Transportation Research
Opportunities for Improving the Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with Transportation Statistics Gao ID: GAO-06-917 August 15, 2006The Department of Transportation's (DOT) research, development, and technology (RD&T) budget totaled $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005. DOT's Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)--which includes the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)--oversees DOT's RD&T activities. GAO examined (1) how RITA's responsibilities for overseeing DOT's RD&T activities differ from those of its predecessor, the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); (2) RITA's practices for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing RD&T activities; (3) the progress DOT has made in implementing GAO's 2003 recommendations on how to improve the coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities; and (4) how BTS identifies and monitors how well it serves its users. To address these issues, GAO reviewed relevant documentation and interviewed officials from RITA, BTS, and three operating administrations.
In 2005, RITA took over RSPA's responsibilities for overseeing DOT's RD&T activities when RSPA was dissolved. While RITA's mission and strategic objectives are similar to those RSPA had, RITA differs from RSPA in a number of ways. For example, RITA proposed a $2 million increase in its fiscal year 2007 budget request for the oversight of DOT's RD&T activities through its proposed Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program, which, among other things, would provide access to technical experts to RITA on a contract basis. Additionally, RITA's responsibility for evaluation is less clearly defined than RSPA's. RITA, unlike RSPA, is not required to measure the results or evaluate the effectiveness of RD&T activities. However, RITA is not explicitly prevented from evaluating such activities. RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT's RD&T activities through various practices. For example, RITA has two coordinating bodies--the RD&T Planning Council and the RD&T Planning Team--and conducts budget reviews, among other practices. RITA has not, however, established performance goals, a clear implementing strategy, or an evaluation plan that delineates how its coordination, facilitation, and review practices will further DOT's mission or ensure the effectiveness of its RD&T investment. Without such a strategic approach, it is difficult for RITA to ensure that DOT is making the most of its approximately $1 billion annual RD&T investment. RITA has partially implemented four of our recommendations and has not implemented the other. For example, while RITA, through its two coordinating bodies, has taken some action to review RD&T activities for duplication and opportunities for joint efforts, RITA has not established the scope of RD&T activities to be reviewed, the methodology of the review, or how the results will be used to make decisions about future RD&T activities. BTS does not have a systematic process for identifying its primary users, soliciting ongoing feedback from those users, and determining whether or how that feedback should be incorporated. For example, rather than identify specific users of BTS data products and services, BTS considers its users to be those broad categories of intended users described in federal legislation. Further, rather than routinely soliciting user feedback on all data products and services, such as through a customer satisfaction survey, BTS only solicits limited feedback from some users of specific products through conferences, workshops, or other meetings. Finally, BTS relies on its program managers to evaluate and determine how best to address feedback from its users; however, the managers are not required to--and often do not--report the results of whether or how they considered user feedback. Without a systematic process for identifying its users, soliciting ongoing feedback, and determining whether or how that feedback should be incorporated, BTS is limited in its ability to consider feedback and use it to make improvements to data products.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-06-917, Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with Transportation Statistics
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-917
entitled 'Transportation Research: Opportunities for Improving the
Oversight of DOT's Research Programs and User Satisfaction with
Transportation Statistics' which was released on August 15, 2006.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to Congressional Committees:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
August 2006:
Transportation Research:
Opportunities for Improving the Oversight of DOT's Research Programs
and User Satisfaction with Transportation Statistics:
Research and Innovative Technology Administration:
GAO-06-917:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-917, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Department of Transportation‘s (DOT) research, development, and
technology (RD&T) budget totaled $1.1 billion in fiscal year 2005.
DOT‘s Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA)”which
includes the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)”oversees DOT‘s
RD&T activities. GAO examined (1) how RITA‘s responsibilities for
overseeing DOT‘s RD&T activities differ from those of its predecessor,
the Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA); (2) RITA‘s
practices for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing RD&T
activities; (3) the progress DOT has made in implementing GAO‘s 2003
recommendations on how to improve the coordination and evaluation of
RD&T activities; and (4) how BTS identifies and monitors how well it
serves its users. To address these issues, GAO reviewed relevant
documentation and interviewed officials from RITA, BTS, and three
operating administrations.
What GAO Found:
In 2005, RITA took over RSPA‘s responsibilities for overseeing DOT‘s
RD&T activities when RSPA was dissolved. While RITA‘s mission and
strategic objectives are similar to those RSPA had, RITA differs from
RSPA in a number of ways. For example, RITA proposed a $2 million
increase in its fiscal year 2007 budget request for the oversight of
DOT‘s RD&T activities through its proposed Transportation Futures and
Applied Technology Program, which, among other things, would provide
access to technical experts to RITA on a contract basis. Additionally,
RITA‘s responsibility for evaluation is less clearly defined than
RSPA‘s. RITA, unlike RSPA, is not required to measure the results or
evaluate the effectiveness of RD&T activities. However, RITA is not
explicitly prevented from evaluating such activities.
RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT‘s RD&T activities
through various practices. For example, RITA has two coordinating
bodies”the RD&T Planning Council and the RD&T Planning Team”and
conducts budget reviews, among other practices. RITA has not, however,
established performance goals, a clear implementing strategy, or an
evaluation plan that delineates how its coordination, facilitation, and
review practices will further DOT‘s mission or ensure the effectiveness
of its RD&T investment. Without such a strategic approach, it is
difficult for RITA to ensure that DOT is making the most of its
approximately $1 billion annual RD&T investment.
RITA has partially implemented four of our recommendations and has not
implemented the other. For example, while RITA, through its two
coordinating bodies, has taken some action to review RD&T activities
for duplication and opportunities for joint efforts, RITA has not
established the scope of RD&T activities to be reviewed, the
methodology of the review, or how the results will be used to make
decisions about future RD&T activities.
BTS does not have a systematic process for identifying its primary
users, soliciting ongoing feedback from those users, and determining
whether or how that feedback should be incorporated. For example,
rather than identify specific users of BTS data products and services,
BTS considers its users to be those broad categories of intended users
described in federal legislation. Further, rather than routinely
soliciting user feedback on all data products and services, such as
through a customer satisfaction survey, BTS only solicits limited
feedback from some users of specific products through conferences,
workshops, or other meetings. Finally, BTS relies on its program
managers to evaluate and determine how best to address feedback from
its users; however, the managers are not required to”and often do
not”report the results of whether or how they considered user feedback.
Without a systematic process for identifying its users, soliciting
ongoing feedback, and determining whether or how that feedback should
be incorporated, BTS is limited in its ability to consider feedback and
use it to make improvements to data products.
What GAO Recommends:
GAO makes several recommendations to DOT to enhance RITA‘s ability to
manage and ensure the effectiveness of RD&T activities. These include
(1) developing performance goals, an implementing strategy, and an
evaluation plan for RITA; and (2) developing a systematic process for
BTS to identify its primary users and solicit and incorporate feedback
from those users. DOT generally agreed with the findings and
recommendations in this report.
[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-917].
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Mathew Scire at (202) 512-
2834 or sciremj@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results Summary:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Review of DOT's Research and Innovative Technology
Administration:
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
Table:
Table 1: Status of RITA's Implementation of GAO's 2003 Recommendations:
Abbreviations:
BTS: Bureau of Transportation Statistics:
DOT: Department of Transportation:
EAS: Essential Air Service:
FAA: Federal Aviation Administration:
FHWA: Federal Highway Administration:
FRA: Federal Railroad Administration:
FTA: Federal Transit Administration:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
MPO: Metropolitan Planning Organization:
NHTS: National Household Travel Survey:
NHTSA: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OST: Office of the Secretary of Transportation:
PHMSA: Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration:
PRA: Paperwork Reduction Act:
R&D: research and development:
RD&T: research, development, and technology:
RITA: Research and Innovative Technology Administration:
RSPA: Research and Special Programs Administration:
SAFETEA-LU: Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation
Equity Act: A Legacy for Users:
TEA-21: Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century:
TSAR: Transportation Statistics Annual Report:
UTC: University Transportation Centers:
[End of section]
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
August 15, 2006:
The Honorable Christopher Bond:
Chairman:
The Honorable Patty Murray:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, the Judiciary, Housing and
Urban Development, and Related Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
United States Senate:
The Honorable Joe Knollenberg:
Chairman:
The Honorable John W. Olver:
Ranking Minority Member:
Subcommittee on Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) research,
development, and technology[Footnote 1] (RD&T) budget totaled
approximately $1.1 billion, including projects undertaken by DOT's
operating administrations, such as the Federal Highway Administration
and the Federal Aviation Administration. RD&T activities are vital to
meeting DOT's key transportation priorities, such as increasing
transportation safety and enhancing mobility for all Americans. Prior
to 2005, DOT's Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA) was
responsible for overseeing DOT's RD&T activities, the Office of
Pipeline Safety, and the Office of Hazardous Materials Safety. Over the
years, GAO and others have raised concerns about RSPA's capabilities
for improving RD&T coordination and evaluation across DOT, and, in
2003, GAO made several recommendations to improve those
efforts.[Footnote 2]
In response to these concerns and to help delineate and clarify roles
and responsibilities for overseeing DOT's RD&T activities, the Norman
Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs Improvement Act of 2004 (Pub.
L. No. 108-426) dissolved RSPA and created two new administrations--the
Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration[Footnote 3]
(PHMSA) and the Research and Innovative Technology Administration
(RITA). RITA was created to provide DOT with a more focused research
organization and to assist in avoiding DOT-wide research duplication
and inefficiency, among other purposes.[Footnote 4] The act also
transferred the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the
Office of Intermodalism to RITA. Through this act, RITA is responsible
for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing DOT's RD&T programs and
activities, which include the activities conducted by DOT's operating
administrations as well as other RD&T and statistical programs managed
by RITA (e.g., BTS, the Office of Intermodalism, and University
Transportation Centers).
In Senate Report 109-109, accompanying the DOT and related agencies
appropriation bill for fiscal year 2006, the House and Senate
Committees on Appropriations directed GAO to assess how RITA is
resolving the concerns of its predecessor administration and better
coordinating DOT's RD&T and statistical activities. Specifically, this
report discusses (1) how RITA's responsibilities for overseeing DOT's
RD&T activities differ from RSPA's; (2) RITA's practices for
coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing RD&T activities; (3) the
progress RITA has made in implementing GAO's 2003 recommendations; and
(4) how BTS identifies its users and monitors how well it is serving
those users.
To determine how RITA's oversight responsibilities differ from RSPA's,
we collected information through legislative histories, document
reviews, and interviews with officials within RITA and used it to
compare RITA and RSPA with respect to mission, organizational
structure, responsibility for overseeing RD&T activities, work
activities, budgetary resources, and strategic goals. To determine
RITA's practices for coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing DOT's
RD&T activities and what progress RITA and RSPA have made in
implementing GAO's 2003 recommendations, we reviewed pertinent
documentation and conducted semistructured interviews with officials in
RITA, the Office of the Secretary of Transportation, and three of nine
operating administrations that received RD&T funds in fiscal year 2005.
The three operating administrations we selected for interviews--Federal
Highway Administration, Federal Aviation Administration, and Federal
Transit Administration--are among those with the largest RD&T
budgets.[Footnote 5] To determine how BTS identifies its users and
monitors how well it is serving those users, we (1) identified criteria
for monitoring user satisfaction, including federal and other agency
requirements and guidelines set by DOT, the National Research Council,
and GAO; (2) through document reviews and interviews with BTS and
operating administration officials identified above, obtained
information on BTS's processes for identifying key users of its data
products and for soliciting and incorporating feedback from those
users; and (3) compared BTS's processes to the criteria to identify
major gaps. We assessed the reliability of the information contained in
this report through interviews with knowledgeable officials and reviews
of documentation and corroborating information, and we determined that
it was sufficiently reliable for our purposes. We conducted our work
from November 2005 through August 2006 according to generally accepted
government auditing standards. This report summarizes the information
we provided to your staff during our May 30, 2006, briefing and, in
addition, contains recommendations to the Secretary of Transportation
to improve RITA's oversight of the department's RD&T activities and
user satisfaction with transportation statistics. The briefing slides
are included in appendix I.
Results Summary:
RITA Differs from RSPA in Proposed Budgetary Levels, Responsibility for
Evaluation, and Extent of Multimodal Focus:
Beginning in 2005, RITA took over RSPA's responsibilities for
overseeing DOT's RD&T activities. While RITA continues to have a
similar mission and strategic objectives as RSPA--and still does not
have the authority to direct changes in the operating administrations'
RD&T activities--RITA differs from RSPA in several ways. First, RITA
intends to focus significantly more resources in fiscal year 2007 on
the oversight of DOT's RD&T activities. In DOT's fiscal year 2007
budget request, RITA proposes a new program--the Transportation Futures
and Applied Technology Program--to build upon RITA's existing RD&T
Coordination Program and provide access to highly skilled, specialized
technical experts to RITA on a contract basis. If enacted, funding for
these two programs would result in an overall increase of about $2
million over the enacted fiscal year 2006 budget for the RD&T
Coordination Program--from $536,000 in fiscal year 2006 to about $2.5
million in fiscal year 2007.[Footnote 6] Second, RITA's responsibility
for evaluation is less clearly defined than RSPA's had been. RSPA had
both legislative and departmental responsibility for measuring the
results of DOT's RD&T programs and developing more efficient,
effective, and participative ways to evaluate and measure RD&T program
effectiveness.[Footnote 7] However, RITA does not have the same
legislative responsibility for evaluating DOT's RD&T programs because
the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A
Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)[Footnote 8] removed the statutory
responsibility for evaluation activities that had been specifically
outlined for DOT, which DOT delegated to RSPA. Under the Norman Y.
Mineta Act, RITA is charged with reviewing DOT's RD&T activities,
which, according to RITA officials, means that RITA is not required to
evaluate RD&T activities to determine whether they are achieving
intended goals, although RITA is not explicitly prevented from
evaluating such activities. Third, RITA's organizational structure is
more multimodally[Footnote 9] focused because the Office of Pipeline
Safety and Office of Hazardous Materials Safety were moved to the newly
created PHMSA, and the remaining offices in RSPA and other program
offices--BTS and the Office of Intermodalism--were transferred to the
newly created RITA.
RITA Has Several Coordination, Facilitation, and Review Groups and
Practices but Lacks Performance Goals and a Plan for Evaluating Its Own
Efforts:
RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT's RD&T activities in a
variety of ways, including through its two coordinating bodies--the
RD&T Planning Council and the RD&T Planning Team--and budget reviews,
among others. The briefing slides in appendix I contain a summary table
and detailed descriptions of RITA's activities. RITA officials and
officials from the three operating administrations we interviewed
provided some examples of the usefulness of RITA's coordination,
facilitation, and review practices; for example, RITA officials told us
that the budget review process results in a more consistent approach
for the operating administrations to show how their RD&T activities
support DOT's strategic objectives, secretarial priorities, and
multimodal initiatives. Officials from all three operating
administrations told us that RITA's Program Review Working
Group[Footnote 10] meetings provide them with opportunities to share
best practices relating to program management issues, such as how to
apply the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) R&D Investment
Criteria[Footnote 11] to RD&T activities.
While RITA and other DOT officials provided anecdotal examples of the
positive effects of RITA's coordination, facilitation, and review
practices, RITA has not established performance goals or an
implementing strategy that delineates how the activities and results of
its coordination, facilitation, and review practices will further DOT's
mission and ensure the effectiveness of the department's RD&T
investment; in addition, RITA does not monitor or evaluate the effects
of its efforts. Also, RITA has not worked with the operating
administrations to develop common performance measures for DOT's RD&T
activities. RITA officials told us that they were working with the
operating administrations to develop an RD&T strategic plan, which is
due to Congress in the fall of 2006, but they did not expect the plan
to include goals and measures, as discussed above. Setting meaningful
goals for performance, and using performance information to measure
performance against those goals, is consistent with requirements in the
Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA).[Footnote 12]
Developing an evaluation plan and analyzing performance information
against set goals for its own coordination, facilitation, and review
practices could assist RITA in identifying any problem areas and taking
corrective actions.[Footnote 13] Without such goals and an evaluation
plan, it is difficult for RITA to determine its success in overseeing
and ensuring the effectiveness of DOT's RD&T activities. Also, without
common performance measures for the RD&T activities of the operating
administrations, RITA and the operating administrations lack the means
to monitor and evaluate the collective results of those activities and
ensure that they are achieving their intended (or other) results and
furthering the Secretary's and DOT-wide priorities. Linking performance
goals with the planning and budget process, such as DOT's annual budget
process, can also help RITA determine where to target its resources to
improve performance.[Footnote 14]
RITA Has Made Some Progress in Implementing GAO's 2003 Recommendations:
In 2003, GAO made five recommendations to DOT and RSPA to improve the
coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities.[Footnote 15] The
recommendations generally remain relevant for RITA. As shown in table
1, RITA has partially implemented four recommendations and has not
implemented one recommendation. The briefing slides in appendix I
contain more detailed information on RITA's actions with regard to our
recommendations.
Table 1: Status of RITA's Implementation of GAO's 2003 Recommendations:
Recommendations: Develop a strategy for reviewing all of DOT's research
projects to identify areas of unnecessary research duplication,
overlap, and opportunities for joint efforts;
* Include time frames for implementing this review and discuss the
development and implementation of a DOT-wide research tracking system
database;
* Incorporate the results of this effort into DOT's annual research
plan and report to Congress on an annual basis;
Status of implementation: Partially implemented.
Recommendations: Develop and apply quantifiable performance measures to
assess the effectiveness of research coordination efforts and document
the results of these efforts in DOT's annual research plan;
Status of implementation: Not implemented.
Recommendations: Develop a strategy to ensure that the results of all
of DOT's transportation research activities are evaluated according to
established best practices;
* Include estimates of the costs for ensuring that evaluations are
completed;
* Incorporate the results of these efforts in DOT's annual research
plan and report to Congress on an annual basis;
Status of implementation: Partially implemented.
Recommendations: Include in DOT's annual research plan a summary of all
research program evaluations conducted and a schedule of future
evaluations;
Status of implementation: Partially implemented.
Recommendations: Document RSPA's process for systematically evaluating
the results of its own multimodal research programs, and apply this
process to any future multimodal research programs that RSPA conducts;
Status of implementation: Partially implemented.
Source: GAO analysis of RITA information.
[End of table]
RITA has made progress, but much remains to be done for RITA to fully
implement the recommendations. The following is a summary, for each
recommendation, of the actions taken by RITA (and RSPA) and the type of
efforts that are still needed to fully implement the recommendations:
² The first recommendation focuses on developing a strategy for
identifying areas of unnecessary research duplication, overlap, and
opportunities for joint efforts. While RITA officials have taken some
actions to identify areas of unnecessary research duplication and
opportunities for joint efforts through meetings of its RD&T Planning
Council and Planning Team, among others, none of these groups have
developed a strategy that describes (1) the scope of the RD&T projects
or programs that will be reviewed for duplication or joint efforts, (2)
the methodology for how all research projects will be reviewed or how
duplication or joint efforts will be identified, (3) a timeline and the
frequency for reviews to occur, or (4) how the results of reviews--the
identification of duplication or an opportunity for joint effort--will
be used to make decisions about future RD&T activities.[Footnote 16]
The first recommendation also includes the development of a DOT-wide
research tracking system database, which, according to a RITA official,
was dropped from DOT's priorities after the creation of RITA. While
RITA's proposed Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program
includes the development of a Web-based database for DOT's RD&T
programs, it is uncertain whether this proposed program will be funded.
RITA has not yet established a catalog of all of the research projects
within DOT; as such, DOT officials do not have readily accessible data
on research activities throughout DOT. Without such a strategy--
supported by a comprehensive database of ongoing RD&T projects--RITA is
unable to ensure that areas of research duplication, overlap, and
opportunities for joint efforts are systematically identified and
managed.
² DOT and RSPA did not concur with the second recommendation in 2003,
citing their views that (1) the most useful and effective performance
measures focus on results, while coordination is a process and (2) that
existing coordination processes have been effective in preventing
unnecessary research duplication. While RITA officials told us that
they have not developed or applied quantifiable performance measures
for coordination because they do not believe that a metric approach is
well suited for assessing the effects of the coordination process, they
indicated their willingness to develop--in concert with the operating
administrations--common performance measures for DOT's RD&T activities.
² The third recommendation calls for developing a strategy for ensuring
the evaluation of DOT's RD&T activities. RITA officials told us that
they ensure the evaluation of RD&T activities by reviewing the
operating administrations' application of OMB's R&D Investment
Criteria--relevance, quality, and performance--through its budget
review process. According to RITA officials and OMB documents, the R&D
Investment Criteria are rooted in best practices and include peer
review as a mechanism for assessing program quality. However, RITA has
neither developed nor communicated a strategy for this process that
describes (1) the scope of RD&T activities of the operating
administrations that RITA will ensure were evaluated according to best
practices, (2) the methodology for how RITA will ensure evaluation of
RD&T activities took place according to established best practices, (3)
a timeline for when the RD&T evaluations should occur, and (4) how the
results of the RD&T evaluations will inform future research. Without
such a strategy, RITA is less able to ensure the quality and
effectiveness of RD&T activities and investments to determine whether
they are achieving their intended (or other) goals.
² The fourth recommendation focuses on publishing a summary of research
program evaluations and a schedule of future evaluations. RSPA, in its
fiscal year 2005 annual RD&T plan, published such a summary, but it
consisted only of the results of its reviews of the operating
administrations' application of OMB's R&D Investment Criteria. This
summary did not include other research program evaluations or a
schedule of future evaluations. Since RSPA was dissolved, RITA has not
continued to publish the results of these types of reviews because
SAFETEA-LU removed the requirement for RITA to submit an annual RD&T
plan. Publishing a current inventory of the evaluation of research
activities and a schedule for future evaluations on a regular basis
could provide information about research results and planned research
for future years.
² The fifth recommendation addresses RITA's process for systematically
evaluating the results of its own current multimodal research programs,
such as the Hydrogen Safety Program, and future multimodal research
programs. While RITA officials told us they oversee contracts and
evaluate the results of RD&T activities that are conducted under these
contracts through a peer review process, RITA has not systematically
documented this process and it is not clear whether and how this
process would apply to future multimodal research programs. Without a
systematic process for evaluating current and future program results,
RITA is limited in its ability to determine the extent to which its
multimodal RD&T programs are achieving their intended (or other) goals.
BTS's Process for Identifying Its Users and Monitoring How Well It Is
Serving Those Users Is Not Systematic:
BTS does not have a systematic process in place for identifying its
primary users, soliciting ongoing feedback from those users, and
determining whether or how that feedback should be incorporated. First,
BTS has not established a systematic process for comprehensively
identifying its primary users, it does not track specific users, and it
does not have information on the overall number of users of its data
products. BTS officials told us that their users are primarily
identified in SAFETEA-LU, which only defines broad categories of data
users, such as the federal and state governments. BTS officials told us
they also identify some specific users through other methods, such as
direct inquiries received through BTS's Web site and by telephone. One
BTS official also commented that it is difficult to track individual
users, other than through Web site hits and tracking the number of
publications ordered. Also, the official said that BTS is limited in
its ability to collect information on individual data users because of
privacy concerns. Without a systematic process for comprehensively
identifying primary users for each of its products and services, BTS
cannot solicit feedback from these users on an ongoing basis to improve
those products and services.
Secondly, BTS has not established a systematic process for soliciting
feedback from all of its primary users, although it has used a variety
of methods to obtain feedback from some users on a case-by-case basis.
For example, rather than routinely soliciting user feedback on all data
products and services, such as through a customer satisfaction survey,
BTS receives feedback from some data users about specific BTS products
from an online comment form and meetings and workshops held at
conferences and training sessions.[Footnote 17] Without a systematic
process for soliciting feedback on user satisfaction from all of its
primary users, BTS cannot ensure it has a full picture of the needs of
those users and how well it is meeting those needs, which, in turn,
hinders BTS's ability to make improvements to data products that are
relevant to users.
Finally, to evaluate the feedback BTS has solicited from its users, BTS
officials told us they rely on program managers to determine how best
to address feedback from its users; however, program managers are not
required to--and often do not--report the results of how feedback on
user satisfaction was considered. Although BTS measures the number of
congressional and governmental agency contacts regarding BTS
information and the average number of daily unique visitors to the
TranStats data Web site,[Footnote 18] these indicators are only simple
counts, not measures of user satisfaction with BTS information. GAO's
internal control standards suggest that ongoing monitoring take place
to determine user satisfaction and that policies and procedures be put
in place to ensure that feedback is evaluated so that improvements to
products can be made.[Footnote 19] Without a systematic process for
identifying the primary users for each of its data products and
services, soliciting feedback on user satisfaction from its users, and
incorporating that feedback, BTS is limited in its ability to consider
feedback and make improvements to data products based on user input.
Conclusions:
Since it became operational in 2005, RITA has taken some positive steps
to meet its vision of becoming a departmentwide resource for managing
and ensuring the effectiveness of RD&T activities. In particular, RITA
established several coordinating bodies and review processes, and it
has also proposed additional initiatives, such as the Transportation
Futures and Applied Technology Program, to build upon its current
coordination, facilitation, and review practices. However, RITA lacks
performance goals, a clear implementing strategy, and an evaluation
plan that collectively delineates how the activities and results of its
coordinating bodies, review processes, and proposed initiatives will
further DOT's mission and ensure the effectiveness of the department's
RD&T investment. Establishing these mechanisms for managing its own
performance--and linking them to DOT's annual budget process--could
provide RITA with a clear road map for investing its own limited
resources; enhance RITA's ability to identify areas where its
coordination, facilitation, and review efforts are working effectively
and where they could be improved; and help RITA provide assurance that
the department's RD&T activities are adequately coordinated, routinely
evaluated, and achieve their intended (or other) results. In addition,
RITA and the operating administrations have not worked together to
develop common performance measures for RD&T activities that are needed
to evaluate the RD&T efforts departmentwide. With performance goals, an
implementing strategy, and an evaluation plan for RITA--and common
performance measures for RD&T activities--RITA and DOT could be in a
better position to assure Congress that DOT is making the most of its
approximately $1 billion annual RD&T investment. Additionally, the
strategy and performance measures could serve as a communication tool
to establish expectations and anticipated results with the operating
administrations.
BTS, as part of RITA, has solicited and evaluated some feedback on user
satisfaction, but it does not have a systematic process for identifying
primary users of its transportation data products and services,
soliciting feedback from those users, or incorporating the feedback it
solicits. As a result, BTS cannot ensure that it has a comprehensive
picture of who uses BTS data products, what their needs are, and how
well the agency is meeting those needs with its data products. By
establishing more systematic processes for identifying its primary
users, soliciting feedback from those users, and evaluating feedback on
user satisfaction, BTS could make more informed decisions on how to
allocate limited resources to make improvements to its data products.
While BTS tracks and reports the number of congressional and government
agency contacts and the number of visitors to its TranStats data Web
site, developing performance indicators that measure the overall degree
to which products and services are useful and responsive to the needs
of its users will allow BTS to understand how well it is serving its
users over time.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To enhance RITA's ability to manage and ensure the effectiveness of
RD&T activities in furthering the department's mission, we recommend
that the Secretary direct the RITA Administrator to take the following
seven actions:
² Develop and incorporate the following into RITA's fiscal year 2008
budget process, and the annual budget process thereafter:
² performance goals and an overall implementing strategy that delineate
how the activities and results of its coordination, facilitation, and
review practices will further DOT's mission and ensure the
effectiveness of the department's RD&T investment. The strategy should
include an evaluation plan for monitoring and evaluating its
performance against set goals to assist RITA in better allocating its
resources to improve performance.
² common performance measures related to DOT's RD&T activities, which
should be developed in consultation with the operating administrations.
² Develop and incorporate the following into RITA's fiscal year 2008
budget process, the annual budget process thereafter, and the upcoming
RD&T strategic plan:[Footnote 20]
² a strategy for identifying and reviewing all of DOT's RD&T projects
to determine areas of unnecessary duplication, overlap, and
opportunities for joint efforts. The strategy should address (1) the
scope of the RD&T projects or programs that will be reviewed for
duplication or joint efforts, (2) the methodology for how all RD&T
projects will be reviewed or how duplication or joint efforts will be
identified, (3) a timeline and the frequency for reviews to occur, and
(4) how the results of the reviews--the identification of duplication
or an opportunity for joint effort--will be reported and used to make
decisions about future RD&T activities.
² a strategy to ensure that the results of all of DOT's RD&T activities
are evaluated according to established best practices. This strategy
should include (1) which RD&T activities of the operating
administrations RITA will ensure were evaluated according to best
practices, (2) the methodology for how RITA will ensure evaluation of
RD&T activities took place according to established best practices, (3)
a timeline for when the RD&T evaluations should occur, and (4) how the
results of the RD&T evaluations will inform future research.
² a DOT-wide database of all of DOT's RD&T projects that will support
RITA's coordination, facilitation, and review efforts and will assist
in the implementation of the strategies discussed above. Information on
the status of these efforts should be included in the upcoming RD&T
strategic plan to be issued in the fall of 2006.
² a summary of all of DOT's RD&T program evaluations conducted by the
department for the past 3 years, including ongoing and completed
evaluations, and a schedule of future evaluations.
² a description of RITA's process for systematically evaluating the
results of its own multimodal research programs and how this process
will be applied to future multimodal research programs that RITA
conducts.
To help ensure that BTS's data products meet the needs of its users, we
recommend that the Secretary direct the RITA Administrator and BTS
Director to take the following action:
² Develop and implement a systematic process for BTS to identify its
primary users, solicit and incorporate feedback from those users, and
measure the satisfaction of its users. This process should contain the
following elements: (1) that primary users of BTS's data products and
services are identified and documented in a comprehensive manner; (2)
that feedback on user satisfaction is solicited on a periodic basis
from those users; (3) that user feedback is documented and evaluated at
BTS's agencywide level and against established criteria, to ensure
consistency in decisions about what improvements should be made to data
products; and (4) that performance indicators that measure data users'
satisfaction are developed and applied.
Agency Comments:
We obtained oral comments on a draft of this report from DOT officials,
who generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. These
officials also provided technical clarifications that we incorporated
into the report, as appropriate.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees and to the Secretary and other appropriate officials in the
Department of Transportation. We will also make copies available to
others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on the GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you or your staff have any questions regarding this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to
this report are listed in appendix II.
Signed by:
Mathew Scire:
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Review of DOT's Research and Innovative Technology
Administration:
Review of the Department of Transportation's Research and Innovative
Technology Administration (RITA):
Briefing for the Committees on Appropriations U.S. Senate and House of
Representatives:
May 30, 2006:
Briefing Overview:
Introduction and Objectives:
Approach:
Background:
Results of GAO Work:
Introduction:
In fiscal year 2005, the Department of Transportation's (DOT) research,
development, and technology (RD&T)[Footnote 21] budget totaled
approximately $1.1 billion. RD&T activities are vital to meeting DOT's
key transportation priorities, including safety and mobility.
Prior to 2005, DOT's Research and Special Program Administration (RSPA)
was responsible for overseeing DOT's RD&T activities, the Office of
Hazardous Materials Safety, and the Office of Pipeline Safety.
GAO and others have raised concerns about RSPA-for example, GAO made
several recommendations in a 2003 report to improve RSPA's coordination
and evaluation of DOT's RD&T activities.
In November 2004, the Norman Y. Mineta Research and Special Programs
Improvement Act (P.L. 108-426) dissolved RSPA and created two new
administrations:
* the Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA). The
Mineta Act transferred the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS)
and the Office of Intermodalism to RITA.
* the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, which
includes the Office of Pipeline Safety and the hazardous materials
safety activities that were formerly in RSPA.
Objectives:
In response to a mandate from the Senate and House Appropriations
Committees, GAO addressed the following questions:
1. How, if at all, do RITA's responsibilities for overseeing DOT's RD&T
activities differ from RSPA's?
2. What are RITA's practices for coordinating, facilitating, and
reviewing RD&T activities and what progress has RITA made in
implementing GAO's 2003 recommendations?
3. How does BTS identify its users and monitor how well it is serving
those users?
Overall Approach:
Legislative & Document Review - Reviewed laws and DOT documentation to
understand RSPA's and RITA's responsibilities and BTS' legislative
requirements for producing certain data.
Interviews - Interviewed DOT officials in: RITA, including the RD&T
Office, BTS, and others; three operating administrations that conduct
and manage significant research programs, including the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA), Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), and
Federal Transit Administration (FTA); and the Office of the Secretary
(OST).
Recommendation Follow-up - Reviewed the extent to which RITA (and RSPA)
have addressed the recommendations in GAO's 2003 report.[Footnote 22]
Analysis of selected Bureau of Transportation Statistics' (BTS)
processes - Analyzed BTS' processes for identifying its data users and
for monitoring and incorporating feedback on user satisfaction and
compared those processes to relevant criteria.
We conducted our work from November 2005 through May 2006 according to
generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
RITA took over RSPA's responsibilities for overseeing DOT's RD&T
activities. While RITA continues to have a similar mission and
strategic objectives as RSPA, it still does not have the authority to
direct changes in the operating administrations' RD&T activities. RITA
differs from RSPA in several ways-RITA intends to focus significantly
more resources in fiscal year 2007 on the oversight of DOT's RD&T
activities; RITA's authority for evaluation is less clearly defined;
and RITA's organizational structure is more multi-modally focused.
RITA coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT's RD&T activities
through multiple groups and practices, including its two coordinating
bodies-the RD&T Planning Council and the RD&T Planning Team-and budget
reviews, among others. Of the five recommendations GAO made in 2003 on
how to improve the coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities, RITA
has partially implemented four of the recommendations and has not
implemented the other.
BTS does not have a systematic process in place for identifying its
users, soliciting on-going feedback from all its major users, and
determining whether or how that feedback should be incorporated.
Background: RITA's legislative responsibilities:
The Norman Y. Mineta Act lays out five broad responsibilities for RITA:
Coordination, facilitation, and review of DOT's research and
development programs and activities;
Comprehensive transportation statistics research, analysis, and
reporting;
Advancement, and research and development, of innovative technologies,
including intelligent transportation systems;
Education and training in transportation and transportation-related
fields; and:
Activities of the Volpe National Transportation Center, which conducts
a range of transportation research and development projects on a fee-
for-service basis.
Background: Scope of RITA's authority:
RITA's Office of RD&T is responsible for "coordinating, facilitating,
and reviewing" DOT's RD&T activities.
According to the Norman Y. Mineta Act, RITA's scope of authority
includes coordinating, facilitating, and reviewing all of the
Department's RD&T programs and activities, with one exemption-RITA was
not given any authority over the research and other programs,
activities, standards, or regulations administered by the National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).
* The exemption does not apply to NHTSA's activities already in effect
on November 30, 2004, the date of the Mineta Act's enactment.
* Officials in RITA's Office of RD&T told us that in spite of the NHTSA
exemption in the Mineta Act, NHTSA voluntarily participates in all of
RITA's coordination, facilitation, and review activities.
Background: DOT's RD&T budget:
Nearly all RD&T budget authority resides in the operating
administrations, such as FHWA and FAA. RITA's RD&T budget in fiscal
year 2005 was about $1.9 million and its enacted budget in fiscal year
2006 is about $2.5 million.
Figure: DOT's RD&T Budget:
[See PDF for Image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOT budget data.
Background: BTS' mission and legislative requirements:
The mission of BTS-a principal federal statistical agency established
in 1992-is to develop high quality transportation data and information
and advance the use of this data and information in both public and
private transportation decision-making.
BTS' legislative requirements in the Safe, Accountable, Flexible,
Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)
(P.L. 109-59) include, among others:
* Coordinating collection of information with the operating
administrations within DOT and with other federal agencies;
* Issuing guidelines for the collection of statistical information by
DOT;
* Reviewing and reporting on the sources and reliability of the
statistics proposed by the operating administrations as requested by
the Secretary; and:
* Submitting to the President and Congress a Transportation Statistics
Annual Report (TSAR).
Objective 1: Similarities between RITA and RSPA:
RITA, like RSPA before it, has the responsibility to oversee DOT's RD&T
activities but does not have the authority to direct changes in the
operating administrations' RD&T activities, including budgetary
changes.
RITA's mission, like RSPA's before it, is focused on using research to
meet DOT's goals, including enhancing transportation safety and
efficiency.
Two of RITA's three strategic goals--providing research and analytical
capabilities dedicated to furthering DOT's mission and promoting
multimodal, cross-cutting transportation technologies and innovations
are similar to RSPA's goals. RITA's third strategic goal is to ensure
the effectiveness of the public investment in transportation RD&T.
Differences between RITA and RSPA: RITA intends to focus significantly
more resources on its oversight of DOT's RD&T activities:
RITA's fiscal year 2007 budget request proposes a new program-the
Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program-to undertake
certain oversight and coordination activities, and also continues
RITA's existing RD&T Coordination program. If enacted, funding for
these two programs would result in an overall increase of about $2
million over the enacted fiscal year 2006 budget for RD&T Coordination-
from $536,000 in fiscal year 2006 to about $2.5 million in fiscal year
2007-although the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program
also funds activities other than coordination.[Footnote 23]
According to senior DOT officials in OST and RITA, although the
Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program and the RD&T
Coordination program were listed as separate programs in DOT's 2007
budget request, DOT views them as one unified program, with the intent
that the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program will
build on and enhance the existing RD&T Coordination program. A
significant element of the funding request for the Transportation
Futures and Applied Technology Program is to enable RITA to have access
to highly skilled, specialized technical experts that RITA views as
critical to enhancing its ability to effectively coordinate,
facilitate, and review DOT's RD&T activities and enable RITA to more
fully participate in strategic planning, priority setting, and decision-
making related to those activities. Further, both programs are
requesting funding to support intermodal and interagency teams that are
working to better leverage research results and advance the
collaborative integration and deployment of new technologies.
The presentation of RITA's fiscal year 2007 budget request does not
provide sufficient detail to determine the total amounts of funding
that RITA is requesting for the two programs since the budget only
shows the amount of proposed contract dollars for the two programs,
including $2.2 million for the Transportation Futures and Applied
Technology Program and $247,000 for the RD&T Coordination program. The
2007 budget request also shows that RITA is requesting about $5.2
million for salaries and administrative expenses for all research and
development activities, but it does not specify what portion of that
amount will be dedicated to the two programs.
The amount that RITA requested for its RD&T Coordination Program in
fiscal year 2007 ($247,000) is less than half of what was enacted for
those activities in fiscal year 2006 ($536,000). According to the 2007
budget request, this decrease represents the transfer of cross-modal
RD&T initiatives from the RD&T Coordination program to the
Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program. DOT's
documentation does not provide a clear cross-walk showing the transfer
of all the cross-modal initiatives from one program to the other.
However, a senior official in OST told us that DOT plans to review all
of its cross-modal initiatives as part of the Transportation Futures
and Applied Technology Program for the purpose of re-focusing them to
ensure they are addressing the most important DOT-wide research
priorities.
Differences between RITA and RSPA: RITA's authority for evaluation is
less clearly defined:
RSPA had both legislative and departmental responsibility for
evaluating DOT's RD&T programs; specifically RSPA was required to:
* measure the results of federal transportation research activities and
how those activities impact the performance of the surface
transportation systems of the United States[Footnote 24] and:
* oversee DOT's RD&T programs and develop more efficient, effective,
and participative ways to evaluate and measure program effectiveness
and progress across all operating administrations and other selected
projects.[Footnote 25]
RITA does not have the same legislative responsibility for evaluating
DOT's RD&T programs because SAFETEA-LU removed the statutory
responsibility for evaluation activities that had been specifically
outlined for DOT, which DOT delegated to RSPA.
RITA officials told us that their interpretation of "review" authority
under the Norman Y. Mineta Act is that RITA is not required to evaluate
RD&T activities to determine whether they are achieving intended goals,
although RITA is not explicitly prevented from evaluating such
activities.
Differences between RITA and RSPA: RITA's organizational structure is
more multi-modally focused:
The organizational structure of RITA is more multi-modally focused
because the Office of Pipeline Safety and hazardous materials safety
activities were moved to a new administration-the Pipeline and
Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA)-and the remaining and
new program offices-BTS and the Office of Intermodalism-now within
RITA, all have a multi-modal focus.
Figure: RSPA versus RITA:
[See PDF for Image]
[End of figure]
Objective 2: RITA's Coordination, Facilitation, and Review Practices:
RITA's Office of RD&T coordinates, facilitates, and reviews DOT's RD&T
activities through various groups/practices, as summarized below:
Group / Process: RD&T Planning Council;
Function: Advises the DOT Secretary on RD&T policies and priorities
necessary to support the DOT Strategic Plan and Administration and
Secretarial policy and objectives. Ensures cross-modal collaboration
and coordination in RD&T initiatives within DOT and with external
entities. Reports to the Secretary;
Participants: Operating Administrators, the Undersecretary for Policy,
OST; Chair, RITA Administrator.
Group/Process: RD&T Planning Team;
Function: Assists the RD&T Planning Council and the RITA Administrator
in ensuring cross-modal collaboration and coordination in DOT's RD&T
initiatives. Assures the application of Administration and Secretarial
RD&T priorities and policies and guidance from the RD&T Planning
Council;
Participants: Associate Operating Administrators for RD&T, OST; Chair,
RITA's Associate Administrator for RD&T.
Group/Process: Program Review Working Group;
Function: Conducts the annual review of modal RD&T programs to ensure
they are aligned with DOT strategic goals and implement the Office of
Management and Budget's (OMB) Research and Development (R&D) investment
criteria.[Footnote 28] Reports to RD&T Planning Team;
Participants: Operating Administrations' RD&T managers.
Group/Process: Budget Review;
Function: RITA's annual assessment of the operating administrations'
RD&T budget- first performed on fiscal year 2007 budget submissions--to
ensure alignment with DOT's strategic objectives, Secretarial
priorities, and cross-modal initiatives and proper application of OMB's
R&D Investment Criteria;
Participants: RITA, Operating Administrations, DST's Budget Office.
Group/Process: University Transportation Centers Program;
Function: Advances U.S. technology and expertise in transportation
through the mechanisms of education, research and technology transfer
at university-based centers of excellence. RITA administers grants
(mostly legislatively designated) to universities;
Participants: RITA, Operating Administrations.
Group/Process: Peer Review Task Force and Steering Committee;
Function: Coordinates the implementation of OMB's Information Quality
Bulletin on Peer Review for influential and highly influential research
(as determined by the agency or OMB) and oversees compliance with these
requirements. Prepares annual report to OMB;
Participants: RITA, Operating Administrations' RD&T managers, Data
Quality experts.
Group/Process: RD&T Strategic Planning Task Force;
Function: Develops the details of the RD&T Strategic Plan due to
Congress in the fall of 2006. The draft plan will be reviewed by the
National Research Council in June 2006;
Participants: RITA, Operating Administrations' RD&T managers.
Group/Process: Various multi-modal RD&T groups managed by RITA;
Function: Examples include:
* Hydrogen Working Group which coordinates, facilitates and informs all
RD&T activities related to hydrogen fueled and fuel cell powered
vehicles and stationary applications;
* Center for Climate Change which shares information, builds
partnerships, and coordinates activities related to climate change;
Participants: RITA, Operating Administrations' policy and technical
staff and other representatives.
Source: GAO analysis of RITA information.
[End of Table]
RD&T Planning Council:
* According to DOT Order 1120.39A, the Planning Council is to meet
quarterly. The Planning Council has convened three times, most recently
on May 15, 2006. RITA officials told us the Council expects to meet
more regularly as it reviews the development of the draft RD&T
Strategic Plan before it is submitted to Congress-several meetings have
been scheduled for the summer of 2006.
* According to the Planning Council's meeting minutes from May and
June, 2005, the Planning Council reviewed and approved the RD&T budget
guidance that was distributed to the operating administrations and
discussed future strategic directions for DOT research, the fiscal year
2007 RD&T budget submissions, and other topics.
RD&T Planning Team:
* According to DOT Order 1120.39A, the Planning Team is to meet
quarterly, which it has done. The Planning Team has convened four
times, most recently in February 2006, and another meeting is scheduled
for May 24, 2006.
* According to the Planning Team's meeting minutes from June and
November, 2005 and February, 2006, the Planning Team discussed results
of RITA's budget review for fiscal year 2007, effects of SAFETEA-LU on
research programs, and updates on the development of the RD&T strategic
plan and the University Transportations Centers program.
Program Review Working Group:
* Established through a DOT Order that allowed the RD&T Planning Team
to create ad hoc working groups, this group met nine times during 2005
and 2006 (as of April). The group provides a forum for the operating
administrations to share information about areas of research and
identify opportunities for coordination. The group also schedules
presentations throughout the year which it shares with the RD&T
Planning Team. Past presentations have addressed how the operating
administrations have applied OMB's R&D Investment Criteria to their
RD&T activities and how the operating administrations' RD&T activities
support DOT's and the Secretary's strategic priorities.
Budget Review:
* In preparation for their first budget review, RITA officials
developed the 2007 RD&T budget guidance for the operating
administrations, advising them to include discussions of how their RD&T
activities are linked to the Secretary's priorities and how they have
applied OMB's R&D Investment Criteria. This guidance was reviewed by
the Planning Team, approved by the Planning Council, and distributed by
OST's Budget Office.
* The results of RITA's budget review were discussed at the June 2005
Planning Council meeting. Also, RITA developed recommendations-to DOT's
Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs/Chief Financial Officer-
that RITA continue to work with the operating administrations to
improve the Department's RD&T budget submissions and that RITA develop
guidance for defining RD&T to ensure consistency in the way that the
Department classifies and accounts for its RD&T programs.
Management of the University Transportation Centers (UTC)
Program[Footnote 29]
* RITA's RD&T Office manages the UTC program, which was significantly
expanded by SAFETEA-LU.
* SAFETEA-LU authorized up to about $76.7 million per year for UTC
grants during the period from fiscal year 2005 to 2009, an increase of
about 136 percent compared to the $32.5 million authorized under TEA-
21.
* Under SAFETEA-LU, the UTC grants provide funding to establish and
operate up to 60 UTCs, an increase of about 82 percent compared to the
33 centers authorized under TEA-21. Twenty of the 60 centers are
scheduled for competitive selection during 2006, and 40 centers are
located at institutions named in the legislation.
To foster a closer connection between UTC research and needs of the
operating administrations and DOT, RITA hosted a two-day workshop in
April 2006 where officials from operating administrations made
presentations on their RD&T activities and DOT's priorities to UTC
members. RITA officials noted that this is the first of a planned
series of program meetings, technical workshops, and other outreach
efforts to increase UTC connections to DOT's RD&T priorities and
programs. RITA is also working with the operating administrations to
increase technical oversight of the individual UTCs' selection and
evaluation processes for research.
Effects of RITA's coordination, facilitation, and review activities:
RITA has not established performance goals for its coordination,
facilitation, and review activities, nor does RITA monitor or evaluate
the effects of those activities. Also, RITA has not worked with the
operating administrations to develop common performance measures for
the Department's RD&T activities.
* Setting meaningful goals for performance, and using performance
information to measure performance against those goals, is required by
the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993.[Footnote 30] GAO
has also reported on key practices-such as defining common outcomes and
developing mechanisms to monitor, evaluate, and report on results-that
can enhance and sustain collaboration among organizations that conduct
cross-cutting activities.[Footnote 31]
* Establishing performance goals and an evaluation plan for its own
coordination, facilitation, and review activities could assist RITA in
identifying any problem areas and better allocating its resources to
improve performance. Without such goals and an evaluation plan, it is
difficult for RITA to determine its success in overseeing and ensuring
the effectiveness of DOT's RD&T activities. Also, without common
performance measures for the RD&T activities of the operating
administrations, RITA and the operating administrations lack the means
to monitor and evaluate the collective results of those activities and
ensure that they are achieving their intended (or other) results and
furthering the Secretary's and DOT-wide priorities.
The RITA Administrator told us that he was open to developing
performance goals and an evaluation plan for RITA's coordination,
facilitation, and review activities and to working with the operating
administrations to develop common performance measures for DOT's RD&T
activities.
Although RITA lacks performance goals and measures, officials from the
three operating administrations we interviewed and from RITA noted some
positive effects of RITA's efforts:
* Officials from all three operating administrations told us that
RITA's Program Review Working Group meetings provide them with
opportunities to share best practices relating to program management
issues, such as how to apply the OMB R&D Investment Criteria to RD&T
activities. An official from one of the operating administrations said
that RITA has been helpful in trying to strengthen the connection
between the UTCs and the DOT's RD&T priorities through programs such as
the 2-day UTC workshop hosted in April 2006. Officials from another
operating administration told us that RITA has helped them to better
align their RD&T activities with DOT's and the Secretary's priorities
by focusing on how their research activities will support DOT's RD&T
Strategic Plan.
* Officials from RITA's Office of RD&T believe that RITA's budget
guidance and review process is helping to ensure that the operating
administrations have a more consistent approach to show how their RD&T
activities support DOT's strategic objectives, Secretarial priorities,
and cross-modal initiatives. One official noted that, over time, this
process should give RITA the ability to critically review and make
recommendations to OST on how RD&T activities could better support
DOT's strategic objectives, Secretarial priorities, and cross-modal
initiatives. Also, the Program Review Working Group has identified an
opportunity for FHWA and FAA to coordinate pavement research.
Follow-up to GAO Recommendations:
In 2003, GAO made five recommendations to DOT and RSPA to improve the
coordination and evaluation of RD&T activities.
The recommendations generally remain relevant for RITA.
RITA has partially implemented four recommendations and has not
implemented one recommendation. RITA has made progress, but much
remains to be done for RITA to fully implement the recommendations.
Recommendation 1: Develop a strategy for reviewing all DOT research
projects to identify areas of unnecessary research duplication overlap,
and opportunities for joint efforts.
* Include time frames for implementing this review and discuss the
development and implementation of a DOT-wide research tracking system
database.
* Incorporate the results of this effort into DOT's annual research
plan and report to Congress on an annual basis.
* Include time frames for implementing this review and discuss the
development and implementation of a DOT-wide research tracking system
database.
* Incorporate the results of this effort into DOT's annual research
plan and report to Congress on an annual basis.
Status: Partially Implemented:
* RITA has not developed a strategy to review all DOT research projects
to identify areas of unnecessary research duplication overlap and
opportunities for joint efforts, although they have taken some action,
as discussed below. RITA officials told us that they expect to identify
such areas through the coordination and review activities of the RD&T
Planning Council, RD&T Planning Team, and the Program Review Working
Group. However, although the DOT Order that created the RD&T Planning
Council, Planning Team, and indirectly the Program Review Working
Group, lays out as part of its purpose the responsibility to prevent
unnecessary duplication of RD&T efforts in DOT, none of these groups
has developed a strategy that describes (1) the scope of the RD&T
projects or programs that will be reviewed for duplication or joint
efforts, (2) the methodology for how all research projects will be
reviewed or how duplication or joint efforts will be identified, (3) a
time line and frequency for the review to occur, and (4) how the
results of the review-the identification of duplication or an
opportunity for joint effort-will be used to make decisions about
future RD&T activities.
* A RITA official told us that the research tracking system database
was dropped from DOT's priorities after the creation of RITA; however,
RITA's proposed Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program
includes the development of a Web-based database for DOT's RD&T
programs. RITA has not yet established a catalog of all the research
activities within DOT. Without such a catalog, DOT officials do not
have readily accessible data on research activities throughout DOT.
* While the results of RITA's coordination and review activities are
discussed during Planning Team meetings, the results are not reported
to Congress because RITA is no longer required to submit an annual RD&T
plan to Congress. RITA officials told us that they plan to report these
results annually in the DOT Performance Plans and Reports required by
SAFETEA-LU. This reporting is expected to begin in Fiscal Year 2008, as
the first reporting against the new RD&T Strategic Plan.
* Without such a strategy-supported by a comprehensive database of
ongoing RD&T projects-RITA is unable to ensure that areas of
unnecessary research duplication, overlap, and opportunities for joint
efforts are systematically identified and managed.
Recommendation 2: Develop and apply quantifiable performance measures
to assess the effectiveness of research coordination efforts and
document the results of these efforts in DOT's annual research plan.
Status: Not Implemented:
* DOT and RSPA did not concur with this recommendation in 2003, citing
their views that: (1) the most useful and effective performance
measures focus on results, while coordination is a process; (2) there
are no performance measures capable of quantifying effective
coordination; and (3) existing coordination processes have been
effective in preventing unnecessary research duplication.
* RITA officials also told us that they did not develop performance
measures to assess the effectiveness of research coordination effort
because they do not believe that a metric approach is well suited for
assessing the effects of the coordination process.
* While RITA officials told us that they have not developed or applied
performance measures for coordination, they indicated their willingness
to develop--in concert with the operating administrations-common
performance measures for DOT's RD&T activities.
Recommendation 3: Develop a strategy to ensure that the results of all
DOT's transportation research activities are evaluated according to
established best practices.
* Include estimates of the costs for ensuring that evaluations are
completed.
* Incorporate the results of these efforts in DOT's annual research
plan and report to Congress on an annual basis.
Status: Partially Implemented:
* RITA officials have not developed a strategy to ensure that the
results of all DOT's RD&T activities are evaluated according to
established best practices, although they have taken some action.
* RITA officials have told us that they ensure the evaluation of RD&T
activities by reviewing the operating administrations' application of
OMB's R&D Investment Criteria-relevance, quality, and performance-
through its budget review process. According to RITA officials and OMB
documents, the R&D Investment Criteria are rooted in best practices and
include peer review as a mechanism for assessing program quality.
* GAO has recognized peer review as a best practice for evaluating RD&T
activities.[Footnote 32] However, under RITA's review of the
application of the R&D Investment Criteria--which includes information
about whether peer reviews occurred--RITA officials do not verify that
peer review activities actually took place within the operating
administrations.
* RITA has not developed a strategy that describes (1) which RD&T
activities of the operating administrations RITA will ensure were
evaluated according to best practices, (2) the methodology for how RITA
will ensure evaluation of RD&T activities took place according to
established best practices, (3) a time line for when the RD&T
evaluations should occur, and (4) how the results of the RD&T
evaluations will inform future research. Since RITA has not developed
this strategy, it has not estimated costs for ensuring that evaluations
are completed nor were the results of these evaluations reported in
RITA's annual research plan, which it is no longer required to publish.
* Without such a strategy, RITA is unable to ensure the quality and
effectiveness of the RD&T activities and investments and determine
whether they are achieving their intended (or other) goals.
Recommendation 4: Include in DOT's annual research plan a summary of
all research program evaluations conducted and a schedule of future
evaluations.
Status: Partially Implemented:
* RSPA, for one year, published a summary of all research program
evaluations conducted, in that it published the results of its review
of the operating administrations' application of OMB's R&D Investment
Criteria in its fiscal year 2005 annual RD&T plan. A schedule of future
evaluations was not included in this plan.
* Since RSPA was dissolved, RITA has not continued to publish the
results of its reviews of the operating administrations' application of
OMB's R&D Investment Criteria because SAFETEA-LU no longer requires
RITA to submit an annual research plan.
* Publishing a current inventory of the evaluation of research
activities and a schedule for future evaluations on a regular basis
could provide continuity and context for the observations about
research results and planned research for future years.
Recommendation 5: Document RSPA's process for systematically evaluating
the results of its own multi-modal research programs, and apply this
process to any future multimodal research programs that RSPA conducts.
Status: Partially Implemented:
* RITA has not documented its process for systematically evaluating the
results of its own multi-modal research programs, or how this process
would apply to any future multi-modal research programs that it
conducts, although RITA has taken some action, described below.
* RITA manages multi-modal RD&T activities, such as the Hydrogen Safety
Program and various grant programs in SAFETEA-LU delegated to it by
DOT. According to a RITA official, RITA oversees contracts and
evaluates the results of RD&T activities that are conducted under these
contracts through the peer review process. RITA has not documented its
process for conducting these peer reviews and it is unclear whether the
peer review process will be applied to future multi-modal RD&T
activities.
* Without systematically evaluating program results, RITA is limited in
its ability to determine the extent to which its multi-modal RD&T
programs are achieving their intended (or other) goals.
Objective 3: BTS' process for identifying its users is not systematic:
BTS does not have a systematic process, but uses a variety of methods,
for identifying specific users of BTS information.
BTS officials told us they primarily rely on a Congressional definition
of broad categories of data users, contained in SAFETEA-LU. This
definition states that users of BTS information include the Federal
government, State and local governments, metropolitan planning
organizations, transportation-related associations, the private sector
(including the freight community), and the public.
BTS officials told us that they identify specific users through a
variety of methods such as:
* Conferences, focus groups, and training sessions;
* Meetings of professional associations;
* Direct inquiries via the BTS Web site, in the form of email, letters,
and telephone; and:
* News media citations--tracked by RITA's Office of Governmental,
International and Public Affairs--that mention BTS data.
BTS does not track specific users nor does it have information on the
overall number of users of its data products. According to one BTS
official, the reason for this is because it is very difficult to track
individual users, other than through Web site hits and tracking the
number of publications ordered. Also, the official mentioned BTS is
limited in its ability to collect information on individual data users
due to privacy concerns.
Without a systematic process for identifying primary users for each of
its programs, BTS cannot solicit feedback from these users on an
ongoing basis.
Examples of BTS data users:
Table: Examples of users of BTS information:
BTS Data Users: Department of Transportation;
Data product used and for what purpose:
* DOT's Office of the Secretary uses BTS airline data to determine
eligibility for the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, monitor the
impact of airline service on the traveling public, negotiate
international air service agreements, and provide oversight of the
airline industry.
* The Federal Highway Administration uses Commodity Flow Survey data in
its Freight Analysis Framework, a departmental planning tool.
* DOT's Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) uses data collected by
BTS for the Confidential Close Call Reporting System Demonstration
Project to help FRA and railroad carriers identify safety issues that
require corrective action.
BTS Data Users: Other Federal agencies;
Data Product used and for what purpose:
* BTS worked with the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis
to develop a Transportation Satellite Account, which enhanced the
measurement of transportation's contribution to the Gross Domestic
Product.
* The Department of Homeland Security's Transportation Security
Administration used BTS' Omnibus Survey Program data on the amount of
baggage brought to airports.
BTS Data users: Policymakers;
Data product used and for what purpose:
* BTS is developing capital stock values (a commonly used economic
measure of the capacity of the transportation system) for airports,
waterways, and transit systems for use by policymakers to better
estimate the amount of investment needed to accommodate current or
future levels of traffic on those modes.
BTS Data users: Planners;
Data product used and for what purpose:
* States use National Household Travel Survey (NHTS) data for transit
planning; Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) use NHTS data for
highway planning.
Source: GAO analysis of BTS information.
[End of Table]
BTS' methods for soliciting feedback on user satisfaction is not
systematic:
BTS' process for soliciting feedback on user satisfaction is not
systematic, but BTS officials reported using a variety of methods for
soliciting feedback from its users, including:
* Data users' meetings and workshops held at conferences or training
sessions, and focus groups conducted with BTS data users;
* BTS' Reference Services, which tracks and responds to user feedback;
and:
* Independent third party reviews of its programs.
In the past, BTS systematically solicited feedback on overall customer
satisfaction of BTS' products and services through its Customer
Satisfaction Survey. BTS conducted the last such survey in 1998.
Also, in the past, BTS solicited feedback via comment cards, inserted
in data products. According to BTS officials, the survey and comment
cards are no longer used as methods for soliciting feedback as a result
of restrictions stemming from the Privacy Act and Paperwork Reduction
Act (PRA). BTS officials told us they are working with RITA's Chief
Counsel's office to reinstitute the use of comment cards.
Without a systematic process for soliciting feedback on user
satisfaction from its users, BTS cannot ensure that it is has a full
picture of the needs of those users and how well it is meeting those
needs, which, in turn, hinders BTS' ability to make improvements to
data programs that are relevant to users.
Examples of how BTS has solicited feedback from users:
Table: Examples of how BTS has solicited feedback from users.
How BTS Solicited user feedback on user satisfaction: Data users‘
meetings and workshops held at conferences or training sessions;
Examples of How Feedback on user solicitation was solicited for
specific BTS programs:
* In 2005, BTS engaged freight data users at a Commodity Flow Survey *
Conference for input on changes needed in BTS‘ freight data collection.
* In 2004, BTS engaged users of travel data for their input into
current uses of existing data and future data needs. The results of
this data user‘s meeting were published in Data for Understanding Our
Nation‘s Travel: National Household Travel Survey Conference.
How BTS Solicited user feedback on user satisfaction: BTS Reference
Services;
Examples of How Feedback on user solicitation was solicited for
specific BTS programs: BTS‘ National Transportation Library Reference
Services Desk tracks and responds to inquiries received by email via
BTS‘ Web site or by telephone.
How BTS Solicited user feedback on user satisfaction: Independent third
party reviews;
Examples of How Feedback on user solicitation was solicited for
specific BTS programs:
* In 2003, BTS asked the Transportation Research Board and Committee on
National Statistics of the National Academies to conduct a review of
its major survey programs, including the (1) National Household Travel
Survey, (2) Omnibus Survey Program, and (3) Commodity Flow Survey.
* In 1999, BTS contracted with an external group to conduct focus
groups with congressional staffers, DOT employees, transportation
statistics experts, and employees of non-profits or associations in the
transportation field to (1) gain feedback on BTS‘ publications and
services and (2) gather insight about how to improve these tools for
the end user.
Source: GAO analysis of BTS information.
[End of Table]
BTS' method for incorporating feedback on user satisfaction is not
systematic:
BTS relies on its program managers, who are responsible for managing a
data collection program and its associated data products, to determine
how best to address feedback from users in identifying areas of
improvement and taking steps to address product weaknesses.
According to BTS officials, program managers use their professional
judgment and consider such factors as time and resource constraints
when deciding whether to incorporate feedback from users in taking
steps to improve their data products. BTS officials told us that
program managers are not required-and often do not-report the results
of how feedback on user satisfaction was considered and whether
improvements to the data product were made.
GAO's Internal Control standards suggest that on-going monitoring
should take place to ensure that users are satisfied and that policies
and procedures should be in place to ensure that feedback is evaluated
so that improvements can be made.
Without policies and procedures in place for incorporating feedback on
user satisfaction, BTS cannot systematically consider feedback and use
it to make improvements to data products.
BTS' performance measures:
BTS reports that it measures the overall degree to which products and
services are useful and responsive to the needs of users by tracking
two performance indicators-the number of congressional and governmental
agency contacts regarding BTS information and the average number of
daily unique visitors to the TranStats data Web site:[Footnote 33]
* BTS reports that the number of congressional and governmental agency
contacts has increased each year, from 84 requests in 2002, to 287 in
2005. BTS officials attribute this increase to their responsiveness to
inquiries and they told us that the increase indicates that BTS is
providing Congress and agencies with information that they need, and
that they find BTS to be a reliable source.
* BTS reports the average number of daily unique visits to the
TranStats data site has increased from 565 in 2003, to 813 in 2005.
According to BTS officials, this indicates that the information is
useful and that awareness among current and potential new BTS data
users is increasing.
We note, however, that these indicators are simple counts and not
measures of user satisfaction with BTS information.
DOT's Perspective on Key Issues Related to RITA:
We met with senior DOT officials-including the Department's Chief of
Staff, the Assistant Secretary for Budget and Programs and Chief
Financial Officer, the RITA Administrator, and other officials-to
discuss the factual information presented in these slides. These
officials agreed with the information, providing clarifications, which
we incorporated as appropriate.
These officials said that their vision is for RITA to play a key role-
in concert with the operating administrations-in shaping the future of
DOT's RD&T activities, although they believe that RITA will need
significant additional resources, especially technical experts, to
achieve this vision. They said that OST will rely heavily on input from
RITA's Planning Council in making its decisions related to the RD&T
budget requests from the operating administrations. They also said that
OST will look to RITA to play a lead role in helping realign the
Department's RD&T activities to focus more closely on key cross-modal
transportation issues facing the nation, including congestion,
alternative fuels, freight capacity, and other issues.
Next Steps:
Prepare final slides, with a short summary of results, for publication
as a GAO report.
Determine if committee staff want any additional work on RITA.
[End of section]
Appendix II: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contact:
Mathew Scire, (202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov:
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to the contact named above, key contributors to this report
were Rita Grieco, Assistant Director; Ashley Alley; Carl Barden;
Christine Bonham; Elizabeth Curda; Michelle Dresben; Colin Fallon;
Richard Hung; Sara Ann Moessbauer; Susan Ragland; April Thompson;
Deborah Winters; and Dorothy Yee.
FOOTNOTES
[1] OMB Circular No. A-11 (2005) defines research and development
activities to include "work undertaken on a systematic basis — to
increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture
and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new
applications." DOT defines technology to include demonstration projects
and other related activities associated with research and development
activities.
[2] GAO, Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve
Coordination and Evaluation of Research, GAO-03-500 (Washington, D.C.:
May 1, 2003). In this report, GAO uses the broad term "research" to
refer to DOT's research, development, and technology activities.
[3] PHMSA includes the Office of Pipeline Safety and the hazardous
materials safety activities formerly in RSPA.
[4] H.R. Rep. No. 108-749 (2004).
[5] Taken together, the RD&T budget authority for these three operating
administrations accounted for over 80 percent of DOT's total RD&T
budget authority in fiscal year 2005.
[6] In RITA's fiscal year 2007 budget request, the amount RITA
requested for its RD&T Coordination Program ($247,000) is less than
half of what was enacted for those activities in fiscal year 2006
($536,000). According to the 2007 budget request, this decrease
represents the transfer of multimodal RD&T initiatives from the RD&T
Coordination Program to the Transportation Futures and Applied
Technology Program. DOT's documentation does not provide a clear
transfer of all of the multimodal initiatives from one program to the
other; however, DOT officials told us that they plan to review all of
the department's multimodal initiatives as part of the Transportation
Futures and Applied Technology Program. As of June 2006, the House
Committee on Appropriations denied RITA's request for $2.2 million for
the Transportation Futures and Applied Technology Program, saying that
RITA should develop a more robust level of in-house RD&T expertise
before it relies on outside contractors for multimodal research
coordination and analysis. The House Committee on Appropriations also
provided $540,000 for RITA's ongoing RD&T Coordination Program.
[7] Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), formerly
codified in 23 USC 508. Pub. L. No. 105-178, 112 Stat. 107 (1998).
[8] Pub. L. No. 109-59, 119 Stat. 1144 (2005).
[9] Individual transportation modes include mass transit systems,
roads, aviation, maritime, and railroads. RITA and its program offices
oversee and conduct RD&T and statistical activities that apply to more
than one mode of transportation.
[10] The Program Review Working Group reports to the RD&T Planning Team
and provides a forum for the operating administrations to share
information about areas of research and identify opportunities for
coordination.
[11] OMB developed the R&D Investment Criteria--relevance, quality, and
performance--for all types of research and development programs across
all agencies to assist in budget allocation decisions and to
demonstrate results.
[12] Pub. L. No.103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993).
[13] Use of performance goals can help ensure that programs are meeting
their intended goals, allows programs to assess the efficiency of their
processes, and promotes continuous improvement. Where activities may be
fragmented or overlap, performance information can also help identify
performance variations and redundancies and lay the foundation for
improved coordination, program consolidation, or elimination of
unneeded programs. GAO, Managing for Results: Using the Results Act to
Address Mission Fragmentation and Program Overlap, AIMD-97-146
(Washington, D.C.: August 1997).
[14] GAO, Managing for Results: Enhancing Agency Use of Performance
Information for Management Decision Making, GAO-05-927 (Washington,
D.C.: Sept. 9, 2005).
[15] GAO-03-500.
[16] Strategies help align an agency's activities, core processes, and
resources to support achievement of the agency's strategic goals and
mission. GAO, Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[17] In the past, BTS systematically solicited feedback on overall
customer satisfaction of BTS's data products and services through its
Customer Satisfaction Survey. BTS conducted the last such survey in
1998. Also, in the past, BTS solicited feedback via comment cards,
inserted in data products. According to BTS officials, the survey and
comment cards are no longer used as methods for soliciting feedback as
a result of restrictions stemming from the Privacy Act and the
Paperwork Reduction Act. BTS officials told us they are working with
the Chief Counsel's office at RITA to reinstitute the use of comment
cards.
[18] Required by SAFETEA-LU, the TranStats data Web site contains
hundreds of transportation-related databases and is made available to
the public on BTS's Web site.
[19] GAO, Internal Control Management and Evaluation Tool, GAO-01-1008G
(Washington, D.C.: August 2001).
[20] The following five recommendations reiterate and expand on four of
the five recommendations GAO made to RSPA in 2003, with the exception
of the recommendation on quantifiable performance measures for RD&T
coordination, which DOT did not concur with, as previously discussed.
[21] OMB Circular No. A-11 (2005) defines research and development
activities to include "work undertaken on a systematic basis . to
increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of man, culture
and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new
applications." DOT defines technology to include demonstration projects
and other related activities associated with research and development
activities.
[22] GAO, Transportation Research: Actions Needed to Improve
Coordination and Evaluation of Research, GAO-03-500 (Washington, D.C.:
May 1, 2003).
[23] These other activities include conducting technology scans and
accelerating the deployment of technologies and innovations to users.
[24] As stated in the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century
(TEA-21), formerly codified in 23 USC 508.
[25] DOT policy delegated this responsibility to RSPA.
[26] Other functions include management and administration, General
Counsel, Chief Financial Officer, and governmental affairs.
[27] The Office of Intermodalism is within the Office of RD&T.
[28] OMB developed the R&D Investment Criteria-quality, relevance, and
performance-for all types of R&D programs across all agencies to assist
in budget allocation decisions and to demonstrate results.
[29] The UTC program was initiated in 1987 under the Surface
Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, which authorized
the establishment and operation of transportation centers in each of
the ten federal regions. The Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) reauthorized the UTC program for an
additional six years and added four national centers and six University
Research Institutes.
[30] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993). Under GPRA, federal
agencies are required to develop strategic plans, performance plans,
and performance reports that set long-term and annual goals along with
the means for accomplishing the goals and report on achieving them.
[31] GAO, Results-Oriented Government. Practices That Can Help Enhance
and Sustain Collaboration among Federal Agencies, GAO-06-15
(Washington, D.C.: October 21, 2005).
[32] GAO, Highway Research: Systematic Selection and Evaluation
Processes Needed for Research Program, GAO-02-573 (Washington, D.C.:
May 24, 2002). Peer review includes an independent assessment of
technical and scientific merit or quality and is considered appropriate
for all RD&T programs.
[33] Required by SAFETEA-LU, the TranStats data web site contains
hundreds of transportation-related databases and is made available to
the 34 public via BTS' Web site.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
