U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight Gao ID: GAO-05-77 October 8, 2004The Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary asked GAO to determine (1) the extent of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' compliance with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federal oversight is provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of the implementation of recommendations from GAO's past reviews of the Commission.
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency that monitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United States--has not fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this act, agencies are required to submit strategic plans and annual performance plans that detail their long-term and annual goals as well as information on how they plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires agencies to submit annual performance reports that provide information on their progress in meeting the goals. However, the Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm basis on which to develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance. In addition, its most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report contain weaknesses that limit the agency's ability to effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance. For example, the performance plan does not discuss the Commission's strategies or resources for achieving its goals, does not provide budgetary information for its programs, and does not provide performance indicators for some annual goals. Similarly, the performance report does not account for the Commission's performance for many of the annual goals set forth in its performance plan and does not provide plans, schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission's unmet goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commission's budgetary and human capital operations in recent years. OMB's oversight has focused on the Commission's budget requests and GPRA plans and reports. OPM conducted two reviews of the Commission's human capital management systems in the 1990s and made recommendations for improvement, including improvements to its grievance and performance appraisal systems. Although the Commission has implemented some of OPM's earlier recommendations, it has not implemented five of six broader, systemic recommendations made in 1999 for improvement to its human capital management systems. Unlike many other executive agencies, the Commission does not have an Inspector General to provide oversight of its operations beyond OMB and OPM. GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commission's management operations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in GAO's 1994 and 1997 reports. However, the Commission has not implemented three of the four recommendations in GAO's October 2003 report for improving the agency's management and procurement practices.
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-05-77, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-77
entitled 'U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit
from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight' which was
released on October 27, 2004.
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:
October 2004:
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:
Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased
Oversight:
GAO-05-77:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-77, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary asked
GAO to determine (1) the extent of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights‘
compliance with the requirements of the Government Performance and
Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federal oversight is provided to
the Commission, and (3) the status of the implementation of
recommendations from GAO‘s past reviews of the Commission.
What GAO Found:
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency that
monitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United
States”has not fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this
act, agencies are required to submit strategic plans and annual
performance plans that detail their long-term and annual goals as well
as information on how they plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires
agencies to submit annual performance reports that provide information
on their progress in meeting the goals. However, the Commission has not
updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997. Without revisiting
its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm basis on which to
develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance. In addition, its
most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report
contain weaknesses that limit the agency‘s ability to effectively
manage its operations and communicate its performance. For example, the
performance plan does not discuss the Commission‘s strategies or
resources for achieving its goals, does not provide budgetary
information for its programs, and does not provide performance
indicators for some annual goals. Similarly, the performance report
does not account for the Commission‘s performance for many of the
annual goals set forth in its performance plan and does not provide
plans, schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the
Commission‘s unmet goals.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commission‘s budgetary
and human capital operations in recent years. OMB‘s oversight has
focused on the Commission‘s budget requests and GPRA plans and reports.
OPM conducted two reviews of the Commission‘s human capital management
systems in the 1990s and made recommendations for improvement,
including improvements to its grievance and performance appraisal
systems. Although the Commission has implemented some of OPM‘s earlier
recommendations, it has not implemented five of six broader, systemic
recommendations made in 1999 for improvement to its human capital
management systems. Unlike many other executive agencies, the
Commission does not have an Inspector General to provide oversight of
its operations beyond OMB and OPM.
GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commission‘s management
operations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in
response to the recommendations in GAO‘s 1994 and 1997 reports.
However, the Commission has not implemented three of the four
recommendations in GAO‘s October 2003 report for improving the agency‘s
management and procurement practices.
What GAO Recommends:
To enhance oversight of the Commission, the Congress should consider
legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of an
existing Inspector General.
To strengthen the Commission‘s management practices, GAO recommends
that the Commission (1) update its strategic plan and ensure that its
performance plans and reports include all elements required under GPRA;
(2) implement OPM‘s and GAO‘s recommendations; and (3) seek the
services of an existing Inspector General to conduct necessary audits
and investigations.
In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on
our recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and
conclusions. We continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations are sound and necessary for strengthening the
Commission‘s management practices.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact Bob Robertson at (202)
512-9889 or robertsonr@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements:
OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has Made
Limited Changes in Response to OPM's Recommendations:
Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to
Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist:
Conclusion:
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments:
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights:
GAO's Response to Comments:
Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's
Response:
Appendix III: GAO's October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission's
Response:
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Abbreviations:
GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:
HRM: human resource management:
OMB: Office of Management and Budget:
OPM: Office of Personnel Management:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
October 8, 2004:
The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch:
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary:
United States Senate:
The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.:
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary:
House of Representatives:
The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established as an independent,
bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency to monitor and report on the
status of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception in
1957, the Commission has worked on critical civil rights issues,
including racial segregation, impediments to voting rights, and the
debate on federal affirmative action programs. In recent years, the
Congress has requested that we assess the adequacy of the Commission's
management practices and procedures. In 1994, we reported problems
identified in the Commission's handling of travel activities and made
recommendations for specific actions.[Footnote 1] In a 1997 study of
the Commission, we found numerous management and operational
issues[Footnote 2] and, in October 2003, we found that the Commission
lacked good project management and that its contracting procedures were
inadequate.[Footnote 3]
Organizations with management weaknesses can learn from the practices
of high-performing organizations, which strengthen their management
practices and focus on achieving results by setting clear goals,
aligning their management systems with these goals, and regularly
evaluating their performance. For federal agencies, the Government
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) incorporated these
practices, requiring federal agencies to set goals and use performance
measures for management and budgetary purposes. To comply with GPRA,
federal agencies--including independent commissions--must periodically
submit long-term strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual
performance reports. The Chairmen of both the Senate and House
Committees on the Judiciary asked us to determine (1) the extent of the
Commission's compliance with the planning and reporting requirements of
GPRA, (2) federal oversight that is provided to the Commission, and (3)
the status of the Commission's implementation of recommendations from
GAO's reviews in the past decade.
To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant
statutes and regulations; the Commission's most recent GPRA plans and
reports; guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
implementation of GPRA; and guidance and reports from the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM) on human resources management (HRM) and the
Commission's HRM practices. We also reviewed GAO reports on the
Commission's management practices and our guidance on the
implementation of GPRA. In determining the federal oversight provided
to the Commission, we focused on executive branch oversight provided by
OMB and OPM. We also reviewed the Commission's June 2004 response to
the recommendations we made in our October 2003 report on the
Commission. Finally, we conducted interviews with the Commission's
Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human
Resources Director, and Budget Chief, as well as with officials from
OPM and OMB. We conducted our work from April to August 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Results in Brief:
The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since
1997, and its most recent annual performance plan and report contain
weaknesses that limit the Commission's ability to effectively manage
its operations and communicate its performance. Because it has not
updated its strategic plan, the Commission has not reexamined its
strategic goals since 1997 to affirm their ongoing significance to the
agency's overall mission. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the
Commission lacks a firm basis on which to develop its annual goals and
evaluate its performance. Although the Commission's most recent annual
performance plan contains annual performance goals, these goals are
often not distinguished from program activities. The plan also does not
provide information on the resources and strategies required to meet
the Commission's annual goals, nor does it provide performance measures
for evaluating the achievement of these goals. Although OMB guidance
now directs agencies to include budget information in its annual
performance plans, the Commission's plan for fiscal year 2005 does not
align the cost of its programs with specific annual goals. In addition,
the Commission's most recent performance report does not, in many
cases, clearly indicate whether the goals were achieved and does not
include 3 years of performance data for all of its annual goals as
required. In addition, the report does not provide the Commission's
plans or timeframes for accomplishing its unmet goals.
In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human capital
oversight of the Commission, and, overall, the agency has made a
limited number of changes in response to OPM's report recommendations
to the Commission. OMB reviewed the Commission's budget request and
GPRA plans and reports in preparing the President's annual budget, but
has not focused on Commission management issues. According to OMB
officials, OMB does not provide the same level of oversight for
organizations with small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, as
that provided for larger organizations, such as the Securities and
Exchange Commission. In the 1990s, OPM conducted two evaluations of the
Commission's human capital management systems. In 1996, OPM found that
the Commission was "badly in need of managerial attention," citing, for
example, a lack of credible grievance and performance appraisal
systems. In its 1999 evaluation, OPM noted that several problems
identified in the previous evaluation had not been addressed and made
further recommendations to improve the Commission's human capital
management practices. To date, the Commission has not adopted five of
six broader, systemic human capital recommendations from OPM's 1999
review. For example, the Staff Director continues to retain final
authority for approving all performance appraisal ratings and
promotions instead of delegating that authority to managers, as
recommended. The Commission also does not have an Inspector General,
who can provide an additional means of oversight for federal agencies
and commissions, nor is it required to have one.
While the Commission took some actions to address the recommendations
in our earlier reports, our more recent reviews indicate that financial
and management problems persist. In 1994, we made recommendations to
improve the Commission's handling of travel activities for specific
individuals, and the agency indicated in 1995 that it had acted on
these recommendations. In 1997, we made recommendations to improve the
agency's project management and accountability for daily operations.
Although the Commission made changes in response to these 1997
recommendations, in 2003 we found problems with the agency's project
management similar to those found in 1997. In our October 2003 report,
we made four additional recommendations for improving the Commission's
management and procurement practices. Although the Commission has made
a few changes, such as contracting with a contract and procurement
specialist, the Staff Director disagrees with the need for most of the
recommendations, and the agency has not adopted them.
We are including a matter for congressional consideration to strengthen
the Commission's accountability. We are also making six recommendations
intended to strengthen the Commission's compliance with GPRA
requirements, management practices, and oversight.
In commenting on our draft report, the Commission did not comment on
our recommendations, but disagreed with most of the findings and
conclusions upon which our recommendations are based. For example, the
Commission disagreed with our findings on its GPRA products and human
capital practices, asserting that these products and processes were
appropriate and sound for an agency with a small budget and staff.
Overall, we did not agree with the Commission's comments on our draft
report. We continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and
recommendations are sound and that the implementation of our
recommendations is needed to strengthen the Commission's management
practices. The Commission's detailed comments and our responses to them
are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated clarifications in the
report as appropriate.
Background:
Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission is a fact-
finding agency required to report on civil rights issues. It is
required to study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies
with regard to illegal discrimination or denial of equal protection of
the laws. It must also submit at least one report annually to the
President and the Congress that monitors federal civil rights
enforcement efforts. Other reports may be required or issued as
considered appropriate by the Commission, the President, or the
Congress. The Commission serves as a national clearinghouse for
information related to its mission. In addition, it investigates
charges by individual citizens who claim to be deprived of their voting
rights. The Commission may hold hearings and, within specific
guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and have
witnesses appear at hearings. However, because it lacks enforcement
powers that would enable it to apply remedies in individual cases, the
Commission refers specific complaints to the appropriate federal,
state, or local government agency for action.[Footnote 4]
The Commission's annual appropriation has averaged about $9 million
since fiscal year 1995. It is currently directed by eight part-time
Commissioners who serve 6-year terms on a staggered basis. Four
Commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the President Pro
Tempore of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House of
Representatives. No more than four Commissioners can be of the same
political party. With the concurrence of a majority of the Commission's
members, the President may also designate a Chairperson or Vice
Chairperson from among the Commissioners.
A Staff Director, who is appointed by the President with the
concurrence of a majority of the Commissioners, oversees the daily
operations of the Commission and manages the staff in six regional
offices and the Washington, D.C., headquarters office. The Commission
operates four units in its headquarters whose directors and managers
report directly to the Staff Director: the Office of Civil Rights
Evaluation, Office of General Counsel, Office of Management, and a
Regional Programs Coordination Unit. As of June 2004, the Commission
employed approximately 70 staff members, including the eight
Commissioners and their eight assistants.
The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees--the minimum
required by statute--one for each state and the District of Columbia.
The State Advisory Committees are composed of citizens familiar with
local and state civil rights issues. Their members serve without
compensation and assist the Commission with its fact-finding,
investigative, and information dissemination functions.
Planning and Reporting Requirements under GPRA:
To encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in
federal programs, the Congress passed the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993, which requires agencies to develop and issue
certain documents to be made available to the public and used by
congressional decision-makers.[Footnote 5] OMB provides guidance to
federal agencies on complying with GPRA requirements through its
Circular A-11, which is updated annually. In addition, we have
published guidance and reports to federal agencies on best practices
for complying with GPRA.[Footnote 6]
Under GPRA or OMB guidance, agencies must submit the following three
documents to the President, Congress, and OMB:[Footnote 7]
* Strategic plan. This document, which must cover a period of no less
than 5 years from the fiscal year in which it is submitted, should be
updated every 3 years and include the agency's mission statement and
long-term strategic goals. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting
point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management. Strategic
goals are long-term, outcome-oriented goals aimed at accomplishing the
agency's mission. In developing goals for their strategic plans,
agencies are required to consult with the Congress and other
stakeholders.
* Annual performance plan. This document sets forth the agency's annual
performance goals, which should be linked to its strategic goals. An
agency's annual goals provide the intermediary steps needed to reach
its long-term strategic goals. Annual goals should be objective,
quantifiable, and measurable. OMB guidance now directs agencies to
include budget information in their performance plans and encourages
agencies to align resources with annual goals.[Footnote 8] Prior to
their submissions for fiscal year 2005, agencies were not directed to
associate program costs in this way.
* Annual performance report. This document provides information on an
agency's actual performance for the previous fiscal year. This report
should provide information on the results of its progress in meeting
annual goals. If agencies have not met their goals, they are required
to explain what issues are keeping them from meeting the goals and
describe their plans for addressing these issues.
Executive Branch Oversight Responsibilities:
Several federal agencies have oversight responsibilities in relation to
the Commission, including OMB for financial management and OPM for
personnel management. OMB, located within the Executive Office of the
President, is responsible for preparing and implementing the
President's annual budget and for providing guidance to agencies on how
to comply with GPRA.[Footnote 9] OPM is the central personnel
management agency of the federal government charged with administering
and enforcing federal civil service laws, regulations, and rules. OPM
is also required to establish and maintain an oversight program to
ensure that agencies comply with pertinent laws, regulations, and
policies.[Footnote 10]
Oversight can also be provided by an Inspector General. The Inspector
General Act of 1978 provides for Offices of Inspector General to serve
as independent, objective offices within certain federal departments or
agencies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as well as
prevent and detect fraud and abuse.[Footnote 11] Agencies that do not
have their own Office of Inspector General can obtain Inspector General
services from other federal agencies.[Footnote 12]
The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements:
The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since
1997, as required under GPRA, and its most recent annual performance
plan and report contain weaknesses that limit the Commission's ability
to effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance.
The Commission Has Not Updated Its Strategic Plan Since 1997:
The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since
fiscal year 1997 and has missed two scheduled submissions required
under GPRA. According to GPRA and OMB guidance, the Commission should
have submitted, updated, and revised its strategic plan in fiscal years
2000 and 2003. The 2003 revision should have covered the period through
at least fiscal year 2008. Commission officials told us that the agency
is working on developing an updated strategic plan and intends to
submit it to OMB by Fall 2004. However, while they were in the process
of revising their strategic plan as of June 2004, critical actions,
such as consulting with the Congress as required by the act, have not
yet occurred, according to Commission officials.
Because it has not updated or revised its strategic plan, the
Commission has not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to affirm
their ongoing significance to the agency's overall mission. The
Commission has not determined if changes to its strategic goals are
warranted due to factors such as external circumstances or not meeting
its annual goals. In addition, because the Commission has not updated
its strategic plan, its strategic goals also are not informed by a
current analysis of the Commission's purpose and work. Without
revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission does not have a firm
basis on which to develop its annual goals. The Commission continues to
rely on strategic goals from 1997 to formulate its current annual
goals.
Without a current strategic plan the Commission also lacks a key tool
for communicating with the Congress, the public, and its own staff,
including informing them of the significance of its work. In addition
to serving as a document for external use, the strategic plan can be
used as a management tool and, according to OMB guidance, should
outline the process for communicating goals and strategies throughout
the agency and for assigning accountability to managers and staff for
achievement of the agency's goals.
The Commission's Annual Performance Plan Falls Short of Meeting GPRA
Requirements and OMB Guidance:
The Commission's most recent performance plan, for fiscal year 2005,
includes several program activities that are referred to as goals;
however, it is unclear how these activities will help the agency
achieve its strategic goals or accomplish its mission. For example, the
plan lists 14 fact-finding projects, each of which has as many as 5
annual goals.[Footnote 13] Many of these goals, however, are
activities, such as holding a public hearing or publishing a report.
Similarly, one of the goals in the plan is for each of the Commission's
State Advisory Committees to focus on regular meetings in fiscal year
2005 and on completing their projects. However, this goal is not linked
to achieving the agency's strategic goal to enhance the Committees'
ability to monitor civil rights in the United States.
In addition, the annual performance plan does not contain all elements
required under GPRA. The plan does not provide information on how the
Commission will pursue and accomplish the annual performance goals laid
out in its plan. Performance plans must include descriptions of how an
agency's annual goals are to be achieved, including the resources and
strategies required to meet the goals. However, the Commission's fiscal
year 2005 plan does not discuss the strategies or resources needed to
achieve its goals. For example, according to the performance plan, the
Commission will update its Civil Rights Directory, but the plan does
not indicate which offices will be responsible or describe the
strategies and resources needed to carry out this task.
The Commission's performance plan for fiscal year 2005 also does not
include budgetary information in accordance with OMB guidance. Instead
of associating the cost of its programs with specific annual goals, the
plan includes a single amount for its total operations. The potential
problems stemming from the Commission's failure to associate costs with
specific annual goals or break down its budget request by goal may be
exacerbated by the large gap between the Commission's budget requests
and its actual appropriations. Since 1999, the Commission's
appropriations have averaged approximately 26 percent less than the
amount requested. For fiscal year 2004, the Commission based its annual
performance plan on a budget request of $15.2 million, but its
appropriation for that year totaled only $9.1 million.
In addition, the Commission has consistently not revised its annual
performance plans to reflect its actual appropriations and illustrate
the impact on its annual goals. Although agencies are not required to
revise their plans to reflect actual appropriations under GPRA, the
fact that the Commission's plans are based upon a budget that is so
much larger than its actual appropriations limits the plans' usefulness
in detailing how the agency will achieve its annual goals and in
assessing the impact of appropriations decisions on its planned
performance.
Furthermore, the Commission's annual performance plan for fiscal year
2005 does not provide the performance indicators to be used in
measuring achievement of each annual goal. According to GPRA, an
agency's performance plan shall include performance indicators to be
used in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels,
and outcomes of each program activity, and provide a basis for
comparing actual program results with annual goals. For some annual
goals--particularly those related to promoting greater public
awareness, assisting individuals in protecting their civil rights, and
enhancing the capacity of the State Advisory Committees--the
performance plan does not have any performance indicators. For example,
the performance plan states that, in fiscal year 2005, the Commission
will develop and implement a coordinated multimedia public service
announcement campaign designed to educate the public about important
civil rights matters and discourage discrimination while promoting
tolerance. However, the plan does not describe measures that can be
used to evaluate the attainment of this goal in terms of outputs, such
as the number of public service announcements, or outcomes, such as
increased awareness of civil rights matters.
In the annual performance plan, the Commission does not adequately
describe how it will verify and validate the performance measures used
to assess the accomplishment of its annual goals. GPRA requires
agencies to submit information on how they plan to verify and validate
the performance measures used to assess the accomplishment of their
annual goals. This requirement helps to ensure that their assessments
are valid, reliable, and credible. The Commission's fiscal year 2005
plan includes a general description of its verification and validation
processes, but it does not specify the evaluation methods to be used or
identify the limitations or constraints of these methods. For example,
the plan states that, in assessing the outcomes achieved through
issuance of its reports, the Commission may conduct follow-up meetings
with affected agencies, congressional committees, and other interested
organizations. However, the plan does not describe how these groups
will be selected, the data to be collected, how the data will be
assessed, or who will be responsible for conducting these meetings or
collecting and assessing the data.
The Commission's Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2003 Does
Not Fulfill Several GPRA Requirements and Overall Does Not Communicate
the Commission's Performance:
Although the Commission's most recent annual performance report, for
fiscal year 2003, describes the agency's achievements as well as
reasons for not meeting certain goals, the report does not include
several elements required under GPRA and provides little evidence and
context for evaluating the agency's performance. Furthermore, many of
the results are descriptive narratives that do not characterize the
Commission's performance. Overall, these problems diminish the report's
usefulness as a tool for managing the Commission's operations and
holding the agency accountable for achieving its goals.
The performance report for fiscal year 2003 is incomplete because it
does not account for all of the annual goals in the Commission's fiscal
year 2003 performance plan--a fundamental GPRA requirement.[Footnote
14] The report provides no account of the Commission's performance for
many of the annual goals set forth in its fiscal year 2003 performance
plan. In particular, the report does not account for the Commission's
performance for 6 fact-finding projects--a core activity of the agency.
For example, the fiscal year 2003 plan stated that the Commission's
fact-finding project, "Media Role in Civil Rights," would accomplish
four goals, including having a public event, yet the performance report
provides no account of this project or any description of the agency's
progress in meeting these goals.
Furthermore, while the report includes results for other annual goals,
the information provided for many of these goals is incomplete or
ambiguous. For example, the Commission's environmental justice project
has three goals: publication of a report, report dissemination, and
formal consideration of the recommendations of the report by affected
agencies. However, although the performance report describes the
purpose of the environmental justice report as well as its publication
and dissemination, the performance report does not indicate whether the
Commission obtained any formal response to its recommendations from
affected agencies. Similarly, the performance plan stated that each
State Advisory Committee Chairperson or Representative would
participate in at least one civil rights activity per year. Although
the performance report includes extensive narrative describing the work
of the State Advisory Committees, it does not indicate whether this
goal had been achieved.
The Commission's performance report also does not provide the relevant
data needed to assess the achievement of its annual goals. Under GPRA,
performance reports must include 3 years of actual performance data in
describing the agency's progress in achieving its goals. While the
performance report includes 3 years of performance data for one goal
from its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, for the remaining goals,
the report does not include 3 years of data, or the data are not
relevant for assessment. For example, the performance report includes
data describing the type and number of complaints received in fiscal
year 2003 and for the 3 prior years. However, the report does not
include data--such as the amount of time it took to respond to
complaints--that could be used to assess whether the Commission met its
goal of responding in a timely manner.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2003 performance report provides no plans,
schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission's
unmet goals. GPRA states that, when an annual goal is not achieved, the
agency must describe why, outline plans or schedules for achieving the
goal, and if the goal was determined to be impractical, describe why
that was the case and what action is recommended. While the report
explains why some goals were not met, it does not provide plans,
schedules, or recommendations for addressing these unmet goals. For
example, the performance report states that, due to limited resources,
the Commission was unable to track its referrals to federal enforcement
agencies to ensure that civil rights complaints were received and
appropriately processed. However, the report does not provide any
detail on whether it would continue to pursue this goal, how the
Commission plans to meet this goal in the future, or what actions could
be taken to help the Commission meet this goal, such as obtaining
assistance from other federal agencies in maintaining accessible and
relevant records.
OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has Made
Limited Changes in Response to OPM's Recommendations:
In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human capital
management oversight for the Commission. OMB's oversight of the
Commission focuses primarily on the budgetary process. In providing
oversight of its human capital management, OPM conducted reviews and
made recommendations to the Commission in the 1990s to improve the
Commission's human capital management and overall management. In
response, although the Commission implemented some of the recommended
changes, many issues that OPM raised in 1996 continued to be of concern
in 1999. Although an Inspector General can provide an additional means
of oversight for agencies and independent commissions, the Commission
does not have an Inspector General and is not required to have one.
OMB Provides Oversight for the Commission's Budgetary Process, but Has
Not Focused on Management Issues:
OMB's oversight of the Commission is primarily budgetary, according to
OMB officials. In the fall of each fiscal year, OMB is responsible for
reviewing the Commission's annual performance plan, budget request,
apportionment request, and annual performance report.[Footnote 15]
Before the Commission's budget request is due, OMB provides the
Commission with guidance and updated information on the submission of
GPRA documents. With regard to the annual performance plan, OMB
generally reviews the long-term goals and performance measures used to
determine the Commission's performance in meeting its goals. OMB also
reviews the Commission's budget request as part of its role in
developing the President's budget. While OMB reviews the Commission's
annual performance plans and budget requests, according to OMB
officials, it does not approve or reject these documents, but
acknowledges their receipt and sends comments back to the agency as
appropriate. However, Commission officials said that OMB has not
provided feedback on its annual performance plans in recent years. Each
fall, OMB also receives the Commission's apportionment request, which
describes how the Commission would like its appropriations distributed.
According to OMB officials, once an apportionment agreement has been
reached between the Commission and OMB, the Commission sends this
agreement to the Treasury, which issues a warrant to release funds to
the agency. Finally, OMB reviews the Commission's annual performance
report to ensure that its funds are spent according to its performance
plans and that its goals were met.
In addition to reviewing the Commission's annual budget submissions,
OMB reviewed and approved the Commission's February 2004 request to
reduce its personnel costs by offering voluntary separation incentive
payments, or "buyouts," to encourage staff in certain job
classifications to voluntarily leave their jobs. The Commission
requested authority to offer buyouts to six employees. OMB officials
discussed this request with Commission officials and approved the
request in April. The Commission offered buyouts to all employees who
had 3 or more years of government service in several job
classifications. The Commission granted buyouts to three staff members,
who accepted.
OMB also is responsible for providing oversight of agencies'
management, including the Commission, but this oversight has been
limited because of the small size of the agency and its budget,
according to OMB officials. OMB officials told us that the agency does
not provide the same level of oversight for organizations with small
budgets and staff, such as the Commission, as that provided for larger
organizations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. For
example, even though the Commission does not have a current strategic
plan, OMB has not requested an updated plan from the Commission,
according to Commission officials. In addition, OMB officials told us
that they have taken no actions in response to our October 2003
findings that the Commission violated federal procurement regulations
and lacked key management practices because the volume of purchasing by
the Commission is far below the levels that concern OMB. For example,
the Commission's largest contract is for less than $160,000.
OPM Provides Oversight for the Commission's Human Capital Management
Systems, and the Commission Has Made Limited Improvements in Response
to OPM's Recommendations:
According to OPM officials, OPM provides the Commission with human
capital oversight through its audits of agencies' human capital
management systems, which can be conducted on a cyclical basis every 4
to 5 years or on request, as needed.[Footnote 16] In 1996 and 1999, OPM
conducted two reviews of the Commission's human capital management
systems and made recommendations in each report for improvements.
In analyzing the Commission's response to OPM reviews, we focused on
six recommendations from OPM's 1999 report that involved systemic
changes to the Commission's human capital management systems.[Footnote
17] As of August 2004, the Commission had not implemented five of these
six recommendations. Findings from these reviews included the
following:
* In its November 1996 report, OPM's main finding was that the
Commission was an agency "badly in need of managerial attention,"
citing the Commission's poor documentation practices, lack of credible
grievance and performance management systems, and employees' highly
negative perceptions of the Commission's organizational climate.
* In its October 1999 report, OPM found that, although the Commission's
human capital management systems complied with Merit System Principles,
its human resource practices continued to have weaknesses associated
with accountability, delegation, recruitment, performance appraisals,
and incentive awards. The report noted that these concerns were similar
to the concerns OPM had identified in the earlier report. For example,
as of 1999, the Commission had not established an internal self-
assessment program as OPM recommended in 1996. OPM made 16
recommendations in 1999 to help the Commission improve its management
of human resources. As of August 2004, we found that the Commission had
not implemented five of six broader, systemic recommendations made by
OPM. (See appendix II for descriptions of these six OPM recommendations
and the Commission's responses.)
The Commission Lacks the Oversight of an Inspector General:
Although in the course of their reviews OMB, OPM, and GAO have
identified continuing management and accountability problems at the
Commission, it may not be sufficient to resolve such longstanding
concerns through annual budgetary reviews and management reviews based
on congressional requests or periodic audit cycles. An Inspector
General can provide an additional means of oversight for federal
agencies, including independent commissions and boards, but the
Commission currently has no such oversight. Several small agencies have
obtained such services for audits and investigations through
memorandums of understanding with the General Services Administration.
However, the Commission does not have an Inspector General of its own,
nor does it obtain these services from another agency. The Staff
Director told us that, although he has thought about the possibility of
obtaining these services, he does not believe the Commission has the
funds needed to obtain the services of an Inspector General.
Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to
Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist:
Over the past decade, we reviewed the Commission's travel, management,
and financial practices and made recommendations for improvement. The
Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in our
1994 and 1997 reports. In addition, the Commission has not implemented
three of the four recommendations in our October 2003 report. This most
recent report included several recommendations to improve the
Commission's management and procurement practices. The Staff Director
issued a letter in June 2004 in response to this report disagreeing
with most of the recommendations and describing the actions taken by
the agency. We also interviewed Commission officials to clarify their
responses to the recommendations in our October 2003 report.
The Commission Took Actions in Response to the Recommendations in Our
1994 and 1997 Reports, but Related Problems Continue:
Although the Commission took various actions to address the
recommendations in our 1994 and 1997 reports, many similar problems
persist. In 1994, we reported on problems identified in the
Commission's handling of travel activities for specific individuals and
made recommendations for improvement. For example, in response to our
finding that Commissioners had not submitted travel vouchers in a
timely manner, we recommended that the Commission direct the
Commissioners to do so, as required by federal travel regulations. In
1995, the Commission issued revised travelg procedures that
incorporated our recommendation for timely filing of travel vouchers by
the Commissioners. (As part of a separate assignment, we are currently
reviewing the Commission's fiscal year 2003 financial transactions that
include a review of travel-related transactions.) In 1997, we found
numerous operational issues, reporting that the management of the
Commission's operations lacked control and coordination; its projects
lacked sufficient documentation; senior officials were unaware of how
Commission funds were used and lacked control over key management
functions; and records had been lost, misplaced, or were
nonexistent.[Footnote 18] In the report, we made recommendations for
specific changes to the Commission's administrative procedures and
project management systems, and the agency took some actions in
response. However, in 2003, we found that the actions taken did not
fully address the problems identified in our 1997 report.
The Commission Has Not Implemented Most Recommendations from Our 2003
Report:
In October 2003, we reported that, although the Commission had made
some improvements in its project management procedures for
Commissioners and staff, the procedures lacked certain key elements of
good project management, such as providing Commissioners with project
cost information and opportunities to contribute to Commission reports
before they are issued. We also reported that the Commission lacked
sufficient management control over its contracting procedures and that
little, if any, external oversight of the Commission's financial
activities had taken place, since no independent accounting firm had
audited the Commission's financial statements in at least 12
years.[Footnote 19] To address these issues, we recommended that the
Commission:
1. monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information
provided to Commissioners,
2. adopt procedures that provide for increased Commissioner involvement
in project implementation and report preparation,
3. establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order
to be in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and:
4. take immediate steps to meet the financial statement preparation and
audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for
fiscal year 2004.
The Staff Director generally disagreed with these recommendations, and
the Commission has not adopted three of them. In their June 2004 letter
responding to our report recommendations, Commission officials asserted
that the first two recommendations were a matter of internal policy to
be decided by the Commissioners.[Footnote 20] In addition, they
disagreed with the need for the third recommendation and asserted that
they were taking steps to address the last recommendation. Although
they disagreed with the third recommendation, the Commission hired a
contracting and procurement specialist starting in December 2003 to
provide supplemental services, and the Staff Director acknowledged that
the Commission could improve in this area. As of September 16, 2004,
the Commission had yet to contract with an independent auditor to
prepare for meeting the requirements of the Accountability of Tax
Dollars Act of 2002.[Footnote 21] (See appendix III for further details
on the Commission's responses to these recommendations.)
Conclusion:
With its history of management problems, the Commission faces
significant challenges. Strategic planning is not a static or
occasional event. Instead, it is a dynamic and inclusive process that,
if done well, is integral to an organization's entire operations. By
not devoting the time and resources required to update its strategic
plan, the Commission has no assurance that it is pursuing long-term
goals that reflect the needs of its key stakeholders and that address
the many management challenges presented by the shifting external and
internal environments in which it operates. Furthermore, the Commission
lacks a foundation to use in aligning its daily activities, operations,
and resources to support its mission and achieve its goals. Without
using the GPRA planning process to periodically reexamine its long-term
goals and set its course, the Commission is not in a strong position to
set relevant annual goals or develop measures for assessing whether it
has achieved them. Given the consistent shortfall between the
Commission's annual budget requests and its appropriations over the
past decade, it is even more important for the Commission to chart a
strategic course that is realistic.
Although the Commission has improved some policies and practices in
response to recommendations from OPM and GAO, the problems that remain
are still cause for concern, particularly given the lingering nature of
the Commission's management difficulties. Unless the Commission
systematically monitors its implementation of OPM's and GAO's
recommendations, it is not likely that it will significantly improve
its management and human capital management systems. Finally, annual
budgetary and other reviews based on periodic cycles or specific
requests may not be sufficient to address longstanding concerns about
the Commission's management and accountability. Because the Commission
does not have an Inspector General, it does not appear likely that it
will have the additional independent oversight needed to address
management problems that others have identified and to hold itself
accountable for resolving them.
Matter for Congressional Consideration:
To strengthen the Commission's accountability, the Congress should
consider legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of
an existing Inspector General at another agency.
Recommendations for Executive Action:
To strengthen the Commission's management practices, we recommend that
the Commission:
* update its 5-year strategic plan according to GPRA's required
schedule and include all elements required under GPRA and OMB guidance;
* ensure that future annual performance plans include all elements
required under GPRA and OMB guidance, reflect funding levels requested
in the President's Budget, and are revised if necessary to reflect
actual appropriations;
* ensure that annual performance reports include all elements required
under GPRA;
* implement all of the recommendations in OPM's and GAO's previous
reports;
* include the status of the Commission's efforts to implement OPM's and
GAO's recommendations in its GPRA plans and reports; and:
* seek the services of an existing Inspector General from another
agency to help keep the Commission and the Congress informed of
problems and deficiencies and to conduct and supervise necessary audits
and investigations.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to the Commission for comment. The
Commission's formal comments and our responses are contained in
appendix I.
In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on
our recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and
conclusions. We have carefully reviewed the Commission's concerns and
overall do not agree with its comments on our findings and conclusions.
For example, the Commission disagreed with our GPRA findings, asserting
that its GPRA processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its
size. The Commission also asserted that, as a small agency, it was not
cost-effective or efficient for it to institute its own accountability
system for managing its human resources, as OPM had recommended. The
Commission similarly cited its small size in asserting that it would be
an "extreme" challenge to institute our October 2003 report
recommendations. We disagree with these assertions. The Commission's
size is not relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the
Commission to address longstanding management and human capital
problems identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore,
instead of implying that it is acceptable for the Commission as a small
agency to operate under diminished expectations for GPRA compliance,
the Commission could make use of GPRA's planning and reporting
framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the
Commission could use GPRA's planning framework to update and sharpen
its goals, clearly identify the strategies and resources needed to
achieve those goals, and improve its management and human capital
practices. The Commission could then also use GPRA's reporting
framework to demonstrate the progress it has made towards achieving
those goals.
In addition to providing these comments, the Commission criticized our
approach to our work, asserting that the draft report contained
inaccurate and incomplete analyses and that we rushed to complete the
report within an artificially constrained timeline. We strongly
disagree. At all times, we scoped, designed, and conducted this
engagement in accordance with applicable professional standards and our
quality assurance requirements. Furthermore, many of the Commission's
comments about how we conducted our work were themselves misleading and
inaccurate. For example, we did not suddenly and drastically change our
focus, as the Commission asserted. In our May 2004 entrance conference
with the agency, we noted our specific focus on certain areas,
including the Commission's GPRA products and the agency's actions in
response to OPM and GAO recommendations. Our focus on oversight of the
Commission and GPRA requirements remained consistent throughout the
assignment. As we designed our work, we formulated our objectives and
methodologies more specifically, and we shared our refocused objectives
with the Commission when we completed the design phase of our work in
July. We therefore continue to believe that our findings, conclusions,
and recommendations are sound. The Commission's detailed comments and
our responses to them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated
clarifications in the report as appropriate.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further
distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time,
we will send copies of this report to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights and other interested parties. We will also make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me or Revae Moran on (202) 512-7215 if you or your
staffs have any questions about this report. Other contacts and staff
acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.
Signed by:
Robert E. Robertson:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights:
Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the
end of this appendix.
UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS:
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20425:
OFFICE OF STAFF DIRECTOR:
September 16, 2004:
Mr. Robert Robertson:
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Division:
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W., Room 5A14:
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Dear Mr. Robertson:
This letter is in response to the draft report prepared by GAO. We
appreciate the opportunity to respond to the report and found some of
its suggestions helpful, which we will study more carefully in our
ongoing efforts to ensure that Commission operations run smoothly and
efficiently. We also appreciate the professional attitude that you and
your team staff displayed in interacting with Commission staff.
We disagree, however, with much of the draft report. Significant parts
are inaccurate and contain incomplete analyses. This appears to be the
result of a lack of thoroughness in GAO's examination of the
Commission's oversight and strategic planning. This may be the result
of GAO rushing to complete a report-any report-by a certain date in
September, rather than being free to take whatever time was needed to
design and engage in thorough fact finding to ensure a quality report.
We note that at the initial entrance interview in May, your team had
indicated it would be examining three major areas: 1) organizational
structure and mission of the Commission; 2) management matters,
including strategic planning approaches, criteria for setting
priorities in research projects, means of assuring quality during
research design, and quality assurance methods for published reports;
and 3) oversight of the Commission, including interactions with OMB and
OPM, as well as steps the agency has taken in response to prior GAO and
OPM recommendations. Toward that goal, GAO identified people that it
wanted to interview, and GAO interviewed some staff, including me
several times. GAO also asked for various documents, which we provided
expeditiously. At all times, we cooperated with GAO fully. After
examining documents and information in all three areas, however, on
July 22 GAO suddenly notified us that its scope of examination had been
drastically reduced and split into two phases. GAO's immediate
examination was reduced to covering only the third area and part of the
second, regarding strategic planning. Examination of the remaining
areas would resume in October. The one thing that did not change was
that the report was due to the Congressional requestors by late
September. Based on GAO's comments on July 22, it is apparent that the
decision to split the current report into two phases was driven by a
need to finish a report by a certain date in September, rather than by
a sound business decision. The separation of issues is artificial, and
neither did GAO's comments on July 22 or anything in the draft report
provide any reference or explanation of this matter to indicate
otherwise.
Nor does the report explain why it was imperative to conclude the
examination and produce a report in only five months,' which caused GAO
to rush through its examination and prevented it from being able to
engage our staff more thoroughly and obtain follow-up answers to
whatever questions GAO may have had. Based on the entrance interview,
we expected GAO to talk to many additional people on the staff, as well
as the Commissioners to ensure a thorough examination of the issues.
However, GAO spoke to only a small number of Commission personnel.
While, on one hand, the Commission is grateful that the disruption to
Commission work was thus more limited than we had anticipated, this is
small consolation when the result is a less thorough and accurate
report.
Below are the Commission's substantive responses.
Response to Prior GAO Recommendations:
Contrary to the assertions in the draft report, the Commission has
implemented or engaged in implementing all of the four recommendations
contained in the 2003 report. There is no disagreement about the first
recommendation regarding strengthening the Commission's contracts and
procurement activities. The draft report acknowledges that the
Commission has addressed that recommendation and that the Commission
establish greater controls over its contracting activities.
Regarding the second recommendation that the Commission take steps in
order to meet the financial statement preparation and audit
requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act, the draft report
is incorrect in stating that the Commission has not taken any action.
On the contrary, the Commission has taken various steps to meet the
financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004. As
explained to GAO, the Commission had requested several months ago that
its accounting firm and procurement specialist contractor develop a
scope of work and auditing schedule. As the Commission is relatively
quite small, the agency's accounting firm has advised that the
Commission is still well within the timeframe to meet the November 15,
2004 deadline requirement under the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act.
The Commission is on the verge of contracting an auditor to perform the
audit. Both our accounting firm and we remain confident that the
auditing report will be completed on schedule as required by the Act.
[1] In the past year and a half, GAO has conducted 3 examinations of
the Commission. In 2003, GAO took ten months to complete just one
investigation. This year GAO is spending only five months to conduct
two separate but concurrent examinations of the agency.
Regarding the third recommendation that the Commission adopt procedures
that provide for increased commissioner involvement in project
implementation and report preparation, the draft report states that I
have not implemented this recommendation. This is not true. I explained
in one of my interviews the steps the Commission had taken to implement
this recommendation. When GAO staff opined at the exit interview that
the Commission had not implemented this recommendation, I reiterated my
explanation. At that time, GAO requested supporting documentation, and
we responded expeditiously by providing copies of relevant Commission
meeting transcripts and memoranda. The documents showed that subsequent
to GAO's 2003 report, the Commissioners requested that I provide them
with suggested changes regarding the role and relationship between
Commissioners and staff on reports. I did so in a written memorandum
detailing the reasoning behind my suggestions and brought this matter
up for discussion at the February 20, 2004 Commission meeting. However,
the Commissioner who appeared to be most engaged in this issue, opined
without objection from the other Commissioners, that that meeting was
not the appropriate forum to discuss this issue. Because the
Commissioners decided not to take any action, at least for the time
being, we have continued to follow longstanding Commission policy on
Commissioner-staff interaction, as memorialized in memoranda dating
back to the mid 1980s, which were previously produced to GAO.
As explained to GAO previously, under the Commission's authorizing
statute, the ei Commissioners have the authority to set Commission
policy, such as that on Commissioner and staff interaction. While GAO
may make recommendations regarding Commission policies, policy decision
responsibility and power rests legally and logically with the
Commissioners, who have the experience and expertise in matters
concerning the Commission. There is absolutely no requirement that the
judgment of the Commissioners, as reflected in longstanding Commission
policy, must be wholly substituted with the subjective judgment of GAO
on policy decision matters. At most, the recommendation can only
properly be viewed as one asking that the Commissioners consider
implementing GAO's policy suggestions, which the Commissioners have
done.
Regarding the fourth recommendation that the Commission monitor the
adequacy and timeliness of project cost information provided to the
commissioners, the draft report claims the Commission has not adopted
this recommendation. Again, this is not true. We have given the
Commissioners the project cost information that they, as a body, have
asked for and have made efforts to monitor the adequacy and timeliness
of the information given. As the draft report states, since the last
quarter of fiscal year 2003, staff has been providing the Commissioners
with project and cost center cost reports every quarter in accordance
with procedures agreed to by the Commissioners. Since staff is occupied
with many other duties and cost information for a quarter cannot be
compiled immediately, the Commissioners agreed that cost information
for one quarter would be due at the end of the following quarter. Yet
the draft report somehow alleges as a deficiency the fact that the cost
report for the second quarter ending March 31, 2004 of fiscal year 2004
was not sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004. In accordance
with agreed upon procedures, the second quarter cost reports were due
on June 30, 2004. The implication that they were late and provided
only upon Commissioner request is, therefore, false. In addition, the
draft report cites that cost reports were provided for only eight of 12
projects outlined in the Commission's fiscal year 2004 performance
plan. However, that is because the four other projects were either
already completed or work had not yet begun at the time of the cost
report, which tracks only costs of ongoing projects. If GAO had been
able to take the time to talk to or follow-up with us on these issues,
rather than rushing to issue a draft report, these types of errors
would have easily been avoided.
Response to Prior OPM Recommendations:
The conclusions in the draft report regarding the Commission's response
to OPM's 1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. We
disagree with the conclusions in part because the process of examining
the Commission's responses to prior OPM recommendations was flawed. GAO
engaged in only limited conversations with the Director of Human
Resources and in only limited examination of documents. GAO did not
engage in any follow-up with the Director of Human Resources to express
concerns and also did not speak to anyone else other than her, although
a number of the recommendations related to other employees. Until we
saw the draft report, GAO had not indicated to the Director of Human
Resources or to anyone else on the Commission that it had concerns in
this area.
We disagree with the draft report's findings that the Commission has
"made limited improvements" in response to previous OPM
recommendations. As the draft report notes, OPM made 16 recommendations
in its 1999 report to help the Commission improve its management
resources. The draft report does not dispute that the Commission
complied with 11 of those recommendations. For some inexplicable
reason, however, GAO has arbitrarily decided that only six of those 16
recommendations were "major" ones that the report should focus on. GAO
did not ask the agency Director of Human Resources her evaluation of
the recommendations. GAO also never raised to her its decision to
elevate six recommendations over the others. We learned of this
decision for the first time only when we saw the draft report.
There is no rational basis for GAO's distinction. For example, there is
no logical basis as to why the following OPM recommendations, to name a
few, are less "systemic" and "less important" than the six discussed by
GAO:
Assess whether current awards practices are helping the Commission to
improve individual and organizational effectiveness.
Provide employees with qualitative and quantitative analyses that will
illustrate for them how awards are linked to performance.
Conduct a new assessment of employee and organizational needs for
training and develop a strategy for planning and funding critical needs
training.
Give careful consideration to upgrading Commission technologies. Not
only will this create a better work environment and enable staff to
perform the work of the agency more efficiently, effectively, and
timely, but in the long run it will lead to improved productivity and
morale.
By focusing on only certain judgmentally chosen recommendations, the
overall accomplishments of the Commission are ignored and minimized.
There is no apparent rationale for doing so other than as an attempt to
cast the agency in a bad light.
Regardless, even among the five remaining recommendations, the
Commission has implemented most of those where appropriate for an
agency of the Commission's nature. In arriving at its conclusions that
the Commission has not implemented recommendations, the draft report
fails to take into account the unique nature of the Commission's small
size, and misapprehends the significance of actions taken by the
Commission. Thus, for example OPM recommended:
Delegate human resources management authorities to managers in all
program areas. Hold managers accountable for exercising the delegations
through the Human Resources Management Accountability System.
GAO states that the Commission has not implemented this recommendation.
This is inaccurate. Personnel action decisions in larger agencies are
rarely delegated to simply one person, even when authority is delegated
to different offices or departments. This is because delegating such
decisions to simply one person is often bad practices. Thus, there is
often a system of second-line review or consultation put in place.
Since the Commission is so small, with fewer than 70 persons, there are
no intermediate levels of management to provide such a review within
the Commission's various offices. As a result, the Staff Director
serves as the second line supervisor. While the Staff Director may
review decisions made by the managers, great deference is given to
managers in making final human resource decisions, except when decision
affects the balance or equities among offices.
Thus, contrary to the implication in the draft report, human resources
management authorities have indeed been delegated to managers in most
program areas. Managers are allowed to recruit and select candidates.
This is the case with most human resources decisions, including within
job classification promotions and performance ratings. Managers and
supervisors are given OPM's HRM Accountability System Development Guide
as a framework for personnel decisionmaking, and an internal Operating
Manual has been issued to all them giving guidance in all areas of
human resources, which include: recruiting, training, processing SF-
52's, creating crediting plans and job analysis, writing position
descriptions, and many other areas. Again, had GAO not been required to
rush to issue its report, it could have followed up with either myself
or the Director of Human Resources to get a complete and accurate
picture of our processes.
Another example of GAO misunderstanding the significance of OPM's
recommendations and the Commission's responses is reflected in the
draft report's discussion of the following OPM recommendation:
Use OPM's Human Resource Management Accountability System Development
Guide as a framework for creating an accountability system that will
ensure that the Commission's employees are used efficiently and
effectively and that personnel actions are taken in accordance with
Merit System Principles in support of agency mission accomplishment.
The draft report states that it found little evidence of the
development and implementation of an accountability system. That is not
true. As a preliminary matter, the draft report neglects to note that
in its 1999 oversight report of the Commission, OPM they stated that:
delegated examining is conducted infrequently, but is done so in
accordance with the merit system principles, the Veterans' Preference
Act, and OPM's delegated examining requirements. Merit Promotion and
internal placements are processed in accordance with Merit System
Principles. Competition is fair and open.
Thus, the Commission was already taking actions in accordance with
Merit System Principles. While OPM may have made a recommendation for
additional improvement of the Commission's personnel processes, those
basic processes were already sound. As a consequence, in terms of
allocating the Commission's limited resources and attention to
addressing any actual operational problems, there was no real need to
implement this recommendation, since Commission operations were good.
In addition, it is entirely appropriate to rely primarily on OPM's
Human Resource Management Accountability System, as redesigning and
instituting its own system is not cost-effective or efficient for such
a small agency as the Commission. Again, had GAO not been in a rush, it
could have gained a more accurate understanding of this issue.
As stated to GAO, Commission managers are using OPM's Guide as a
framework for accountability. Moreover, as noted in the draft report,
several key sections of the agency's Administrative Instructions have
been updated since OPM's 1999 review, implementing key elements from
the Guide. In choosing to nonetheless take steps towards building upon
already sound processes, the Commission's response to those
recommendations was not only entirely appropriate but should be
commended, rather than dismissed.
The same type of misunderstanding is evidenced in the draft report's
discussion of the following OPM recommendation:
Include human resources goals, measures, and indicators in the
Commission Strategic Plan and involve Commission staff in the human
resource planning and measurement process.
The draft report claims that the Commission has not addressed this
recommendation as a result of not updating its strategic plan under
GPRA. As stated in our 1999 response to OPM, the Commission
incorporated appropriate human resources goals, measures, and
indicators in the Commission's Strategic Plan under goal six "Improve
the Management Accountability, and Productivity of the Commission."
Objective 2 under that goal states "Provide a model work environment
for a diverse staff that encourages productivity, equal opportunity
and high morale." As the criticism of the Commission's implemention of
this recommendation is based on a critique of the agency's GPRA
processes made elsewhere in the draft report, it is redundant and
particularly unfair. We address that critique more in-depth below,
explaining that the Commission's GPRA plans and goals were designed and
implemented only after consultation with OMB, Congress, stakeholders,
and other agencies and are not deficient. As a very small agency with
a budget of approximately only $9 million, the Commission's strategic
plan is appropriate for the agency's size. Thus, given that human
resources goals are indeed incorporated into the Commission's current
strategic plan, it is inaccurate to say that the Commission has not
addressed this recommendation.
Finally, regarding OPM recommendations:
Develop a system for periodically collecting employee feedback
regarding human resources services and policies. Incorporate that
feedback in the Human Resources Management Accountability System, and:
With employee involvement, consider developing a new performance
management system linked to organizational and agency goals established
under the Commission's Strategic Plan,
the Commission is engaged in continuing efforts to address these
recommendations. However, we do believe these recommendations are valid
and will initiate further efforts to institutionalize a system of
collecting employee feedback. Since OPM will be conducting its own
survey of the Commission this fall, we have decided to continue
developing and refining our own survey system for later implementation.
This will include holding discussions with the local employee union to
gain its input in developing an appropriate system.
Also, as a small agency with limited resources, the Commission must
prioritize improvement efforts. Because of budgetary constraints, the
agency has not yet been able to make as much progress on these
recommendations as it would have liked. Thus, the Commission has not
been able to begin implementing a new performance management system.
However, with the issuance of the new OPM standards for senior
executive service performance, our Human Resources Division now has
some additional guidance on linking performance to organizational
goals. If resources are increased in the new fiscal year, this will aid
the Commission in its intent to initiate this project.
Commission GPRA Processes:
The Commission is a firm believer in the value of GPRA and adheres to
its spirit, as well as to its substantive requirements. However,
because of the reduced staffing levels of such a small agency as the
Commission, we are unable to dedicate full-time personnel and/or entire
offices towards implementing and administering GPRA as is done in
larger agencies. Rather, implementation and administration of GPRA
within the Commission is the result of part-time efforts of various
individuals who have other core responsibilities. Thus, evaluations of
the Commission's GPRA processes must take into consideration the
surrounding context and be approppriate to an agency of its size.
With respect to the draft report's examination of the Commission's GPRA
processes, we believe the analysis lacks balance and context. The draft
report cites the Commission's GPRA strategic plan, performance plan,
and performance reports for a number of alleged deficiencies. However,
the Commission's strategic and initial performance plans were prepared
in accordance with consultations with the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) and Congress. At the time the GPRA requirements were first
implemented, the Commission's Director of Congressional Affairs and
Director of Budget and Finance had several meetings with OMB oversight
personnel and the Commission's Congressional oversight committee to
ensure a proper and adequate design of the agency's strategic and
performance plans. In the process of developing its GPRA processes, the
Commission also reviewed GPRA plans for the Department of Justice and
the Agency for International Development. In addition, the Commission's
GPRA plan was presented to and discussed with stakeholders, including
the agency union AFSME Local 2478-and executive staff and regional
directors.
The Commission's GPRA processes as they currently exist, were
coordinated with OMB. In meetings with OMB representatives at the time
GPRA was first enacted, they provided the Commission with specific
guidance on the agency's GPRA initiative. These included but were not
limited to: (a) defining the mission of the Commission, (b) mating the
Commission's mission statement with an impact statement, (c)
eliminating non-essential items from the Commission's GPRA processes,
(d) relating Commission mission statements to goals, (e) developing how
goals and objectives would be achieved, and (f) using follow-up as a
measure of output. These guidances were eventually incorporated into
the Commission's strategic and performance plans and reports.
Thus, while the draft report cites the Commission for not fully
including, for example, performance indicators in the agency's plans
and reports, some of the Commission's goals are so basic, such as
"studying allegations of denials of civil rights and equal protection
of the laws," the main evaluation of the goal is quite straightforward,
i.e., whether or not the studies were performed. The Commission's GPRA
reports clearly list what studies have been accomplished and provide a
detailed description of each. Although the responses may not be under a
technical heading of "performance indicators," they provide equivalent
information.
As previously explained to GAO, the Commission, by statute, has no
enforcement power, has no regulatory powers, and does not administer
any programs distributing benefits to the public. The agency has only
investigatory powers, and a large part of its work is devoted to
producing reports resulting from its investigations, as well as
producing and distributing other civil rights informational materials
to the public. Thus, OMB provided guidance on eliminating nonessential
items from the Commission's processes. During the discussion of the
design of the Commission's performance plans and reports, OMB agreed
with the Commission's assessment that it would be very difficult to
design a plan and report that quantify the results and impact of the
Commission's work. This is an issue that is mentioned in each of the
Commission's annual reports. Thus, while it is true that the "outcome"
of reports and projects are not quantifiable, OMB Circular A-11 clearly
contemplates "non-quantified measures," which the Commission provides.
The annual report describes examples of legislative, media, judicial,
and other impacts that Commission reports and activities have made.
In addition, the Commission is a small agency with a budget of under
$20 million dollars and is thus eligible for a waiver of GPRA reporting
requirements, which have been extended to many other federal agencies
with budgets under $20 million dollars. Given the nature of the
Commission's work and its small size and budget, the Commission's GPRA
processes do comply with the material requirements that OMB expects of
such agencies. The Commission has faithfully compiled and filed its
annual performance plans and reports every year under GPRA as required
since its enactment. In reviewing the agency's GPRA plans and reports,
OMB has never offered the Commission any criticism of its GPRA
processes, and nor, for that matter, has Congress.
This lack of criticism extends to the Commission's strategic plan. As
stated previously to GAO, the Commission's strategic plan is based on
its authorizing statute, which specifically delineates the agency's
purpose, duties, and goals. That authorizing statute has not changed
during the entire period that GPRA has been in effect. As a result, the
Commission has found its original GPRA strategic plan relevant and
applicable through the current period. Despite the draft report's
assertion that the Commission has not updated its strategic plan, there
is no requirement under GPRA to change the agency's strategic plan if
it continues to be appropriate. Neither OMB nor Congress has never
indicated to us that they consider the Commission's strategic plan as
inappropriate or in need of change.
In fact, OMB agreed with our initial overall approach and provided
comments and markup to our strategic plan in 1997, when GPRA was first
implemented. More specifically, OMB provided the Commission with
individual expertise on GPRA. The OMB expert provided a full day of
review, discussion, and guidance on strategic and performance plans,
the results of which are:
incorporated into the agency's existing plans:
The draft report seems to imply that OMB has ignored the Commission due
to its relatively very small size and budget and has thus been somewhat
deficient or lacking in its oversight. We do not view OMB's role as
such, however, but believe that OMB has taken an active role in helping
guide and shape the Commission's GPRA processes so that they are
appropriate for an agency of the Commission's nature and size. In fact,
the Commission has been in recent contact with OMB to discuss further
streamlining and modification of GPRA requirements imposed upon the
Commission in order to eliminate further nonessential requirements, so
as to ease reporting burdens on the agency due to the ever decreasing
real budget and size of the Commission since GPRA was first enacted.
Conclusion:
Contrary to the assertions in the draft report, the Commission has
adequately responded to previous recommendations made by OPM and GAO.
The Commission's personnel and GPRA processes are also appropriate and
sound for an agency the size of the Commission. The draft report
contains many inaccuracies and incomplete analyses, partly as a result
of the rushed nature of GAO's investigation. The artificially
constrained timeline imposed upon GAO and the Commission prevented a
thorough and complete investigation of the Commission's processes, thus
compromising its accuracy and limiting its usefulness.
While there is always room for improvement of operations at any agency,
and we welcome some of the suggestions provided in the draft report,
they would require the Commission to spend monies already marked for
other important and core priorities in its current $9 million budget.
As noted in our response to GAO's 2003 report on the Commission,
Commission funding over the past years has greatly constrained the
agency's ability to incur any additional, new expenses. Funding levels
from 1995 to 2003 represent a loss of at least $1.3 million per year
after adjusting for inflation using a national inflation index with a
1995 baseline. In reality, the loss of spending power during this
period is considerably larger, as annual cost of living adjustments for
staff located exclusively in large urban centers is much greater than
the national inflation average. As GAO's 2003 report recognized, the
Commission's financial status has left it unable to reduce its high
staff vacancy rate, which has resulted in a reduction of the workforce
from about 90 staff members in 1997 to approximately 65 now. Under
these circumstances, it would be an extreme, if not impossible,
challenge to institute all of GAO's recommendations contained in its
2003 report, this draft report, as well as the concurrent draft report
on the Commission to be issued by GAO's financial management team, much
less to do so and continue to produce the current quality and volume of
products. Nevertheless, we continue to look for ways to improve every
aspect of our operations and will consider GAO's input accordingly.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
LES JIN:
Staff Director:
GAO's Response to Comments:
In general, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights' comments on our
findings make four broad assertions in addition to having numerous
specific points of disagreement with our findings. We address both in
the following sections.
Response to Broad Assertions in Commission's Comments:
The four broad assertions in the Commission's comments on our draft
report, as well as our responses to these assertions, are summarized
below.
* The Commission asserted that we rushed to complete the report within
an artificially constrained timeline and did not take the time to
conduct thorough fact-finding or analyses to ensure a quality report.
We disagree strongly with this assertion. To the contrary, we scoped,
designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with applicable
professional standards and our quality assurance requirements. To
further ensure the quality of our work, we included an initial design
period, in which we built upon our considerable knowledge of the
Commission from previous GAO reports and obtained further information
as needed. In designing and conducting our work, we also consulted with
our internal experts on GPRA and other issues. Far from rushing through
the engagement, we in fact extended our design period so that we could
perform high-quality work within a timeframe useful to our
congressional requesters. At the end of this design period in July, we
narrowed our scope, deferring a potential objective on the
organizational structure of the Commission. Refining the scope of an
engagement following a design phase is not an unusual audit practice.
By agreement with our requesters, we did not include work on the
Commission's organizational structure not because of any arbitrary
decision, as the Commission alleges, but rather to enable us to
complete our work on time and in accordance with our quality standards.
Our focus on GPRA, oversight, and the Commission's response to our
October 2003 report recommendations remained consistent throughout the
assignment, from initial notification to report drafting. Furthermore,
in our May 2004 entrance conference with the agency, we noted our focus
on these areas, and in July 2004, at the end of our design phase, we
shared these objectives and our approach with Commission staff in an
interview.
* The Commission asserted that we did not follow up with its staff as
needed to obtain answers to questions and that they expected us to
interview more people, both staff and Commissioners, in the course of
our work. We disagree. Our methodology called for analyzing Commission
documents, pertinent legislation and guidance, and various reports by
OPM and GAO. Although at the beginning of our project, we envisioned
interviewing key managers and all of the Commissioners as part of
possible work on the Commission's organizational structure, these
interviews became unnecessary when we decided to focus on the
Commission's GPRA plans and reports, oversight of the Commission, and
the agency's response to our previous report recommendations. As noted
in our report, to obtain information for these objectives, we conducted
interviews with the Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff
Director, Human Resources Director, and Budget Chief. We also followed
up with e-mails and telephone calls as needed. Finally, in our exit
conference, we presented all of our findings and provided an
opportunity for Commission staff to comment on our findings and provide
technical corrections. At that meeting, Commission officials provided a
few comments, but no technical corrections; with few exceptions, they
did not disagree with the facts or conclusions we presented.[Footnote
22]
* The Commission asserted that it cooperated with us fully, at all
times. However, while our working relationships were professional and
Commission officials were usually responsive in providing documents as
requested, we do not agree that Commission staff cooperated fully with
us throughout our work. Obtaining interviews with the Commission and
key staff was frequently difficult, with each one requiring a minimum
of 3 weeks to schedule. For example, although we notified the
Commission on April 19, 2004, about our planned work and called shortly
thereafter to schedule an initial meeting, it took numerous calls to
set up our entrance conference on May 20, 2004. This delay in
scheduling the initial meeting occurred despite our reference to the
need for a rapid response. In addition, since it was difficult for
Commission officials to find the time to meet with us, we combined our
entrance conference with that of another GAO team that was examining
the Commission's financial transactions so that they would not also
experience a delay in starting their work. We had similar difficulties
scheduling other meetings as well.
* The Commission has repeatedly asserted that it is a small agency,
with a budget of approximately $9 million and fewer than 70 staff--
information that we noted in the draft report. In commenting on the
draft report, the Commission asserted that its GPRA and personnel
processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. The
Commission also cited its size in asserting that it would be an
"extreme" challenge to institute our October 2003 recommendations. We
disagree with these assertions. The Commission's size is not relevant
here: Size does not mitigate the need for the Commission to address
longstanding management and human capital problems identified in
previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, the Commission could make
use of GPRA's planning and reporting framework to strengthen itself as
an agency. For example, the Commission could use GPRA's planning
framework to update and sharpen its goals, clearly identify the
strategies and resources needed to achieve those goals, and improve its
management and human capital practices, as recommended. The Commission
could then also use GPRA's reporting framework to demonstrate the
progress it has made towards achieving those goals.
Response to Specific Comments from the Commission:
In addition to making these broad comments, the Commission disagreed
with our findings more specifically. Our detailed responses to the
Commission's comments follow.
We disagree that the Commission has implemented or was "engaged in
implementing" all of the recommendations in our October 2003 report.
See responses 2 through 6.
Although the Commission reported that it has taken various steps to
meet the financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the
act, we disagree that it is in a position to meet the act's
requirements for financial statement preparation and audit this year.
As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had not hired an independent
auditor to conduct this work. The agency's ability to meet the act's
requirements in the less than 2 remaining months is highly doubtful,
since the agency has not had its fiscal activities independently
audited in more than 12 years, and no audit work has begun.
The Commission's assertion is not accurate: The Commission has not
implemented our recommendation to provide for increased commissioner
involvement in project implementation and report preparation. In fact,
as the Commission noted in its comments, the Commission has "continued
to follow longstanding Commission policy on Commissioner-staff
interaction." As we reported in October 2003, this policy does not
provide for systematic Commissioner input throughout projects. Nothing
precludes the Staff Director from providing additional information
about projects and report status to Commissioners as a matter of good
project management and quality assurance. Furthermore, the Staff
Director could respond in various ways to Commissioners' concerns for
increased input without obtaining a formal vote to change the
Commission's procedures. For example, Commissioners could receive a
summary of preliminary facts and findings or an outline of a planned
report.
The Commission asserted that there is no requirement that the
Commissioners' judgment must be substituted with our judgment on policy
decision matters. While our recommendations are not requirements, we
provide recommendations in our reports in accordance with our statutory
responsibilities to investigate the use of public money, analyze agency
expenditures, and evaluate the results of federal programs and
activities. Our reports and recommendations provide agencies with the
information necessary to improve their mission performance and Congress
with the information necessary for oversight, including the development
of legislation that will help agencies in their efforts. As the
administrative head of the Commission, the Staff Director is authorized
to make administrative changes that are consistent with the law and
Commission policies. While it may be difficult at times to distinguish
between an administrative and policy matter, we are not aware of any
Commission policies that would prevent the Staff Director from
implementing our recommendations nor would it be contrary to the law.
The Commission asserted that it has provided the Commissioners with
project cost information and made efforts to monitor the adequacy and
timeliness of the information given, as recommended in our October 2003
report. According to Commission staff, the agency provides cost
information on a quarterly basis to Commissioners and has done so since
the last quarter of fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 23] However, we continue
to believe that having regular project cost reports, such as monthly
reports, would enhance the Commissioners' ability to plan for and
monitor projects during their monthly meetings. Monthly reports would
allow greater accountability for the projects by integrating cost
information in a timely manner into project management. Since the
Commission's Budget Chief told us that he prepares monthly project cost
reports for the Staff Director, preparing reports for the
Commissioners' monthly meetings should not be unduly burdensome. To
ensure that cost reports can be best used to strengthen project
monitoring and management, these reports should also be provided to
Commissioners shortly after the month ends.
We believe that it is a deficiency for the Commission to provide
quarterly cost reports to Commissioners 3 months after a quarter has
ended. Our October 2003 recommendation called for the Commission to
monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information
provided to Commissioners. In our view, information provided in 3-
month-old project cost reports cannot be considered timely.
We believe that it is a deficiency for project cost reports to omit
mention of the status of planned projects. The Commission's second
quarter 2004 cost report for the Commissioners did not indicate the
status of 4 of the 12 projects. To be useful for decision making and
monitoring, the project cost report should have noted that some planned
projects had already been completed and that some work had not yet
begun, so that the Commissioners monitoring the projects would have
also been aware of the status of these projects.
We disagree that our conclusions on the Commission's response to OPM's
1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. See responses 9
through 16 as well as our response to broad assertions in the
Commission's comments.
The Commission asserted that we did not indicate concerns about its
implementation of OPM's 1999 recommendations until officials received
the draft report. However, it is not clear to us why Commission
officials should have been unaware of the direction of our findings.
Four Commission officials, including the Human Resources Director,
participated in two major meetings, one of which focused extensively on
the Commission's actions in response to six of OPM's human resources
recommendations. The Human Resources Director also participated in our
exit conference in which we summarized our findings, including our
finding on the Commission's responses to oversight by OPM. We noted
explicitly during this meeting that we had focused on certain
recommendations and had found that the actions taken by the Commission
were limited. The Human Resources Director did not provide any
corrections or technical comments on the agency's human resources
practices during this meeting, nor did any other Commission official.
In addition to these meetings, we obtained additional documents,
comments, and answers to questions by e-mail from the Commission during
the course of our work and incorporated this information into our draft
report as appropriate.
The Commission asserts that we did not dispute that it complied with 11
of OPM's 1999 recommendations. This statement is incorrect. We selected
6 of OPM's 16 recommendations for analysis; we did not analyze the
Commission's response to the remaining recommendations. We noted in our
report that the Commission had implemented 1 of the 6 recommendations
that we analyzed. We have clarified our methodology in the final
report. See comment 11 for more information on our methodology.
The Commission asserted that we arbitrarily decided to focus on 6 of
the 16 recommendations OPM made in 1999. We strongly disagree. To
follow up on the Commission's response to OPM's recommendations, we
judgmentally selected six recommendations that had broader, more
systemic implications for the agency. At no point, however, did we pre-
select these recommendations in order to emphasize a particular outcome
or "cast the agency in a bad light." We have clarified the basis for
our selection of these recommendations in the final report.
We do not agree that the Commission has implemented OPM's
recommendation to delegate HRM authority to managers. OPM's report
stated that "the Staff Director retains final approving authority for
most [human resources] decisions, including appointments, promotions,
and performance ratings." Policies described in OPM's 1999 report
remain in place at the Commission today. For example, in our interviews
this year, Commission officials told us that the Staff Director must
approve all hiring and promotion decisions as well as managers'
evaluations of employees. As of February 2004, according to the
Commission's administrative manual, "the staff director retains
approval authority" as well for quality step increases, accomplishment
awards, performance awards for its employees, and recommendations to
OPM for other awards. While the Commission has taken certain actions to
improve its human resources management practices, such as developing an
employee handbook on human resources matters and providing managers
with OPM's HRM Accountability System Development Guide, the Commission
has not delegated human resource authorities to managers in all program
areas, as OPM had recommended.
The Commission's assertion that it was acting in accordance with Merit
System Principles is misleading and largely irrelevant for this
discussion. OPM's recommendation for an accountability system stemmed
from its analysis of the Commission's human resource accountability and
internal self-assessment efforts (an area of weakness also identified
in its 1996 review). In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not
"developed an effective system to hold managers accountable for HRM-
related decisions." OPM further noted that the "Staff Director retains
final approving authority for most [human resource] decisions— leaving
managers uncertain about their own accountability when making these HRM
decisions . . . Employees see this lack of accountability too, saying
that the supervisory chain of command is unclear and that they are
unsure of where work assignments and agency work priorities originate.
Also, employees report that their jobs do not make good use of their
skills and abilities; that they are not satisfied with their jobs; and
that they do not feel free to disclose waste, fraud, and abuse without
fear of reprisal." OPM noted that an internal self-assessment program
was "urgently needed to assure accountability." References to the
Commission's delegated examining authority and general compliance with
OPM's Merit System Principles are not pertinent to the finding that led
to this recommendation.
The Commission is inaccurate in asserting that OPM "may have made a
recommendation for additional improvement of the Commission's personnel
processes." As we noted in our report, OPM made 16 recommendations for
improvement of the Commission's human resource management practices in
its 1999 report. The Commission is also inaccurate in asserting that
OPM found that "those basic [personnel] processes were already sound,"
and that "there was no real need to implement this recommendation [on
using OPM's HRM Accountability System Guide], since Commission
operations were good." This is an inaccurate reading of OPM's 1999
findings and recommendations. While OPM found overall that the
Commission's human resource program complied with the Merit System
Principles, OPM also urged the Commission to consider its
recommendations in five broad areas of human resource management. In
the executive summary of the 1999 report, the first of 12 bullets
highlighting OPM's findings summarizes concerns raised in its earlier
1996 report on the Commission; acknowledges that the Commission "has
improved its administration of the HRM program, particularly in the
recruitment and placement area"; and continues by saying, "However, the
other concerns we identified in 1996 continue to require attention."
[Italics ours.] Of the 11 remaining bulleted findings in OPM's summary,
7 describe problem areas, 3 are positive, and 1 is mixed.
The Commission asserts that using OPM's guide instead of designing its
own system is appropriate because it is a small agency. However, the
Commission's assertions reflect a misunderstanding of OPM's guidance to
agencies and of what constitutes an accountability system for human
resources. According to OPM, an HRM accountability system is a process
and should be seen as a continuous cycle. This systemic, continuous
process "enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the
information or data on which accountability is ultimately based." It
includes identifying the agency's strategic goals, including human
resource goals; developing performance measures and a baseline to
assess whether human resource goals are being met; and using this
information to make improvements. The accountability process also
requires cyclical, periodic reassessment. The Commission has taken
various actions to improve its human resources management, including
updating several administrative instructions, conducting an employee
survey in fiscal year 2000, and developing an employee handbook.
However, the Commission has not developed an accountability system--an
ongoing process involving goal setting, evaluation, improvements, and
reassessment--to address the concerns raised in OPM's report.
We cannot agree that goals established in 1997 address and implement
OPM's 1999 recommendation, nor do we agree that our referring to the
Commission's strategic plan in this discussion is unfair. The
Commission's strategic plan was developed in 1997 and remains the
Commission's only strategic plan. In 1999, OPM recommended that the
Commission's strategic plan include human resources elements that OPM
did not find in the Commission's 1997 plan. In examining goal six in
the Commission's 1997 strategic plan, OPM "did not find that a link
between HRM and agency mission accomplishment has been made apparent in
the Strategic Plan. Further, the Strategic Plan does not list specific
HRM goals and measures that could be used to assess the HRM function's
ability to effectively and efficiently support agency mission
accomplishment. We found no evidence that key measures and/or outcome
indicators are used by [the Commission] to track its efforts to achieve
HRM goals." The Commission's assertion that the 1997 strategic plan
contains human resources goals, measures, and indicators is therefore
neither accurate nor relevant: The 1997 plan does not include human
resources measures and indicators and it was not part of the
Commission's response to OPM's recommendation because it was developed
2 years before OPM made this recommendation.
The Commission's statement that we examined its GPRA processes is
incorrect, and its description of the processes it used in 1997 to
develop its strategic plan and first performance plan and report are
irrelevant. Our objective was to assess the Commission's compliance
with GPRA's requirements for agency strategic plans, annual performance
plans, and annual performance reports. We did not focus on the agency's
process for developing these GPRA plans and reports, nor did we analyze
the Commission's initial performance plan for fiscal year 1999 or its
initial performance report for fiscal year 1999. As noted in our
report, we analyzed the Commission's most recent performance plan (for
fiscal year 2005) and the most recent performance report (for fiscal
year 2003). We also compared the Commission's plan for fiscal year 2003
to its performance report for the same year.
The Commission is incorrect in asserting that its descriptions of
completed studies in its performance report provide information
equivalent to performance indicators and that its plans and reports, by
implication, comply with GPRA standards. Under GPRA, a performance
indicator means a particular value or characteristic used to measure
output or outcome. A narrative description of a report's findings
cannot be used for measurement purposes. See comment 19 as well.
The assertion that the Commission can use non-quantifiable measures in
its reports is misleading. GPRA allows the Director of OMB to authorize
the use of alternative, nonquantifiable performance goals for annual
performance plans if necessary. However, Commission officials
explicitly told us that the agency did not apply for or receive
authorization from OMB to submit goals in their annual performance plan
in an alternative, nonquantifiable format. Agencies that are authorized
to use alternative formats must comply with certain other requirements,
which the Commission has not done.
The Commission has not received an exemption from GPRA reporting
requirements. Although agencies with annual outlays of $20 million or
less are eligible to apply to OMB for an exemption, as the Commission
notes, Commission officials told us that the agency has not applied for
nor received such an exemption.
Although the Commission has filed annual performance plans and annual
reports each year, as required under GPRA, it has not revised and
updated its strategic plan, which is also required under GPRA.
Furthermore, we cannot agree that the Commission's plans and reports
comply with "material requirements" of GPRA because of the numerous
shortcomings in these products, as described in our report.
As noted in our report, according to OMB officials, OMB conducts
primarily budgetary reviews and does not provide agencies that have
small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, with the same level of
scrutiny that it provides to larger agencies. OMB officials further
told us that OMB does not approve or reject agencies' GPRA plans and
reports, but provides comments as appropriate. Because of OMB's focus
on budgetary reviews and on larger agencies, the absence of criticism
from OMB does not necessarily constitute approval of an agency's GPRA
plans and reports.
Contrary to the Commission's assertion, GPRA does require agencies to
update and revise its strategic plan at least every 3 years. [Italics
ours.] The Commission has not updated and revised its strategic plan
since 1997 when it should have done so in fiscal year 2000 and again in
fiscal year 2003. The Commission further asserts that its 1997 plan
does not need updating or revision because its authorizing statute has
not changed in the interim. This assumption is incorrect and
demonstrates a misunderstanding of GPRA's purposes and requirements. As
noted in our report, strategic planning is not a static or occasional
event. If done well, it is dynamic, continuous, and results-oriented,
and it provides the foundation for everything the organization does.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission's
Response:
Of the 16 recommendations that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
made to the Commission in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6
recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the
agency. We did not analyze the Commission's response to the 10
remaining recommendations.
OPM Recommendation: Include human resources goals, measures, and
indicators in the Commission's Strategic Plan and involve Commission
staff in the human resource planning and measurement process.
The Commission has not addressed this recommendation. Because the
Commission has not updated its strategic plan, it has not included
additional human capital goals and assessment measures. In addition,
although the Commission issued a Human Resources Plan in fiscal year
2000 that contains five human capital performance goals, the plan does
not link these goals to its overall strategic goals, set forth a
timeframe for achieving them, or describe how it will assess its
progress.[Footnote 24] The plan also does not describe how Commission
staff will participate in human resource planning and evaluation, as
OPM recommended.
OPM Recommendation: Use OPM's Human Resource Management Accountability
System Development Guide as a framework for creating an accountability
system that will ensure that the Commission's employees are used
efficiently and effectively and that personnel actions are taken in
accordance with Merit Systems Principles in support of agency mission
accomplishment.
Although Commission officials reported that they have developed and
implemented an accountability system, we found little evidence to
support this claim. OPM recommended that the Commission use its Human
Resource Management Accountability System Development Guide as a
framework for creating an accountability system.[Footnote 25] The
Commission's fiscal year 2000 annual performance report noted that
their managers were provided copies of the Accountability Guide for
review and that the Commission planned to adopt or modify some of its
procedures and recommendations. According to Commission officials, they
used the Accountability Guide to develop a system similar to the one
OPM outlines in its guide. They also told us that Commission managers
were presented with a copy of the Accountability Guide and that their
employees are aware of the system. According to the Commission's Human
Resources Manager, the accountability system the agency developed in
response to OPM's recommendation is in the Commission's Administrative
Instructions Manual and its fiscal year 2000 Human Resources Plan. The
Commission has taken various actions to improve its human resources
management since OPM's 1999 review, such as conducting an employee
survey in fiscal year 2000 and developing an employee handbook.
Although the Commission has also updated several key sections of its
administrative manual, most of the manual was published in April 1999,
before OPM issued its report. Furthermore, the Commission's most recent
annual performance plan does not refer to a human capital
accountability system, nor does it detail human capital goals or
baselines to use in evaluating such goals.
OPM Recommendation: Delegate human resources management authorities to
managers in all program areas. Hold managers accountable for exercising
the delegations through the Human Resources Management Accountability
System.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. Overall, the
Staff Director's authority for most human resources decisions remains
essentially the same as in OPM's 1999 report findings.[Footnote 26]
According to Commission officials, managers can recommend employees for
hire, promotion, and awards and conduct annual and mid-year reviews of
their staff. However, the Staff Director must approve all hiring and
promotion decisions as well as managers' evaluations of employees
before appraisals are given to employees.
OPM Recommendation: Develop a system for periodically collecting
employee feedback regarding human resources services and policies.
Incorporate that feedback in the Human Resources Management
Accountability System.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. To date, the
Commission has not developed a formal system to regularly collect
employee feedback about its human capital services and policies, even
though a similar recommendation to obtain customer feedback and track
customer views was also made in OPM's earlier 1996 review.[Footnote 27]
In fiscal year 2000, the Commission administered a staff survey on
human resources and other Commission issues. According to officials,
the Commission plans to administer another staff survey in the fall of
2004. However, the Commission has not developed plans to survey staff
on a regular basis. In addition, since the Commission was unable to
locate the results of its 2000 survey, its managers cannot use earlier
human capital findings to systematically set goals and make
improvements. According to OPM officials, OPM will conduct a Web-based
Human Capital Survey of Commission staff beginning in September or
October of 2004.
OPM Recommendation: Require that all managers make progress reviews and
performance appraisals in a timely manner when the Human Resources
Division notifies them they are due, and require that the Staff
Director review appraisals when they are made without delay.
The Commission has implemented this recommendation, which was also made
in OPM's 1996 review.[Footnote 28] According to the Commission's Human
Resources Director, the agency is on schedule for its fiscal year 2004
performance appraisals. Commission guidance on the 2004 performance
appraisal cycle requires Commission supervisors and managers to conduct
annual and mid-year performance reviews of their staff. For non-Senior
Executive Service employees, the process is outlined in a memorandum
that the Human Resources Director sends annually to Commission
supervisors and managers.
OPM Recommendation: With employee involvement, consider developing a
new performance management system linked to organizational and agency
goals established under the Commission's Strategic Plan.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. The
Commission's performance management system is described in its
Administrative Instructions Manual, most of which was issued in April
1999--6 months before OPM issued the recommendations in its October
1999 report. The Administrative Instructions do not clearly require
that employees' performance plans link individual staff goals to
broader strategic goals. The parts of the manual that set forth the
Commission's policies and procedures on appraisals make no reference to
the Commission's strategic plan, nor does it specify how to link
individual staff goals to the Commission's strategic goals or how to
involve employees in this process.
[End of section]
Appendix III: GAO's October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission's
Response:
GAO Recommendation: Monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost
information that the Staff Director provides to Commissioners and make
the necessary adjustments, which could include providing information on
a monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis and as necessary.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In our 2003
review, we found that the Commission's procedures did not provide for
the Commissioners to systematically receive project cost information--
a key element of good project management. As a result, the
Commissioners approved the majority of projects and products each year
without having any specific information on how much the project would
cost, or how much similar projects have cost in past years.
In the Commission's June 2004 letter responding to our 2003
recommendations, the Staff Director stated that this recommendation
spoke to "Commission policy on the proper level and mode of interaction
between the Commissioners and staff — [and that] the Commissioners have
reaffirmed on numerous occasions the current policy regarding
interaction with staff." He added that the Commission "is continuing to
monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information
provided to Commissioners."
According to the Staff Director, his office provides the Commissioners
with cost information for each project and office on a quarterly basis,
and they began doing so during the last quarter of 2003. However, the
cost report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, ending March
31, was not sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004, and was sent
in response to requests from the Commissioners for this information. It
is also not clear that the Commission is monitoring the adequacy and
timeliness of project cost information, as recommended. For example,
the quarterly report for the second quarter of 2004 cites costs for
only 8 of the 12 projects outlined in the Commission's fiscal year 2004
performance plan.
GAO Recommendation: Adopt procedures that provide for increased
Commissioner involvement in project implementation and report
preparation.
The Staff Director does not agree with this recommendation and has not
implemented it. In our 2003 review, we found that Commissioners have
limited involvement in the management of projects once they have been
approved. As a result, we recommended that the Commission adopt
procedures for increasing Commissioner involvement after project
implementation by providing them with project updates and allowing them
to review the product at various stages in the drafting process, so
that they participate more actively in shaping products released to the
public.
The Staff Director did not agree with this recommendation and told us
that he believes that the current procedures that govern Commissioner
involvement in the development of products are appropriate and
efficient. In his June 2004 letter responding to our recommendations,
the Staff Director wrote that the responsibility for determining policy
on Commissioners' interaction with the staff is "delegated by statute
to the Commissioners." According to the Staff Director, the
Commissioners requested that he assess the situation and issue
recommendations on their involvement in report preparation. The Staff
Director said that involving the Commissioners in the writing stage
would "bog down" the process and that it would be difficult to
incorporate the viewpoints of the eight Commissioners. To date, the
Commission has not adopted any procedures to increase Commissioner
involvement in the report preparation stage.
GAO Recommendation: Establish greater controls over contracting
activities in order to comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.
Although the Staff Director disagreed with this recommendation, the
Commission took one step towards establishing greater controls by
contracting with a contracts and procurement specialist to supplement
its operations. In 2003, we reported that the Commission lacked
sufficient management controls over its contracting procedures. We
found that, in fiscal year 2002, the Commission had not followed proper
federal procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. Moreover, we
found that the Commission failed to follow procedures that would allow
it to track vendors' performance against objective measures and ensure
that public funds are being used effectively.
While the Staff Director disagreed in his June 2004 response letter
with the need for the actions associated with this recommendation, he
later told us that the Commission "could be stronger" in the area of
procurement. Since our 2003 report was issued, the Commission has
supplemented its contracts and procurements operations by contracting
with a contracts and procurements specialist with over 30 years of
experience in government contracting. According to Commission
officials, this specialist began providing services to the Commission
in December 2003 and generally addresses complex procurement issues.
GAO Recommendation: Take steps immediately in order to meet the
financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In 2003, we
found that the Commission's fiscal activities had not been
independently audited in at least 12 years. We concluded that the
Commission's limited financial management controls and lack of external
oversight makes the Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to
waste, mismanagement, or abuse.
Although in the June 2004 response, the Commission reported working
with its accounting vendor to ensure that it would meet these
requirements, as of August 2004, the Commission had not taken the
necessary steps, such as hiring an independent auditor, to ensure that
it will meet the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act
this year.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-3863
Deborah A. Signer, (202) 512-7158:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Friendly M. VangJohnson and Caroline Sallee made significant
contributions to this report. In addition, Richard P. Burkard,
Elizabeth H. Curda, Julian P. Klazkin, Benjamin T. Licht, Corinna
Nicolaou, and Michael R. Volpe provided key technical and legal
assistance throughout the engagement.
FOOTNOTES
[1] See GAO, Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners' Travel
Activities, GAO/GGD-94-130 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 1994).
[2] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic
Management Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997).
[3] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and
Financial Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).
[4] Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights
issues. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is
charged with enforcing specific federal employment antidiscrimination
statutes. Also, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice
enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of
race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin.
[5] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285(1993).
[6] See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June
1996); Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.:
May 1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency
Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr.
1998); and Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.:
Mar. 10, 2004).
[7] Although, under the statute, OMB can exempt organizations with
annual outlays of $20 million or less from the requirements to produce
a strategic plan, annual performance plan, and annual performance
report, OMB has not exempted the Commission from these requirements.
[8] OMB Circular A-11 pt 6, § 220 (July 2003).
[9] See 31 U.S.C. §§ 501, 503(2000).
[10] 5 U.S.C. § 1104(b)(2).
[11] Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101(1978); 5 U.S.C. app. 3.
[12] Agencies can obtain the services of an Inspector General from
other agencies using their authority under the Economy Act of 1932 (31
U.S.C. § 1535) or by procuring such services directly.
[13] In conducting fact-finding projects, the Commission gathers and
analyzes information from a wide range of sources, including research,
statistical analysis, and hearings. According to the Commission's
performance report, fact-finding projects can involve five performance
goals, including report publication, public event, report
dissemination, consideration of recommendations by agencies, and action
initiated by agencies in response to findings.
[14] For this analysis, we compared the results reported in the
Commission's fiscal year 2003 performance report with the goals
described in the agency's performance plan for fiscal year 2003.
[15] Apportionment refers to the action by which OMB distributes
amounts available for obligation in an appropriation or fund account.
An apportionment divides amounts available for obligation by specific
time periods (usually quarters), activities, projects, objects, or a
combination.
[16] These reviews are conducted to determine how well an agency's
human resources programs, operations, and use of personnel authorities
contribute to mission accomplishment and whether the actions taken
comply with Merit Systems Principles, laws, and regulations. Merit
Systems Principles constitute the framework for federal human resources
management. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301.
[17] Of the 16 recommendations made by OPM in 1999, we judgmentally
selected 6 recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications
for the Commission. We did not analyze the Commission's responses to
the 10 remaining recommendations. (For descriptions of these six OPM
recommendations and the Commission's responses, see appendix II.)
[18] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic
Management Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997)
and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management
Controls, GAO/T-HEHS-97-177 (Washington, D.C.: July 17, 1997). In 1998,
we reported on the status of the Commission's progress in addressing
our recommendations. See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Update
on Its Response to GAO Recommendations, GAO/HEHS-98-86R (Washington
D.C.: Feb. 3, 1998).
[19] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and
Financial Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31,
2003).
[20] Under 31 U.S.C. 720, when the Comptroller General issues a report
that includes a recommendation to the head of an agency, the head of
the agency is required to submit a written statement on the actions
taken. This statement must be submitted to the Senate Committee on
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not
later than 60 days from the date of the report. However, the Commission
did not provide a statement to the committees in response to our
October 2003 report recommendations until June 1, 2004, after we had
asked for the status of their statements in our entrance conference on
May 20, 2004. These statements were due to the committees in December
2003.
[21] Pub. L. No. 107-289, 116 Stat. 2049(2002).
[22] About 10 days after our exit conference, we received a faxed
letter from the Special Assistant to the Staff Director in which he
disagreed with our findings on GPRA. However, the letter did not
provide any new information on the Commission's compliance with GPRA
requirements.
[23] In April 2003, the Commissioners passed a motion to receive
quarterly cost information on its projects, by project and by office.
[24] The performance goals in the Commission's fiscal year 2000 Human
Resources Plan were (1) refine performance measurement systems to
establish usable measures, (2) provide all employees with training
opportunities to improve their job skills, (3) ensure that the
Commission workforce reflects the diversity of their clientele, (4)
make family-friendly programs that can complement the Commission, and
(5) provide all Commission employees access to the Internet.
[25] OPM's Accountability Guide, issued in 1998, describes a model for
establishing and maintaining an HRM accountability system within an
organization, with particular emphasis of human resource goals and
measures in support of an agency's mission. According to the
Accountability Guide, human resources management accountability starts
with identifying the agency's strategic goals. The agency should then
develop human resources goals in support of these goals. From there,
performance measures should be developed and a baseline established to
permit assessment of whether the goals are being met. According to OPM,
an HRM accountability system should be seen as a continuous, systemic,
process that "enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the
information or data on which accountability is ultimately based."
[26] In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not yet developed an
effective system for holding managers accountable for HRM decisions.
OPM's report stated that "the Staff Director retains final approval
authority for most human resources decisions, including appointments,
promotions, and performance ratings, leaving managers uncertain about
their own accountability when making human resources management
decisions."
[27] In 1996, OPM's review called for the Commission to "establish a
self-assessment program to include a review of program compliance and
customer feedback on the quality of services provided. In particular,
the personnel office should track customer views on the timeliness and
accuracy of services provided."
[28] In 1996, OPM made several recommendations on the Commission's
performance management, noting in particular that the Commission should
"monitor whether managers are conducting progress reviews," and "create
a more timely process for handling performance appraisal ratings."
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:
