Coast Guard
Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, Past Performance, and Current Challenges
Gao ID: GAO-10-411T February 25, 2010
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. In an effort to enhance performance the Coast Guard continues to implement its Deepwater program--the acquisition program to replace or upgrade its vessels and aircraft--while also carrying out a reorganization program to update its command structure, among other things. This testimony discusses the Coast Guard's (1) budget request for fiscal year 2011 and key performance indicators for fiscal year 2009; and (2) key management challenges confronting the Coast Guard. This testimony is based on GAO products issued in 2009 and 2010 (including GAO-09-682, GAO-09-810T, and GAO-10-268R); other GAO products issued over the past 11 years--with selected updates in February 2010; and preliminary observations from ongoing GAO work on the Deployable Operations Group. GAO analyzed budget and performance documents, such as DHS's fiscal year 2011 budget justification, and interviewed Coast Guard officials.
The Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2011 is slightly lower than the agency's 2010 enacted budget and year-to-year mission performance trends are mixed. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2011 budget request of $9.87 billion is approximately $35.8 million (or 0.4 percent) less than the service's enacted budget for fiscal year 2010. The slight reduction is largely attributable to a decrease in funds requested for (1) acquisition, construction, and improvement and (2) research, development, test, and evaluation. The reductions in these and other appropriation accounts are balanced by increases in funds requested for operating expenses and retired pay. One of the key themes of the fiscal year 2011 budget is the trade off between current operational capacity and continued investment in future capability through capital investment. Specifically, the Coast Guard is reducing funds for current assets and missions to increase funds for its top budget priority--long-term recapitalization of vessels and aircraft. The Coast Guard acknowledges that the proposed emphasis on recapitalization of aging assets may lead to a short term decline in mission performance. With regard to fiscal year 2009 performance, Coast Guard met its performance goals for 6 of 11 statutory mission areas but year-to-year performance trends are mixed. For example, the Coast Guard reported an improvement in reducing the maritime terrorism risk but reported a decline in the percentage of time that Coast Guard assets met designated combat readiness levels. Specifically, the Coast Guard reported that, for fiscal year 2009, agency assets met designated combat readiness levels 44 percent of the time, well below its goal of 100 percent. The Coast Guard attributes this decline in performance to reduced High Endurance Cutter readiness and personnel and training shortfalls for port security unit reserve forces. The Coast Guard continues to face several management challenges. Our prior work has identified continuing problems in Deepwater costs, management and oversight that have led to some delivery delays and operational challenges for some Coast Guard assets. Additionally, the Coast Guard is in the process of a major reorganization effort to establish a new command structure. While the Coast Guard reported completing all interim key actions for the reorganization program on schedule with some aspects of the transition--such as the deployable operations group--resulting in operational improvements, the agency desires additional statutory authorities to fully establish the new command structure and senior leadership positions. The Coast Guard has submitted a legislative proposal to request the statutory authority needed to make such changes. Lastly, the Coast Guard has a history of workforce management challenges which they have worked to address by developing plans and tools to better identify appropriate personnel for their assigned positions and allocate personnel resources. However, it is too soon to assess these efforts' impact. Moreover, as the Coast Guard faces a change in leadership in May 2010, it will be increasingly important to sustain its efforts to address the challenges that it faces.
GAO-10-411T, Coast Guard: Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, Past Performance, and Current Changes
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-411T
entitled 'Coast Guard: Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year 2011
Budget, Past Performance, and Current Challenges' which was released
on February 25, 2010.
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 Coast Guard and Maritime
Transportation, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S.
House of Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery:
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Thursday, February 25, 2010:
Coast Guard:
Observations on the Requested Fiscal Year 2011 Budget, Past
Performance, and Current Challenges:
Statement of Stephen L. Caldwell, Director:
Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
GAO-10-411T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-10-411T, a report to Subcommittee on Coast Guard and
Maritime Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, U.S. House of
Representatives.
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. In an effort to enhance performance the
Coast Guard continues to implement its Deepwater program”the
acquisition program to replace or upgrade its vessels and aircraft––
while also carrying out a reorganization program to update its command
structure, among other things. This testimony discusses the Coast Guard‘
s (1) budget request for fiscal year 2011 and key performance
indicators for fiscal year 2009; and (2) key management challenges
confronting the Coast Guard. This testimony is based on GAO products
issued in 2009 and 2010 (including GAO-09-682, GAO-09-810T, and GAO-10-
268R); other GAO products issued over the past 11 years”with selected
updates in February 2010; and preliminary observations from ongoing
GAO work on the Deployable Operations Group. GAO analyzed budget and
performance documents, such as DHS‘s fiscal year 2011 budget
justification, and interviewed Coast Guard officials.
What GAO Found:
The Coast Guard‘s budget request for fiscal year 2011 is slightly
lower than the agency‘s 2010 enacted budget and year-to-year mission
performance trends are mixed. The Coast Guard‘s fiscal year 2011
budget request of $9.87 billion is approximately $35.8 million (or 0.4
percent) less than the service‘s enacted budget for fiscal year 2010.
The slight reduction is largely attributable to a decrease in funds
requested for (1) acquisition, construction, and improvement and (2)
research, development, test, and evaluation. The reductions in these
and other appropriation accounts are balanced by increases in funds
requested for operating expenses and retired pay. One of the key
themes of the fiscal year 2011 budget is the trade off between current
operational capacity and continued investment in future capability
through capital investment. Specifically, the Coast Guard is reducing
funds for current assets and missions to increase funds for its top
budget priority”long-term recapitalization of vessels and aircraft.
The Coast Guard acknowledges that the proposed emphasis on
recapitalization of aging assets may lead to a short term decline in
mission performance. With regard to fiscal year 2009 performance,
Coast Guard met its performance goals for 6 of 11 statutory mission
areas but year-to-year performance trends are mixed. For example, the
Coast Guard reported an improvement in reducing the maritime terrorism
risk but reported a decline in the percentage of time that Coast Guard
assets met designated combat readiness levels. Specifically, the Coast
Guard reported that, for fiscal year 2009, agency assets met
designated combat readiness levels 44 percent of the time, well below
its goal of 100 percent. The Coast Guard attributes this decline in
performance to reduced High Endurance Cutter readiness and personnel
and training shortfalls for port security unit reserve forces.
The Coast Guard continues to face several management challenges. Our
prior work has identified continuing problems in Deepwater costs,
management and oversight that have led to some delivery delays and
operational challenges for some Coast Guard assets. Additionally, the
Coast Guard is in the process of a major reorganization effort to
establish a new command structure. While the Coast Guard reported
completing all interim key actions for the reorganization program on
schedule with some aspects of the transition”such as the deployable
operations group”resulting in operational improvements, the agency
desires additional statutory authorities to fully establish the new
command structure and senior leadership positions. The Coast Guard has
submitted a legislative proposal to request the statutory authority
needed to make such changes. Lastly, the Coast Guard has a history of
workforce management challenges which they have worked to address by
developing plans and tools to better identify appropriate personnel
for their assigned positions and allocate personnel resources.
However, it is too soon to assess these efforts‘ impact. Moreover, as
the Coast Guard faces a change in leadership in May 2010, it will be
increasingly important to sustain its efforts to address the
challenges that it faces.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO has made recommendations in prior reports to DHS to improve
planning and other aspects of the Deepwater program. DHS concurred and
is in various stages of implementing them. GAO provided a copy of new
and updated information in this statement to DHS and incorporated
comments as appropriate.
View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-411T] or key
components. For more information, contact Stephen Caldwell at (202)
512-9610 or caldwells@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee:
I am pleased to be here today to discuss the Coast Guard's fiscal year
2011 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 work to help provide perspective as appropriate. The
Coast Guard, an Armed Service of the United States housed within the
Department of Homeland Security, is the principle federal agency
responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental
stewardship through multimission resources, authorities, and
capabilities. The Coast Guard has faced various management challenges
over the years, many of which we have identified in previous reports.
[Footnote 1]
As you know, the Coast Guard has grown considerably since 2002 to meet
new homeland security requirements while continuing to carry out its
traditional missions such as marine safety and search and rescue
operations. See appendix I for a description of the Coast Guard's 11
statutory missions. To help fulfill all of its missions, the Coast
Guard is currently implementing several major initiatives, including
the multi-billion dollar Deepwater acquisition program,[Footnote 2]
while continuing efforts to improve its command structure and mission-
support processes.
This statement will discuss:
* the Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2011 and the extent
to which it met key performance indicators for fiscal year 2009; and:
* key management challenges confronting the Coast Guard.
In assessing the Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2011 and
performance results in fiscal year 2009, we reviewed the President's
budget request, related Coast Guard documents--including the U.S.
