this statement is based partly on the results of our ongoing work
for the Senate and House Appropriations' Subcommittees on Homeland
Security. Our report on this ongoing work--which involves the Coast
Guard's newest vessel, the National Security Cutter--is anticipated to
be issued later in the summer of 2009.
We conducted the work for this statement from June 2009 to July 2009,
as well as our ongoing 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:
For fiscal year 2010, the Coast Guard's budget request totals $9.7
billion, which is an increase of about $393 million (or 4.2 percent)
over its fiscal year 2009 enacted budget. Of the total $9.7 billion
requested, about $6.6 billion (or 67 percent) is for operating
expenses, which is the primary appropriation account that finances
Coast Guard activities, including operating and maintaining
multipurpose vessels, aircraft, and shore units. The operating expenses
account, in comparing the 2010 budget request to the 2009 enacted
budget, represents an increase of $361 million (or about 6 percent).
The next two largest accounts in the fiscal year 2010 budget request,
at about $1.4 billion each, are (1) acquisition, construction, and
improvements and (2) retired pay. Each of these accounts represents
about 14 percent of the Coast Guard's total budget request for fiscal
year 2010. In reference to absolute amount increases, the retired pay
account--with an increase of about $125 million in the fiscal year 2010
budget request compared to the fiscal year 2009 enacted budget--is
second only to the $361 million increase for the operating expenses
account. Based on percentage increases, however, the retired pay
account reflects the highest percentage increase (about 10 percent) of
all accounts.
Regarding mission performance in fiscal year 2008, the most recent year
for which statistics are available, the Coast Guard reported that it
fully met goals for 5 of its 11 statutory missions, partially met goals
for another 3 missions, and did not meet goals for the other 3
missions. One of the fully met goals, for example, involved drug
interdiction. Specifically, for cocaine being shipped to the United
States via non-commercial means, the Coast Guard reported achieving a
removal rate of about 34 percent compared to the goal of at least 28
percent. The other four missions reported as fully meeting goals were
ports, waterways, and coastal security; marine environmental
protection; other law enforcement; [Footnote 9] and ice operations. The
search and rescue mission was one of the three missions reported as
partially meeting goals. For this mission, which has two performance
goals, the Coast Guard reported that one goal was met (saving at least
76 percent of people from imminent danger in the maritime environment),
but a related goal (saving at least 87 percent of mariners in imminent
danger) was narrowly missed, as reflected by a success rate of about 84
percent. The three missions reported as not meeting fiscal year 2008
performance goals were defense readiness, migrant interdiction, and
living marine resources. However, for missions with unmet goals, the
Coast Guard reported falling substantially short of its performance
target for only one mission--defense readiness. For this mission, the
goal was for Coast Guard assets to meet designated combat readiness
levels 100 percent of the time, but the reported performance was 56
percent. To assess mission performance for fiscal year 2008, the Coast
Guard introduced a number of new performance measures and targets.
Rather than use a single measure for each of its 11 statutory missions
as in prior years, the Coast Guard reported on a total of 21
performance measures. The Coast Guard intended for these changes to
better capture the breadth of key mission activities and the results
achieved and were informed by collaboration with other federal
agencies, including the DHS Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation
and us.
The Coast Guard continues to face several management challenges that we
have identified in prior work and as part of our ongoing efforts to
assess the Coast Guard's workforce planning challenges and operational
impacts resulting from acquisition-related delays. For example, the
Coast Guard is currently undertaking a major effort--referred to as the
modernization program--intended to improve mission execution by
updating the service's command structure, support systems, and business
practices. In June 2009, we reported that although the Coast Guard has
taken several efforts to monitor the progress of the modernization
program, development of applicable performance measures remains in the
early stages with no time frame specified for completion.[Footnote 10]
Our work has also noted significant challenges that the Coast Guard
faces in assessing personnel needs and developing an adequate workforce
plan.[Footnote 11] For example, the Coast Guard has identified
continued difficulties in hiring and retaining qualified acquisition
personnel--leaving 138 available acquisition positions unfilled as of
April 2009. In addition to personnel challenges, the Deepwater
acquisition program continues to be a source of several distinct
management challenges. For example, while the Coast Guard has assumed
lead responsibility for planning, organizing, and integrating the
individual assets comprising the Deepwater acquisition program, the
Coast Guard has not always adhered to disciplined procurement
processes, and its budget submissions to Congress do not include
detailed cost estimates. Moreover, the ongoing delays associated with
the acquisition of Deepwater assets, such as Fast Response Cutters
[Footnote 12] and National Security Cutters,[Footnote 13] have resulted
in operational impacts, such as the projected loss of thousands of days
of availability for the National Security Cutter to conduct missions
until 2017. The Coast Guard is working to manage these impacts using
various mitigation strategies.
In our previous reports on the Deepwater acquisition program, we have
made a number of recommendations to improve the management of the
program, and the Coast Guard has implemented or is in the process of
implementing the recommendations. We provided a copy of the information
in this statement to DHS and the Coast Guard and incorporated technical
comments as appropriate.
Background:
A component of DHS, the Coast Guard is a multimission military service
that serves as the principal federal agency responsible for maritime
safety, security, and environmental stewardship. In addition to being
one of the five Armed Services of the United States, the Coast Guard
serves as a law enforcement and regulatory agency with broad domestic
authorities. In its most recent Posture Statement, the Coast Guard
reported having nearly 49,900 full-time positions--about 42,600
military and 7,300 civilians. In addition, the service reported that it
has about 8,100 reservists who support the national military strategy
or provide additional operational support or surge capacity during
times of emergency, such as natural disasters. The Coast Guard also
reported that it utilizes the services of approximately 29,000
volunteer auxiliary personnel who conduct a wide array of activities,
ranging from search and rescue to boating education. The Coast Guard
has responsibilities that fall under two broad mission categories--
homeland security and non-homeland security. Within these categories,
the Coast Guard's primary activities are further divided into 11
statutory missions, as shown in table 1.
Table 1: Coast Guard Homeland Security and Non-Homeland Security
Missions:
Statutory missions[A]: Homeland security missions: Ports, waterways,
and coastal security;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Conducting harbor patrols, vulnerability assessments, intelligence
gathering and analysis, and other activities to prevent terrorist
attacks and minimize the damage from attacks that occur.
Statutory missions[A]: Homeland security missions: Defense readiness;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Participating with the Department of Defense in global military
operations;
* Deploying cutters and other boats in and around harbors to protect
Department of Defense force mobilization operations.
Statutory missions[A]: Homeland security missions: Migrant
interdiction; Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard
mission:
* Deploying cutters and aircraft to reduce the flow of undocumented
migrants entering the United States via maritime routes.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Drug
interdiction;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Deploying cutters and aircraft in high drug-trafficking areas;
* Gathering intelligence to reduce the flow of illegal drugs through
maritime transit routes.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Aids to
navigation;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Managing U.S. waterways and providing a safe, efficient, and
navigable marine transportation system;
* Maintaining the extensive system of navigation aids; monitoring
marine traffic through vessel traffic service centers.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Search and
rescue;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Operating multimission stations and a national distress and response
communication system;
* Conducting search and rescue operations for mariners in distress.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Living marine
resources;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Enforcing domestic fishing laws and regulations through inspections
and fishery patrols.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Marine safety;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Setting standards and conducting vessel inspections to better ensure
the safety of passengers and crew aboard commercial vessels;
* Partnering with states and boating safety organizations to reduce
recreational boating deaths.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Marine
environmental protection;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Preventing and responding to marine oil and chemical spills;
* Preventing the illegal dumping of plastics and garbage in U.S.
waters;
* Preventing biological invasions by aquatic nuisance species.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Other law
enforcement (foreign fish enforcement);
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Protecting U.S. fishing grounds by ensuring that foreign fishermen do
not illegally harvest U.S. fish stocks.
Statutory missions[A]: Non-homeland security missions: Ice operations;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Conducting polar operations to facilitate the movement of critical
goods and personnel in support of scientific and national security
activity;
* Conducting domestic icebreaking operations to facilitate year-round
commerce;
* Conducting international ice operations to track icebergs below the
48th north latitude.
Source: Coast Guard.
[A] The Coast Guard's homeland security and non-homeland security
missions are delineated in section 888 of the Homeland Security Act of
2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135, 2249 (2002)). Starting with
the fiscal year 2007 budget, however, the Office of Management and
Budget designated the Coast Guard's drug interdiction and other law
enforcement missions--which were originally homeland security missions--
as non-homeland security missions for budgetary purposes.
[End of table]
For each of these 11 missions, the Coast Guard has developed
performance measures to communicate agency performance and provide
information for the budgeting process to Congress, other policymakers,
and taxpayers. Each year, the Coast Guard undergoes a process to assess
performance and establish performance targets for the subsequent year.
In May 2009, the Coast Guard published its most recent performance
report, which presents the service's accomplishments for fiscal year
2008.
To help carry out its missions, the Coast Guard has a large-scale
acquisition program, called Deepwater, under way to modernize its
fleet.[Footnote 14] The Deepwater program now includes projects to
build or modernize five classes each of vessels and aircraft, as well
as to procure other capabilities such as improved command, control,
communications, computer, intelligence, surveillance, and
reconnaissance systems. To carry out these acquisitions, the Coast
Guard awarded a contract in June 2002 to Integrated Coast Guard Systems
(ICGS), a joint venture formed by Lockheed Martin Corporation and
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems, to serve as a systems integrator.
However, in April 2007, the Coast Guard acknowledged it had relied too
heavily on contractors. This reliance, among other concerns,
contributed to an inability to control costs. As a result, the Coast
Guard initiated several major changes to the acquisition approach to
Deepwater, the key one being that the Coast Guard would take over the
lead role in systems integration from ICGS.
Coast Guard Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2010 Is 4.2 Percent Higher
than the Previous Year's Enacted Budget, but Long-Term Budget Outlook
Remains Uncertain:
The Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2010 is $9.73 billion,
which is approximately $393 million (or 4.2 percent) more than the
service's enacted budget for fiscal year 2009 (see table 2).[Footnote
15] These calculations do not include either the supplemental funding
of $242.5 million that the Coast Guard reported receiving in fiscal
year 2009 or the $240 million provided by the Recovery Act (discussed
below). When the supplemental and the Recovery Act funding are taken
into account and added to the fiscal year 2009 enacted budget, the
calculations reflect a decrease of about 1 percent from fiscal year
2009 to fiscal year 2010.
Of the $9.73 billion requested for fiscal year 2010, about $6.6
billion, or approximately 67 percent, is for operating expenses (OE).
The OE account is the primary appropriation that finances the Coast
Guard's activities, including operating and maintaining multipurpose
vessels, aircraft, and shore units. In comparing the 2010 budget
request to the 2009 enacted budget, funding for the OE account
represents an increase of $361 million (or about 6 percent). The next
two largest accounts in the fiscal year 2010 budget request--each with
funding at about $1.4 billion--are the acquisition, construction, and
improvements account (AC&I) and the retired pay account. Collectively,
these two accounts represent about 28 percent of the Coast Guard's
total budget request for fiscal year 2010. In terms of percentage
increases in comparing the 2010 budget request to the 2009 enacted
budget, the retired pay account reflects the highest percentage
increase (about 10 percent) of all accounts.[Footnote 16]
Table 2: Comparison of Coast Guard's Budget Request for Fiscal Year
2010 and the Enacted Budget for Fiscal Year 2009:
Appropriation Account: Operating expenses;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $6,194.9;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $6,556.2;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $361.3;
Percentage change: 5.8%.
Appropriation Account: Acquisition, construction, and improvements;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $1,474.6;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $1,384.0;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): -$90.6;
Percentage change: -6.1%.
Appropriation Account: Retired pay;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $1,236.7;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $1,361.2;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $124.5;
Percentage change: 10.1%.
Appropriation Account: Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
Contribution;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $257.3;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $266.0;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $8.7;
Percentage change: 3.4%.
Appropriation Account: Reserve training;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $130.5;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $133.6;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $3.1;
Percentage change: 2.4%.
Appropriation Account: Research, development, test, and evaluation;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $18.0;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $19.7;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $1.7;
Percentage change: 9.7%.
Appropriation Account: Alteration of bridges;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $16.0;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): 0.0[A];
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): -$16.0;
Percentage change: -100.0%.
Appropriation Account: Environmental compliance;
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $13.0;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $13.2;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $0.2;
Percentage change: 1.5%.
Appropriation Account: Total[B];
Enacted budget for FY 2009 (in millions): $9,341.1;
Budget request for FY 2010 (in millions): $9,734.0;
Difference between FY 2010 budget request and FY 2009 enacted budget:
Amount (in millions): $392.9;
Percentage change: 4.2%.
Source: Coast Guard.
Note: The numbers in the table for fiscal year 2009 do not include
supplemental funding and Recovery Act funding (discussed below).
[A] As discussed later in this statement, the Coast Guard has plans to
use $142 million in funding received under the Recovery Act to fund
bridge alteration projects in four states.
[B] Column totals may not add due to rounding.
[End of table]
According to the Coast Guard, some of the key initiatives for fiscal
year 2010 include increasing the number of marine inspectors and
investigative officers, and supporting financial management
improvements, among others. Furthermore, as a result of the emergence
of the U.S. Global Positioning System (a space-based system of
satellites) as an aid to navigation, the long-range radio-navigation
system known as LORAN-C (a terrestrial-based system operated by the
Coast Guard) is expected to be terminated in fiscal year 2010.[Footnote
17] This termination, according to the Coast Guard, is projected to
result in a savings of $36 million in fiscal year 2010 and additional
savings of $154 million over the following 4 years.
Although the Coast Guard receives funding by appropriation account
rather than by individual missions, the Coast Guard provides an
estimated comparison of homeland security versus non-homeland security
funding as part of its annual budget request. Based on these estimates,
the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2010 budget request for homeland security
missions represents approximately 36 percent of the service's overall
budget, with the non-homeland security funding representing
approximately 64 percent. However, as a multimission agency, the Coast
Guard notes that it may conduct multiple mission activities
simultaneously. For example, a multimission asset conducting a security
escort is also monitoring safety within the harbor and could
potentially be diverted to conduct a search and rescue case. As a
result, it is difficult to accurately detail the level of resources
dedicated to each mission. Figure 1 shows the Coast Guard's estimated
funding levels for fiscal year 2010 by each statutory mission.
Figure 1: Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2010 Budget Request by Statutory
Mission (Dollars in millions):
[Refer to PDF for image: vertical bar graph]
Mission: Non-homeland security: Search and rescue;
Budget request: $972,434.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Marine safety;
Budget request: $594,009.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Aids to navigation;
Budget request: $1,201,650.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Ice operations;
Budget request: $137,904.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Marine environmental protection;
Budget request: $203,587.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Living marine resources;
Budget request: $851,336.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Drug interdiction;
Budget request: $1,288,285.
Mission: Non-homeland security: Other law enforcement;
Budget request: $138,748.
Mission: Homeland Security: Migrant interdiction;
Budget request: $524,757.
Mission: Homeland Security: Ports, waterways, and coastal security;
Budget request: $1,924,760.
Mission: Homeland Security: Defense readiness;
Budget request: $535,279.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
[End of figure]
In addition to the Coast Guard's enacted budget for fiscal year 2009,
the Coast Guard has received $240 million of funding under the Recovery
Act. According to the Coast Guard, the service's Recovery Act funds are
to be allocated as follows:
* $142 million is to be used to fund bridge alteration projects in four
states--the Mobile Bridge in Hurricane, Alabama; the EJ&E Bridge in
Devine, Illinois; the Burlington Bridge in Burlington, Iowa; and the
Galveston Causeway Railroad Bridge in Galveston, Texas.
* $88 million in Recovery Act funds is to support shore infrastructure
projects--construction of personnel housing, boat moorings, and other
improvements--in Alaska, Delaware, North Carolina, Oregon, Virginia,
and Washington.
* $10 million is to help upgrade or replace worn or obsolete components
on the Coast Guard's fleet of 12 High Endurance Cutters. The 40-plus-
year-old cutters benefiting from the Recovery Act-funded projects are
based in Kodiak, Alaska; Alameda and San Diego, California; Honolulu,
Hawaii; Charleston, South Carolina; and Seattle, Washington.
While the Coast Guard's budget has increased considerably since 2003,
the long-term budget outlook for the agency is uncertain. From fiscal
year 2003 through fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard's budget increased
an average of 5.5 percent per year. However, this administration's
current budget projections indicate that the DHS annual budget is
expected to remain constant or decrease over the next 10 years. It is
important to note that these budget projections are nominal figures,
which are not adjusted or normalized for inflation. Thus, if
inflationary pressures arise in future years, budgetary resources
available to DHS could be further strained. Given the uncertainty of
future budgets, it remains important for the Coast Guard to ensure that
limited resources are utilized most effectively to successfully manage
existing challenges and emerging needs. For example, as we reported in
March 2008, affordability of the Deepwater program has been an ongoing
concern for many years, and will continue to be a major challenge to
the Coast Guard given the other demands upon the agency for both
capital and operations spending.[Footnote 18] The increasing demand for
Coast Guard resources in the arctic region also presents an emerging
challenge that will need to be balanced against competing priorities.
For example, two of the Coast Guard's three polar icebreakers are more
than 30 years old and, and in 2008 the Coast Guard estimated that it
could cost between $800 million to $925 million dollars per ship to
procure new replacement ships. Such needs could pose challenges to the
Coast Guard in an era of increased budget constraints.
Coast Guard Reported on Several New Performance Measures for Fiscal
Year 2008:
Each year, the Coast Guard conducts a process of performance
evaluation, improvement planning, and target setting for the upcoming
year. According to the Coast Guard, this process helps ensure that the
performance measures and associated targets adequately represent
desired Coast Guard mission outcomes, are reflective of key drivers and
trends, and meet applicable standards for federal performance
accounting. In addition, as part of a larger DHS effort, the Coast
Guard conducted a more comprehensive evaluation of its performance
measures in fiscal year 2008. This evaluation process included input on
potential improvements to the Coast Guard's performance measures from
the DHS Office of Program Analysis and Evaluation and us.
Consequently, the Coast Guard initiated a number of changes to its
performance reporting for fiscal year 2008 to better capture the
breadth of key mission activities and the results achieved. Our review
of the Coast Guard's performance reporting for fiscal year 2008
indicates that the Coast Guard revised or broadened several existing
measures. As a result, the Coast Guard reported on a total of 21
primary performance measures for fiscal year 2008--3 homeland security
mission measures and 18 non-homeland security mission measures. This
represents a substantial change from previous years, in which the Coast
Guard reported on a single performance measure for each of the
service's 11 statutory missions (see app. I for a list of the primary
performance measures and reported performance results for fiscal years
2004 through 2008). One of the principal changes involved the
disaggregation of existing measures into several distinct component
measures. For example, in prior years, the marine safety mission was
assessed using one primary measure--the 5-year average annual mariner,
passenger, and recreational boating deaths and injuries. However, the
Coast Guard reported on six different measures for the marine safety
mission in fiscal year 2008--annual deaths and injuries for each of
three separate categories of individuals (commercial mariners,
commercial passengers, and recreational boaters) as well as 5-year
averages of each of these three categories.
As indicated in table 3, the Coast Guard reported meeting 15 of its 21
performance targets in fiscal year 2008.
Table 3: Coast Guard Mission Performance Results for Fiscal Year 2008:
Coast Guard mission: Missions meeting 2008 performance targets: Ports,
waterways, and coastal security;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions meeting 2008 performance targets: Drug
interdiction;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions meeting 2008 performance targets: Marine
environmental protection;
Number of performance measures: 4;
Number of performance targets met: 4.
Coast Guard mission: Missions meeting 2008 performance targets: Other
law enforcement;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions meeting 2008 performance targets: Ice
operations;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions partially meeting 2008 performance
targets: Aids to navigation;
Number of performance measures: 2;
Number of performance targets met: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions partially meeting 2008 performance
targets: Search and rescue;
Number of performance measures: 2;
Number of performance targets met: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions partially meeting 2008 performance
targets: Marine safety;
Number of performance measures: 6;
Number of performance targets met: 5.
Coast Guard mission: Missions that did not meet 2008 performance
targets: Defense readiness;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 0.
Coast Guard mission: Missions that did not meet 2008 performance
targets: Migrant interdiction;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 0.
Coast Guard mission: Missions that did not meet 2008 performance
targets: Living marine resources;
Number of performance measures: 1;
Number of performance targets met: 0.
Coast Guard mission: Total;
Number of performance measures: 21;
Number of performance targets met: 15.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data (see table 4 in appendix I).
[End of table]
Also, table 3 shows that the Coast Guard reported meeting all
performance targets for 5 of the 11 statutory missions--ports,
waterways, and coastal security; drug interdiction; marine
environmental protection; other law enforcement; and ice operations.
[Footnote 19] Regarding the drug interdiction mission, for example, the
fiscal year goal was to achieve a removal rate of at least 28 percent
for cocaine being shipped to the United States via non-commercial
means. The Coast Guard reported achieving a removal rate of 34 percent.
For another 3 of the 11 statutory missions--aids to navigation, search
and rescue, and marine safety--the Coast Guard reported partially
meeting performance targets. For each of these missions, the Coast
Guard did not meet at least one performance target among the suite of
different measures used to assess mission performance. For example,
regarding the search and rescue mission, which has two performance
goals, the Coast Guard reported that one goal was met (saving at least
76 percent of people from imminent danger in the maritime environment),
but the other goal (saving at least 87 percent of mariners in imminent
danger) was narrowly missed, as reflected by a success rate of about 84
percent.
For the other 3 statutory missions--defense readiness, migrant
interdiction, and living marine resources--the Coast Guard reported
that it did not meet fiscal year 2008 performance targets. However, for
these missions, the Coast Guard reported falling substantially short of
its performance target for only one mission--defense readiness.
Although performance for this mission rose slightly--from 51 percent in
fiscal year 2007 to 56 percent in fiscal year 2008--the Coast Guard's
goal was to meet designated combat readiness levels 100 percent of the
time. However, the Coast Guard remains optimistic that the relevant
systems, personnel, and training issues--which are being addressed in
part by the Deepwater acquisition program--will result in enhanced
capability for all missions, including defense readiness. Yet, the
Coast Guard further noted in its annual performance report that it is
reviewing the defense readiness metrics to determine what potential
changes, if any, need to be made.
In comparison, the Coast Guard met targets for 6 of its 11 statutory
missions in fiscal year 2007. The overall reduction in the number of
missions meeting performance targets in fiscal year 2008 is largely
because of the inability of the Coast Guard to meet its performance
target for the migrant interdiction mission. However, this may be
attributed, in part, to the new measure used for the migrant
interdiction mission for fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 20] Regarding the
three statutory missions whose performance targets were not met, the
Coast Guard's reported performance generally remained steady in fiscal
year 2008 compared with previous years, and the Coast Guard was
relatively close to meeting its performance targets. For example, for
the migrant interdiction and living marine resources missions, the
Coast Guard reported achieving over 96 and 98 percent of the respective
performance targets.
The Ongoing Modernization Program, Workforce Planning Issues, and Large-
Scale Acquisitions Present Management Challenges:
The Coast Guard faces a number of different management challenges that
we have identified in prior work. Highlighted below are four such
challenges that the Coast Guard faces as it proceeds with efforts to
modernize its organization, address shifting workforce needs, manage
the Deepwater acquisition program, and mitigate operational issues
caused by delays in the Deepwater program.
The Coast Guard Has an Ongoing Modernization Program, but Work Remains
to Develop Performance Metrics:
The Coast Guard is currently undertaking a major effort--referred to as
the modernization program--which is intended to improve mission
execution by updating the service's command structure, support systems,
and business practices. The modernization program is specifically
focused on transforming or realigning the service's command structure
from a geographically bifurcated structure into a functionally
integrated structure--as well as updating mission support systems, such
as maintenance, logistics, financial management, human resources,
acquisitions, and information technology.
The Coast Guard has several efforts under way or planned for monitoring
the progress of the modernization program and identifying needed
improvements. For example, the Coast Guard has established timelines
that identify the sequencing and target dates for key actions related
to the modernization program consistent with project management
principles.[Footnote 21] Our prior work has shown that such action-
oriented goals along with associated timelines and milestones are
critical to successful organizational transformation efforts and are
necessary to track an organization's progress toward its goals.
[Footnote 22] However, as we reported in June 2009, the Coast Guard's
efforts to develop applicable performance measures to evaluate results
of the modernization program remain in the early stages.[Footnote 23]
For example, the Coast Guard has begun to identify key internal
activities and outputs required for mission execution within the
realigned organizational structure. This effort, expected to be
completed in summer 2009, is intended as a preliminary step before
identifying associated business metrics that can be used to evaluate
how the modernization program has impacted the delivery of core
services and products. However, Coast Guard officials were still in the
process of developing a specific time frame for the estimated
completion of this next step. As outlined in the Government Performance
and Results Act of 1993[Footnote 24] and Standards for Internal Control
in the Federal Government,[Footnote 25] performance measures are
important to reinforce the connection between long-term strategic goals
and the day-to-day activities of management and staff.
In April 2008, to evaluate aspects of the modernization program and
identify potential improvements, the Coast Guard engaged the National
Academy of Public Administration (NAPA) to conduct a third-party,
independent review.[Footnote 26] After completing its review, NAPA
provided a report to the Coast Guard in April 2009.[Footnote 27] The
report recognized that the Coast Guard's planned organizational
realignment "makes logical sense" and that the service's leadership "is
collectively engaged" to improve mission execution and support-related
business processes. NAPA cautioned, however, that the Coast Guard
remains in the early stages of its organizational transformation. To
help mitigate potential implementation risks and facilitate a
successful modernization process, NAPA recommended, among other steps,
that the Coast Guard develop a clear quantifiable business case for
modernization, measurement tools, and a process of metrics assessment
to track modernization progress and the effects on mission execution.
[Footnote 28]
Similar to GAO's findings, NAPA concluded that one of the key
challenges faced by the Coast Guard is the development of adequate
measures to assess the progress and outcomes of the modernization
program. NAPA noted that such measures are important to ensure that the
impacts of modernization are aligned with intended objectives and that
they provide an opportunity to "course-correct" as necessary. NAPA
further noted that the development of appropriate measurement tools
will help to provide quantifiable support for the modernization
business case and facilitate stakeholder buy-in. After receiving NAPA's
report, the Coast Guard established a new organizational entity--the
Coast Guard Enterprise Strategy, Management and Doctrine Oversight
Directorate. Among other functions, this directorate is to be
responsible for strategic analysis, performance management, and ongoing
coordination of change initiatives within the modernization effort and
beyond.
Workforce Planning Presents Challenges for the Coast Guard:
Generally, it has been noted by Congress and supported by our past
reviews that the Coast Guard faces significant challenges in assessing
personnel needs and providing a workforce to meet the increased tempo
of maritime security missions as well as to conduct traditional marine
safety missions such as search and rescue, aids to navigation, vessel
safety, and domestic ice breaking.[Footnote 29] Workforce planning
challenges are further exacerbated by the increasingly complex and
technologically advanced job performance requirements of the Coast
Guard's missions. Workforce planning challenges include managing the
assignments of military personnel who are subject to being rotated
among billets and multiple missions. As we have previously reported,
rotation policies can affect, for example, the Coast Guard's ability to
develop professional expertise in its personnel and to retain qualified
personnel as they progress in their careers.[Footnote 30]
In October 2008, the Coast Guard received congressional direction to
develop a workforce plan that would identify the staffing levels
necessary for active duty and reserve military members, as well as for
civilian employees, to carry out all Coast Guard missions. The
workforce plan is to include (1) a gap analysis of the mission areas
that continue to need resources and the type of personnel necessary to
address those needs; (2) a strategy, including funding, milestones, and
a timeline for addressing personnel gaps for each category of employee;
(3) specific strategies for recruiting individuals for hard-to-fill
positions; and (4) any additional authorities and resources necessary
to address staffing requirements.[Footnote 31] In response, the Coast
Guard plans to provide Congress with a workforce plan this summer. As
part of our ongoing work for the House Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee, we plan to review the Coast Guard's workforce
plan. The scope of our work includes assessing whether the Coast
Guard's workforce plan comports with the parameters set out by DHS
guidance[Footnote 32]and contains the elements that we previously
reported as being essential for effective workforce plans.[Footnote 33]
Our scope will also include assessing the Coast Guard's related
workforce initiatives, such as the Sector Staffing Model[Footnote 34]
and the Officer Specialty Management System.[Footnote 35]
As an example of its workforce planning challenges, the Coast Guard
cites continued difficulties in hiring and retaining qualified
acquisition personnel--challenges that pose a risk to the successful
execution of the service's acquisition programs. According to Coast
Guard human capital officials, the service has funding for 855
acquisition-program personnel (military and civilian personnel) but has
filled 717 of these positions, leaving 16 percent of the positions
unfilled, as of April 2009. The Coast Guard has identified some of
these unfilled positions as core to the acquisition workforce, such as
contracting officers and specialists, program management support staff,
and engineering and technical specialists.[Footnote 36]
In addition, the Coast Guard has begun to address several workforce
planning challenges raised by Congress related to its marine safety
mission. In November 2008, the Coast Guard published the U.S. Coast
Guard Marine Safety Performance Plan FY2009-2014, which is designed to
reduce maritime casualties, facilitate commerce, improve program
processes and management, and improve human resource capabilities. The
Coast Guard recognized that marine safety inspectors and investigators
need increased competency to fulfill this mission. The plan sets out
specific objectives, goals, and courses of action to improve this
competency by building capacity of inspectors and investigators, adding
civilian positions, creating centers of expertise specific to marine
safety, and expanding opportunities for training in marine safety. As
noted, the challenge for the Coast Guard is to successfully implement
this plan, along with the others we have described above.
The Coast Guard Has Taken Steps to Become the Deepwater Systems
Integrator, but Some Concerns Remain Regarding Procurement Processes
and Cost Reporting:
In addition to workforce planning challenges, the Coast Guard faces
other acquisition-related challenges in managing the Deepwater program.
The Coast Guard has taken steps to become the systems integrator for
the Deepwater program and, as such, is responsible for planning,
organizing, and integrating the individual assets into a system-of-
systems to meet the service's requirements.[Footnote 37] First, the
Coast Guard has reduced the scope of work performed by ICGS[Footnote
38] and has assigned those functions to Coast Guard stakeholders. For
example, in March 2009, the Coast Guard issued a task order to ICGS
limited to tasks such as data management and quality assurance for
assets currently under contract with ICGS. The Coast Guard has no plans
to award additional orders to ICGS for systems integrator functions
when this task order expires in February 2011. Second, as part of its
system integration responsibilities, the Coast Guard has initiated a
fundamental reassessment of the capabilities, number, and mix of assets
it needs to fulfill its Deepwater missions by undertaking a "fleet mix
analysis." The goals of this study include validating mission
performance requirements and revisiting the number and mix of all
assets that are part of the Deepwater program. According to the Coast
Guard, it hopes to complete this study later this summer. Third, at the
individual Deepwater asset level, the Coast Guard has improved and
begun to apply the disciplined management process found in its Major
Systems Acquisition Manual, which requires documentation and approval
of acquisition decisions at key points in a program's life-cycle by
designated officials at high levels. However, as we reported in April
2009, the Coast Guard did not meet its goal of complete adherence to
this process for all Deepwater assets by the second quarter of fiscal
year 2009.[Footnote 39] For example, key acquisition management
activities--such as operational requirements documents and test plans--
are not in place for assets with contracts recently awarded or in
production, placing the Coast Guard at risk of cost overruns or
schedule slippages. In the meantime, as we reported in April 2009, the
Coast Guard continues with production of certain assets and award of
new contracts in light of what it views as pressing operational needs.
Since the establishment of the $24.2 billion baseline estimate for the
Deepwater program in 2007, the anticipated cost, schedules, and
capabilities of many of the Deepwater assets have changed, in part
because of the Coast Guard's increased insight into what it is buying.
Coast Guard officials stated that the original baseline was intended to
establish cost, schedule, and operational requirements as a whole,
which were then allocated to the major assets comprising the Deepwater
program. As a result, the baseline figure did not reflect a traditional
cost estimate, which generally assesses costs at the asset level, but
rather the overall anticipated costs as determined by the contractor.
However, as the Coast Guard has assumed greater responsibility for
management of the Deepwater program, it has begun to improve its
understanding of costs by developing its own cost baselines for
individual assets using traditional cost estimating procedures and
assumptions. As a result of these revised baselines, the Coast Guard
has determined that some of the assets it is procuring may cost more
than anticipated. As we reported in April 2009, information showed that
the total cost of the program may grow by $2.1 billion. As more
baselines for other assets are approved by DHS, further cost growth may
become apparent. These cost increases present the Coast Guard with
additional challenges involving potential tradeoffs associated with
quantity or capability reductions for Deepwater assets. In addition,
our April 2009 testimony noted that while the Coast Guard plans to
update its annual budget requests with asset-based cost information,
the current structure of its budget submission to Congress does not
include certain details at the asset level, such as estimates of total
costs and total numbers to be procured.
In our previous reports on the Deepwater program, we have made a number
of recommendations to improve the Coast Guard's management of the
program. The Coast Guard has implemented or is in the process of
implementing these recommendations.[Footnote 40]
Problems in Deepwater Management and Oversight Have Led to Delivery
Delays and Other Operational Challenges That the Coast Guard Is Working
to Overcome:
Other management challenges associated with the Deepwater program have
operational or mission performance implications for the Coast Guard.
Our prior reports and testimonies have identified problems with
management and oversight of the Deepwater program that have led to
delivery delays and other operational challenges for certain assets--
particularly (1) patrol boats and their anticipated replacements, the
Fast Response Cutters and (2) and the National Security Cutters. The
Coast Guard is working to overcome these issues, as discussed below.
As we reported in June 2006, under the original (2002) Deepwater
implementation plan, all 49 of the Coast Guard's 110-foot patrol boats
were to be converted into 123-foot patrol boats with increased
capabilities as a bridging strategy until their replacement vessel (the
Fast Response Cutter) became operational.[Footnote 41] Conversion of
the first eight 110-foot patrol boats proved unsuccessful, however, and
effective November 2006, the Coast Guard decided to remove these
vessels from service and accelerate the design and delivery of the
replacement Fast Response Cutters. The removal from service of the
eight converted patrol boats in 2006 created operational challenges by
reducing potential patrol boat availability by 20,000 annual
operational hours.[Footnote 42] For example, fewer patrol boats
available on the water may affect the level of deterrence provided as
part of homeland security missions and reduce the Coast Guard's ability
to surge during periods of high demand, such as may occur during
missions to interdict illegal drugs and undocumented migrants.
To mitigate the loss of these patrol boats and their associated
operational hours in the near term, the Coast Guard implemented a
number of strategies beginning in fiscal year 2007. For example, the
Coast Guard began using the crews from the eight patrol boats removed
from service to augment the crews of eight other patrol boats, thereby
providing two crews that can alternate time operating each of the eight
patrol boats (i.e., double-crewing). According to Coast Guard
officials, additional strategies employed by the Coast Guard that are
still in use include increasing the operational hours of 87-foot patrol
boats and acquiring four new 87-foot patrol boats, among others.
[Footnote 43] To help fill the longer-term patrol boat operational gap,
Coast Guard officials are pursuing the acquisition of a commercially
available Fast Response Cutter. The first of these cutters is scheduled
to be delivered in early fiscal year 2011, and the Coast Guard intends
to acquire a total of 12 by early fiscal year 2013. While the contract
is for the design and production of up to 34 cutters, the Coast Guard
plans to assess the capabilities of the first 12 Fast Response Cutters
before exercising options for additional cutters.
Regarding National Security Cutters, the first vessel (National
Security Cutter USCGC Bertholf) was initially projected for delivery in
2006, but slipped to August 2007 after design changes made following
the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and was again delayed
until May 2008 because of damage to the shipyard caused by Hurricane
Katrina. Based on the results of our ongoing review, the USCGC Bertholf
will likely be 1 year behind schedule when it is certified as fully
operational, scheduled for the fourth quarter of fiscal year
2010.[Footnote 44] Further, the eighth and final National Security
Cutter was to be fully operational in 2016 but is currently projected
to be fully operational by the fourth quarter of calendar year 2018.
The Coast Guard has not yet acquired the unmanned aircraft and new
small boats that are to support the National Security Cutters. The
Coast Guard plans to draft operational specifications for the unmanned
aircraft in 2010, and to acquire new small boats that are expected to
be deployed with the first National Security Cutter by the end of
calendar year 2010. After the unmanned aircraft is selected, the Coast
Guard must contract for the acquisition and production of the unmanned
aircraft, accept delivery of it, and test its capabilities before
deploying it with the National Security Cutter--activities that can
take several years. Delays in the delivery of the National Security
Cutters and the associated support assets are expected to lead to a
projected loss of thousands of anticipated cutter operational days for
conducting missions through 2017, and may prevent the Coast Guard from
employing the full capabilities of the National Security Cutters and
the support assets for several years. Given the enhanced capabilities
that the Coast Guard believes the National Security Cutters have over
existing assets, a loss in operational days could negatively affect the
Coast Guard's ability to more effectively conduct missions, such as
enforcement of domestic fishing laws, interdiction of illegal drugs and
undocumented migrants, and participation in Department of Defense
operations.
To address these potential operational gaps, the Coast Guard has
decided to continue to rely on its aging fleet of High Endurance
Cutters and to use existing aircraft and small boats to support the
National Security Cutters. However, because the High Endurance Cutters
are increasingly unreliable, the Coast Guard plans to perform a series
of upgrades and maintenance procedures on selected vessels. However,
before this work begins, the Coast Guard plans to conduct an analysis
on the condition of the High Endurance Cutters and complete a
decommissioning schedule. As a result, work on the first selected High
Endurance Cutter is not scheduled for completion until 2016. Until the
Coast Guard has acquired new unmanned aircraft and small boats, the
Coast Guard plans to support the National Security Cutters with the
small boats and manned aircraft it currently uses to support the High
Endurance Cutter. We will continue to assess this issue as part of our
ongoing work and plan to issue a report on the results later this
summer.
Madam Chair and Members of the Subcommittee, this completes my prepared
statement. I will be happy to respond to any questions that you or
other Members of the Subcommittee may have.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
For information about this statement, please contact Stephen L.
Caldwell, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, at (202) 512-
9610, or caldwells@gao.gov. Contact points for our Office of
Congressional Relations and Office of Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this statement. Other individuals making key
contributions to this testimony include Danny Burton, Christopher
Conrad, Paul Hobart, Christoph Hoashi-Erhardt, Dawn Hoff, Lori Kmetz,
Ryan Lambert, David Lutter, and Ellen Wolfe.
[End of section]
Appendix I: Performance Results by Mission, Fiscal Years 2004 through
2008:
This appendix provides a detailed list of performance results for the
Coast Guard's 11 statutory missions for fiscal years 2004 through 2008
(see table 4).
Table 4: Coast Guard Performance Results by Mission, Fiscal Year 2004
through Fiscal Year 2008:
Missions meeting 2008 performance targets:
Coast Guard mission: Ports, waterways, and coastal security;
Mission performance measures: Percentage reduction in maritime
terrorism risk over which the Coast Guard has influence;
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: 14%;
Performance results: 2006: 18%;
Performance results: 2007: 15%;
Performance results: 2008: 20%;
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 15%.
Coast Guard mission: Drug interdiction;
Mission performance measures: Removal rate for cocaine shipped via non-
commercial maritime means[A];
Performance results: 2004: 30.7%;
Performance results: 2005: 27.3%;
Performance results: 2006: 25.3%;
Performance results: 2007: 32.6%;
Performance results: 2008: 33.8%[B];
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 28%.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection[C];
Mission performance measures: 5-year average number of oil spills
greater than 100 gallons per 100 million short tons shipped;
Performance results: 2004: 17.2;
Performance results: 2005: 15.4;
Performance results: 2006: 13.6;
Performance results: 2007: 13.9;
Performance results: 2008: 12.7;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 13.5.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection[C];
Mission performance measures: Annual number of oil spills greater than
100 gallons;
Performance results: 2004: 162;
Performance results: 2005: 155;
Performance results: 2006: 165;
Performance results: 2007: 135;
Performance results: 2008: 111;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 151.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection[C];
Mission performance measures: 5-year average number of chemical
discharge incidents per 100 million short tons shipped;
Performance results: 2004: 42.6;
Performance results: 2005: 32.0;
Performance results: 2006: 27.9;
Performance results: 2007: 24.7;
Performance results: 2008: 19.7;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 26.6.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection[C];
Mission performance measures: Annual number of chemical discharge
incidents greater than 100 gallons;
Performance results: 2004: 39;
Performance results: 2005: 31;
Performance results: 2006: 45;
Performance results: 2008: 41;
Performance results: 2008: 21;
Performance target for 2008: 50.
Coast Guard mission: Other law enforcement (foreign fishing
enforcement);
Mission performance measures: Number of incursions into U.S. exclusive
economic zone;
Performance results: 2004: 247;
Performance results: 2005: 171;
Performance results: 2006: 164;
Performance results: 2007: 119;
Performance results: 2008: 81;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 195.
Coast Guard mission: Ice operations;
Mission performance measures: Number of days critical waterways are
closed due to ice;
Performance results: 2004: 4;
Performance results: 2005: 0;
Performance results: 2006: 0;
Performance results: 2007: 0;
Performance results: 2008: 0;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 2/8[D].
Missions partially meeting 2008 performance targets:
Coast Guard mission: Aids to navigation;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average number of collisions,
allisions, and groundings[E];
Performance results: 2004: 1,928;
Performance results: 2005: 1,875;
Performance results: 2006: 1,818;
Performance results: 2007: 1,856;
Performance results: 2008: 1,857;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 1,756.
Coast Guard mission: Aids to navigation;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of availability of federal
short-range aids to navigation;
Performance results: 2004: 97.5%;
Performance results: 2005: 97.1%;
Performance results: 2006: 97.0%;
Performance results: 2007: 97.9%;
Performance results: 2008: 98.3%;
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 97.5%.
Coast Guard mission: Search and rescue;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of mariners in imminent danger
saved[F];
Performance results: 2004: 86.1%;
Performance results: 2005: 86.0%;
Performance results: 2006: 85.3%;
Performance results: 2007: 85.3%;
Performance results: 2008: 83.6%;
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 87%.
Coast Guard mission: Search and rescue;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of people saved from imminent
danger in the maritime environment;
Performance results: 2004: 76.7%;
Performance results: 2005: 77.1%;
Performance results: 2006: 76.0%;
Performance results: 2007: 76.6%;
Performance results: 2008: 76.8%;
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 76.0%.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average commercial mariner deaths
and injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 483;
Performance results: 2005: 473;
Performance results: 2006: 501;
Performance results: 2007: 526;
Performance results: 2008: 479;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 501.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: Annual commercial mariner deaths and
injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 460;
Performance results: 2005: 522;
Performance results: 2006: 616;
Performance results: 2007: 476;
Performance results: 2008: 322;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 483.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average commercial passenger
deaths and injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 170;
Performance results: 2005: 171;
Performance results: 2006: 216;
Performance results: 2007: 238;
Performance results: 2008: 244;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 225.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: Annual commercial passenger deaths and
injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 259;
Performance results: 2005: 188;
Performance results: 2006: 336;
Performance results: 2007: 253;
Performance results: 2008: 185;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 201.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average recreational boating
deaths and injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 4,703;
Performance results: 2005: 4,502;
Performance results: 2006: 4,366;
Performance results: 2007: 4,253;
Performance results: 2008: 4,070;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 4,252.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: Annual recreational boating deaths and
injuries[G];
Performance results: 2004: 4,081;
Performance results: 2005: 4,120;
Performance results: 2006: 4,197;
Performance results: 2007: 3,224;
Performance results: 2008: 3,658;
Performance target for 2008: less than or equal to 4,076.
Missions that did not meet 2008 performance targets:
Coast Guard mission: Defense readiness;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of time that Coast Guard
assets meet designated combat readiness level[H];
Performance results: 2004: 76%;
Performance results: 2005: 67%;
Performance results: 2006: 62%;
Performance results: 2007: 51%;
Performance results: 2008: 56%;
Performance target for 2008: 100%.
Coast Guard mission: Migrant interdiction;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of interdicted undocumented
migrants attempting to enter the United States via maritime routes[I];
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: n/a;
Performance results: 2006: n/a;
Performance results: 2007: 65.2%;
Performance results: 2008: 62.7%;
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 65%.
Coast Guard mission: Living marine resources;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of fishing vessels observed to
be in compliance with federal regulations;
Performance results: 2004: 96.3%;
Performance results: 2005: 96.4%;
Performance results: 2006: 96.6%;
Performance results: 2007: 96.2%;
Performance results: 2008: 95.3%;
Performance target for 2008: greater than or equal to 97%.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
Note: n/a, not available. Performance targets for previous years may
have been different than fiscal year 2008 targets.
[A] This performance measure is to be retired for fiscal year 2009. The
Coast Guard plans to transition to a new measure: the number of metric
tons of cocaine removed.
[B] The cocaine removal rate estimate for fiscal year 2008 is based on
the non-commercial maritime cocaine flow to the United States in 2007.
Data on the cocaine flow to the United States in 2008 is to be
available following the publication of the Interagency Assessment of
Cocaine Movement in July 2009.
[C] Results may be subject to change pending receipt of shipping
statistics from the Army Corps of Engineers that are used to calculate
the normalized 5-year averages. The data are not generally available
until the December following the calendar year. In fiscal year 2009,
the Coast Guard also plans to introduce a performance measure for oil
spill mitigation.
[D] Closure day targets vary according to the relative severity of the
winter. The standard is 2 days in an average winter and 8 days in a
severe winter.
[E] A collision refers to two moving vessels that strike one another
whereas an allision is when a vessel strikes a fixed object, such as a
bridge.
[F] This performance measure is to be retired for fiscal year 2009. The
Coast Guard has collected data for the new measure--percentage of
people saved from imminent danger in the maritime environment--for
several years, but has not reported it externally. The new measure
includes "lives unaccounted for," which are those persons still missing
when search and rescue operations cease.
[G] 2008 data are based on reports submitted by state authorities that
require validation. The Coast Guard expects further review of these
2008 reports will reveal a decrease in deaths and an increase in
injuries, resulting in a probably net increase in the 2008 figure.
[H] According to the Coast Guard, defense readiness metrics are being
reviewed as part of the service's Mission Performance Plan to determine
what potential changes, if any, are necessary.
[I] Prior to fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard's primary measure for
this mission also included the percentage of undocumented migrants that
were deterred from using maritime routes to enter the United States.
However, given the uncertainties involved in estimating the deterrence
of potential migrants, the Coast Guard chose to limit the measure to
undocumented migrants interdicted.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Related GAO Products:
Coast Guard: Observations on the Genesis and Progress of the Service's
Modernization Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-530R]. Washington, D.C.: June 24,
2009.
Coast Guard: Administrative Law Judge Program Contains Elements
Designed to Foster Judges' Independence and Mariner Protections
Assessed Are Being Followed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-489]. Washington, D.C.: June 12,
2009.
Coast Guard: Update on Deepwater Program Management, Cost, and
Acquisition Workforce. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-620T]. Washington, D.C.: April 22,
2009.
Coast Guard: Observations on Changes to Management and Oversight of the
Deepwater Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-462T]. Washington, D.C.: March 24,
2009.
Maritime Security: Vessel Tracking Systems Provide Key Information, but
the Need for Duplicate Data Should Be Reviewed. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-337]. Washington,
D.C.: March 17, 2009.
Coast Guard: Change in Course Improves Deepwater Management and
Oversight, but Outcome Still Uncertain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745]. Washington, D.C.:
June 24, 2008.
Coast Guard: Strategies for Mitigating the Loss of Patrol Boats Are
Achieving Results in the Near Term, but They Come at a Cost and Longer
Term Sustainability Is Unknown. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-660]. Washington, D.C.: June 23,
2008.
Status of Selected Aspects of the Coast Guard's Deepwater Program.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-270R]. Washington, D.C.:
March 11, 2008.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, Recent
Performance, and Related Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-494T]. Washington, D.C.:
March 6, 2008.
Coast Guard: Deepwater Program Management Initiatives and Key Homeland
Security Missions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-531T]. Washington, D.C.: March 5,
2008.
Maritime Security: Coast Guard Inspections Identify and Correct
Facility Deficiencies, but More Analysis Needed of Program's Staffing,
Practices, and Data. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-12]. Washington, D.C.: February 14,
2008.
Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address Challenges in
Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy Commodity
Tankers. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-141].
Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2007.
Coast Guard: Challenges Affecting Deepwater Asset Deployment and
Management and Efforts to Address Them. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-874. Washington, D.C.: June 18,
2007.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget, Performance,
Reorganization, and Related Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-489T]. Washington, D.C.: April 18,
2007.
Port Risk Management: Additional Federal Guidance Would Aid Ports in
Disaster Planning and Recovery. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-412]. Washington, D.C.: March 28,
2007.
Coast Guard: Status of Efforts to Improve Deepwater Program Management
and Address Operational Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-575T]. Washington, D.C.: March 8,
2007.
Maritime Security: Public Safety Consequences of a Terrorist Attack on
a Tanker Carrying Liquefied Natural Gas Need Clarification. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-316]. Washington, D.C.: February 22,
2007.
Coast Guard: Preliminary Observations on Deepwater Program Assets and
Management Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-446T]. Washington, D.C.: February
15, 2007.
Coast Guard: Coast Guard Efforts to Improve Management and Address
Operational Challenges in the Deepwater Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-460T]. Washington, D.C.: February
14, 2007.
Homeland Security: Observations on the Department of Homeland
Security's Acquisition Organization and on the Coast Guard's Deepwater
Program. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-453T].
Washington, D.C.: February 8, 2007.
Coast Guard: Condition of Some Aids-to-Navigation and Domestic
Icebreaking Vessels Has Declined; Effect on Mission Performance Appears
Mixed. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-979]. Washington,
D.C.: September 22, 2006.
Coast Guard: Non-Homeland Security Performance Measures Are Generally
Sound, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-816]. Washington, D.C.: August 16,
2006.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Preparation, Response, and Recovery
Missions Related to Hurricane Katrina. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-903]. Washington, D.C.: July 31,
2006.
Maritime Security: Information-Sharing Efforts Are Improving.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-933T]. Washington, D.C.:
July 10, 2006.
United States Coast Guard: Improvements Needed in Management and
Oversight of Rescue System Acquisition. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-623]. Washington, D.C.: May 31,
2006.
Coast Guard: Changes to Deepwater Plan Appear Sound, and Program
Management Has Improved, but Continued Monitoring Is Warranted.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-546]. Washington, D.C.:
April 28, 2006.
Coast Guard: Progress Being Made on Addressing Deepwater Legacy Asset
Condition Issues and Program Management, but Acquisition Challenges
Remain. [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-757].
Washington, D.C.: July 22, 2005.
Coast Guard: Station Readiness Improving, but Resource Challenges and
Management Concerns Remain. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-161]. Washington, D.C.: January 31,
2005.
Maritime Security: Better Planning Needed to Help Ensure an Effective
Port Security Assessment Program. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-1062]. Washington, D.C.: September
30, 2004.
Maritime Security: Partnering Could Reduce Federal Costs and Facilitate
Implementation of Automatic Vessel Identification System. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-868]. Washington, D.C.: July 23,
2004.
Coast Guard: Relationship between Resources Used and Results Achieved
Needs to Be Clearer. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-432]. Washington, D.C.: March 22,
2004.
Contract Management: Coast Guard's Deepwater Program Needs Increased
Attention to Management and Contractor Oversight. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-380]. Washington, D.C.: March 9,
2004.
Coast Guard: Comprehensive Blueprint Needed to Balance and Monitor
Resource Use and Measure Performance for All Missions. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-544T]. Washington, D.C.: March 12,
2003.
[End of section]
Footnotes:
[1] See related GAO products at the end of this statement.
[2] Pub. L. No. 111-5, 123 Stat. 115 (2009).
[3] The Coast Guard has responsibilities that fall under two broad
mission categories--homeland security and non-homeland security. Within
these categories, the Coast Guard's primary activities are further
divided into 11 statutory missions, which are listed later in this
statement (see table 1).
[4] U.S. Coast Guard, Blueprint for Acquisition Reform (Version 3.0)
(July 14, 2008).
[5] More detailed information on our scope and methodology appears in
our prior reports included in the related GAO products listed at the
end of the statement. The work to support these reports was conducted
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[6] U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Posture Statement with 2010
Budget in Brief (May 2009).
[7] U.S. Coast Guard, Fiscal Year 2008 U.S. Coast Guard Performance
Report (May 2009).
[8] See, for example, GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Genesis and
Progress of the Service's Modernization Program, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-530R] (Washington, D.C.: June 24,
2009); Coast Guard: Update on Deepwater Program Management, Cost, and
Acquisition Workforce, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-620T] (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 22,
2009); and Coast Guard: Change in Course Improves Deepwater Management,
but Outcome Still Uncertain, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745] (Washington, D.C.: June 24,
2008).
[9] According to the Coast Guard, the other law enforcement mission is
more accurately described as foreign fishing vessel law enforcement.
[10] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-530R].
[11] See, for example, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-620T]; Maritime Security: Coast
Guard Inspections Identify and Correct Facility Deficiencies, but More
Analysis Needed of Program's Staffing, Practices, and Data, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-12] (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 14,
2008); and Maritime Security: Federal Efforts Needed to Address
Challenges in Preventing and Responding to Terrorist Attacks on Energy
Commodity Tankers, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-141]
(Washington, D.C.: Dec. 10, 2007).
[12] The 140-foot Fast Response Cutters are intended to replace the 110-
foot and 123-foot patrol boats that were acquired between 1986 and
1992. The Fast Response Cutters are to be capable of performing marine
safety, living marine resources, and defense readiness missions, among
others.
[13] The 418-foot National Security Cutters--referred to as the
flagship of the Coast Guard's fleet--are intended to replace the aging
378-foot High Endurance Cutters that have been in service since the
1960s. The National Security Cutters are to be capable of meeting
maritime homeland security, law enforcement, and national defense
missions--including supporting the mission requirements of joint U.S.
combatant commanders.
[14] Our reports and testimonies over the past 11 years have included
details on the Deepwater program related to affordability, management,
and operations. See, for example, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-620T]; [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-745]; Coast Guard: Observations on
the Fiscal Year 2009 Budget, Recent Performance, and Related
Challenges, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-494T]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 6, 2008); and Coast Guard: Challenges Affecting
Deepwater Asset Deployment and Management Efforts to Address Them,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-874] (Washington, D.C.:
June 18, 2007).
[15] GAO's analysis of the Coast Guard's budget requests are presented
in nominal terms. Supplemental funding received during fiscal year 2009
is not included in the analysis.
[16] The retired pay account includes cost-of-living adjustments for
all retirement annuities and most survivor annuities as well as
entitlement benefits authorized by the National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-181, 122 Stat. 3 (2008)).
[17] As an aid to navigation, LORAN-C was originally developed to
provide radio-navigation service for U.S. coastal waters and was later
expanded to include complete coverage of the continental United States
as well as most of Alaska. The President's fiscal year 2010 budget
supported the "termination of outdated systems," such as the
terrestrial-based LORAN-C operated by the Coast Guard.
[18] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-494T].
[19] According to the Coast Guard, the other law enforcement mission is
more accurately described as foreign fishing vessel law enforcement.
[20] Prior to fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard's primary outcome
measure for this mission also included undocumented migrants who were
deterred from using maritime routes to enter the United States. Because
of uncertainties involved in estimating the number of deterred
potential migrants, the new measure was changed to include only the
percentage of undocumented migrants who were actually interdicted.
[21] Project Management Institute, A Guide to the Project Management
Body of Knowledge, Fourth Edition (2008).
[22] GAO, Highlights of a GAO Forum: Mergers and Transformation:
Lessons Learned for a Department of Homeland Security and Other Federal
Agencies, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-293SP]
(Washington, D.C.: Nov. 14, 2002); and 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).
[23] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-530R].
[24] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[25] See GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1]
(Washington, D.C.: November 1999). These standards, issued pursuant to
the requirements of the Federal Managers' Financial Integrity Act of
1982, provide the overall framework for establishing and maintaining
internal control in the federal government.
[26] NAPA is an independent, nonprofit organization chartered by
Congress to assist federal, state, and local governments in improving
their effectiveness, efficiency, and accountability.
[27] National Academy of Public Administration, U.S. Coast Guard
Modernization Study (Washington, D.C., April 2009).
[28] In discussing the rationale for this recommendation, among other
considerations, NAPA cited two GAO reports: GAO, Coast Guard:
Relationship between Resources Used and Results Achieved Needs to Be
Clearer, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-432]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 22, 2004), and Coast Guard: Strategy Needed for
Setting and Monitoring Levels of Effort for All Missions, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-155] (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12,
2002).
[29] See, for example, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-494T], [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-141], and [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-12].
[30] GAO, Coast Guard: Challenges for Addressing Budget Constraints,
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO/RCED-97-110] (Washington,
D.C.: May 1997).
[31] The Explanatory Statement (House Appropriations Committee Print on
H.R. 2638/Public Law 110-329, Division D, at 646) accompanying DHS's
fiscal year 2009 appropriations (Consolidated Security Disaster
Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 110-
329, 122 Stat. 3574 (2008)) directed the Coast Guard to follow
workforce planning guidance set out in Senate Report 110-396.
[32] Department of Homeland Security, DHS Workforce Planning Guide
(July 31, 2007).
[33] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-04-39]. The key
principles reflect GAO's review of documents from organizations with
governmentwide responsibilities for or expertise in workforce planning
models and tools. These organizations include the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM), NAPA, and the International Personnel Management
Association. Also, see OPM's Human Capital Assessment and
Accountability Framework, developed in conjunction with OMB and GAO,
which presents consolidated guidance on standards for success and
performance indicators that agencies can refer to, including workforce
planning indicators.
[34] The Sector Staffing Model, chartered in 2007, is designed to (1)
quantify shortfalls to justify resource proposals, (2) provide a
transparent basis for mission requirement resource allocation, (3)
enable senior leadership and program managers to understand resource
implications of proposed policy changes and requirements, and (4) help
forecast future staffing needs based on projected activity and mission
growth. The model was recently beta-tested with a planned deployment
later this summer.
[35] The Officer Specialty Management System will replace legacy
officer billet codes with a new framework of officer specialties and
sub-specialties, along with competency requirements for each. The
system is intended to provide a clearer picture of what is required by
billets and facilitate better identification of officer corps
capabilities. The Officer Specialty Management System is being beta
tested this summer, with a planned deployment for summer 2010.
[36] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-620T].
[37] In 2002, the Coast Guard contracted with Integrated Coast Guard
Systems to be the systems integrator for managing the acquisition of
Deepwater program assets. After the program experienced a series of
failures, the Coast Guard announced in April 2007 that it would take
over the lead role.
[38] ICGS--a joint venture formed by Lockheed Martin Corporation and
Northrop Grumman Ship Systems--was awarded a contract by the Coast
Guard in 2002 to serve as a systems integrator for the Deepwater
program.
[39] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-620T].
[40] For more details on our previous recommendations and their status,
see GAO, Status of Selected Aspects of the Coast Guard's Deepwater
Program, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-270R]
(Washington, D.C.: Mar.11, 2009), pages 7-12.
[41] GAO, Coast Guard: Strategies for Mitigating the Loss of Patrol
Boats Are Achieving Results in the Near Term, but They Come at a Cost
and Longer Term Sustainability Is Unknown, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-660] (Washington, D.C.: June 23,
2008).
[42] Each of the eight 123-foot patrol boats was expected to provide
2,500 annual operational hours.
[43] For a complete list of mitigation strategies, see GAO-08-660.
[44] According to the 2007 delivery schedule, the first National
Security Cutter was to be certified as fully operational in calendar
year 2009.
[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:
