Background

Enacted on January 23, 1995, the CAA as amended, applies 12 federal civil  rights, workplace, and labor laws to legislative branch employees who  were previously exempted from such coverage.
By passing the CAA, the Congress extended to approximately 30,000  employees of the legislative branch certain fair employment and  occupational safety safeguards. The CAA applies to current employees,  applicants for employment, and former employees of the following  organizations:  Congressional Budget Office,  Office of the Attending Physician,  Office of the Architect of the Capitol, and  Office of Compliance.
The CAA did not include GAO, the Library of Congress (LOC), and the  Government Printing Office (GPO) in many of its provisions because the  employees at these organizations already enjoyed the protections of many  of the civil rights laws extended to legislative branch staff by the CAA prior  to its enactment. For example, GAO, LOC, and GPO employees were  already protected against discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex,  and national origin (42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16); discrimination based on age (29  U.S.C. § 633a); and discrimination based on disability (42 U.S.C. § 12209). In  addition, GAO, LOC, and GPO employees already enjoyed the protections  provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. § 203) and by the  Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Act (5 U.S.C. § 7103 for GPO  and LOC employees; 31 U.S.C. § 732(e) for GAO employees). Furthermore,  all three organizations have individualized processes for resolving  employee disputes. For example, GAO uses an independent entity, the  Personnel Appeals Board, to adjudicate employment disputes involving  GAO employees.
The CAA does extend the protections of the Employee Polygraph  Protection Act, the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, the  Uniform Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, the Family  and Medical Leave Act, the public access provisions of the Americans with  Disabilities Act (ADA), and the Occupational Safety and Health Act to GAO  and LOC employees.
OOC’s duties are divided among a Board of Directors, an Executive  Director, and a General Counsel, as shown in figure 1.
The five-member Board of Directors has the duty of administering appeals  for the CAA’s dispute resolution process. Employees or employers covered  by the CAA who are dissatisfied with the final decision resulting from a  dispute resolution process hearing may request that the Board review the  decision. From 1996 through 2003, the Board has heard 20 appeal cases.  The Board is also responsible for appeals of decisions by hearing officers  with respect to complaints filed by the General Counsel regarding  occupational safety and health issues, disability access concerns, and  labor-management relations violations.
The CAA also assigns the Board the duties of developing and issuing  regulations to implement the rights and protections of employees for 9 of  the 12 laws included in the CAA. The Board has issued regulations, which  were approved by the Congress, for the Family and Medical Leave Act,  federal labor-management relations provisions found in Chapter 71 of title  5 U.S. Code, the Fair Labor Standards Act, and Worker Adjustment and Re- Training Act. The CAA also provides that OOC may apply existing  regulations promulgated by executive branch agencies for regulations not  issued by the Board, except for regulations regarding labor-management  relations. Before the Board’s adopted regulations can become effective,  they must first be placed in the Congressional Record for a comment  period and must subsequently be approved by the Congress. The Board has  delegated much of the work to complete these duties to OOC’s Executive  Director.
The Executive Director has overall responsibility for managing OOC’s  education and dispute resolution processes as well as directing OOC’s  staffing and budgeting functions. Reporting directly to the Executive  Director are two deputies, to whom the Executive Director has delegated  specific functional roles in addition to those identified in the CAA: the  Deputy Executive Director for the House is responsible for managing  OOC’s education and information distribution functions, and the Deputy  Executive Director for the Senate is responsible for administering OOC’s  dispute resolution process.
The OOC General Counsel’s duties include investigation and enforcement  of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and ADA requirements and  managing labor-management relations unfair labor practice case  processing and court litigation. Assisting the General Counsel is an  attorney and an inspector detailed from the Department of Labor to  investigate and enforce occupational safety and health standards with the  assistance of part-time contractors on a limited basis.
In summary, OOC’s organizational structure has a leadership hierarchy with  different top leadership functions shared among the Board of Directors,  Executive Director, and General Counsel. This organizational structure of  shared functions is largely due to statutory requirements that OOC carry  out a variety of different roles—including adjudication, education, and  enforcement—as it applies the 12 workplace laws covered by the CAA. In  order to provide for a degree of needed independence between these  different functions, the CAA established an organizational structure that,  among other things, gave the Board the responsibility for hearing appeals  of the dispute resolution process for cases that are initially within the  province of the Executive Director or General Counsel.
While the CAA gives the Board of Directors the authority to appoint and  remove OOC’s four senior executives—the Executive Director, General  Counsel, and two Deputy Executive Directors—the Board does not play an  active role in the daily operational management of OOC. Instead, OOC’s  part-time Board focuses on its adjudicatory and policy functions including  hearing appeals and issuing regulations. Although the CAA designates  OOC’s Executive Director as the organization’s chief operating officer, the  law provides the General Counsel with independent authority to investigate  and enforce matters concerning occupational safety and health, disability  access, and labor-management relations. In practice, this has resulted in a  division of OOC by function, with the Executive Director responsible for  hiring and managing staff to carry out the education and dispute resolution  process functions and the General Counsel responsible for hiring attorneys  and managing staff in his operational areas.
OOC is staffed by 15 employees, including 4 in statutorily appointed  positions. As figure 2 shows, OOC’s annual expenditures have ranged from  a high of $2.15 million in fiscal year 1997 to a low of $1.80 million in fiscal  year 2001. Fiscal year 2003 expenditures were $2.02 million. In general,  these expenditures are allocated between the duties performed by the  Executive Director, General Counsel, and Board of Directors. Over the past  7 fiscal years, functions that are the responsibility of the Executive  Director have accounted for most of OOC’s expenditures.

	OOC Has Effort Under Way to Sharpen Focus on Results

Since August 2003, the OOC Board, its senior leadership team, and OOC’s  employees have been exerting a concerted effort—consistent with our  suggestions—to more fully define the fundamental results, or outcomes,  that OOC seeks to achieve. OOC’s operations and reporting have  traditionally been activity or output focused (e.g., number of requests for  mediation received, time within phases of the process, and number of  occupational safety and health inspections conducted). Such information is  important to managing OOC and to ensuring that its scarce resources are  efficiently targeted. However, the current Board and OOC leadership have  undertaken OOC’s first strategic planning initiative in recognition that  despite the real value from output information, such data do not address  the more fundamental question of the effectiveness of OOC’s efforts. That  is, OOC’s current planning effort is intended to help OOC and its  congressional and other stakeholders ensure that OOC’s activities and  outputs are optimizing the Office’s contribution to results, such as a safer  and healthier workplace and one free from discrimination and other forms  of conflict. Our discussions with OOC stakeholders across the Congress  and legislative branch agencies confirmed the need for and importance of  the current planning effort.
Effective management control requires that an organization establish its  organizational objectives in the form of a set of defined mission, goals, and  objectives. Furthermore, we found that leading organizations consistently  strive to ensure that their day-to-day activities support their organizational  missions and move them closer to accomplishing their strategic goals.  Thus, OOC is not alone among organizations in seeking to answer critical  questions about its overall effectiveness. Our assessments over the last  decade of executive agencies’ implementation of the Government  Performance and Results Act (GPRA) have consistently found that  executive agencies have struggled with shifting the focus of their  management and accountability from outputs to results. At OOC’s  invitation, we have met with OOC’s leadership to share our wealth of  information and perspective on executive agencies’ efforts under GPRA, as  well as our own experiences in strategic planning, performance planning,  and accountability reporting at GAO. While maintaining our respective  institutional independence, we are prepared to offer OOC continuing  support as its planning efforts proceed.
OOC’s planning initiative is important to ensuring that OOC’s programs,  activities, and limited resources are contributing to results that are making  improvements in the work and work environments of legislative branch  employees. OOC’s efforts to achieve this goal are complicated by the  inevitable tension that arises between organizations charged with the duty  to implement and enforce regulations and the agencies subject to those  regulations. Under the current draft of its strategic plan, OOC defines its  mission as working to “advance safety, health, and workplace rights for  employees and employers of the Legislative Branch as mandated by the  Congressional Accountability Act.” OOC is developing strategic objectives  (goals) in three areas: effectively enforce and administer the CAA; educate,  collaborate, and facilitate the regulated community; and maintain an  efficient and accountable workplace (within OOC). More specifically:   Effectively enforce and administer the CAA: Regulatory enforcement  and administration focuses on operation of dispute resolution  procedures and investigation and prosecution of alleged violations.
Educate, collaborate, and facilitate for our regulated community: The  Office will encourage and facilitate positive change in the employment  cultures within the regulated community to stimulate compliance with  the entire CAA; and effectively communicate with the Congress  regarding the status quo and potential enhancement of the CAA.
Maintain an efficient and accountable workplace: Efficiency involves  not only careful and wise use of appropriated funds, but also continued  utilization of resources in a way that allows for timely and expeditious  completion of office activities and functions in order to better serve our  regulated community.
OOC’s effort to develop a results-oriented strategic plan is an important and  positive development that is still very much a work in progress—as the  Board and OOC’s senior leadership clearly appreciate. Perhaps most  important is OOC’s recognition that its planning effort provides a vehicle  for engaging and consulting with key congressional and other stakeholders  on the fundamental purposes of OOC (strategic goals), how those purposes  will be achieved (programs and strategies), how progress will be assessed  (performance measures), and what progress is being made and  improvement opportunities exist (accountability reporting). More  specifically, as OOC’s draft plan and our discussions with the Board and  OOC’s leadership have confirmed, OOC is committed to an approach that  meets its statutory responsibility by adopting a more cooperative and  collegial approach with legislative branch offices and agencies, while at the  same time maintaining its enforcement capability and safeguarding its  institutional independence. The planning effort underway provides the  opportunity to reach agreement with key congressional and other  stakeholders on the direction—and potential limits—of this new  commitment.
OOC has held a series of discussions with selected congressional  stakeholders and plans additional outreach with them and other  stakeholders as the planning effort moves forward. In fact, as we have  found by looking at leading results-oriented organizations, the production  of the actual strategic planning document is one of the least important  parts of the planning process. Leading results-oriented organizations  understand that strategic planning is not a static or occasional event, but  rather a dynamic and inclusive process. By working with and actively  engaging key congressional and other stakeholders in its planning effort,  OOC can better justify to stakeholders its current budget and staff  resources allocation and program efforts then, as appropriate, OOC can  build a business case for additional resources and new initiatives that OOC  leadership may believe are necessary for an agreed-upon mission and set of  strategic goals.
In short, if done well, strategic planning is continuous and provides the  basis for everything that the organization does each day. Moving forward,  OOC plans to align key programs and strategies with each of these  objectives. In that regard, OOC managers have begun drafting several work  plans intended to link OOC’s programs and activities to the strategic  objectives contained in the draft plan. Similar to the strategic plan, these  work plans are still in draft and therefore do not yet provide a clear linkage  between OOC’s strategic objectives and the day-to-day operations of these  functions.
OOC’s strategic planning also needs to include the development of results- oriented performance measures. OOC is committed to this effort and has  “place-markers” in its draft plan for these measures. OOC could benefit  from considering the experiences of leading organization in results- oriented performance measurement. Results-oriented organizations we  have studied, which were successful in measuring their performance,  developed measures that were:  tied to program goals and demonstrated the degree to which the desired   limited to the vital few that were considered essential to producing data   responsive to multiple priorities, and   responsibility-linked to establish accountability for results.
Similar to decisions about strategic goals, determining the appropriate set  of performance measures should also be based on input from key  stakeholders to determine what is important to them to determine OOC’s  progress and assess its performance. Put most directly, agreed-upon  performance measures are the key to providing the Congress with the data  it needs to answer a key question that the current fiscal environment is  demanding of all agencies across the federal government: “What are we  getting for our investment in this agency, and is it worth it?”

		OOC Is Beginning to Integrate Information Technology Planning into its Strategic Plan

OOC officials said that they are committed to making better use of IT in the  future, and to ensuring that doing so is accomplished in a prudent and  systematic fashion. For example, OOC’s draft strategic plan cites “fully  leveraging IT to complement and expand office activities” as one strategy  under its “maintain an efficient and accountable workplace” goal.
OOC has begun to take some action, but much remains to be accomplished.  For example, it established an Information Technology Task Force in May  2003, and consistent with our suggestions to OOC leadership, the task force  has been charged with developing parallel IT strategies: one addressing  near-term, stay-in-business IT needs and the other addressing long-term IT  modernization needs. Thus far, the task force has met numerous times and  has been guided in this initiative by a private consultant. It has also, for  example, reviewed the current IT environment and has surveyed OOC staff  about IT needs and preferences.
With respect to near-term needs, OOC is taking steps to address immediate  shortfalls in its ability to produce the information it needs to manage  current operations and workloads. For example, OOC is investing a few  weeks of staff time to create a new Access database to provide a temporary  solution to meet certain case-tracking information needs. In our view, such  relatively small, low-risk investments that provide immediate mission value  are appropriate near-term steps.
However, before pursuing strategic, modernized system solutions, it is  important that OOC first position itself for successfully doing so by  establishing certain basic IT management capabilities. These capabilities  include, among other things, developing a picture or description, based on  OOC’s strategic plan, of what it wants its future IT environment to look like,  putting in place and following defined and disciplined processes for  allocating limited resources across competing IT investment options,  employing explicit and rigorous IT system acquisition management  processes, and ensuring that needed IT human capital knowledge and skill  needs and shortfalls are identified and systematically addressed. According  to OOC officials, each of these areas will be addressed. If they are not, the  risk of being unable to effectively leverage technology in achieving  strategic mission goals and outcomes will be increased.
OOC’s current use of IT is limited. For example, OOC’s automated  administrative dispute resolution case tracking system does not have the  capability to notify system users when a case closes or should be closed.  OOC’s system manager said they must periodically review some cases  manually and update the system for closed cases. OOC officials told us that  they had experienced some data quality problems during early  implementation stages of the dispute resolution case tracking system, but  had tested the system in March 2003 to determine if corrective actions were  effective. According to OOC officials, the data accuracy test demonstrated  that the information was now reliable, although they said the test was  performed informally and they had no documentation on the methodology  and the test results. We performed our own independent test of data quality  for this system as part of this review and found that the data were  sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report. (See app. I for  additional information on our reliability and validity reviews of OOC’s  database.)
OOC also recognizes the need to make better use of IT when enforcing the  Occupational Safety and Health Act-related provisions of the CAA. For  example, OOC’s Office of the General Counsel is considering the purchase  of specialized IT software that would centralize and automate a variety of  tasks concerning the occupational safety and health-related cases it  handles, including assessing risk, monitoring case status, and tracking  agency abatement efforts. In November 2003, after meeting with us to  discuss best practices in IT acquisition and planning, OOC’s General  Counsel established a group to develop specific selection criteria to assess  potential IT case management software. As part of this process, the group  and an outside IT consultant gathered information from both legislative  and executive branch agencies including the Architect of the Capitol  (AOC), LOC, and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration  (OSHA) concerning their practices and experiences with similar IT  applications. OOC expects to complete this evaluation process by the end  of March 2004.
In regards to the accounting and budgeting system used by OOC, a 2003  audit by an independent accounting firm of LOC’s financial statements  found that the system was reliable. LOC administers the accounting and  budgeting system and the accounting firm’s findings were addressed to  LOC. Although the auditors reported the system was, overall, reliable, they  also reported that there were two IT-related deficiencies that could  adversely affect the user’s ability to meet its financial management  objectives. The deficiencies were that (1) security practices over IT  systems need to be improved and (2) LOC needs to establish a  comprehensive disaster recovery program to maintain service continuity,  minimize the risk of unplanned interruptions, and recover critical  operations should interruptions occur. The audit recommended that the  LOC address these deficiencies as a high priority. LOC officials  acknowledged the need to address these deficiencies and have taken some  preliminary actions including drafting an officewide policy on IT security  practices and acquiring an off-site facility for their disaster recovery  program.

		Strategic Planning Provides Opportunity for More Useful Annual Reports

As required by section 301(h) of the CAA, OOC issues an annual report that  contains “statistics on the use of the Office by covered employees,  including the number and type of contacts made with the Office, on the  reason for such contacts, on the number of covered employees who  initiated proceedings with the Office under this Act and the result of such  proceedings, and on the number of covered employees who filed a  complaint, the basis for the complaint, and the action taken on the  complaint.”
Based on our reviews of the reports issued thus far, OOC is meeting this  annual report requirement. However, the information is almost entirely  output based, providing little sense of OOC’s broader impact. Most of  OOC’s congressional stakeholders with whom we spoke were not familiar  with OOC’s annual reports and those congressional stakeholders who had  seen the report said that it was difficult to understand and could be more  user-friendly. For example, one congressional stakeholder said that it was  difficult to make decisions about OOC using the information contained in  the annual report.
As an outgrowth of its strategic planning effort to identify, measure, and  manage toward results, OOC can enhance its annual report and incorporate  elements that would make it a more useful and relied-upon accountability  report. New, results-oriented information, showing the extent to which  goals were met and suggesting improvement opportunities—including  those that may suggest the need for congressional concurrence or  actions—could be reported along with the activity and workload statistics  required in section 301(h) of the CAA.

		Recommended Next Steps

Building on the strategic planning efforts underway, we recommend that  the Board of Directors, Executive Director, and General Counsel of OOC  ensure that the planning effort:  Is developed with extensive collaboration and input from key  congressional and agency stakeholders to ensure that there is a  reasonable and appropriate degree of agreement concerning OOC’s  overall direction and that its programs are effectively coordinated with  other efforts. To be most effective, this stakeholder and agency input  should be part of an ongoing dialogue to ensure goals, objectives, and  strategies are adjusted as warranted.
Includes performance measures that are linked to the strategic plan and  resulting annual work plans.
Becomes the basis for OOC’s budget and staff requests and developing  and implementing program efforts and for assessing the contributions of  those efforts to results.
Makes information technology planning and implementation an integral  component of the process.
Is used as a basis for an augmented and more results-oriented annual  report that provides data on the degree to which key goals are being  achieved, in addition to meeting important statutory reporting  requirements.

	Ensuring an Effective Program Structure

Our work looking at leading organizations has often found that as  organizations shift their orientation from outputs and activities to the  results that those outputs and activities are intended to achieve, new,  different, and more effective ways of doing business will emerge. OOC is  in the midst of just such a shift in its orientation as was discussed earlier in  this report. This shift entails putting in place a program structure at OOC  that meets its statutory responsibilities, contributes to improvement in the  working environment and workplaces of legislative branch employees, and  safeguards OOC’s independence.

		OOC’s Functions and Workload

The CAA contains a series of specific requirements for OOC to meet as it  carries out its responsibility to administer and enforce the CAA. Towards  this end, OOC has taken a number of actions including establishing and  administering a dispute resolution process for employees who allege  violations of civil rights, labor, and employment laws covered by the CAA;  conducting investigations and periodic inspections of legislative branch  facilities to ensure compliance with safety, health, and disability access  standards; adopting substantive regulations, many of which have been  approved by the Congress, to apply covered laws to the legislative branch;  educating both employees and employing offices about their rights and  responsibilities under the law; and regularly reporting to the Congress on  its activities in a variety of required reports and studies.

		Dispute Resolution

Dispute resolution is the largest of the functions performed by OOC,  available to any legislative branch employee in an agency covered under  the CAA’s dispute resolution provisions who alleges violations of certain  sections of the CAA. OOC’s dispute resolution process consists of a series  of statutorily prescribed steps beginning with counseling and mediation. If  these actions fail to resolve the dispute, the employee may choose to either  file a formal complaint with OOC and proceed with an administrative  hearing before an independent hearing officer, or file suit in federal court.  Both employees and covered legislative agencies that are dissatisfied with  the decisions of their administrative hearings may appeal to OOC’s Board  of Directors.
OOC told us that the large jumps in the number of cases in the dispute  resolution system in 1999, 2000, and 2001, were the result of two single- issue large group requests involving employees from AOC and the United  States Capitol Police (USCP) as they worked their way through the  process. For example, 274 (or almost 70 percent) of the 395 requests for  counseling reported in 2001 pertained to a single USCP large group case.  Similarly, 272 of the cases that were closed that same year and were  reported as resulting in civil actions being filed with the district court were  also associated with this same single-issue group request. In fact, OOC cites  the absence of such group cases in its annual report to the Congress on the  use of the Office when describing the significant decrease in total requests  for counseling received in 2002.
These cases illustrate that OOC’s approach to reporting case activity does  not provide a complete picture of OOC’s workload since it reports each  individual included as part of the large group as an individual request  regardless of whether the individual personally requested or even  participated in services such as counseling or mediation. OOC could not  provide us with a specific number of the individuals included in these  group requests who actually received counseling or mediation services in  1999 or 2001. According to OOC, dispute resolution data is presented in this  manner because the CAA specifically requires the Office to report on the  total number of individuals requesting counseling or mediation. While this  information is needed to meet existing statutory reporting requirements,  other data, such as the actual number of counseling and mediation sessions  held, could provide a helpful complement to the data which OOC currently  reports, as well as a more useful indicator of its actual workload.
In addition to rethinking how it might supplement the way it currently  reports on single-issue large group requests, OOC should consider other  potential improvements on how it measures its activities and workload.  Such improvements can play an important role in helping organizations  both obtain a fuller understanding of the process and implications of its  activities as well as provide stakeholders with more transparent and  complete information. OOC is exploring options in this area and we have  offered our assistance in this regard. One possibility would be for OOC to  benchmark its data against that reported by other federal agencies, when  comparable measures exist, or against OOC’s own past performance when  such measures do not. For example, following the practice of the U.S.  Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), OOC might consider  using such benchmarks to set both long- and short-term performance  targets.

			Occupational Safety and Health, Disability Access, and Labor– Management Relations

The CAA assigns OOC’s General Counsel with a number of independent  investigative and enforcement functions related to ensuring occupational  health and safety, disability access, and labor-management relations.
Occupational safety and health. Enforcement of occupational safety  and health standards accounts for the majority of the time spent by the  General Counsel and his staff, and roughly 30 percent of OOC’s overall  workload. The CAA requires the General Counsel to perform this work in  two basic ways: (1) by conducting inspections and investigations of  potential hazards in response to requests by any covered employee or  employing office and (2) by performing periodic inspections of the facilities  of all entities covered by the act.
Any covered legislative branch employee can file a complaint requesting  the General Counsel inspect and investigate a possible health and safety  hazard. As shown in figure 4, the annual workload of requested inspections  has risen dramatically since 2000, from 14 in 2000 to 39 in 2003 (as of  December 9, 2003). The General Counsel’s resources, however, have not  kept pace with this growth. The General Counsel’s financial expenditures  increased by less than 5 percent from fiscal year 2000 to fiscal year 2003. In  addition, during this same period the number of full-time staff assigned to  conduct the actual workplace health and safety investigations remained  steady at a single individual, an OSHA workplace safety specialist assigned  to OOC from the Department of Labor on long-term detail, with the  assistance of part-time contractors on a limited basis.
OOC also enforces health and safety regulations by conducting periodic  inspections of the facilities of all covered entities at least once each  Congress, as required by the CAA. These inspections are scheduled ahead  of time with legislative agencies and resemble the “walk around”  inspections conducted by OSHA. In contrast to most other CAA  requirements, OOC is not fully in compliance with the CAA requirement  that it “conduct periodic inspections of all facilities” of the agencies  covered by the provision. Although OOC conducted periodic inspections  at the majority of facilities in the Washington, D.C. area including large  structures such as all Senate and House office buildings and the U.S.  Capitol building, OOC did not include 10 out of 46 facilities subject to its  jurisdiction in its last biennial inspection in 2002. For example, according  to documents provided by OOC, the Office did not perform safety and  health inspections at the Senate or House page dormitories, or at LOC’s  National Library Service for the Blind and Physically Handicapped. OOC  officials told us that the decision not to inspect these facilities was largely  due to resource constraints.
Disability access. The CAA requires the General Counsel to both conduct  investigations of charges alleging discrimination in public services and  accommodations on the basis of disability, and to inspect covered facilities  in the legislative branch at least once each Congress for compliance with  the public services and accommodations provisions in the ADA. From 1997  through December 9, 2003, five charges of discrimination have been filed  with the General Counsel. According to OOC documents, its biennial  inspections have included all public areas where constituents, individuals  on official business, and visitors have access—approximately 8 million  square feet of space.
Labor-management relations. Under the CAA, OOC’s General Counsel is  responsible for investigating charges of unfair labor practices and for filing  and prosecuting complaints in administrative hearings and before the  Board of Directors as appropriate. Since 2001, the number of charges filed  with the General Counsel has remained fairly constant, varying between 18  and 19 per year, as shown in figure 5. In 2000, OOC experienced a sharp  spike in charges filed with the number jumping to 38 in that year. OOC was  unable to provide a definitive reason for this increase, but told us that it  was probably related to the large group cases going through OOC’s dispute  resolution process as these cases raised issues that could relate to charges  of unfair labor practices. Despite the relatively stable number of new unfair  labor practice charges received by OOC since 2001, the backlog of cases  still pending at the end of the year has almost doubled, increasing from 6 in  2001 to 11 in 2003 (as of December 9, 2003).
OOC’s Executive Director is responsible for a variety of other functions  relating to labor-management relations including supervising union  elections and resolving issues involving such matters as good faith  bargaining. OOC has supervised 14 union elections since 1997, 12 of these  in 2000 or earlier.
Another duty of the General Counsel under the CAA is to represent OOC in  any judicial proceeding under the act, including cases before the U.S. Court  of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In past years, the number of such cases  has been low, with no cases filed in 1997, 2001, and 2002 and one case each  filed in 1998, 1999, and 2000. However, in 2003 the number of federal circuit  review cases involving OOC and requiring attention from the General  Counsel and his staff unexpectedly increased to six. OOC’s General  Counsel told us that this situation has been exacerbated by the loss of two  attorneys during 2003, reducing his previous staffing level of four full-time  OOC attorneys to only two, including the General Counsel, by December  2003. According to the General Counsel, his office is currently recruiting  for a staff attorney and he expects to have that individual hired by spring of  2004.

			Education and Information Distribution

OOC has a broad mandate under the CAA to provide education and  information to the Congress, employing offices, and legislative branch  employees about their rights, protections, and responsibilities under the  act. To this end, OOC uses a variety of approaches including distributing  written material such as home mailings, fliers, bulletins, fact sheets, and  reports; conducting briefings with new staff at agency-sponsored  orientation sessions; holding seminars at the offices of stakeholders and  legislative agencies; maintaining a Web site and information number; and  responding to direct inquires. More recently, OOC’s education efforts have  made increased use of technology including a redesign of its Web site to  make it more user friendly and increased use of resources such as  electronic news bulletins and online tools such as its interactive template  for creating an emergency action plan.
Despite such potentially promising initiatives, OOC’s current approach to  tracking and reporting on its education efforts—its Education Program  Year End Report—remains firmly focused on counting products and  activities rather than focusing on results. Other approaches such as  conducting feedback surveys and focus groups could provide OOC with  valuable mechanisms to increase its understanding of the actual level of  awareness specific target populations have of its programs and activities.  OOC can then use this knowledge to assess its effectiveness in actually  communicating its message rather than simply its diligence in distributing  documents.
Developing appropriate performance measures has the potential to help  OOC realize several significant benefits such as improving its ability to  understand and track its process toward achieving goals, giving managers  crucial information on which to base their organizational and management  decisions, and creating powerful incentives to influence organizational and  individual behavior. Of course, the benefits of such improvements will need  to be balanced against real-world considerations, such as the cost and  effort involved in gathering and analyzing performance data, and the  burden such data collection may present for stakeholders and covered  employees.

		Opportunities to Strengthen OOC’s Effectiveness by Ensuring Programs Are Aligned with Results

We have previously reported that as agencies develop information systems  and capacities for analysis and evaluation, they discover that having a  better understanding of the facts and the relationship between their  activities and desired outcomes provides them with a solid foundation for  focusing their efforts and improving their performance. Facing an  increasing workload and scarce resources, OOC’s leadership has begun the  process of asking these questions in an effort to find more effective ways in  which to do their work.
OOC’s senior leadership has expressed a willingness to explore  opportunities to develop the technical and analytical capacity needed to  more effectively work toward results. For example, over the last several  years OOC has used a variety of methods for tracking and recording  summary information on its occupational safety and health related  caseload in order to manage its work in this area. These systems were  generally basic in design and ranged from several incompatibly designed  databases to using simple tables in a word processor to keep track of cases.
None of these approaches provided the General Counsel and his staff with  an easy way to systematically examine the approximately 50 open requests  for health and safety investigations, or the hundreds of inspections and  investigations conducted by OOC in the past, to look for patterns and  identify possible common or underlying causes of potential workplace  hazards. Toward this end, OOC is exploring the possibility of acquiring a  specialized regulatory case-tracking database application that would  enable the General Counsel and his staff to take a more strategic and risk- based approach towards their work, including such decisions as assigning  cases, determining the appropriate amount of follow-up required, and  informing the selection of particular facilities for its biennial inspections.  Until OOC decides on whether, and which, permanent case-tracking  software system it may adopt, staff in the General Counsel’s office have  been developing a new Microsoft Access database intended to offer a short- term solution to OOC’s need to more effectively track basic information  related to its occupational safety and health related caseload, such as case  type, key dates, principal parties involved, and actions planned and  accomplished. According to the General Counsel, this system should be  operational in January 2004.
Ensuring that an organization is focusing on the right activities to  effectively achieve its goals is always an important part of good  management control. However, focusing on the right activities is especially  important in times of economic scarcity, when the benefit of having  programs that deliver a maximum impact towards achieving results is  particularly critical. For example, in light of increasing demands for safety  and health inspections, and the very small number of OOC staff available to  conduct those inspections, OOC’s General Counsel and his staff have begun  to explore possible approaches to leverage OOC’s limited resources  through constructive engagement with legislative agencies. This approach  seeks to obtain agency compliance with occupational safety and health  requirements by motivating them to do so out of a sense of common  purpose and mutual benefit rather than forcing them with the threat of  punitive citations.
Toward this end, in February 2004 OOC will sponsor its first-ever  Organizational Health and Safety Program Conference. The conference will  bring together congressional and agency staff involved in health and safety  issues from throughout the legislative branch in order to learn about recent  thinking and practice in workplace health and safety and to discuss issues  of mutual concern. The conference will include presentations by outside  safety experts from a variety of organizations from the legislative branch  and elsewhere. Tentatively scheduled presenters include representatives  from AOC, organized labor, OSHA, and the National Safety Council.
The recent experiences of AOC provide another example of the potential  benefits of sharing lessons learned concerning health and safety practices.  AOC is undertaking a major effort to augment and make more strategic its  approach to worker safety and health. This effort obviously has important  implications for AOC and its employees. Equally important, by sharing  AOC’s experiences and leveraging its efforts in such areas as incident  reporting and follow-up and risk mitigation, AOC’s efforts can potentially  have great value across legislative branch agencies. Building on this idea,  OOC should explore the possibility of playing a more active role as a  central repository for good practices developed by agencies throughout the  legislative branch on topics covered under the CAA.
OOC’s recent experience with USCP to offer fire safety training for its  officers provides a lesson in the importance of carefully targeting such  initiatives to the intended audience. The impact of OOC’s initiative may be  somewhat limited until OOC develops a deeper understanding of what  would make this type of supplemental training useful in the view of USCP’s  management and officers. Specifically, a senior USCP official who was  directly aware of this effort informed us that although the training  contained some good material, it was not sufficiently tailored to USCP to  be very useful.
The value of thinking about outcomes and the relationship between  activities and outcomes can also help OOC make determinations about  whether it is providing the right mix of services and activities to achieve its  overall goals. For example, until recently OOC’s education efforts have  been largely focused on activities such as sending mass mailings of written  material to the homes of legislative branch employees, distributing fliers  and bulletins to legislative agencies for subsequent distribution, and  conducting general information sessions for new employees. Moreover,  OOC’s education efforts would benefit from better analysis of the types of  complaints that have been made. As noted above, OOC tracks the number  of cases it handles and how they proceed through established processes. It  does not, however, currently gather data on the nature of complaints. While  protecting the confidentiality of OOC’s case files must continue to be of  primary concern, OOC could also seek ways to examine if common issues  are being raised. Such information could prove very valuable in targeting  OOC’s education efforts.
In addition, OOC’s current leadership team recognizes the importance of  looking for new ways to get information about the CAA and OOC out to  employees. They are also experimenting with new approaches such as  posting e-bulletins and other ways to use the Internet creatively. On the  basis of our work, ample opportunities exist for continued progress in this  area. For example, in our conversations with congressional stakeholders,  representatives from the Senate Administrative Office Managers Group  told us that they would welcome additional contact with OOC. These  Senate office managers are senior staff responsible for working with  Members to ensure the efficient and effective operation of each member’s  personal office. As such, office managers are key clients of OOC. Office  managers meet periodically to discuss issues of mutual interest and  concern—an ideal opportunity for OOC outreach. However,  representatives from the Senate Administrative Office Managers Group  told us that they had not had contact with OOC for several years. OOC  should consider whether there are similar groups that it might reach out to  as part of its effort to establish consistent and ongoing relationships with  its clients.

		Recommended Next Steps

We recommend that OOC’s Executive Director and General Counsel:  identify potential improvements to how the Office measures its  activities and performance, including the possibility of using benchmark  data from federal agencies with similar functions for purposes of  comparison and analysis;  provide a more complete picture of OOC’s workload by improving how  it tracks and reports on single-issue large group requests for counseling  and mediation;  work with the Congress to develop a strategy to ensure that all facilities  under OOC’s jurisdiction and located in the Capitol Hill complex and the  surrounding Washington, D.C. area—including the Senate and House  page dormitories, and LOC’s National Library Service for the Blind and  Physically Handicapped—are covered as part of the biennial safety  inspections required by the CAA;   establish a clearinghouse for sharing best practice information on topics  covered by the CAA;  work with the Congress to determine the feasibility of using such  mechanisms as feedback surveys and focus groups to provide valuable  information on the actual level of awareness among target populations  concerning OOC’s programs and activities;  outreach to other groups and forums such as the Senate Administrative  Managers-Chief Clerks Steering Committee;   use data on the number and type of complaints received by OOC to  better target education and information distribution efforts; and  develop capacity to use safety and health data to facilitate risk-based  decision making.

	Building Effective Communication Emphasizing Outreach and Coordination

Effective communication and coordination with both stakeholders and  clients is essential for organizations to operate effectively, manage risks,  and achieve results. We have previously identified the ability of federal  agencies to engage in relevant, reliable, and timely communication relating  to internal and external events as fundamental for effective management  control. At OOC, an effective communications strategy could provide a  powerful tool to seek mutual understanding among OOC, key stakeholders,  and legislative agencies concerning its mission and role, convey OOC’s  recent initiatives and improvement efforts, obtain information about the  external environment that may affect the Office’s ability to achieve its  mission, as well as build up trust among the stakeholders and clients that is  necessary for the Office to realize its goal of becoming more collaborative  and partnerial.
OOC has recently undertaken a number of important initiatives to improve  communications and coordination. Consistent with, and building upon  those initiatives, we identified two specific areas where OOC can continue  to make improvements in the way in which it communicates with other  entities and organizations including:   ensuring clear, regular, and timely consultation with congressional   communicating and coordinating with agencies openly and effectively.

		Ensuring Clear, Regular, and Timely Consultation with Congressional Stakeholders

A key component of an effective communications strategy is  communicating with, and obtaining information from, external  stakeholders. OOC’s leaders recognize the importance of communicating  with stakeholders and have taken steps to expand their efforts in this area.  However, our interviews with a wide range of congressional stakeholders,  including majority and minority staff in both the Senate and the House,  indicate that OOC’s efforts to effectively consult with the Congress have  been uneven and additional efforts are needed.
On the one hand, some congressional staff—but by no means all—told us  that they believed OOC has made efforts to develop more transparent and  collegial working relationships with congressional stakeholders. For  example, a congressional staff member cited the efforts of OOC's General  Counsel to reach out to congressional staff shortly after he joined the  Office in May 2003. Another staff member cited an example where OOC  worked constructively with his office to resolve a potential fire safety  problem involving the placement of furniture. This staff member  appreciated OOC's willingness to discuss the issue with his office and work  to find a satisfactory solution that would both comply with safety  requirements and take into account the need of his office to continue to  conduct business and the physical limitations of the space involved.
On the other hand, a number of staff, including some who acknowledged  and appreciated OOC’s recent efforts, said that they remained unclear  about the office’s role and services, how it makes decisions, and related  matters. Moreover, several congressional staff members told us that they  have not seen much outreach from OOC, or that the outreach they did  experience was inconsistent and could be more effective. For example, one  individual told us that he only received information from OOC when it was  interested in proposing a legislative change that would require the  cooperation of the Congress. Another concern cited by several staff was  the perception that OOC did not make an effort to ensure that they were  informed “at the front end” concerning significant activities and initiatives.  Thus, the concern is not so much the existence of OOC’s operating  procedures. Rather, the concern is communication as those procedures are  being applied and OOC undertakes its daily operations.
Effective communications strategies take into account how to most  effectively communicate the message given their intended audience. For  example, in September 2003 OOC initiated a formal rulemaking process to  amend parts of its operating procedures. As required by the CAA, OOC’s  Board of Directors submitted an announcement for inclusion in the  Congressional Record announcing proposed changes in OOC’s procedural  rules and inviting comment. A key staff member said that it would have  been more helpful—and could have avoided, or at least limited, subsequent  concerns with the process used to issue the draft rules—if OOC had more  fully reached out to key committees and Members before the draft proposal  was announced publicly. Another staff member told us that, at a minimum,  it would have been helpful if OOC followed the notice by contacting them  directly to ensure that they were aware of the proposed rules and the  subsequent 30-day comment period, explaining that such announcements  are easy to miss if one is not looking for them. Although OOC’s initial  posting met its legal obligations, the Office decided to place another notice  and extend the comment period.
To encourage additional feedback from stakeholders and other interested  parties, OOC’s Board decided to hold a public hearing on the proposed  changes even though the CAA does not require it. According to OOC, the  decision to hold the hearing was consistent with feedback OOC had  received several years earlier from some congressional stakeholders.  However, instead of creating an opportunity for stakeholders to provide  additional feedback, the Board had to cancel the session because only one  person had agreed to speak at the hearing. Congressional staff told us that  the Congress’ lack of participation in the hearing was not an indication of a  lack of interest in the issues to be discussed, but was due to concerns about  the nature and structure of the forum. OOC had not informed congressional  staff of its intention to seek additional comment in this way. Moreover, one  congressional stakeholder said that OOC’s approach to solicit additional  comments through a public hearing was inappropriate.
Communication protocols provide a potentially valuable tool that  organizations can use to avoid such surprises and help foster clearer  understanding with stakeholders. For example, after working closely with  the Congress and after a trial phase, GAO implemented congressional  protocols in November 2000. From our experiences in developing the  protocols, we have identified key lessons and success factors—that  developing protocols is a time-consuming process which involves   (1) personal commitment and direction from the agency head, (2) senior  management participation and buy-in, and (3) continuous outreach to and  feedback from external stakeholders. Despite the time and the effort,  however, our experience using protocols as a transparent, documented,  and consistent way to set priorities has been very positive for us as well as  our congressional clients. Similarly, for OOC such protocols could help  foster an understanding of its goals, functions, and procedures with its  congressional stakeholders.

		Communicating and Coordinating with Agencies Openly and Effectively

Open and effective coordination with legislative agencies and other  stakeholders including employee groups is another critical component of  an effective communications strategy at OOC. We have previously reported  that organizations can develop and refine their operations and better  achieve results by establishing channels that facilitate open and effective  communication with clients and other recipients of their services and  activities.
Several officials at legislative branch agencies covered by the CAA told us  that at points over the more than 8 years since OOC's has been in  operation, communications and interactions among the Office and their  agencies have not been good. These agency officials told us that some of  OOC's past actions had created distrust and had fostered the belief among  some staff that OOC was more interested in making them look bad (by  using a “gotcha” approach) rather than working with agencies to comply  with the CAA and create a better workplace. In contrast, the union groups  we met with generally characterized their interactions with OOC as  positive throughout this period.
OOC’s Board and leadership are aware of the concerns expressed by some  legislative agencies and have taken steps to address them. As a result,  officials we interviewed at these agencies generally agreed that over the  last year or two, OOC has taken steps to improve the working relationships  with their respective offices. These officials cited efforts by OOC's senior  executives to reach out to them through a series of meetings held by the  Executive Director and General Counsel as evidence of a new, more  constructive attitude towards legislative agencies. For example, in the area  of occupational safety and health enforcement, an AOC official told us that  OOC’s General Counsel had initiated several meetings with AOC to discuss  possible initiatives to improve health and safety on Capitol Hill. Included in  these discussions was AOC’s recent decision to adopt an internal IT  application to assist the agency in tracking and monitoring potential safety  and health problems before complaints are made to OOC. According to  both the AOC official and OOC’s General Counsel, the two organizations  have had preliminary discussions on the possibility of sharing such health  and safety data, although they have yet to come to an agreement on  whether or how to do so.
Despite some advances, our interviews with agency officials identified  several areas where OOC needs to make improvements in how it  communicates and coordinates with agencies covered by the CAA. Among  the continuing problems officials mentioned were (1) OOC’s failure to  always follow its own rules and procedures when conducting  investigations of health and safety complaints and (2) the lack of timely and  consistent follow-up on the status and disposition of investigations  conducted by the Office and clear communication with agency officials.
For example, several agency officials told us that OOC was not always  consistent in the manner in which it conducts investigations of  occupational safety and health-related complaints, occasionally failing to  follow its own processes and procedures. The CAA gives OOC’s General  Counsel considerable authority to inspect and investigate places of  employment under the jurisdiction of employing agencies covered by the  CAA and does not require him to provide advance notice before starting an  investigation or visiting buildings or facilities. However, to foster a  constructive working relationship with the agencies they regulate, OOC’s  General Counsel and a staff member told us that it has been a long-standing  policy of OOC to immediately notify the agency involved when the Office  receives a safety and health-related complaint. In addition, except in cases  of emergency or when any delay might pose a danger, it is also OOC's  policy to give agencies the option of attending an opening conference  before proceeding with the investigation. However, officials at two  agencies told us that there have been cases, including some within the past  year, where OOC has failed to follow its policy on agency notification. They  said these instances have contributed to misunderstandings, confusion,  and, in at least one case, the perception among senior agency officials “that  a ‘gotcha’ mentality still exists at OOC.” While OOC and the agency  involved in this last case do not agree concerning the facts and significance  of OOC’s actions that led to this comment on the part of the agency, the  situation provides an illustration of the differences that exist in perceptions  between OOC and some agency officials.
In addition, agency officials told us that often OOC would not follow up  with agency officials on the status and disposition of investigations in a  timely or consistent manner. For example, agency officials told us of cases  where, after meeting with OOC staff to discuss the findings of a particular  investigation and responding with a plan to address the issues, they did not  hear back from OOC for months, or in several instances, for a year or more.  The agency official we spoke with explained that this absence of closure  complicated efforts to resolve the current status of cases.
Our review of OOC's procedure manual for handling safety and health- related complaints found that it did not provide a clear, complete, and up- to-date source of OOC's policies and procedures on how the Office  responds to such complaints. In addition, the manual did not provide clear  time frames on when OOC would communicate to agencies during this  process. For example, the manual has not been updated since 1997 and  does not contain any specific language on the Office's policy of providing  agencies with opening conferences as described to us by OOC's General  Counsel and his staff. In response to follow-up requests, OOC staff did  provide us with a separate one-page document, dated May 1999, which  described topics discussed at an opening conference. However, this  document also did not clearly set forth OOC's policy on agency  notification, and it was not clear how it was used and how widely it had  been distributed. OOC’s General Counsel has recently acknowledged the  need to revise and update these procedures, but he told us that because of  other needs he has not given this a high priority.
To establish channels that facilitate open and effective communication,  organizations need to clearly set out procedures—such as communication  protocols—that they will consistently follow when doing their work. For  example, building on the foundation of the congressional protocols we  developed in 2000, GAO launched the pilot phase of our agency protocols  in 2002 that contain clearly defined and transparent policies and practices  on how we carry out our work at federal agencies. These protocols  identify what agencies can expect from GAO and what GAO expects of  agencies. Toward this end, our protocols present information on the  framework of GAO’s engagement and audit activities—including  communication between GAO and agencies, interactions during the course  of GAO’s work, and follow-up on GAO’s recommendations—and contain a  description of the specific actions and activities we will take at each stage  as well as specific time frames when appropriate. In this way the protocols  are intended to help ensure the consistency, fairness, and effectiveness of  interactions between GAO and the agencies with which it works. Rather  than being just a paperwork exercise, the development of agency protocols  that clearly and accurately communicate OOC’s current policies and  procedures can be an important tool to assist OOC’s management achieve  its commitment to communicate more openly and effectively with  legislative agencies. In addition, protocols can have a significant impact on  OOC's ability to work constructively and fairly with the agencies it  regulates, and to accomplish its overall mission goals.

		Recommended Next Steps

Both OOC’s Board of Directors and its senior executives recognize the  importance of communicating with stakeholders and have begun to make  efforts in this area. Consistent with that commitment, we recommend that  OOC take the following steps:  Develop congressional protocols, in close consultation with  congressional stakeholders, that would document agreements between  the Congress and OOC on what congressional stakeholders can expect  as the Office carries out its work. Protocols help to ensure that OOC  deals with its congressional stakeholders using clearly defined,  consistently applied, and transparent policies and procedures. They can  also help OOC reach agreement on the best mix of products and  services to achieve its mission. It is important to note that consulting  with stakeholders is not the same as seeking their acceptance or  approval on matters where that would not be appropriate. The purpose  of such protocols is to help create a basic understanding of OOC’s goals,  functions, and procedures; and what OOC will communicate to whom,  when, and how, without compromising the independence the Congress  gave OOC to enforce the CAA.
Develop agency protocols, in cooperation with legislative agencies, that  would clarify and clearly communicate the procedures OOC will follow  when interacting with agencies while carrying out its work.
In both cases OOC should carefully pilot the protocols before they are fully  implemented so that OOC, the Congress, and legislative agencies can gain  valuable experiences in their application and that appropriate adjustments  can be made.
We also recommend that the Executive Director and the General Counsel  review and revise OOC’s case handling policies and procedures, such as  OOC’s procedure manual for handling safety and health-related complaints,  and ensure that they are effectively communicated to appropriate  legislative agency officials.

	Creating and Sustaining an Enhanced Management Control Environment Essential for Effective Operations

The creation of an enhanced control environment forms the foundation for  an organization’s ability to put in place the management controls necessary  for effective and efficient operations. Well-managed organizations establish  and maintain an environment that sets a positive and supportive attitude  toward internal control and conscientious management. In our previous  work, we have identified several key factors that affect an organization’s  ability to create such an environment including its organizational and  leadership structure and its ability to effectively manage and develop its  human capital. OOC faces challenges in both of these areas, which it  needs to successfully overcome in order to exercise effective management  control.

		Performance Agreements Offer a Potential Tool to Increase Accountability of Top Leaders and Focus on Organizational Goals

We have previously reported that federal agencies have used performance  agreements between senior political and career executives as a tool to  define accountability for specific goals, monitor progress, and contribute to performance evaluations. Congress has also recognized the role that  performance agreements can play in holding organizations and executives  accountable for results. For example, in 1998, the Congress chartered the  Office of Student Financial Assistance as a performance-based  organization and required the agency to implement performance  agreements. In addition to providing OOC’s Board with a mechanism to  increase accountability, performance agreements would also provide the  platform for ongoing dialogue to help ensure that the goals and priorities  contained in OOC’s strategic plan are carried out by its top executives and  help ensure the proper alignment among daily operations and activities and  the broader results OOC strives to achieve.
Since it was created in 1995, OOC has operated without having any formal  performance management system for its Executive Director and General  Counsel. Starting in 2003, OOC’s Board of Directors required these officials  to prepare an annual self-assessment that they submit to the Board for  review. The Executive Director and General Counsel prepare narratives  assessing themselves in five performance categories: operational  management, external relations, ethics, strategic planning, and Board  relations. These narratives then form the basis for a subsequent informal  review session with the Board. The development of these self-assessments  is an important first step in improving the performance and assuring the  accountability of OOC and its executive team.
OOC’s current efforts to develop a strategic plan provide an ideal  opportunity for the Office to build on this first step. Once OOC has reached  agreement with its stakeholders and has completed its strategic plan, it can  take the next step and develop results-oriented performance agreements  with its senior executives that are directly linked to organizational goals  embodied in its strategic plan—the absence of which is a major limitation  of the current effort. We have reported on a number of benefits of  performance agreements that may have direct importance to achieving  improved performance at OOC. Performance agreements have:  Strengthened alignment of results-oriented goals with daily  operations. Performance agreements define accountability for specific  goals and help to align daily operations with agencies' results-oriented,  programmatic goals.
Fostered collaboration across organizational boundaries.
Performance agreements encourage executives to work across  traditional organizational boundaries or "silos" by focusing on the  achievement of results-oriented goals.
Enhanced opportunities to discuss and routinely use performance  information to make program improvements. Performance  agreements facilitate communication about organizational performance,  and provide opportunities to pinpoint improved performance.
Provided a results-oriented basis for individual accountability.
Performance agreements provide results-oriented performance  information to serve as the basis for executive performance evaluations.
Maintained continuity of program goals during leadership  transitions. Performance agreements help to maintain a consistent  focus on a set of broad programmatic priorities during changes in  leadership.
In addition to assuring accountability and alignment of operations to  results, performance agreements could help OOC ensure it maintains a  common and consistent vision and approach to the implementation of the  CAA. In the past, a lack of such a common vision on how OOC should  approach the enforcement of workplace health and safety requirements or  interact with stakeholders resulted in clashes between the Executive  Director and the previous General Counsel. Specifically, a number of  congressional and legislative agency officials we interviewed had the  perception that a previous General Counsel’s emphasis on a strict “gotcha”  approach toward enforcement led to a combative and adversarial  relationship with legislative agencies and other stakeholders that was at  odds with the more collaborative approach supported by OOC’s Executive  Director.
OOC’s current Board, Executive Director, and General Counsel told us that  they share a common commitment to pursuing a collaborative and  constructive approach towards enforcing the CAA. OOC’s recent effort to  develop a strategic plan is a reflection of the common vision of the  organization’s mission, goals, and operational approach shared by OOC’s  current leaders. In addition, they appear to enjoy good working  relationships among themselves. However, the standards of effective  management control and OOC’s own past experience demonstrate the need  for the office to take appropriate steps to address the OOC’s organizational  structure and presents a challenge to effective management control.

		Effective Human Capital Management Is Also a Key Factor in Management Control

Effective human capital management is an important factor contributing to  management control as well as an organization’s ability to achieve results.  We have identified two human capital challenges currently facing OOC: (1)  the need to ensure leadership continuity and preserve critical  organizational knowledge in the face of the impending loss of a large  number of leaders over the next 2 years and (2) the need to establish a  modern, effective, and credible performance management system with  appropriate safeguards for all OOC employees.

			Leadership Continuity Is Key to Management Control

Sustained focus and direction from top leadership is a key component of  effective management. Management control requires that organizations  consider the effect upon their operations if a large number of employees—  including executives and other leaders—are expected to leave and then  establish criteria for a retention or mitigation strategy.
OOC currently faces a considerable loss of knowledge and leadership  capacity due to impending turnover of its Board of Directors. This  expected loss is the result of CAA provisions that limit current Board  members to a single 5-year term. For example, within the next year-and-a- half all five members of the current Board will reach the end of their terms.  When the Congress crafted the CAA, it included a provision to provide for  staggered terms for OOC’s Board. However, delays in the appointment of  successors to the original group of board members resulted in the  appointment of several new members at the same time. Specifically, the  Chair and two members of the five-member Board were appointed in  October 1999 and are scheduled to complete their terms in September  2004. The terms of the two remaining Board members will end eight  months later in May 2005.
The situation is only slightly better for OOC’s four appointed executives.  Similar to the Board, the CAA restricts OOC’s four appointed executives to  nonrenewable 5-year terms of service. In addition, this restriction also  prevents the possibility of having a deputy executive director serve in the  role of executive director, making the potential of succession planning  among this group of executives impossible. The terms of all but the General  Counsel will expire within 6 months of each other in 2006. If one considers  both OOC’s Board and its senior executives together, eight out of nine of  the organization’s top officials will have left by September 2006. The loss of  such a large proportion of OOC’s senior leadership within a relatively short  period will likely result in a loss of leadership continuity, institutional  knowledge, and expertise that has the potential of adversely impacting  OOC’s performance at least in the short term.
Other federal agencies with functions similar to OOC do not restrict their  board members from serving subsequent terms. For example, there are no  statutory restrictions on the five board members of the EEOC and the three  board members of the Federal Labor Relations Authority from serving  addition terms. In addition, the statute governing the National Labor  Relations Board permits the five board members to be reappointed.

			Need for Modern, Effective, and Credible Approach to Performance Management

We have previously reported that performance management systems can  create a “line of sight” showing how team, unit, and individual performance  can contribute to overall organizational results. An explicit alignment of  daily activities with broader results is one of the defining features of  effective performance management systems in high-performing  organizations. Organizations naturally need to develop performance  management systems that reflect their specific structures and priorities.  Given OOC’s small size and specific situation, it is important that it  considers these and other key practices in the context of its own needs,  capabilities, and circumstances.
In September 2002, OOC rolled out its first formal performance  management system to staff who report to the Executive Director. OOC  assesses employees on eight performance dimensions: (1) job knowledge  and technical skills, (2) overall quality of work, (3) employee and  professional relationships, (4) planning and organization, (5) work habits,  (6) judgment, (7) initiative and creativity, and (8) development. Supervisors  are to meet with their staff twice a year to provide ratings and feedback on  the previous 6-month assessment period. They also are to hold an interim  meeting halfway through each assessment period. For these eight  performance dimensions, supervisors give each employee two separate  ratings—the first describes the employee’s overall achievement in the  performance dimension, and the second represents the progress of the  employee toward achieving specific goals established at the start of the  evaluation cycle.
On one hand, OOC’s decision to establish a formal performance  management system covering at least some of its employees represents a  good first step and its performance management system exhibits some  positive characteristics. For example, OOC’s requirement that supervisors  and employees meet at least four times a year to discuss the employees’  recent performance and individual goals provides regular opportunities for  staff to discuss and act on feedback. On the other hand, there are areas  where the system can be improved as OOC’s efforts in this area move  forward. For example, OOC’s current performance management system  assesses staff against the eight performance dimensions identified above  without providing specific standards or detailed descriptions of the  behaviors associated with varying levels of performance. For instance, for  the performance dimension “overall quality of work,” the only descriptive  standard provided is “consistently produces competent work.” OOC should  explore the usefulness of including descriptions of competencies—those  specific skills or supporting behaviors that employees are expected to  demonstrate as they carry out their work—in its performance management  system to provide a basis for making judgements about an individual’s  performance and contribution to OOC’s results.
In addition, OOC’s current performance management system does not  apply to the General Counsel or any OOC attorneys who report to him.  These employees continue to work without any formal performance  management system in place. Moving forward, the involvement of  employees will be crucial to the success of any efforts by OOC to create a  new performance management system or reform and expand its existing  one. Given OOC’s small size, the cost in time and effort to obtain such  feedback likely could be minimal.

		Matters for Congressional Consideration

Congress should consider making legislative changes to the CAA to help  ensure that OOC maintains institutional continuity into the future.  Specifically, the Congress should consider amending the CAA to allow:  Board members to be reappointed to an additional term, and  the Executive Director, General Counsel, and the two Deputy Executive  Directors to be reappointed to serve subsequent terms in either the  same or a different position, if warranted and the Congress so desires.  Any reappointments should be contingent on an individual’s  demonstrated performance and achievement of goals as documented in  executive performance agreements for OOC’s Executive Director and  General Counsel, as recommended below, or another performance  management system in the case of OOC’s two Deputy Executive  Directors.

		Recommended Next Steps

We recommend that OOC’s Board:  Require performance agreements between the Board of Directors and  OOC’s Executive Director and General Counsel to help translate the  Office’s strategic goals into day-to-day operations and to hold these  executives accountable for achieving program results.
We recommend that OOC’s Executive Director and General Counsel:  Establish a modern, effective, and credible performance management  system with appropriate safeguards for all OOC employees. OOC should  build on the first step of establishing a basic performance management  system for employees reporting to the Executive Director by ensuring  that all employees, including those who report to the General Counsel,  participate in an individual performance management system. In  addition, OOC should look for ways to develop a more robust and  effective approach to individual performance management by  considering key practices employed by leading organizations.
Actively involve all OOC’s employees in this process, whether it entails  the revision and expansion of its existing performance management  system or the creation of an entirely new initiative.

	Agency Comments

On January 22, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to OOC’s Board of  Directors, Executive Director, and General Counsel for their review and  comment. We received written comments prepared jointly by the Board of  Directors, Executive Director, and General Counsel on January 26, 2004. In  their joint response, OOC generally agreed with the contents of this report,  noting that the Office has begun to adopt many of our recommendations as  part of its strategic planning process and current programmatic initiatives.  Furthermore, the Board of Directors strongly supports our statement that  the Congress should consider amending the CAA to allow OOC’s Board  members to serve an additional term and to allow the Executive Director,  General Counsel, and the two Deputy Executive Directors to be  reappointed to serve additional terms in either the same or a different  position, if warranted and desired. As mentioned in their response and as  acknowledged in our report, we have provided information and assistance  to OOC regarding their management control improvement efforts and we  plan to continue working with OOC’s leadership and meet with them  regularly to discuss their progress. Their written response is reprinted in  appendix II. In addition, OOC’s Executive Director and General Counsel  provided minor technical clarifications, and we made those changes where  appropriate.
We will provide copies of this report to other interested congressional  committees, and the Office of Compliance. In addition, we will make copies  available to others upon request. The report will be available at no charge  on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me or Steven  Lozano on (202) 512-6806 or on mihmj@gao.gov and lozanos@gao.gov.  Major contributors to this report were Jeff Dawson, Peter J. Del Toro,  Jeffery Bass, Bruce Goddard, and Jeff McDermott.

Objective, Scope, and Methodology

To meet our objective of assessing key management controls in place at the  Office of Compliance (OOC) and identify what improvements, if any, could  be taken to strengthen OOC’s effectiveness and efficiency, we followed a  multipronged approach. First, we analyzed applicable laws, legislative  history, rules, and regulations; and obtained and analyzed written  documentation of guidance, policies, procedures, and performance of  OOC.
Second, to understand the complex operating environment and long- standing challenges facing the agency, we conducted a series of interviews  with agency officials, key stakeholders, and officials from agencies covered  by the Congressional Accountability Act (CAA). To obtain OOC’s  perspectives on its operations and the challenges it faces, we interviewed  OOC’s Board of Directors as well as each of its top executives—the  Executive Director, General Counsel, Deputy Executive Director for the  Senate, and Deputy Executive Director for the House. We also met with all  of OOC’s managers including the Deputy General Counsel, Director of  Counseling, and Budget and Administrative Officer.
To understand how key stakeholders perceive the OOC, we conducted 19  interviews with selected majority and minority congressional staff from  both the Senate and House. Among those we interviewed were staff from  Senate and House leadership offices, Senate and House Subcommittees on  Legislative Branch Appropriations, Committee on Governmental Affairs,  Committee on House Administration, Office of the Senate Employment  Counsel, Senate Sergeant-At-Arms, Senate Administrative Managers Group,  Office of the Clerk of the House, Office of the House Employment Counsel,  Office of the Chief Administrative Officer of the House, House Inspector  General, as well as personal staff of several senators and representatives.
We also spoke with cognizant officials from agencies covered by the CAA  to obtain their views of the performance of the Office. These included the  Architect of the Capitol, the Congressional Budget Office, the United States  Capitol Police, the Office of the Attending Physician, the Library of  Congress, and GAO. To obtain the perspectives of organized labor and  employee groups we spoke with two of the largest unions representing  employees in legislative agencies—the Association of Federal, State,  County, and Municipal Employees, and the Fraternal Order of Police.
In addition, we conducted selected reliability and validity reviews of OOC’s  dispute resolution process database. For these reviews, we questioned  OOC staff about their internal controls for their dispute resolution  database. We then drew a random sample of 5 cases out of a total field of 44  cases reported as closed in the database for 2002 and compared the  electronic data to source documents. We also examined whether OOC was  processing cases within statutorily defined thresholds for key process  phases. The OOC’s responses to our questions and the results of this  comparison led us to conclude that the data were sufficiently reliable for  the purposes of our report.
We also drew on key management practices and guidance identified in  previously-issued GAO reports, where appropriate. As part of a process of  constructive engagement, we provided OOC with briefings, reports, and  examples of best practices in the areas we reviewed. For example, at the  OOC’s request, GAO officials provided briefings on our approach to  strategic planning and we provided copies of our strategic planning  documents.
On January 22, 2004, we provided a draft of this report to OOC’s Board of  Directors, Executive Director, and General Counsel for their review and  comment. We received written comments prepared jointly by the Board of  Directors, Executive Director, and General Counsel on January 26, 2004.  Their written response is reprinted in appendix II. OOC also provided  technical comments that we have incorporated where appropriate. We  performed our work in Washington, D.C., from January 2003 through  January 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards.

Comments from the Office of Compliance

	GAO’s Mission

The General Accounting Office, the audit, evaluation and investigative arm of  Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities  and to help improve the performance and accountability of the federal government  for the American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal  programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other  assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding  decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of  accountability, integrity, and reliability.

	Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is  through 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

	To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs

	Public Affairs

Summary:
Why GAO Did This Study

The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution of 2003 Conference Report mandated that GAO review the Office of Compliance (OOC), an independent legislative branch agency created by the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995 (CAA). OOC, a 15-person office with about $2 million in expenditures during fiscal year 2003, administers and enforces various CAA provisions related to fair employment and occupational safety and health among certain legislative branch agencies. OOC's current Executive Director has been in place since April 2001 and its General Counsel joined the Office in June 2003. The mandate directed GAO to assess the OOC's overall effectiveness and efficiency and to make recommendations, as appropriate.

What GAO Found

OOC is in the early stages of a concerted and vitally needed effort to improve and strengthen management control across the Office and to carry out its mission more effectively and efficiently while safeguarding its institutional independence. OOC's success in completing this important effort depends upon making significant progress on a number of key management control areas: Sharpen focus on results. OOC's current strategic planning initiative is beginning to address the more fundamental question of the Office's effectiveness rather than the Office's traditional focus on activities and outputs, such as the number of cases processed and inspections conducted. OOC's planning initiative can also provide a vehicle for engaging and consulting with key congressional and other stakeholders on OOC's purposes, how those purposes will be achieved, how progress will be assessed, and for sustaining feedback on what progress is being made and what additional improvement opportunities exist. The planning initiative is still very much a work in progress and continued efforts are needed in a number of key areas including developing results oriented performance measures. Ensuring an effective program structure. As OOC shifts its focus from outputs and activities to results, it must put in place a more effective program structure that includes new ways of doing business. OOC has taken a number of actions to administer the CAA, such as managing a dispute resolution process and conducting investigations and inspections to ensure compliance with safety and health standards. However, OOC is not fully in compliance with the CAA's requirement concerning biennial safety and health inspections of legislative branch agency facilities. OOC also needs to expand on recent efforts to develop programs that are based on collaboration with legislative branch agencies. Building effective communication emphasizing outreach and coordination. OOC's congressional and other stakeholders whom we interviewed said that OOC recently has used a more collaborative approach rather than the "gotcha" approach of the past. On the other hand, several agency officials said that current interactions with OOC could be improved. To facilitate more effective communications, OOC should establish congressional and agency protocols to document agreements between the Congress, legislative branch agencies, and OOC on what can be expected as OOC carries out its work. Creating and sustaining an enhanced management control environment. Since its creation, OOC has operated without having any formal performance management system for its Executive Director and General Counsel. OOC should establish an enhanced management control environment and strengthen accountability by requiring performance agreements between the Board and both the Executive Director and General Counsel, as well as expanding and improving on OOC's performance management system for all staff. Another important challenge concerns the lack of institutional continuity that may occur due to statutory term limits on OOC's leadership positions. To prevent the loss of critical organizational knowledge, the Congress should consider changing the term limits contained in the CAA.