Coast Guard Posture Statement, issued in February 2010--and the
agency's fiscal year 2009 performance report.[Footnote 3] The scope of
our review did not include evaluating whether the proposed funding
levels were appropriate for the Coast Guard's stated needs. In
identifying and discussing various management challenges confronting
the Coast Guard, we focused on the information presented in our past
and recently issued products including, among others, the service's
large-scale Deepwater acquisition program, command realignment,
[Footnote 4] and the workforce planning report we are publicly
releasing today.[Footnote 5] The scope of our prior work included
reviews of program documents, such as the Coast Guard's Major Systems
Acquisition Manual (MSAM); analysis of applicable program databases;
and interviews with Coast Guard officials at headquarters and field
units in domestic and international locations. Our prior work was
conducted in accordance with generally accepted standards and our
previously published reports contain additional details on the scope
and methodology for those reviews. This statement also provides
preliminary observations from our ongoing work on the Deployable
Operations Group for the Senate and House Appropriations' Committee's
Subcommittees on Homeland Security.
We conducted selected updates for this statement from July 2009
through February 2010 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 the evidence obtained provides a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Summary:
The Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2011 is slightly
lower than the agency's 2010 enacted budget and year-to-year mission
performance trends are mixed. The Coast Guard's fiscal year 2011
budget request totals $9.87 billion and is approximately 0.4 percent
lower than its fiscal year 2010 enacted budget.[Footnote 6] The slight
reduction is largely attributable to a decrease in funds requested for
acquisition, construction, and improvement and research, development,
test, and evaluation. The reductions in these and other appropriation
accounts are balanced by increases in funds requested for operating
expenses and retired pay. While the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2011
request for operating expenses is higher than last year's enacted
budget, the year-to-year percentage increase in this appropriation
account is down from last year. Specifically, last year the agency
requested a 5.8 percent increase for this account and this year it is
requesting a 1.3 percent increase. According to Coast Guard documents,
key initiatives for fiscal year 2011 include recapitalization of
surface assets including production of Coast Guard cutters,
recapitalization of air assets including the production of additional
Maritime Patrol Aircraft and upgrades to several classes of aircraft,
and continuing development and upgrades to key equipment and services
such as communications systems and shore side infrastructure. The
Coast Guard acknowledges that due to resource tradeoffs, the proposed
emphasis on recapitalization of aging assets will come at the expense
of current operations and may lead to an immediate decline in mission
performance. With respect to the agency's performance, Coast Guard met
its performance goals for 6 of 11 mission areas for fiscal year 2009
but year-to-year performance trends are mixed. For example, the Coast
Guard reported an improvement over last year in reducing the maritime
terrorism risk but reported a decline in the percentage of time that
Coast Guard assets met designated combat readiness levels.
Specifically, the Coast Guard reported that, for fiscal year 2009, key
agency assets met designated combat readiness levels 44 percent of the
time, well below their goal of 100 percent. The Coast Guard attributes
this decline in performance to reduced High Endurance Cutter readiness
and personnel and training shortfalls.
The Coast Guard faces management challenges in a number of areas, many
of which we have identified in our prior work. Our work on the
Deepwater acquisition program identified problems in costs, management
and oversight that have led to delivery delays and other operational
challenges for certain assets and missions, but it also recognized
several steps the Coast Guard has taken to improve Deepwater
management. Another management challenge is the Coast Guard's ongoing
major reorganization effort to update its command structure, support
systems, and business practices.[Footnote 7] The Coast Guard reported
completing all interim key actions for the reorganization program on
schedule. Additionally, some facets of the transition--such as the new
deployable operations group--are already resulting in operational
improvements. The Coast Guard has requested but has not yet received
additional statutory authorities to fully establish its desired new
command structure and associated senior leadership positions. Finally,
the Coast Guard has a well-documented history of workforce challenges,
including problems identifying its workforce needs. For example, the
agency has had difficulty determining critical skills and defining
appropriate staffing levels to achieve its missions. The report we are
issuing today suggests that the agency has responded to these
workforce challenges by developing plans and tools to better identify
appropriate personnel for their assigned positions and allocate
personnel resources, but it is too soon to assess the impact of these
efforts.[Footnote 8] While Coast Guard has efforts underway to address
many of the key challenges confronting the agency, sustaining these
efforts will be a challenge for the new Coast Guard leadership team.
Coast Guard Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011 Is Slightly Lower than
the Previous Year's Enacted Budget; Year-to-Year Mission Performance
Trends are Mixed:
Coast Guard's Fiscal Year 2011 Budget Request Is Lower:
The Coast Guard's budget request for fiscal year 2011, at $9.87
billion, is approximately $35.8 million (or 0.4 percent) less than the
service's enacted budget for fiscal year 2010 (see table 1).[Footnote
9] This slight reduction is largely driven by a $155 million (10
percent) decrease in funds requested for acquisition, construction,
and improvement (AC&I) and a $4.7 million (19 percent) decrease in
funds requested for research, development, test, and evaluation. The
Coast Guard's budget justification shows that the proposed reduction
in AC&I funds is largely due to decreases in funding for the response
boat-medium; the Maritime Patrol and HH-65 Aircraft, among others; and
Rescue 21.[Footnote 10] The reductions in these and other
appropriation accounts were balanced by requested increases including
approximately an additional $87 million (1.3 percent increase)
requested for operating expenses and $39.5 million more (about a 3
percent increase) for retired pay, a mandatory appropriation account.
While the Coast Guard's fiscal year 2011 request for operating
expenses is higher than last year's enacted budget, the year-to-year
percentage increase in this appropriation account is down from last
year. Specifically, last year the agency requested a 5.8 percent
increase for this account and this year it is requesting a 1.3 percent
increase.
Table 1: Comparison of Coast Guard's Budget Request for Fiscal Year
2011 and the Enacted Budget for Fiscal Year 2010:
Appropriations Account[A]: Operating expenses;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $6,563.9;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $6,651.0;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): $87.1;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: 1.3%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Acquisition, construction, and improvements;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $1,536.3;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $1,381.2;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): -$155.1;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: -10.1%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Retired pay;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $1,361.2;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $1,400.7;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): $39.5;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: 2.9%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Medicare Eligible Retiree Health Care Fund
Contribution;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $266.0;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $265.3;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): -$0.7;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: -0.3%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Reserve training;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $133.6;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $135.7;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): $2.0;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: 1.5%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Research, development, test and evaluation;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $24.7;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $20.0;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): -$4.7;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: -19.0%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Alteration of bridges;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $4.0;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: 0.0;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): -$4.0;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: -100.0%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Environmental compliance and restoration;
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $13.2;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $13.3;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): $0.1;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: 1.0%.
Appropriations Account[A]: Total (see note [B]);
Enacted budget for FY 2010 (in millions): $9,903.0;
Requested budget for FY 2011 (in millions: $9,867.2;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Amount (in millions): -$35.8;
Difference between FY 2011 requested budget and FY 2010 enacted
budget: Percentage change: -0.4%.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
[A] Table above does not include transfers, supplementals or mandatory
funding for boating safety, oil spill liability trust fund, or gift
fund.
[B] Column and calculation totals may not add up due to rounding.
[End of table]
Of the $9.87 billion requested for fiscal year 2011, about $6.7
billion, or approximately 67 percent, is for operating expenses (OE).
The OE account is the primary appropriation that finances Coast
Guard's activities, including operating and maintaining multipurpose
vessels, aircraft, and shore units. The remaining part of the request
consists primarily of funds for AC&I and retired pay, each
representing around $1.4 billion, or 14 percent of the total.[Footnote
11]
One of the key themes of the fiscal year 2011 budget is the trade off
between current operational capacity and continued investment in
future capability through capital investment because of fiscal
constraints. Specifically, the Coast Guard is reducing funds for
current assets and missions to increase funds for its "top budget
priority" of long-term recapitalization of vessels and aircraft.
According to the Commandant, this trade off reflects "hard choices" by
the Coast Guard to manage current operations (as funded at lower
levels) to sustain its recapitalization program.
The reductions in current operational capacity include retirement of 5
major cutters (4 High Endurance Cutters and 1 Medium Endurance Cutter)
and 9 aircraft (4 HU-25 falcon jets, and 5 HH-65 helicopters as part
of a larger realignment of helicopters).[Footnote 12] The Coast Guard
will also reduce the number of Maritime Security and Safety Teams
(MSST) from 12 to 7.[Footnote 13] The Coast Guard expects that these
changes in capacity will reduce the overall level of service it
provides the nation and that performance will be diminished in a
variety of areas. For example, retirement of these vessels and
aircraft will reduce performance across several of its missions--
including illegal drug interdiction, undocumented migrant
interdiction, defense readiness, living marine resources, and other
law enforcement to prevent illegal fishing. Similarly, reducing the
number of MSSTs will decrease operational capacity and performance in
the ports, waterways, and coastal security mission, according to the
Coast Guard. While some of this lost operational capacity will
ultimately be restored through ongoing recapitalization (e.g., new
National Security Cutters will eventually replace the decommissioned
High Endurance Cutters), some capacity reductions will have long-term
implications (i.e., the five HH-65 helicopters and five MSSTs will not
be replaced).
The Coast Guard intends to take the funds saved by these measures and
use them to continue recapitalization of key vessels, aircraft, and
shore infrastructure. Deepwater aircraft include the Maritime Patrol
Aircraft and continued upgrades to existing aircraft (e.g., the HC-
130).[Footnote 14] In addition, continued funding is planned for the
maintenance of legacy cutters until the new Deepwater assets are
acquired and become operational.[Footnote 15] Management of the
Deepwater program is discussed later in this testimony. The Coast
Guard has allocated funds for recapitalization of other assets outside
the Deepwater program including response boats, communications
systems, and aids-to-navigation. The Coast Guard expects that
recapitalization of these assets will restore and sustain performance
across a variety of missions in the long term.
As with the last year's enacted budget, the Coast Guard's fiscal year
2011 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.
[Footnote 16] That said, there were several notable year-to-year
changes within mission areas. Appendix II compares the Coast Guard's
fiscal year 2010 enacted budget and requested fiscal year 2011 funding
levels by statutory mission. According to Coast Guard officials, the
most significant changes are a result of changes to project funding
levels within the AC&I appropriation. For example, proposed funding to
support the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security mission decreased
by about $101 million or 6 percent.[Footnote 17] This reduction is in
part the result of a reduction in capital funding for the Response
Boat-Medium which the Coast Guard anticipates will substantially
contribute to this mission. This reduction is also the result of plans
to decommission 5 of 12 MSSTs. The Coast Guard estimates that these
decommissionings will result in $18.2 million in savings but they may
also decrease operational capacity and performance. To manage this
risk, the agency plans to implement a regionalized deployable force
construct for the remaining 7 MSSTs, with resources apportioned to
operational commanders based on the highest prevailing risk in the
nation's ports. In another example, the proposed funding for Search
and Rescue is about $49.6 million or 5 percent lower than last year's
enacted budget.[Footnote 18] Coast Guard officials explained that the
planned decommissioning of 5 High Endurance Cutters will result in
some reduction in search and rescue capacity but, overall, the
proposed budget preserves basic search and rescue requirements.
Further, the Coast Guard reports that it has enhanced its ability to
detect and locate persons in distress through technology improvements
such as Rescue 21 and the installation of advanced equipment on
response assets.
Performance goals for 6 of 11 missions were met, but year-to-year
trends are mixed:
The Coast Guard's overall performance for fiscal year 2009 is
generally consistent with recent years but trends among some missions
have been mixed. The Coast Guard assessed its fiscal year 2009
performance on 27 measures covering all of its statutory mission
areas. The Coast Guard found that it met 19 of 27 performance measures
and met all performance goals for 6 of 11 missions.[Footnote 19]
Similarly, in fiscal year 2008 Coast Guard reported meeting all
performance goals in 5 mission areas. See table 2 for Coast Guard's
mission performance results and see Appendix III for a detailed list
of Coast Guard's performance results for fiscal years 2004 through
2009.
Table 2: Coast Guard Mission Performance Results for Fiscal Year 2009:
Coast Guard mission: Missions meeting 2009 performance targets:
* Search and Rescue;
Number of performance targets: 1;
Number of performance targets: 1.
* Ports, waterways, and coastal security;
Number of performance targets: 2;
Number of performance targets: 2.
* Marine safety;
Number of performance targets: 6;
Number of performance targets: 6.
* Marine environmental protection;
Number of performance targets: 4;
Number of performance targets: 4.
* Other law enforcement;
Number of performance targets: 2;
Number of performance targets: 2.
* Ice operations;
Number of performance targets: 1;
Number of performance targets: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions partially meeting 2009 performance
targets:
* Aids to navigation;
Number of performance targets: 2;
Number of performance targets: 1.
* Illegal drug interdiction;
Number of performance targets: 2;
Number of performance targets: 1.
* Migrant interdiction;
Number of performance targets: 2;
Number of performance targets: 1.
Coast Guard mission: Missions that did not meet 2009 performance
targets:
* Defense readiness;
Number of performance targets: 4;
Number of performance targets: 0.
* Living marine resources;
Number of performance targets: 1;
Number of performance targets: 0.
Coast Guard mission: Total;
Number of performance targets: 27;
Number of performance targets: 19.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data (see table 5 in appendix III).
[End of table]
As table 2 shows, the Coast Guard reported meeting all performance
targets for 6 of the 11 statutory missions--search and rescue; ports,
waterways, and coastal security; marine safety; marine environmental
protection; other law enforcement; and ice operations.[Footnote 20]
Regarding the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security mission, for
example, one of the Coast Guard's fiscal year goals was to reduce
maritime terrorism risk by 21 percent. The Coast Guard exceeded this
target by ten percent. For another 3 of the 11 statutory missions--
aids to navigation, migrant interdiction, and illegal drug
interdiction--the Coast Guard met 1 of 2 performance targets in each
mission area. For illegal drug interdiction, the Coast Guard narrowly
missed its goal of removing 15.7 percent of cocaine from non-
commercial vessels in maritime transit zones (actual was 15 percent)
but exceeded its goal of removing 134 tons of cocaine (actual was
about 160 tons).[Footnote 21] As in fiscal year 2008, the Coast Guard
did not meet any of the related performance measures for the remaining
two missions--defense readiness and living marine resources. For the
defense readiness mission, the Coast Guard reported that, for fiscal
year 2009, agency assets met designated combat readiness levels 44
percent of the time, well below the goal of 100 percent.[Footnote 22]
The Coast Guard has historically lagged in this mission area and this
year's performance results are the lowest since 2004. The Coast Guard
attributes this decline in performance primarily to the declining
material condition and readiness of aging High Endurance Cutters and
training shortfalls for High Endurance Cutter and port security unit
reserve forces. The planned retirement of multiple High Endurance
Cutters--the agency's primary deployable surface assets for combatant
commander support--may continue to put achievement of these defense
readiness objectives at risk.
Management Challenges and Competing Priorities Continue to Present
Challenges to Coast Guard Leadership:
The Deepwater Program Continues to Present Budget and Management
Challenges:
Over the years, our testimonies on the Coast Guard's budget and
performance have included details on the Deepwater acquisition
program--the service's top recapitalization budget priority--related
to affordability, management, and operations.[Footnote 23] Given the
size of Deepwater funding requirements, the Coast Guard faces a long-
term challenge in funding the program within its overall and AC&I
budgets. The Deepwater program, at $1.11 billion, accounts for
approximately 11 percent of the Coast Guard's overall $9.87 billion
budget request and 80 percent of the agency's $1.38 billion AC&I
request for fiscal year 2011 capital spending. The Deepwater
acquisition program also continues to represent a significant source
of unobligated balances--money appropriated that is available but not
yet committed for projects included in previous years' budgets.
[Footnote 24] For example, as of November 2009, approximately $472
million remained unobligated for the Deepwater's aircraft program.
Continuing into future budgets, Deepwater affordability is likely to
continue to be a major challenge for the Coast Guard given other
demands on the agency for both capital and operations spending.
[Footnote 25]
In addition to fiscal constraints, the Coast Guard has also had
several acquisition management challenges throughout the history of
this program and some of those challenges remain. To address some of
these past acquisition management challenges, in April 2007, the Coast
Guard assumed the role of systems integrator for the Deepwater
Program, reduced the scope of the work by the former systems
integrator (or prime contractor), Integrated Coast Guard Systems
(ICGS), and assigned these functions to Coast Guard stakeholders.
[Footnote 26] Additionally, the Coast Guard has improved and begun to
apply the disciplined management process contained in its Major
Systems Acquisition Manual (MSAM) for individual assets, although it
did not meet its goal of adhering to this process for all Deepwater
assets by March 2009. In addition, we reported in July 2009 that the
MSAM does not appear to be consistent with DHS policy that requires
entities responsible for operational testing to be independent of the
system's users.[Footnote 27] The Coast Guard concurred with our
recommendation to consult with DHS on policies regarding the
independent operational test authority.
The Coast Guard has also made other improvements to its oversight and
management of the Deepwater program. Due in part to the Coast Guard's
increased insight into its purchases, the anticipated cost, schedules,
and capabilities of many Deepwater assets have changed since the $24.2
billion baseline was established in 2007. Coast Guard officials have
stated that this baseline reflected not a traditional cost estimate,
but rather the anticipated contract costs as determined by ICGS. As
the Coast Guard developed its own cost baselines for some assets, as
of July 2009, it has become apparent that some of the assets it is
procuring will likely cost up to $2.7 billion more than anticipated.
This represents about a 39 percent cost growth for the assets under
the revised cost estimates.[Footnote 28] According to Coast Guard, as
more cost baselines are developed and approved, further cost growth is
likely. Updated baselines also indicate that schedules have slipped
for delivery of several of the assets.
Problems in Deepwater management and oversight have led to delivery
delays and other operational challenges for certain assets, as our
prior work has identified, particularly (1) patrol boats and their
anticipated replacements, the Fast Response Cutters[Footnote 29] and
(2) the National Security Cutter. Specifically, we reported in June
2008 that conversion of the first eight 110-foot patrol boats was
unsuccessful, and subsequently, the Coast Guard decided to remove
these vessels from service and accelerate the design and delivery of
the replacement Fast Response Cutters.[Footnote 30] The removal from
service of the eight converted patrol boats in November 2006 created
operational challenges by reducing potential patrol boat availability
by 16 percent or 20,000 annual operational hours.[Footnote 31] To
mitigate the loss of these eight patrol boats and the associated 2,500
operational hours per patrol boat 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 so that these assets could operate for longer duration, yet
still met crew rest requirements. To help fill the longer-term patrol
boat operational gap, Coast Guard officials continue to pursue the
acquisition of a commercially available Fast Response Cutter. The
Coast Guard reports that the first of these cutters, the Sentinel,
will commence operations in Miami, Florida in fiscal year 2011. While
the contract is for the design and production of up to 34 cutters, the
Coast Guard intends to acquire a total of 12 by fiscal year 2011 to
assess the capabilities of these first 12 before exercising options
for additional cutters. Coast Guard officials noted that they plan to
assess the capabilities of the new cutter through operational test and
evaluation before exercising options for additional cutters.
Regarding the National Security Cutters, delays in the delivery of
National Security Cutters and the support assets of unmanned aircraft
and small boats have created operational gaps for the Coast Guard that
include the projected loss of thousands of days in National Security
Cutter availability for conducting missions until 2018, as we reported
in July 2009.[Footnote 32] The first vessel (USCGC Bertholf, see
figure 1) was initially projected for delivery in 2006 but was not
delivered to the Coast Guard until May 2008. We reported in July 2009
that this first vessel was undergoing final trials as the Coast Guard
prepared it for full operational service in the fourth quarter of
fiscal year 2010. The Coast Guard deployed this first National
Security Cutter without its planned support assets.[Footnote 33] Given
the delivery delays, the Coast Guard must continue to rely on High
Endurance Cutters that are becoming increasingly unreliable. Coast
Guard officials said that the first National Security Cutter
capabilities will be greater than those of a High Endurance Cutter;
however, the Coast Guard cannot determine the extent to which the
National Security Cutters' capabilities will exceed those of the High
Endurance Cutter until the National Security Cutters' support assets
are operational, which will take several years. To mitigate these
operational gaps, the Coast Guard is considering extending the service
life of some of its High Endurance Cutters and is using existing
aircraft and small boats until unmanned aircraft and new small boats
are operational. However, because the High Endurance Cutters are
increasingly unreliable, the Coast Guard planned to perform a series
of upgrades and maintenance procedures on selected vessels. Before
this work could begin, the Coast Guard conducted an analysis on the
condition of the High Endurance Cutters and this resulted in the plan
to decommission 4 High Endurance Cutters by fiscal year 2011, which
could further negatively impact the Coast Guard's ability to more
effectively conduct missions.
Figure 1: The Coast Guard's First National Security Cutter, The
Bertholf:
[Refer to PDF for image: photograph]
Source: U.S. Coast Guard.
[End of figure]
Looking forward, Coast Guard officials stated that they must review
and continuously re-validate whether assumptions used to determine the
original fleet mix (i.e., types and number of vessels and aircraft) of
Deepwater assets are still reflective of mission demands and
operational requirements. For example, the Coast Guard is conducting
an updated review to determine whether it will continue with the
contractor's original 2001 baseline mix of 8 National Security
Cutters, 25 Offshore Patrol Cutters, and 58 Fast Response Cutters.
From 2005 to 2006, the Coast Guard worked to rebaseline the Deepwater
program to reflect its post-September 11 mission. In April 2006, we
reported on this baseline, looking at key changes in asset numbers and
capabilities between the original (2001) and revised (2005 and 2006)
Deepwater baseline implementation plans.[Footnote 34]At that time, we
found that the Coast Guard's analytical methods were appropriate for
determining if the revised asset mix would provide greater mission
performance and whether the mix was appropriate for meeting Deepwater
missions. In May 2007, the DHS approved the Deepwater Acquisition
Program Baseline, which reflects the revised 2005 to 2006
implementations plans. Since that time, as the Coast Guard has taken
over the acquisition and management responsibilities for the Deepwater
program from the contractor, it has realized that its knowledge of how
the various proposed assets would work together to help meet mission
needs were limited because the contractor, in certain cases, had
developed the plans for these assets without using all of the input
from the Coast Guard.[Footnote 35] Coast Guard officials stated that
as part of the on-going process to review the original work completed
by the contractor, and in light of technology advances, the
Department's maturation, program oversight, and new assets coming
online, the Coast Guard has initiated an analysis of the capabilities,
number, and mix of assets it needs to fulfill its Deepwater missions
by undertaking a new fleet mix analysis.[Footnote 36] The Coast Guard
expects that this fleet mix analysis will assist in determining
capability-capacity-performance sensitivities and serve as one tool,
among many, in making future capability requirements determinations,
including future fleet mix decisions. The results of this study were
originally expected in the summer of 2009, but U.S. Coast Guard
officials told us that, as of February 2010, the finalization of this
study is not expected for a few more months, at which time Coast Guard
leadership is to assess the results and plan for future asset
procurement decisions. According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast
Guard plans to update this fleet mix analysis every 4 years and use it
as a basis to update the numbers and types of assets needed for the
Deepwater program. At this time, it is too soon to determine the
extent to which the fleet mix analysis will inform the Coast Guard's
future Deepwater investment decisions.
Coast Guard has Efforts Underway to Address Key Reorganization
Challenges:
The Coast Guard is also continuing its command reorganization, but has
not received requested statutory authorities designed to establish its
new command structure.[Footnote 37] This reorganization is intended to
better position the service to fulfill not only traditional missions--
such as ensuring the safety and security of commercial shipping,
safeguarding U.S. fisheries, interdicting illicit drugs, and
conducting search and the rescue operations--but also homeland
security responsibilities that expanded after the September 11
terrorist attacks. The reorganization is specifically focused on
modifying the Coast Guard's command and control structure[Footnote
38]--including the establishment of four new organizational entities--
as well as updating mission support systems, such as maintenance,
logistics, financial management, human resources, acquisitions, and
information technology.
While the Coast Guard reported completing all interim key actions for
the reorganization program on schedule, it has not received requested
statutory authorities designed to fully establish the new command
structure and associated senior leadership positions. Specifically,
the Coast Guard submitted a legislative change proposal to, in
general, amend Title 14 of the U.S. Code, changing the Vice
Commandant's grade from that of a vice admiral to an admiral, and
enabling the Coast Guard to appoint four vice admirals rather than
two.[Footnote 39] Lacking these legislative authorities, the Coast
Guard is not able to fully implement its envisioned command structure
realignment leaving the Coast Guard with its existing geographically-
divided command structure--Pacific Area and Atlantic Area. As a
result, the Coast Guard has reported that some role ambiguity
currently exists due to the combination of both old and new
organizational components operating concurrently. For example, many
personnel designated to the new Force Readiness Command are continuing
to focus almost exclusively on Pacific Area responsibilities.
According to the Coast Guard, the staff is currently able to shift
resources internally to meet changing demands and priorities; however,
the situation is not sustainable. That is, without the legislative
changes, personnel will not be able to fully carry out their duties as
envisioned by the new command structure. However, as we previously
reported, even if the proposed command realignment is fully
implemented through enactment of legislative changes, development of
relevant performance metrics also remains critically important to
ensure that the purported organizational benefits of reorganization
are realized. The Coast Guard has taken steps to identify applicable
business metrics, which are intended to be used to evaluate the
performance and effectiveness of modernized Coast Guard processes and
facilitate continued improvement:
Establishment of the Deployable Operations Group is one example of
Coast Guard reorganization that appears to be achieving organizational
benefits, although selected management challenges also exist.
Established in July 2007, the Deployable Operations Group aligns all
of the Coast Guard's deployable specialized forces under a single
unified command with national, rather than regional focus. To date,
the Deployable Operations Group has largely achieved many of the
organizational benefits that it intended as a result of establishing a
single command entity to manage and oversee all of its deployable
specialized forces. For example, the Deployable Operations Group has
(1) standardized tactics, techniques, and procedures; (2) streamlined
the process used to request and allocate deployable resources; and (3)
implemented an employment schedule that provides dedicated training
periods for deployable units, among other improvements. As the
Deployable Operations Group continues to mature, however, the command
faces challenges to ensure that deployable units are adequately
prepared and have the necessary resources to carry out both routine
operations and respond to national events and emergencies. For
example, the Deployable Operations Group faces human resource
challenges associated with a reduction in number of personnel allotted
to perform key duties. Specifically, the Deployable Operations Group
is operating with 113 staff although initial planning estimates called
for 147. Other challenges involve achieving and maintaining
qualifications for capabilities that are critical for maritime
interdiction missions, such as vertical insertion from a helicopter
onto the deck of a target vessel. Although three different types of
deployable units are designated to be capable of performing this
action, a limited number of required helicopters and trained pilots
are available to meet the ongoing training demand. Coast Guard
officials stated that they expect that the proposed elimination of
dedicated helicopter support to the Maritime Security Response Team
(MSRT) will likely exacerbate this challenge.[Footnote 40] In
addition, while the Deployable Operations Group was created to
leverage existing resources--potentially doing more with the same
resources--its enhanced oversight has also identified new resource
requirements. For example, the Deployable Operations Group has
identified areas of increasing demand and potential resource gaps that
may require difficult decisions about Deployable Specialized Forces
roles', required capacity, and their resulting impact on the Coast
Guard's overall budget. These challenges may be further exacerbated by
having fewer Coast Guard personnel available to meet the increasing
demand. We are continuing to assess the Coast Guard's Deployable
Operations Group and will report on the results of our review this by
spring of this year.
However, the Coast Guard has not made progress in all of its efforts
to improve mission support challenges, such as financial management.
According to the DHS-OIG's report on the fiscal year 2009 financial
statement and internal controls, the Coast Guard did make some
progress in fiscal year 2009.[Footnote 41] In response to reporting
from previous years on several internal control deficiencies that led
to a material weakness in financial reporting, the Coast Guard
developed its Financial Strategy for Transformation and Audit
Readiness, which is a comprehensive plan to identify and correct
conditions that are causing control deficiencies. However, the DHS-
Office of Inspector General's (DHS-OIG) report also found that the
Coast Guard was unable to provide documentation of key processes, risk
assessments, or evidence supporting the existence of internal
controls. Coast Guard management acknowledged that pervasive material
weaknesses exist in key financial processes, and therefore the agency
is unable to make an assertion on the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting. In addition, the Coast Guard was
unable to provide evidence to support transactions and account
balances that are material to DHS's financial statements. In addition,
the Deputy Inspector General testified before Congress on financial
management challenges at the Department and noted that the Coast Guard
was one of three components primarily responsible for material
weaknesses in the department's internal controls.[Footnote 42] In
addition, the Coast Guard also contributed to the Transportation
Security Administration's (TSA's) financial systems security material
weakness due to TSA's reliance on the Coast Guard's financial systems.
According to the Commandant, the financial audit is a top Coast Guard
responsibility, and the solution ultimately lies in the transition to
a new financial accounting system that is being developed by DHS. In
addition, Coast Guard officials stated that the Coast Guard must also
correct deficiencies which are not dependent upon the system, as well
as work to have policies, processes, and data ready to successfully
migrate and operate under a new financial system. As we reported in
December 2009, DHS has developed certain elements for its financial
management strategy--the Transformation and Systems Consolidation
(TASC) program--and a plan for moving forward with its financial
system integration efforts, but it faces significant challenges in
completing and implementing its strategy.[Footnote 43] Although we
made seven recommendations and reaffirmed six prior recommendations to
mitigate DHS's risk in acquiring and implementing the TASC, none were
specific to the Coast Guard.[Footnote 44] We will, however, continue
to closely monitor the progress of this new financial management
systems strategy, which will ultimately affect all components,
including the Coast Guard.
Coast Guard Also Facing Workforce Challenges:
In addition to having efforts underway to address key reorganization
challenges, the Coast Guard is also working to address workforce
challenges. We reported in January 2010 that the Coast Guard has
efforts underway to address some long-standing workforce challenges,
but it is too soon to determine the impact of these efforts.[Footnote
45] The Coast Guard has a well-documented history of workforce
problems, identified by Congress, GAO, and marine safety industry
stakeholders, among others. For example, the Coast Guard faces
continuing problems in balancing homeland security and more
traditional missions, such as law enforcement and marine safety, in
the wake of the September 11 terrorist attacks. In 2002 and 2003, we
reported that the Coast Guard did not have a long-term strategy that
outlined how it sees its resources--including personnel--distributed
across its various missions. Furthermore, we reported that although
the Coast Guard used a variety of mission performance measures, it
lacked a useful reporting mechanism to synthesize and convey data to
Congress about its non-homeland security mission resource levels.
Thus, we recommended in 2004 that the Coast Guard implement a system
to accurately account for resources expended in each of its mission
areas.[Footnote 46] Although the Coast Guard generally agreed with
this recommendation, the agency took no formal position. The agency
explained that it believed that its multimission nature posed a higher
degree of difficulty for the agency to implement the recommendations.
The Coast Guard has reported improvements in the transparency and
accuracy of its financial systems and data, though concerns remain, as
reported by the DHS-OIG. Further, in 2008, we reported that the Coast
Guard's execution of a security-related program was at risk because it
lacked a strategic workforce plan that (1) defined appropriate
staffing levels, (2) identified the critical skills needed to achieve
the mission, and (3) eliminated workforce gaps to prepare for future
needs. As a result, we recommended that Coast Guard fully develop a
workforce plan for this program. DHS partially concurred with our
recommendation, saying current workforce needs had been analyzed, but
acknowledged the need to do more if new authorities were provided to
expand the program's capacity-building activities. However, we found
that those actions fell short of the planning called for by the human
capital management guidance and that further development of a
workforce plan was still appropriate.[Footnote 47]
The Coast Guard has made efforts to address these workforce challenges
through the development of servicewide mission-support and mission-
specific plans, as well as the creation or expansion of data-driven
management tools. However, most of these efforts are either in early
stages of implementation or expansion or the data are not yet
available to assess them. One of the four plans we reviewed did not
fully conform to congressional direction. For example, one servicewide
effort, the Workforce Action Plan, was developed in response to
appropriations committee report direction, whose members had expressed
concern that the size of the Coast Guard's workforce had not kept pace
with its increased mission requirements.[Footnote 48] The Workforce
Action Plan did not provide a gap analysis of the mission areas and
personnel needed, and thus also did not provide a strategy with
proposed funding, milestones, and a timeline for addressing these
workforce gaps for each employee, consistent with congressional
direction. The remaining three plans generally conformed to best
practices.[Footnote 49]
Furthermore, as the Coast Guard continues to develop and implement
these workforce-related efforts, it faces challenges due to resource
constraints, data reliability problems, and coordination. The Coast
Guard acknowledged that it faces two types of resource challenges--
first, dedicating the necessary resources to implement and monitor its
planning and data-tool workforce initiatives, and second, having the
resources to meet its workforce and mission requirements once they are
established. Coast Guard officials also acknowledged challenges with
obtaining reliable, verifiable, and repeatable data that may affect
the data-driven tools created by the Coast Guard. Along with resource
and data reliability challenges, the Coast Guard faces potential
challenges in coordinating its various workforce-related plans and
tools. Specifically, in the midst of the large organizational
transformation that is under way involving numerous changes to the
Coast Guard's command structure, enterprisewide support systems, and
business practices, it may prove difficult for the Coast Guard to
coordinate more narrowly defined workforce management efforts, such as
plans and tools that span a range of specific functions and encompass
a variety of Coast Guard activities. The Coast Guard has established
an office to coordinate the modernization effort and other broad
organizational change initiatives; however, it is not clear whether
its span of control or influence will extend to the specific workforce-
related plans and tools.
Leadership Is Key to Sustaining the Coast Guard's Efforts to Address
Challenges:
Leadership is critical as the Coast Guard faces large scale changes
and resource decisions in the near term. While the Coast Guard has
efforts underway to address many of the key challenges confronting the
agency, sustaining these efforts will be a challenge for the new Coast
Guard leadership team.[Footnote 50] As we have previously reported, at
the center of any serious change management initiative--such as the
reorganization plan--are the people.[Footnote 51] Thus, the key to a
successful merger and transformation is to recognize the "people"
element and implement strategies to help individuals maximize their
full potential in the new organization, while simultaneously managing
the risk of reduced productivity and effectiveness that often occurs
as a result of the changes. One key practice in this effort is
ensuring that the organization's top leadership drives the change
initiative and defines and articulates a succinct and compelling
reason for the change. For example, in 2003 we reported that because a
merger or transformation entails fundamental and often radical change,
strong and inspirational leadership is indispensable, and that top
leadership that is clearly and personally involved in the merger or
transformation represents stability and provides an identifiable
source for employees to rally around during tumultuous times. The
agency's leadership must set the direction, pace, and tone for the
transformation. For all of these ongoing efforts and changes to
achieve their intended benefits, it is important that Coast Guard
leadership maintains attention to these challenges.
Mr. Chairman and members of this Subcommittee, this concludes my
prepared statement. I would 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 Sylvia Bascopé, Claudia
Becker, Dawn Hoff, John Hutton, Lara Kaskie, J. Kristopher Keener, Dan
Klabunde, Ryan Lambert, and Michele Mackin.
[End of section]
Appendix I: The Coast Guard's Statutory Missions:
This appendix outlines the Coast Guard's mission, activities and
functions. 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. 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 in table 3.
Table 3: Coast Guard Homeland Security and Non-Homeland Security
Missions:
Homeland security missions:
Statutory mission[A]: 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 mission[A]: 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 mission[A]: 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.
Non-homeland security missions:
Statutory mission[A]: 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 mission[A]: 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 mission[A]: Search and rescue;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Operating multi-mission stations and a national distress and
response communication system;
* Conducting search and rescue operations for mariners in distress.
Statutory mission[A]: Living marine resources;
Primary activities and functions of each Coast Guard mission:
* Enforcing domestic fishing laws and regulations through inspections
and fishery patrols.
Statutory mission[A]: 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 mission[A]: 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]: 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]: 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]
[End of section]
Appendix II: Coast Guard's Budget Request, by statutory mission:
This appendix compares the Coast Guard's proposed budget for fiscal
year 2011 against the agency's enacted budget for the previous year,
by mission. Table 4 highlights those mission areas in which the Coast
Guard proposes change--either an increase or decrease in investment
from year to year. The last two columns of the table give a sense of
the magnitude of the proposed change, both as a dollar figure and as a
percentage change. Figure 2 graphically illustrates these year-to-year
changes, by mission.
Table 4: Coast Guard Fiscal year 2011 Budget Request by Statutory
Mission:
Statutory Mission[A]: Search and rescue;
FY 2010 Enacted: $985,991;
FY 2011 Requested: $936,370;
Change: -$49,621;
Percentage Change: -5%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Marine safety;
FY 2010 Enacted: $649,711;
FY 2011 Requested: $650,054;
Change: $343;
Percentage Change: 0.
Statutory Mission[A]: Aids to navigation;
FY 2010 Enacted: $1,215,310;
FY 2011 Requested: $1,219,873;
Change: $4,563;
Percentage Change: 0.
Statutory Mission[A]: Ice operations;
FY 2010 Enacted: $167,397;
FY 2011 Requested: $141,297;
Change: -$26,100;
Percentage Change: -16%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Marine environmental protection;
FY 2010 Enacted: $202,241;
FY 2011 Requested: $198,711;
Change: -$3,530;
Percentage Change: -2%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Living marine resources;
FY 2010 Enacted: $893,391;
FY 2011 Requested: $915,947;
Change: $22,556;
Percentage Change: 3%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Drug interdiction;
FY 2010 Enacted: $1,193,726;
FY 2011 Requested: $1,239,658;
Change: $45,932;
Percentage Change: 4%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Other law enforcement;
FY 2010 Enacted: $148,840;
FY 2011 Requested: $158,581;
Change: $9,741;
Percentage Change: 7%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Migrant interdiction;
FY 2010 Enacted: $742,322;
FY 2011 Requested: $747,425;
Change: $5,103;
Percentage Change: 1%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Ports, waterways, and coastal security;
FY 2010 Enacted: $1,802,134;
FY 2011 Requested: $1,700,995;
Change: -$101,139;
Percentage Change: -6%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Defense readiness;
FY 2010 Enacted: $540,686;
FY 2011 Requested: $557,626;
Change: $16,940;
Percentage Change: 3%.
Statutory Mission[A]: Total Discretionary Funding;
FY 2010 Enacted: $8,541,749;
FY 2011 Requested: $8,466,537;
Change: -$75,212;
Percentage Change: -1%.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
[A] The Coast Guard budgets by statutory appropriations account
categories rather than statutory mission program categories. In order
to display budget allocated by mission program, the agency uses an
activity-based cost model that averages past expenditures to forecast
future spending.
[End of table]
Figure 2: Coast Guard Fiscal Year 2010 Enacted Budget and FY 2011
Budget Request, by Statutory Mission:
[Refer to PDF for image: multiple vertical bar graph]
Statutory mission: Search and rescue;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $985,991;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $936,370.
Statutory mission: Marine safety;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $649,711;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $650,054.
Statutory mission: Aids to navigation;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $1,215,310;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $1,219,870.
Statutory mission: Ice operations;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $167,397;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $141,297.
Statutory mission: Marine environmental protection;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $202,241;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $198,711.
Statutory mission: Living marine resources;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $893,391;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $915,947.
Statutory mission: Drug interdiction;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $1,193,730;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $1,239,660.
Statutory mission: Other law enforcement;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $148,840;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $158,581.
Statutory mission: Migrant interdiction;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $742,322;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $747,425.
Statutory mission: Ports, waterways,and coastal security;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $1,802,130;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $1,701,000.
Statutory mission: Defense readiness;
FY 2010 Enacted budget: $540,686;
FY 2011 Enacted budget: $55,7626.
Source: GAO analysis of Coast Guard data.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Performance Results by Mission for 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 2009
(see table 5). In some cases, noted by n/a, performance measures have
changed and do not allow for direct comparison with the fiscal year
2009 measure. The table is broken into three sections--missions
meeting all of their 2009 performance targets, missions partially
meeting their performance targets, and missions meeting none of their
performance targets.
Table 5: Coast Guard Performance Results by Mission from Fiscal Year
2004 through Fiscal Year 2009:
Missions meeting 2009 performance targets:
Coast Guard mission: Search and rescue;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of people saved from imminent
danger in the maritime environment[A];
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 results: 2009: 77.3%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 76.0%.
Coast Guard mission: Ports, waterways, and coastal security;
Mission performance measures: Percent 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 results: 2009: 31%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 21%.
Coast Guard mission: Ports, waterways, and coastal security;
Mission performance measures: MTSA annual required facility inspection
rate;
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: 100%;
Performance results: 2006: 100%;
Performance results: 2007: 78%;
Performance results: 2008: 100%;
Performance results: 2009: 100%;
Performance target for 2009: 100%.
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: 502;
Performance results: 2007: 527;
Performance results: 2008: 494;
Performance results: 2009: 475;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 529.
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: 617;
Performance results: 2007: 480;
Performance results: 2008: 388;
Performance results: 2009: 369;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 496.
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: 215;
Performance results: 2007: 238;
Performance results: 2008: 250;
Performance results: 2009: 228;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 251.
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: 334;
Performance results: 2007: 254;
Performance results: 2008: 215;
Performance results: 2009: 149;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 236.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average recreational boating
deaths and injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 4,703;
Performance results: 2005: 4,503;
Performance results: 2006: 4,367;
Performance results: 2007: 4,249;
Performance results: 2008: 4,147;
Performance results: 2009: 4,038;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 4,248.
Coast Guard mission: Marine safety;
Mission performance measures: Annual recreational boating deaths and
injuries;
Performance results: 2004: 4,081;
Performance results: 2005: 4,120;
Performance results: 2006: 4,197;
Performance results: 2007: 4,285;
Performance results: 2008: 4,052;
Performance results: 2009: 3,534;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 4,184.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average number of oil spills
greater than 100 gallons per 100 million short tons shipped;
Performance results: 2004: 17.6;
Performance results: 2005: 16.0;
Performance results: 2006: 14.3;
Performance results: 2007: 14.0;
Performance results: 2008: 13.2;
Performance results: 2009: 11.8;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 13.0.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection;
Mission performance measures: Annual number of oil spills greater than
100 gallons;
Performance results: 2004: 162;
Performance results: 2005: 149;
Performance results: 2006: 168;
Performance results: 2007: 140;
Performance results: 2008: 122;
Performance results: 2009: 98;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 150.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average number of chemical
discharge incidents per 100 million short tons shipped;
Performance results: 2004: 42.5;
Performance results: 2005: 31.9;
Performance results: 2006: 27.9;
Performance results: 2007: 24.7;
Performance results: 2008: 19.8;
Performance results: 2009: 17.8;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 25.9.
Coast Guard mission: Marine environmental protection;
Mission performance measures: Annual number of chemical discharge
incidents greater than 100 gallons;
Performance results: 2004: 39;
Performance results: 2005: 31;
Performance results: 2006: 46;
Performance results: 2007: 39;
Performance results: 2008: 21;
Performance results: 2009: 22;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 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: 126;
Performance results: 2008: 81;
Performance results: 2009: 112;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 195.
Coast Guard mission: Other law enforcement (foreign fishing
enforcement);
Mission performance measures: Interdiction rate of foreign vessels
detected violating U.S. exclusive economic zone;
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: n/a;
Performance results: 2006: n/a;
Performance results: 2007: 23.0%;
Performance results: 2008: 16.0%;
Performance results: 2009: 14.3%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 9%.
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 results: 2009: 0;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 2/8[B].
Missions partially meeting 2009 performance targets:
Coast Guard mission: Aids to navigation;
Mission performance measures: 5-year average number of collisions,
allisions, and groundings[C];
Performance results: 2004: 1,928;
Performance results: 2005: 1,875;
Performance results: 2006: 1,818;
Performance results: 2007: 1,823;
Performance results: 2008: 1,857;
Performance results: 2009: 1,878;
Performance target for 2009: less than or equal to 1871.
Coast Guard mission: Aids to navigation;
Mission performance measures: 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 results: 2009: 98.0%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 97.5%.
Coast Guard mission: Migrant interdiction;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of undocumented migrants
attempting to enter the United States via maritime routes that are
interdicted;
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 results: 2009: 84.4%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 69.9%.
Coast Guard mission: Migrant interdiction;
Mission performance measures: Percentage of undocumented migrants
attempting to enter the United States via maritime routes that are
interdicted by the Coast Guard;
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: n/a;
Performance results: 2006: n/a;
Performance results: 2007: 42.1%;
Performance results: 2008: 46.9%;
Performance results: 2009: 37.5%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 50%.
Coast Guard mission: Illegal Drug interdiction;
Mission performance measures: Removal rate for cocaine shipped via non-
commercial maritime means[D];
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: n/a ;
Performance results: 2006: n/a ;
Performance results: 2007: n/a ;
Performance results: 2008: n/a;
Performance results: 2009: 15%;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 15.7%.
Coast Guard mission: Illegal Drug interdiction;
Mission performance measures: Metric tons of cocaine removed;
Performance results: 2004: 133.4;
Performance results: 2005: 153.2;
Performance results: 2006: 130.2;
Performance results: 2007: 161.7;
Performance results: 2008: 166.9;
Performance results: 2009: 160.1;
Performance target for 2009: greater than or equal to 134.
Missions that did not meet 2009 performance targets:
Coast Guard mission: Defense readiness[E];
Mission performance measures: Percentage of time that Coast Guard
assets meet designated combat readiness level;
Performance results: 2004: 76%;
Performance results: 2005: 67%;
Performance results: 2006: 62%;
Performance results: 2007: 51%;
Performance results: 2008: 56%;
Performance results: 2009: 44%;
Performance target for 2009: 100%.
Coast Guard mission: Defense readiness[E];
Mission performance measures: Defense Readiness of High Endurance
Cutters;
Performance results: 2004: 98.5%;
Performance results: 2005: 99.5%;
Performance results: 2006: 84.2%;
Performance results: 2007: 47.0%;
Performance results: 2008: 47.0%;
Performance results: 2009: 20.7%;
Performance target for 2009: 100%.
Coast Guard mission: Defense readiness[E];
Mission performance measures: Defense Readiness of Patrol Boats;
Performance results: 2004: n/a;
Performance results: 2005: n/a;
Performance results: 2006: 100%;
Performance results: 2007: 100%;
Performance results: 2008: 95.0%;
Performance results: 2009: 94.0%;
Performance target for 2009: 100%.
Coast Guard mission: Defense readiness[E];
Mission performance measures: Defense Readiness of Port Security Units;
Performance results: 2004: 29.0%;
Performance results: 2005: 1.5%;
Performance results: 2006: 1.0%;
Performance results: 2007: 4.5%;
Performance results: 2008: 24.5%;
Performance results: 2009: 19.8%;
Performance target for 2009: 100%.
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 results: 2009: 96.7%;
Performance target for 2009: 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 2009 targets.
[A] This measure calculates the number or lives saved divided by the
number of lives in distress, excluding cases involving 11 or more
persons. Starting in fiscal year 2009, "lives in distress" now
includes "lives unaccounted for"--persons still missing when search
and rescue operations cease.
[B] 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.
[C] 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.
[D] In fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard revised its methodology for
measuring drug interdiction performance by using the Consolidated
Counter Drug Database (CCDB) as its source for tracking cocaine
movement. Coast Guard states that the CCDB quarterly, event-based
estimates are historically more than 60 percent higher than the annual
production-and consumption-based estimates which had previously been
used. This could make it appear as though Coast Guard performance
dropped from fiscal year 2008. Therefore, no comparable prior year
figures are available.
[E] The Coast Guard reports that the defense readiness performance
measures reported in fiscal year 2009 will be retired in fiscal year
2010. The measures are being replaced with similar Status of Resources
Training System based readiness measures that employ different
methodology to better reflect readiness of all the Port Security Units
and the entire fleet of patrol boats and High Endurance Cutters.
[End of table]
[End of section]
GAO Related Products:
Coast Guard: Service Has Taken Steps to Address Historic Personnel
Problems, but It Is too Soon to Assess the Impact of These Efforts.
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R]. Washington,
D.C.: January 29, 2010.
Coast Guard: Better Logistics Planning Needed to Aid Operational
Decisions Related to the Deployment of the National Security Cutter
and Its Support Assets. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-497]. Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2009.
Coast Guard: As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard is
Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying its
Disciplined Acquisition Approach. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682]. Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2009.
Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010 Budget and Related
Performance and Management Challenges. [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-810T]. Washington, D.C.: July 7,
2009.
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.: 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.
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] The Deepwater program is the largest acquisition program in Coast
Guard history and is intended to replace or modernize the Coast
Guard's aging vessels, aircraft, and some communications systems.
[3] U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard Posture Statement with 2011
Budget in Brief (February 2010) and U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Coast Guard
Fiscal Year 2009 Performance Report (February 2010).
[4] The Coast Guard also refers to its command realignment effort as
the modernization program.
[5] Today we are releasing our report on the Coast Guard's personnel
programs: Coast Guard: Service Has Taken Steps to Address Historic
Personnel Problems, but It Is too Soon to Assess the Impact of These
Efforts, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R]
(Washington, D.C.: Jan. 29, 2010). For examples of our prior Coast
Guard work, see: GAO, Coast Guard: Better Logistics Planning Needed to
Aid Operational Decisions Related to the Deployment of the National
Security Cutter and Its Support Assets, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-947] (Washington, D.C.: July 17,
2009); GAO, Coast Guard: As Deepwater Systems Integrator, Coast Guard
is Reassessing Costs and Capabilities but Lags in Applying its
Disciplined Acquisition Approach, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682] (Washington, D.C.: July 14,
2009); 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).
[6] When supplemental funding and funds transferred from the National
Science Foundation for Polar Operations are taken into account and
added to the fiscal year 2010 enacted budget, the calculations reflect
a decrease of about 3 percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year
2011. These figures include the Coast Guard's biggest mandatory
appropriation account--retired pay--but do not include three smaller
mandatory appropriation accounts-boating safety, oil spill liability
trust fund, or gift fund.
[7] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-530R].
[8] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R].
[9] GAO's analysis of the Coast Guard's budget request is presented in
nominal terms. These calculations do not include either the $241.5
million in supplemental funding that the Coast Guard received for
overseas contingency operations in fiscal year 2010 or the $54 million
transferred from the National Science Foundation for Polar Operations.
When these funds are taken into account and added to the fiscal year
2010 enacted budget, the calculations reflect a decrease of about 3
percent from fiscal year 2010 to fiscal year 2011. Our calculations
also do not include any of the $240 million in Recovery Act funding
allocated to the Coast Guard in fiscal year 2009, some of which will
be spent in fiscal years 2011 and 2012. Finally, these figures include
the Coast Guard's biggest mandatory appropriation account--retired
pay--but do not include three smaller mandatory appropriation
accounts--boating safety, oil spill liability trust fund, or gift fund.
[10] The HH-65 is the Coast Guard's main helicopter, serving such
missions as search and rescue, drug and migrant interdiction, and
homeland security. Rescue 21 is a Coast Guard program to modernize a
30-year-old search and rescue communications system used for missions
20 miles or less from shore, referred to as the National Distress and
Response System. Among other things, it is to increase communications
coverage area, allow electronic tracking of department vessels and
other mobile assets, and enable secure communication with other
federal and state entities.
[11] The AC&I appropriation account finances the acquisition of new
capital assets, construction of new facilities, and physical
improvements to existing facilities and assets. The Retired Pay
appropriation account provides payments as identified under the
Retired Serviceman's Family Protection and Survivor Benefits Plans, as
well as other personnel entitlements such as medical care of retired
personnel and their dependents.
[12] The 378-foot High Endurance Cutter class are the largest cutters
ever built for the Coast Guard. Equipped with a helicopter flight
deck, retractable hangar, and the facilities to support helicopter
deployment, the High Endurance Cutter is versatile and capable of
performing a variety of missions, and operates throughout the world's
oceans. Medium Endurance Cutters are helicopter-capable medium-range,
medium-endurance platforms. Their missions include enforcement of laws
and treaties, fisheries, migrant interdiction, counter-drug
activities, safety inspections, search and rescue, and homeland
security. The HU-25 is a medium-range surveillance fixed-wing
aircraft. There are three variants of the HU-25; the primary
difference is in the installed sensor package.
[13] The Coast Guard's MSSTs constitute a domestic force for
mitigating or responding to terrorist threats or incidents. Teams have
deployed, for example, to national special security events such as the
Presidential Inauguration, the Olympics, and the Super Bowl.
[14] The HC-130 Hercules is a long-range surveillance and transport,
fixed-wing aircraft that is used to perform a wide variety of missions.
[15] The Coast Guard budget includes funding for Deepwater assets,
including the National Security Cutter, the Fast Response Cutter, and
design funding for the Offshore Patrol Cutter.
[16] As a multi-mission agency, the Coast Guard notes that it may
conduct multiple mission activities simultaneously. As a result, it is
difficult to accurately detail the level of resources dedicated to
each mission. The Coast Guard uses an activity-based cost model that
averages past expenditures and models future investments to
approximate future spending by mission.
[17] The goal of the Ports, Waterways, and Coastal Security program is
to reduce the risk of maritime terrorism by improving maritime domain
awareness, conducting maritime security and response operations, and
developing maritime security regimes.
[18] This reduction is also reflective of reductions in investments in
Rescue 21 and the Response Boat-Medium. The key functions of the Coast
Guard's Search and Rescue program are to operate multimission stations
and a national distress and response communication system and conduct
search and rescue operations for mariners in distress.
[19] A goal (also known as a strategic goal or objective) constitutes
a specific set of policy, programmatic, and management objectives for
the programs and operations covered in the strategic plan, and serves
as a framework from which the annual objectives and activities are
derived. Performance measures are particular values or characteristics
used to measure output or outcome of activities, objectives, and goals.
[20] According to the Coast Guard, the other law enforcement mission
is more accurately described as foreign fishing vessel law enforcement.
[21] Starting in fiscal year 2009, the Coast Guard revised its
methodology for measuring drug interdiction performance by adopting
the Consolidated Counter-Drug Database as its source for tracking
cocaine movement estimates. This change in methodology makes it
difficult to compare the fiscal year 2009 performance to prior year's
performance so we have not reported prior year results in table 5 of
appendix III.
[22] Coast Guard reports that its defense readiness performance
measures will be retired in fiscal year 2010. The measures will be
replaced with other measures that employ different methodology to
better reflect readiness of the Port Security Units and the entire
fleet of patrol boats and High Endurance Cutters.
[23] To help carry out its missions, the Coast Guard has a large-scale
acquisition program, called Deepwater, under way to replace or upgrade
its fleet of vessels or aircraft. Our reports and testimonies over the
past 12 years have included details on the Deepwater program. See, for
example, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682]; 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: 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: 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).
[24] See GAO, 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); [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-
494T] and GAO, Coast Guard: Observations on the Fiscal Year 2010
Budget and Related Performance and Management Challenges, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-810T] (Washington, D.C.: Jul. 7,
2009).
[25] Additionally, while a lot of attention has been given to the
recent fiscal deterioration, the federal government faces even larger
fiscal challenges that will persist long after the return of financial
stability and economic growth. See GAO, The Federal Government's Long-
Term Fiscal Outlook, Fall 2009 Update, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-137SP] (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 15,
2009).
[26] To carry out this acquisition, the Coast Guard awarded the
competitive contract to a systems integrator, which for the Deepwater
program, was a contractor composed of two major companies acting as a
joint venture, responsible for designing, constructing, deploying,
supporting, and integrating the various assets to meet projected
Deepwater operational requirements at the lowest possible costs,
either directly or through subcontractors.
[27] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-682].
[28] As part of our ongoing work, we are updating the Coast Guard cost
estimates of Deepwater assets and expect to report on this work by mid-
2010.
[29] The Fast Response Cutter is slated to replace the 110' and 123'
patrol boats under the Coast Guard's Deepwater system and is projected
to provide greater speed, endurance, and operational hours then
current patrol boats.
[30] See 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).
[31] Under the original 2002 Deepwater implementation plan, the Coast
Guard intended to convert all 49 of its aging and deteriorating 110-
foot patrol boats into 123-foot patrol boats with increased
capabilities. This conversion was to serve as a bridging strategy
until a replacement vessel, the Fast Response Cutter, became
operational.
[32] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-497].
[33] The Bertholf was outfitted with cutter interceptor boats and an H-
65 helicopter during its first operational patrol.
[34] See GAO, 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).
[35] In 2001, the contractor completed a study documenting the
capabilities, types, and mix of assets the Coast Guard needed to
fulfill its Deepwater missions, referred to as the Fleet Mix Study.
[36] On October 24, 2008, a Coast Guard charter established a study
group to conduct the Coast Guard fleet mix analysis. The group's
purpose is to analyze, validate and make recommendations regarding
capability requirements necessary to execute Coast Guard missions in
the Deepwater operating environment.
[37] See [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-530R]. As we
reported, the U.S. Coast Guard is undertaking a major effort to update
its command structure, support systems, and business practices.
[38] Within the Coast Guard, command and control refers to the
exercise of authority and direction by a properly designated commander
over assigned forces in the accomplishment of the mission. Command and
control functions are performed through an arrangement of personnel,
equipment, communications, facilities, and procedures.
[39] While several current bills (e.g., H.R. 2650, H.R. 3619, and S.
1194) contain the Coast Guard's legislative change proposal
provisions, as of February 15, 2010, such bills were still pending.
[40] The Maritime Security Response Team (MSRT) is a highly
specialized resource with advanced counterterrorism skills and
tactics. The MSRT is trained to be a first responder to potential
terrorist situations; deny terrorist acts; perform security actions
against non-compliant actors; perform tactical facility entry and
enforcement; participate in port level counterterrorism exercises; and
educate other forces on Coast Guard counterterrorism procedures.
[41] Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General,
Independent Auditor's Report on DHS' FY2009 Financial Statements and
Internal Control Over Financial Reporting, OIG-10-11 (Washington,
D.C., November 13, 2009).
[42] Taylor, James L., Deputy Inspector General. Department of
Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General. Testimony Before the
House of Representatives, Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee
on Management, Investigations, and Oversight. October 29, 2009.
[43] See GAO, Financial Management Systems: DHS Faces Challenges to
Successfully Consolidating Its Existing Disparate Systems, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-76] (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 4,
2009).
[44] See, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-76]. For
further information on our prior work and recommendations in this
area, see GAO, Homeland Security: Departmentwide Integrated Financial
Management Systems Remain a Challenge, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-536] (Washington, D.C.: June 21,
2007); and, GAO, Financial Management Systems: DHS Has An Opportunity
to Incorporate Best Practices in Modernization Efforts, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-06-553] (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 29,
2006).
[45] [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R].
[46] See, 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).
[47] GAO, Maritime Security: Coast Guard International Port Security
Program Has Made Progress, but Additional Workforce Planning Is
Needed, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-335SU]
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 4, 2008).
[48] The Senate Report (S. Rep. No. 110-396 at 80 (2008)) accompanying
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L.
No. 110-329, 122 Stat. 3574, 3652 (2008)) required the Commandant of
the United States Coast Guard to address specific elements in the
development of a workforce action plan. The Explanatory Statement
accompanying the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
2009, directed the Coast Guard to comply with the Senate report
direction regarding a workforce action plan (H.Comm. on
Appropriations, 110th Cong., Committee Print on H.R. 2638/Public Law
110-329 at 646 (2008)).
[49] For detailed information on each of these plans and tools
including the issue they are intended to address, purpose, responsible
command, time frames, and status, see pp. 23-44 of [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-268R].
[50] The current Coast Guard Commandant's 4-year term ends in May
2010. At such time, he will be replaced by a new Commandant and Coast
Guard leadership team.
[51] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-369] (Washington, D.C.: July 2,
2003).
[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: