United States General Accounting Office

GAO Testimony

Before the Committee on the Judiciary

House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery

Expected at

9:30 a.m.

on Tuesday

September 30, 1997

RESULTS ACT

Comments on Justice’s

August Draft Strategic Plan

Statement of Norman J. Rabkin

Director, Administration of Justice Issues

General Government Division

GAO/T-GGD-97-184

Summary 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

Under the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, executive

agencies are to develop strategic plans in which they define their missions,

establish results-oriented goals, and identify strategies they will use to

achieve those goals for the period 1997 through 2002. The Act specifies

that strategic plans should contain six elements: (1) a mission statement;

(2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives; (3) approaches (or

strategies) and the various resources needed to achieve the goals and

objectives; (4) a description of the relationship between the long-term

goals/objectives and the annual performance plans; (5) an identification of

key external factors; and (6) a description of how program evaluations

were used to establish and revise strategic goals.

GAO’s July 1997 report—The Results Act: Observations on the Department

of Justice’s February 1997 Draft Strategic Plan (GAO/GGD-97-153R, July 11,

1997—analyzed the February 1997 version of Justice’s plan. Justice

prepared a revised plan in August.

Justice’s August plan discusses, to some degree, five of the six required

elements—a mission statement, goals and objectives, key external factors,

a program evaluation component, and strategies to achieve the goals and

objectives. The August plan does not include a required discussion on the

relationship between Justice’s long-term goals/objectives and its annual

performance plans.

The draft plan could better address how Justice plans to (1) coordinate

with other federal, state, and local agencies that perform similar law

enforcement functions, such as the Defense and State Departments

regarding counter-terrorism; (2) address the many management challenges

it faces in carrying out its mission, such as internal control and accounting

problems; and (3) increase its capacity to provide performance

information for assessing its progress in meeting the goals and objectives

over the next 5 years.

Page 1 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss our observations on the

Department of Justice’s August draft of its strategic plan. The Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act)1

 requires that all

executive branch agencies submit their plans to Congress and the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) by September 30, 1997. My statement

focuses on Justice’s August draft strategic plan, which builds on our July

comments regarding Justice’s February draft plan.2

 Specifically, my

statement will focus on the August plan’s compliance with the Act’s

requirements and on the extent to which it covered crosscutting program

activities, management challenges, and Justice’s capacity to provide

reliable performance information.3

In summary, Justice’s February draft of its strategic plan was incomplete

in that of the six elements required by the Act, three—the relationship

between long-term goals/objectives and the annual performance plans, the

key factors external to Justice that could affect Justice’s ability to meet its

goals, and a program evaluation component—were not specifically

identified in the draft plan. The remaining three elements—the mission

statement, goals and objectives, and strategies to achieve the goals and

objectives—were discussed. The August plan includes two of the three

missing elements but the plan does not include a required discussion on a

third element—how the long-term goals and objectives are tied to Justice’s

annual performance plans. In addition, the revised plan would better meet

the purposes of the Act if it provided more complete coverage of

crosscutting programs, management challenges, and performance

information.

Background In the 1990s, Congress put in place a statutory framework to address

long-standing weaknesses in federal government operations, improve

federal management practices, and provide greater accountability for

achieving results. This framework included as its essential elements

financial management reform legislation, information technology reform

legislation, and the Results Act.

1

P.L. 103-62.

2

The Results Act: Observations on the Department of Justice’s February 1997 Draft Strategic Plan

(GAO/GGD-97-153R, July 11, 1997).

3

Justice also revised its February 1997 plan on July 21, 1997.

Page 2 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

In enacting this framework, Congress sought to create a more focused,

results-oriented management and decisionmaking process within both

Congress and the executive branch. These laws4

 seek to improve federal

management by responding to a need for accurate, reliable information for

congressional and executive branch decisionmaking. This information has

been badly lacking in the past, as much of our work has demonstrated.

Implemented together, these laws provided a powerful framework for

developing fully integrated information about agencies’ missions and

strategic priorities, data to show whether or not the goals are achieved, the

relationship of information technology investment to the achievement of

those goals, and accurate and audited financial information about the

costs of achieving mission results.

The Results Act focuses on clarifying missions, setting goals, and

measuring performance toward achieving those goals. It emphasizes

managing for results and pinpointing opportunities for improved

performance and increased accountability. Congress intended for the Act

to improve the effectiveness of federal programs by fundamentally shifting

the focus of management and decisionmaking away from a preoccupation

with tasks and services to a broader focus on results of federal programs.

Requirements Under the

Results Act

Under the Results Act, executive agencies are to develop strategic plans in

which they define their missions, establish results-oriented goals, and

identify strategies they will use to achieve those goals for the period 1997

through 2002. The Act specifies that all agencies’ strategic plans should

have six critical components: (1) a comprehensive agency mission

statement; (2) agencywide long-term goals and objectives for all major

functions and operations; (3) approaches (or strategies) to achieve the

goals and objectives and the various resources needed; (4) a description of

the relationship between the long-term goals/objectives and the annual

performance plans required by the Act; (5) an identification of key factors,

external to the agency and beyond its control, that could significantly

affect achievement of the strategic goals; and (6) a description of how

4

The primary financial management reform legislation Congress enacted is the Chief Financial Officers

Act of 1990, as expanded by the Government Management Reform Act of 1994. These laws provide the

basis for identifying and correcting financial management weaknesses that have cost the federal

government billions of dollars and leave it vulnerable to waste, fraud, and mismanagement. They also

set expectations for agencies to deploy modern systems to replace existing, antiquated, often manual

processes; develop better performance and cost measures; and design results-oriented reports on the

government’s financial condition and operating performance by integrating budget, accounting, and

program information. Information technology reform legislation, including the Paperwork Reduction

Act of 1995 and the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996, was based on the best practices used by leading public

and private organizations to more effectively manage information technology.

Page 3 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

program evaluations were used to establish and revise strategic goals and

a schedule for future program evaluations.

Justice’s Plan

Contains All but One

Critical Element

Justice’s strategic plan is organized around what Justice has identified as

its seven core functions: (1) investigation and prosecution of criminal

offenses; (2) assistance to state and local governments; (3) legal

representation, enforcement of federal laws, and defense of federal

government interests; (4) immigration; (5) detention and incarceration;

(6) protection of the federal judiciary and improvement of the justice

system; and (7) management.

Justice’s February draft of its strategic plan was incomplete and did not

provide Congress with critical information for its consultations with

Justice. Justice’s August version added two of the three required elements

that were missing in the February plan. As a result, the August plan

includes, to some degree, a discussion on five of the six required

elements—a mission statement, goals and objectives, key external factors,

a program evaluation component, and strategies to achieve the goals and

objectives. The August plan does not include a required discussion of a

sixth element—the relationship between Justice’s long-term

goals/objectives and its annual performance plans.

Mission Statement Justice’s plan contains a mission statement that is results oriented and

generally defines the Department’s basic purpose with emphasis on its

core programs and activities. Justice’s mission statement is as follows:

“Our mission at the United States Department of Justice is to enforce the law and defend

the interests of the U.S. according to the law, provide Federal leadership in preventing and

controlling crime, seek just punishment for those guilty of unlawful behavior, administer

and enforce the Nation’s immigration laws fairly and effectively and ensure fair and

impartial administration of justice for all Americans.”

Justice’s mission statement covers six of the seven core functions that

Justice identified but does not specify the detention and incarceration

function, which is one of Justice’s largest budget items. The plan does

incorporate the detention and incarceration function in the discussion of

goals and objectives and in its strategies to achieve those goals and

objectives. Justice officials said that it was their intent to cover the

detention and incarceration function by the phrases “seek just punishment

. . .” and “ensure fair and impartial administration of justice . . .”

Page 4 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

While we agree that mission statements may vary in the extent to which

they specify particular activities, we believe that it would be helpful to

explicitly include the detention and incarceration function in this case.

Our belief is based on Justice’s decision to specify all of the other major

functions in its mission statement and our concern that the Department’s

stakeholders may not interpret the phrases cited by Justice officials as

indicating that the detention and incarceration component is part of its

mission.

Goals and Objectives Justice’s goals and objectives cover its major functions and operations and

are logically related to its mission. However, they are not as results

oriented as they could be and some focus on activities and processes. For

example, one set of results-oriented goals involves reducing violent,

organized, and gang-related crime; drug-related crime; espionage and

terrorism; and white collar crime. However, goals in other areas are more

process oriented, such as “Represent the United States in all civil matters

for which the Department of Justice has jurisdiction,” “Promote the

participation of victims and witnesses throughout each stage of criminal

and juvenile justice proceedings at the Federal, State, and local levels,”

and “Make effective use of information technology.”

Another concern we have with some of the goals is that they are not

always expressed in as measurable a form as intended by OMB guidance.

For example, two of Justice’s goals in the legal representation,

enforcement of federal laws, and defense of U.S. interests core function

are to protect the civil rights of all Americans and safeguard America’s

environment and natural resources. It is not clear from the August plan

how Justice will measure its progress in achieving these goals.

Strategies to Achieve Goals

and Objectives

The Results Act and OMB Circular A-11 indicate that agency strategic

plans should describe the processes the agencies will use to achieve their

goals and objectives. Our review of Justice’s strategic plan, specifically the

strategies and performance indicators, identified areas where the plan did

not fully meet the Act’s requirements and OMB Circular A-11 guidance.

Some of the strategies did not clearly explain how and to what extent

Justice programs and activities will contribute to achieving the goals and

how Justice plans to assess progress in meeting those goals. For example,

because Justice has limited ability to control criminal activities, it is not

clear how Justice will be able to determine the degree to which its

Page 5 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

programs and activities have contributed to changes in violent crime,

availability and abuse of illegal drugs, espionage and terrorism, and white

collar crime. Similarly, in its immigration core function, Justice has a goal

to maximize deterrence to unlawful migration by reducing the incentives

of unauthorized employment and assistance. It is likewise unclear how

Justice will be able to determine the effect of its efforts to deter unlawful

migration, as differentiated from the effect of changes in the economic and

political conditions in countries from which illegal aliens originated. The

plan does not address either issue.

Some of Justice’s performance indicators are more output than outcome

related. For example, one cited strategy for achieving the goal of ensuring

border integrity is to prevent illegal entry by increasing the strength of the

Border Patrol. One of the performance indicators Justice is proposing as a

measure of how well the strategy is working is the percentage of time that

Border Patrol agents devote to actual border control operations. While this

measure may indicate whether agents are spending more time controlling

the border, it is not clear how it will help Justice assess its progress in

deterring unlawful migration.

The Act requires that agencies’ plans discuss the types of resources (e.g.,

human skills, capital, and information technology) that will be needed to

achieve the strategic and performance goals and OMB guidance suggests

that agencies’ plans discuss any significant changes to be made in resource

levels. Justice’s plan does not include either discussion. This information

could be beneficial to Justice and Congress in agreeing on the goals,

evaluating Justice’s progress in achieving the goals, and making resource

decisions during the budget process.

Key External Factors In its August plan, Justice added a required discussion on key external

factors that could affect its plan outcomes. Justice discusses eight key

external factors that could significantly affect achievement of its long-term

goals. These factors include emergencies and other unpredictable events

(e.g., the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building), changing statutory

responsibilities, changing technology, and developments overseas.

According to Justice, isolating the particular effects of law enforcement

activity from these eight factors that affect outcomes and over which

Justice has little control is extremely difficult. This component of the plan

would be more helpful to decisionmakers if it included a discussion of

alternatives that could reduce the potential impact of these external

factors.

Page 6 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

Program Evaluation In its August plan, Justice added a required discussion on the role program

evaluation is to play in its strategic planning efforts. Justice recognizes

that it has done little in the way of formal evaluations of Justice programs

and states that it plans to examine its evaluation approach to better align

evaluations with strategic planning efforts. The August plan identifies

ongoing evaluations being performed by Justice’s components. OMB

guidance suggests that this component of the plan include a general

discussion of how evaluations were used to establish and revise strategic

goals, and identify future planned evaluations and their general scope and

time frames. Justice’s August plan does neither.

The Relationship Between

Long-Term Goals and

Objectives and the Annual

Performance Plans Is Not

Described in the Plan

Under the Results Act, Justice’s long-term strategic goals are to be linked

to its annual performance plans and the day-to-day activities of its

managers and staff. This linkage is to provide a basis for judging whether

an agency is making progress toward achieving its long-term goals.

However, Justice’s August plan does not provide such linkages.

In its August plan, Justice pointed out that its fiscal year 1999 annual

performance planning and budget formulation activities are to be closely

linked and that both are to be driven by the goals of the strategic plan. It

also said that the linkages would become more apparent as the fiscal year

1999 annual performance plan and budget request are issued.

Plan Could Better

Address Crosscutting

Program Activities

Many law enforcement organizations—international and domestic (e.g.,

other federal, state, and local)—perform either similar or the same

activities as Justice. The draft plan includes a goal to coordinate and

integrate law enforcement activities wherever possible and to cooperate

fully with other federal agencies. However, the plan could better serve the

purposes of the Results Act by discussing how Justice plans to coordinate

with external organizations’ activities and how it plans to measure and

asses inputs, outputs, and outcomes. For example, the plan does not

discuss

• how Justice plans to work with the Departments of Defense and State, the

intelligence agencies, and foreign governments in fighting international

terrorism;

• how Justice’s drug enforcement activities will relate to the Office of

National Drug Control Policy, which has government-wide planning

responsibilities for drug control activities;

Page 7 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

• how Justice and the Department of the Treasury, which have similar

responsibilities concerning the seizure and forfeiture of assets used in

connection with illegal activities (e.g., money laundering) will coordinate

and integrate their operations;

• how INS will work with the Bureau of Prisons and state prison officials to

identify criminal aliens; and

• how INS and the Customs Service, which both inspect arriving passengers

at ports of entry to determine whether they are carrying contraband and

are authorized to enter the country, will coordinate their resources.5

Along these lines, certain program areas within Justice have similar or

complementary functions that are not addressed or could be better

discussed in the strategic plan. For example, both the Bureau of Prisons

and INS detain individuals, but the plan does not address the

interrelationship of their similar functions or prescribe comparable

measures for inputs and outcomes. As a second example, the plan does

not fully recognize the linkage among Justice’s investigative, prosecutorial,

and incarceration responsibilities.

The August Plan Does

Not Address Some

Major Management

Challenges

One purpose of the Results Act is to improve the management of federal

agencies. Therefore, it is particularly important that agencies develop

strategies that address management challenges that threaten their ability

to achieve both long-term strategic goals and this purpose of the Act.

Over the years, we as well as others, including the Justice Inspector

General and the National Performance Review (NPR), have addressed

many management challenges that Justice faces in carrying out its

mission. In addition, recent audits under the Chief Financial Officers Act

of 1990 (CFO Act), expanded by the Government Management Reform

Act,6

 have revealed internal control and accounting problems. Justice’s

draft strategic plan is silent on these issues.

Justice’s February plan contained a section on “Management,” which is

one of its seven core functions. In addition, Justice’s August draft plan

5

We discussed this issue in our report—Customs Service and INS: Dual Management Structure for

Border Inspections Should Be Ended (GAO/GGD-93-111, June 30, 1993).

6

This legislation requires agencies to have their agencywide financial statements audited annually

beginning with the fiscal year 1996 financial statements. The first year financial audits of Justice and

its components focused primarily on evaluating their control structures and environments and did not

include auditing of their statements of operation, which include the entities’ operating costs. The fiscal

year 1996 audit reports are expected to be issued before the September 30, 1997, submission date for

strategic plans.

Page 8 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

contains a new section on “Issues and Challenges in Achieving Our Goals,”

which was not in its February plan. This new section discusses Justice’s

process for managing its information technology investments, steps taken

to provide security over its information systems, and its strategy to ensure

that computer systems accommodate dates beyond the year 2000.

However, neither this new section nor the “Management” core function

addresses some of the specific management problems that have been

identified over the years and the status of Justice’s efforts to address them.

In its August draft plan, Justice also added a discussion on

“accountability,” which points out that Justice has an internal control

process that systematically identifies management weaknesses and

vulnerabilities and specifies corrective actions. This section also

recognizes the role of Justice’s Inspector General. However, the plan

would be more helpful if it included a discussion of corrective actions

Justice has planned for internally and externally identified management

weaknesses, as well as how it plans to monitor the implementation of such

actions. In addition, the plan does not address how Justice will correct

significant problems identified during the Inspector General’s fiscal year

1996 financial statement audits, such as inadequate safeguarding and

accounting for physical assets and weaknesses in the internal controls

over data processing operations.

Discussion of

Capacity to Provide

Reliable Performance

Information Could Be

Improved

To efficiently and effectively operate, manage, and oversee its diverse

array of law enforcement-related responsibilities, Justice needs reliable

data on its results and those of other law enforcement-related

organizations. Further, Justice will need to rely on a variety of external

data sources (e.g., state and local law enforcement agencies) to assess the

impact of its plan. These data are needed so that Justice can effectively

measure its progress and monitor, record, account for, summarize, and

analyze crime-related data. Justice’s August strategic plan contains little

discussion about its capacity to provide performance information for

assessing its progress toward its goals and objectives over the next 5

years.

However, in its strategic plan, under the immigration core function, Justice

states that one of its priorities is to improve the reliability and integrity of

its data systems to enforce immigration laws. Justice’s August plan added

a goal and corresponding strategies and performance indicators to address

this priority. Similarly, Justice added a new goal—achieving excellence in

management practices—that includes a strategy for (1) obtaining useful

Page 9 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Statement 

Results Act: Comments on Justice’s August

Draft Strategic Plan

and reliable budget, accounting, and performance data to support

decisionmaking, and (2) integrating the planning, reporting and

decisionmaking processes. These strategies could assist Justice in

producing results-oriented reports on its financial condition and operating

performance.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my prepared statement. I would be pleased

to answer any questions.

(182046) Page 10 GAO/T-GGD-97-184
Ordering Information

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free.

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

necessary. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are accepted, also.

Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW)

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (202) 512-6061, or TDD (202) 512-2537.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and

testimony. To receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any

list from the past 30 days, please call (202) 512-6000 using a

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

For information on how to access GAO reports on the INTERNET,

send an e-mail message with "info" in the body to:

info@www.gao.gov

or visit GAO’s World Wide Web Home Page at:

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100