GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-277421 

July 11, 1997

The Honorable Richard K. Armey

Majority Leader

House of Representatives

The Honorable John Kasich

Chairman

Committee on the Budget

House of Representatives

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman

Committee on Government Reform

 and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Bob Livingston

Chairman

Committee on Appropriations

House of Representatives

Subject: The Results Act: Observations on OPM’s May 1997 Draft Strategic

Plan

On June 12, 1997, you asked us to review the draft strategic plans

submitted by cabinet departments and selected major agencies for

consultation with Congress as required by the Government Performance

and Results Act of 1993 (the Results Act). This letter is our response to

that request concerning the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

Our overall objective was to review and evaluate OPM’s draft strategic plan.

As you requested, we specifically (1) determined if the draft strategic plan

contained each of the six components required by the Results Act and

assessed

Page 1 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

the components’ strengths and weaknesses,1 (2) determined whether OPM’s

key statutory authorities were reflected, (3) identified whether discussions

about crosscutting functions and interagency coordination were included,

(4) determined if the draft plan addressed major management challenges,

and (5) described OPM’s capacity to provide reliable information about

operations and performance.

We reviewed the OPM draft strategic plan dated May 14, 1997, which was

the most recent draft available. The House staff team that is assigned to

consult with OPM on the strategic plan used this draft to begin the

consultation process with OPM envisioned by the Results Act. On the basis

of that consultation, OPM officials said that they would be revising the draft

plan we had available for this review.

Our overall assessment of OPM’s draft strategic plan was generally based

on our knowledge of OPM’s operations and programs, our numerous

reviews of OPM and federal workforce issues, a recently issued report on

OPM’s fiscal year 1996 financial audit by an independent public accountant,

and other existing information available at the time of our assessment.

Specifically, the criteria we used to determine whether OPM’s draft

strategic plan complied with the requirements of the Results Act were the

Results Act, supplemented by Office of Management and Budget (OMB)

guidance on developing the plans (Circular A-11, Part 2). To make

judgments about the strengths and weaknesses of the plan and its

components, we used our May 1997 guidance for congressional review of

the plans (GAO/GGD-10.1.16) as a tool. To determine whether the plan

contained information on interagency coordination and addressed

management problems, we relied on our general knowledge of OPM’s

operations and programs and on our previous reports (see Related GAO

Products). As you requested, we coordinated our work on OPM’s key

statutory authorities and OPM’s capacity to provide reliable information

with the Congressional Research Service and the OPM Inspector General’s

Office (OIG), respectively.

We did not interview OPM officials but did attend the initial consultation

session between House consulting team members and officials from OPM.

1

The Results Act specifies that agencies’ strategic plans should have these critical components: (1) a

comprehensive agency mission statement; (2) general goals and objectives for the major functions and

operations of the agency; (3) a description of how the goals and objectives are to be achieved; (4) a

description of how the performance goals included in the performance plan shall be related to the

general goals and objectives in the strategic plan; (5) an identification of key external factors to the

agency and beyond its control that could affect the achievement of general goals and objectives; and

(6) a description of the program evaluations used in establishing or revising general goals and

objectives, with a schedule for future program evaluations.

Page 2 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

We did our work in Washington, D.C., in June and July 1997. On July 7,

1997, we provided a draft of this letter to the Director of OPM for review

and comment. OPM’s comments are discussed at the end of this letter.

Background OPM is a central management agency of the federal government charged

with responsibilities for administering and enforcing federal civil service

laws, regulations, and rules and for aiding the President in carrying out his

responsibilities for managing the federal workforce. OPM has policy

responsibilities related to hiring, managing, compensating, and separating

federal employees. In connection with these responsibilities, OPM develops

and promulgates regulations affecting agencies covered under the

competitive civil service system. Moreover, OPM endeavors to ensure

compliance with civil service policies through a program of overseeing the

personnel activities of covered federal agencies.

In addition to these responsibilities, OPM also promulgates regulations

related to federal employee benefits, including retirement, health, and life

insurance benefits. OPM directly administers all or major portions of these

benefit programs, which serve millions of current and former federal

employees.

Top OPM officials said they envision OPM as providing human resource

management (HRM) leadership for the federal government. Through that

leadership, OPM officials say they intend to ensure that the merit principles

that are the basis for the federal civil service system are followed

throughout the government and that human resources management is

effective.

OPM has downsized its own workforce by about 48 percent since fiscal year

1993, among the largest reductions that has occurred in any federal

agency, and has made changes to its organizational structure. OPM’s

full-time equivalent ceiling, which was 6,208 employees in fiscal year 1993,

is projected to be down to 3,253 by fiscal year 1998. During the

downsizing, OPM determined that the work of its training and investigations

units could be performed as well in the private sector and, as a result,

privatized both of those functions.2

OPM officials said that they believe they are able to accomplish their

mission with reduced resources because they followed a plan for the

2

OPM retained its residential training centers in Charlottesville, Virginia; Lancaster, Pennsylvania; and

Denver, Colorado. OPM officials said that these centers were retained because OPM believes that

consistency in executive development is important to leadership in the federal government.

Page 3 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

downsizing. They said the redesign process they followed, which involved

their stakeholders, changed the way OPM does its business by focusing OPM

on improving service to its customers and on oversight. Further, they said

their experience in developing a strategy for downsizing will be useful as

they refine their draft strategic plan.

OPM is currently revising the May 14, 1997, draft strategic plan that it

developed under the Results Act. It is important to recognize that, under

the Act, the final plan is not due until September 1997. Furthermore, the

Results Act anticipated that it may take several planning cycles to perfect

the process and that the final plan would be continually refined as various

planning cycles occur. Thus, our comments reflect a snapshot status of the

plan at a given point in time. We recognize that developing a strategic plan

is a dynamic process and that OPM and OMB, in consultation with

congressional staff, are continuing to work to revise the draft plan.

Results in Brief Of the six components required by the Act, two—how the goals and

objectives will be achieved and relating performance goals to general

goals/objectives—were not specifically identified in the draft plan. The

remaining four components—mission statement, goals and objectives,

external factors, and program evaluations—were discussed in the draft

plan. However, each of these components had weaknesses, some of more

significance than others.

The four identified components generally contained some, but not all, of

the attributes that would be desirable to meet the purposes of the Act and

to be consistent with OMB guidance, or that might be expected in a

stand-alone explanation of OPM’s planned strategy for the next 5 years. For

example:

• The mission statement in the draft plan makes broad reference to OPM

providing “high quality services” but does not otherwise explicitly

recognize certain key responsibilities, such as administering the federal

employees’ retirement and health benefit systems.

• The goals and objectives suggest some results to be achieved (e.g., that

federal agencies will recruit and retain the workforce needed for the

future) but provide little direct basis for judging how OPM would know that

those results are being achieved or what OPM’s contribution may be to

achieving those results.

• While a number of external factors are identified, the plan does not

include factors, such as changes in the labor market, that may have an

Page 4 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

impact on future federal hiring and does not meet the Act’s requirement to

link each factor to a particular goal or to identify how it might affect OPM’s

success in meeting its goals.

• The program evaluation component of the plan is limited to a discussion

about customer satisfaction with OPM services. This part of the plan does

not indicate how evaluations were used in developing strategic goals or

provide a schedule for future evaluations as the Act requires and as OMB

guidance instructed.

OPM’s draft plan could better meet the purposes of the Act and OMB

guidance if it contained a well-developed discussion of statutory

authorities, crosscutting issues, and management problems. OPM’s draft

plan does not discuss OPM’s key statutory authorities, which could help

OPM’s stakeholders better understand the diversity and complexity of OPM’s

overall mission as well as the challenges the agency faces in carrying out

its mission. The plan does identify a number of crosscutting issues. Since

OPM had not met with stakeholders before developing its plan—as officials

stated in their initial consultation with House consulting team

members—the draft plan is silent on this Results Act required

coordination. In addition, the draft plan does not discuss the status of

OPM’s efforts to address the formidable federal personnel management

problems that have been identified over the years. Such a discussion in the

plan could assist OPM in the process of refining its goals and objectives as

well as inform stakeholders of problems that could impede OPM’s efforts to

achieve its goals and objectives.

Similarly, OPM’s draft plan contains little discussion of the information

systems that directly support OPM’s role as the administrator and fiduciary

for federal employees’ benefit programs. These systems are the source of

performance information for gauging how well OPM carries out its

stewardship of the benefit programs. A discussion of these systems would

be valuable to stakeholders since an independent accountant found that

key financial systems did not adequately support OPM’s financial

statements for the Retirement Program and the Health Benefits Program.

Other information systems, such as the Central Personnel Data File (CPDF),

are also key to assessing OPM’s performance but are not mentioned in the

plan.

Page 5 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Draft Plan Does Not

Fully Achieve the

Purposes of the Act’s

Requirements, and the

Quality of Individual

Components Could Be

Improved

Two of the components required by the Results Act—how the goals and

objectives will be achieved and relating performance goals to general

goals/objectives—were not specifically identified in the draft plan. The

other four Results Act required components had corresponding

components in OPM’s draft plan. Table 1 shows the Results Act’s required

components and the corresponding components in OPM’s plan.

Table 1: Strategic Plan Components

Required by the Results Act and

Corresponding Components in OPM’s

Draft Strategic Plan

Components required by the Results Act

Components in OPM’s May 1997 draft

plan

1.Comprehensive mission statement

covering the major functions and

operations of the agency

1. OPM’s mission

2.General goals and objectives for the

major functions and operations of the

agency

4.OPM’s strategic goals and objectives

3.Description of how the goals and

objectives are to be achieved

(None)

4.Description of how the performance

goals included in the performance plan

shall be related to the general goals and

objectives in the strategic plan

(None)

5.Identification of key external factors to

the agency and beyond its control that

could affect achievement of general goals

and objectives

5.External factors that could affect

achievement of OPM’s goals and

objectives

6.Description of the program evaluations

used to establish or revise general goals

with a schedule for future program

evaluations

6.Program evaluation agenda

(Section not required by the Act) 2.OPM’s vision

(Section not required by the Act) 3.OPM’s values

Note: Numbers indicate the order in which the components are discussed in the Results Act and

OPM’s draft plan, respectively.

Source: The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 and OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan

dated May 1997.

Page 6 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Mission Statement Does

Not Fully Reflect OPM’s

Role

In order to establish a context in which meaningful and specific agency

goals can be determined, it is crucial that the mission statement cover the

agency’s basic purpose (with particular focus on its core programs and

activities) as well as its major functions and operations. The other required

components of OPM’s strategic plan should flow from and support the

agency’s mission statement.

OPM’s mission statement is “OPM serves the public by providing human

resource management leadership and high-quality services based on merit

principles, in partnership with federal agencies and employees.” The broad

wording lacks the specificity needed to communicate why OPM exists and

what it does. For example, the statement could be more useful if it more

clearly delineated OPM’s major responsibilities, such as administering the

federal employees’ retirement and health benefit systems.

Further, the statement that OPM serves the public by providing human

resources management leadership and high-quality services based on merit

principles could be clarified to better reflect the results OPM expects to

achieve. As a central personnel management agency, OPM provides services

to other federal agencies. The mission statement is vague on the results

that OPM’s services are to achieve in the federal government and how those

results might ultimately serve the public.

OPM’s mission statement also does not appear to reflect a close

examination of OPM’s role in light of both its legislative mandate under the

Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 and other relevant laws and the many

changes that have occurred in the federal personnel system and in OPM’s

external environment since the agency’s creation. The duties and

prerogatives of the central personnel agency, particularly when nearly half

of the federal government’s employees are now in the excepted service

and therefore not under OPM’s direct purview, are fundamental issues for

OPM that are not acknowledged in its mission statement.3

OPM’s draft strategic plan includes a vision statement—a feature provided

in addition to the components required by the Act—which augments the

mission statement and provides some greater sense of the role that OPM

envisions for itself. For instance, the vision statement says that OPM

“provides effective, merit-based, and family-friendly personnel systems for

use government-wide and ensures that agencies are accountable for their

appropriate use.” The vision statement thus may provide a basis for

expanding upon the mission statement. Nevertheless, the vision statement,

3

The Excepted Service: A Research Profile (GAO/GGD-97-72, May 1997).

Page 7 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

like the mission statement, does not cover certain key OPM responsibilities,

such as administering federal employee benefit systems.

Long-Term Goals and

Objectives Could Better

Meet the Purposes of the

Act or OMB Guidance

OPM’s May 1997 draft plan contains the following five goals:

(1) Provide policy direction and leadership to recruit and retain the federal

workforce required for the 21st century.

(2) Protect and promote the merit-based civil service and the employee

earned benefit programs through an effective oversight and evaluation

program.

(3) Provide advice and assistance to help federal agencies improve their

human resources management programs to effectively operate within the

economy, demographics, and environment of the 21st century.

(4) Deliver high-quality, cost-effective human resources services to federal

agencies, employees, annuitants, and the public.

(5) Establish OPM as a leader in creating and maintaining a sound, diverse,

and cooperative work environment.

The Results Act requires that agency goals and objectives include

results-oriented goals and objectives, and OMB guidance provides that

general goals and objectives should be stated in a manner that allows a

future assessment to be made of whether the goals were or are being

achieved. The goals in the draft plan do not provide a sense of the results

OPM expects to achieve or how they might be measured. For example, in its

first goal, OPM states that it expects to provide policy direction and

leadership to recruit and retain the federal workforce needed in the future,

and in its fourth goal, OPM states that it will deliver high-quality,

cost-effective human resources services. However, neither the goals

themselves nor the accompanying objectives explain how OPM will assess

whether the appropriate workforce has been recruited or whether its

human resources services are high-quality or cost-effective.

For each of the five goals, OPM listed a number of objectives. These

objectives also could be made more useful. Many of the objectives are

simply statements of what OPM already is doing or plans to do but not of

what it intends to accomplish. In the Results Act, Congress stated that the

general goals and objectives should include outcome-related goals and

Page 8 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

objectives. When an agency’s responsibility includes producing a specific

product or service, objectives can include improvements to those products

or services. In this regard, financial management goals for the federal

employee benefit programs, for example, could include quantifiable goals

for providing service to the federal employees participating in the plans.

Similarly, the objectives for the retirement program could include

timeliness and accuracy of the payments to annuitants. Moving to the

extent possible toward this type of specificity would enhance the value of

OPM’s goals and objectives.

In addition, some of the objectives do not appear to have a close or direct

relationship with the stated goal. For instance, for the goal of providing

policy direction and leadership to recruit and retain the federal workforce

required for the 21st century, the draft plan lists an objective to “provide

government-wide leadership via the Personnel Automation Council for the

development and application of HRM automation technology, with

immediate focus on the conversion of paper official personnel folders to

an electronic medium.” While such changes in how the government

handles personnel records may be desirable, the relationship between

these changes and providing leadership to recruit and retain the federal

workforce of the future is not clear.

In summary, OMB’s Circular A-11 states that, in defining general goals and

objectives, agencies should avoid platitudes or rhetoric that is inherently

unmeasurable. OPM’s plan will be more useful to both external

stakeholders, like Congress, and to OPM managers, if OPM can move toward

goals and objectives that lend themselves more readily to progress

assessments. To the extent this cannot be done, Circular A-11 states that

the performance goals and indicators in the annual performance plan

should be used to provide the basis for progress assessments.4

 If this is the

strategy that OPM plans to employ, some recognition of how the annual

performance plans will translate the strategic goals and objectives into

assessable components would be useful in the strategic plan.

Approaches or Strategies

to Achieve Goals and

Objectives Not Specifically

Identified

The plan does not specifically identify strategies that OPM intends to

pursue to achieve its goals. For each of its five stated goals, the plan lists a

set of objectives, some of which imply, but do not specifically identify, a

strategy related to achieving the goal. For instance, for the goal of

providing policy direction and leadership to recruit and retain the federal

4

In addition to a strategic plan, the Act requires that agencies prepare annual performance plans. The

first annual performance plans are to cover fiscal year 1999.

Page 9 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

workforce required for the 21st century, the first objective under the

category of overall human resources management is: “By the year 2001,

examine all significant governmentwide HRM policies and programs to

identify changes needed to promote a meritorious and cost-effective

federal service; publicize positive outcomes.” This objective implies a

process of identifying significant governmentwide HRM policies and

studying them in sufficient detail to formulate corrective measures, if

necessary. However, the purposes of the Act could be better achieved if

the objective described how significant HRM policies will be identified,

specified the actions OPM will take to study them, and identified how these

actions relate to promoting a meritorious and cost-effective federal

service.

At a minimum, as OPM further develops its draft plan, it would be useful to

describe the strategy or strategies that OPM plans to use to achieve its

goals. In accordance with the Act and OMB Circular A-11, the plan is to

describe how the agency’s goals and objectives are to be achieved,

including a description of the processes and the human, capital, and

information resources required to achieve the goals and objectives. In

addition, the strategy should include a schedule for initiating and

completing any significant actions for implementing the goals.

Relationship Between

Long-Term Goals and

Annual Performance Goals

Not Established

Unlike strategies, which are not specifically identified but are at least

implied for some goals, OPM’s draft plan neither identifies nor implies the

type, nature, or scope of the performance goals to be included in its annual

performance plan. The draft strategic plan does not include any discussion

about the relationship between its long-term goals and annual

performance goals.

OPM is developing the next iteration of the draft plan. The Act’s

requirement for a discussion of the relationship between the long-term

goals and annual performance goals raises certain issues for OPM to

consider. These issues include (1) how in its plan OPM will link the

strategic goals and annual performance goals; (2) how OPM will link its

annual performance goals to the program activity structure listed in the

budget; (3) whether OPM will suggest modifying its budget program activity

structure; (4) whether OPM’s long-term goals will be measurable and, if not,

what basis will be used to evaluate whether goals are met; and (5) what

performance measures OPM will establish to determine how well

information technology supports the strategic and program goals.

Page 10 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Plan Identifies External

Factors but Does Not

Discuss How OPM Will

Address Them

Operationally

The Results Act requires, and OMB’s Circular A-11 instructs, agencies to

include in their plans key external factors that could affect their ability to

achieve their goals. OPM’s draft strategic plan identified 19 such factors,

which it organized by the following categories: (1) governmentwide issues,

(2) relationships with other federal agencies, (3) federal agency structural

issues, (4) personnel system changes, and (5) the personnel community.

We did not assess the validity of the factors OPM identified.

Although OPM’s analysis suggests that its ability to carry out its goals is

influenced by a number of external factors, this section of the plan could

be improved by adding a more thorough description of how these 19

factors might affect OPM and how OPM is planning to ameliorate them, if at

all. In most instances, although instructed to do so by OMB Circular A-11,

OPM did not link each factor to a particular goal or discuss how each factor

might affect OPM’s success in meeting its goals. For example, the plan

noted that changes in the labor market may affect recruitment, delivery of

employment information, and staffing policies and processes. However,

the plan did not identify the likely changes in the labor market or which of

OPM’s five goals would be affected or how. In addition, the draft plan did

not indicate for this external factor, or most of the others, the actions that

OPM plans to take to reduce or ameliorate the potential impact of the factor

on OPM’s effort to achieve its goal.

Further, several important external factors were barely addressed.

Changes taking place in the labor market again provide an example. As we

noted in our earlier work, demographic changes in the labor market could

affect a variety of human resource policies and programs, such as child

and elder care, flexible work schedules, health benefits, and diversity.5

These possible effects are not discussed in the draft plan. Other external

factors that were either not addressed in OPM’s plan or whose importance

was not well developed include the changing nature of the workforce and

the applicability of current classification, compensation, and supervisory

frameworks given those changes, as well as how targeted reductions in the

federal personnelist workforce combined with the increased delegation of

personnel functions could affect the integrity of the merit system.

5

The Changing Workforce: Demographic Issues Facing the Federal Government (GAO/GGD-92-38,

Mar. 24, 1992).

Page 11 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Program Evaluations Were

Discussed, but the Act’s

Requirements Were Not

Fully Met

OPM’s draft strategic plan contains a section that discusses the program

evaluation efforts of various OPM organizational units. In general, however,

these discussions of evaluation efforts seem to broadly cover OPM’s

personnel management oversight responsibilities or specify how well

OPM’s units are providing services. The units rely mainly on customer

surveys to determine whether current services need to be improved.

To meet the purposes of the Act, this discussion of program evaluations

needs to be expanded. The Act calls for an explanation of how evaluations

were used in establishing or revising the general goals and objectives and

for a schedule for future program evaluations. The draft OPM plan does not

contain these required elements.

Moreover, as described in the draft plan, the evaluations rarely address

whether the current services need to be altered or new services need to be

developed to achieve OPM’s broader, long-term goals. For example, the

Retirement and Insurance Service surveys annuitants who have had a

retirement-related transaction to determine whether they were satisfied

with the speed and accuracy of the transaction. The program evaluation

plan does not indicate, however, whether the Retirement and Insurance

Service unit, or any other OPM unit, evaluates whether the current federal

retirement systems are adequate to enable the government to attract and

retain appropriately skilled employees at a reasonable overall

compensation cost.

Key Statutory

Authorities Are

Generally Reflected in

OPM’s Strategic Plan

but Not Discussed

A discussion of OPM’s statutory responsibilities could be an informative

addition to the plan. OMB Circular A-11 states, for example, that the

mission statement may include a concise discussion of enabling legislation

or authorizing legislation, as well as identification of issues that Congress

specifically charged the agency to address.

Unlike some federal agencies, a single enabling statute, the 1978 Civil

Service Reform Act, as amended, serves as the primary source of OPM’s

authority and is the primary basis for much of OPM’s mission. Among other

things, that act vests the function of “executing, administering, and

enforcing” the civil service rules and regulations of the President and OPM

and the laws governing the civil service in the OPM Director. The Director’s

functions also include “recommending policies relating to the selection,

promotion, transfer, performance, pay, conditions of service, tenure, and

separation of employees.”

Page 12 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Although the 1978 act specifies that agency heads bear responsibility for

ensuring compliance with civil service laws, regulations, and rules, it also

requires that the OPM Director establish and maintain an oversight program

to ensure that the execution of civil service activities is in accordance with

merit system principles and other standards established by the act.

Separately, OPM has authority to promulgate regulations and manage

employee benefits, including retirement, health, and life insurance

benefits. In addition to these responsibilities, OPM has a number of other

specific responsibilities under law and executive orders.

In our opinion, some recognition of these statutory responsibilities in the

plan would provide valuable perspective for stakeholders. While the goals

and objectives in the plan are so broadly worded as to generally reflect

most of these statutory responsibilities, the plan would be significantly

improved in our view if it explicitly discussed OPM’s underlying statutory

responsibilities. OPM’s other responsibilities derived from the statute and

executive orders could be presented in sufficient detail for stakeholders to

understand the full range of OPM’s responsibilities and at least generally

how OPM plans to fulfill those responsibilities over the 5-year period

covered by the strategic plan.

Plan Identifies Several

Crosscutting Program

Activities but Does

Not Discuss

Coordination

As a central management agency, OPM must work with or through other

federal agencies to ensure that federal personnel policies are appropriate

and are followed properly. Thus, OPM’s core responsibilities are, in some

sense, crosscutting across a large portion of the federal government. More

narrowly, OPM’s functions or activities relate fairly directly to the functions

or activities of certain other federal agencies.

OPM identified a number of crosscutting responsibilities in its draft

strategic plan. These include acting as the guardian of the merit system;

working with federal agencies to help them improve their HRM programs;

helping federal workers balance work and family issues; supporting

federal employees through labor-management partnerships; providing

leadership for developing and applying HRM information technology; being

an active member of the personnel security community; and integrating

employment information systems with those at the state, local, and

collegiate levels.

While developing its strategic plan, OPM is required by the Results Act not

only to consult with Congress but also to solicit and consider the views

and suggestions of customers and other stakeholders who could

Page 13 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

potentially be affected by or interested in the plan. The draft plan does

identify some organizations with which OPM must work to achieve results

on crosscutting issues, including the Interagency Advisory Group of

federal personnel directors, the Personnel Automation Council, the

National Partnership Council, the Security Policy Board and Security

Policy Forum, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Equal Employment

Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the Federal Labor Relations Authority

(FLRA), and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB). Further, OPM

officials noted that they regularly consult with other executive branch

agencies and work with OPM’s stakeholders to ensure that their views are

addressed as OPM develops its policies and programs.

However, the draft plan does not indicate that OPM, in developing the plan,

coordinated with the entities involved in these crosscutting issues. In the

June 27, 1997, consultation on OPM’s strategic plan with congressional

staff, OPM officials acknowledged that they had not yet involved

stakeholders but said that they would be doing so.

Further, the May 14 OPM draft plan does not assess the potential for

overlap and duplication or, conversely, cooperation and coordination with

agencies and others on other crosscutting issues. The draft plan also does

not discuss the extent of the interaction that will need to take place with

these entities if OPM’s goals and objectives are to be realized. The draft

plan does mention a number of entities with which OPM must work but

does not mention other organizations and groups that also have roles in

crosscutting issues. For example, the plan could discuss OPM’s relationship

with the Department of Labor on workers’ compensation, work/family,

and other labor issues, or with the Social Security Administration on

disability and retirement programs. Similarly, it could mention the Federal

Retirement Thrift Investment Board, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel,

and the U.S. Office of Government Ethics and how OPM plans to interact

with these agencies in meeting its goals.

Including a fuller discussion of OPM’s interrelationship with other agencies

in the plan would be consistent with the purposes of the Act. Such a

discussion likely would also provide more information for Congress and

other stakeholders to use in judging whether OPM’s crosscutting

responsibilities should in any sense be modified.

Page 14 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Strategic Plan Does

Not Address Some

Major Management

Challenges

Over the years, we have reported on major management problems OPM has

faced in attempting to carry out its mission. OPM has undertaken efforts to

reorganize, reform, and re-engineer its overall mission-related

management approaches and discusses these changes in several places in

the draft plan. Nonetheless, certain management challenges are not

addressed in OPM’s draft strategic plan, such as the status of its efforts to

improve its financial records.

Although this type of information is not explicitly required to be included

in OPM’s strategic plan, it could help OPM and its stakeholders in at least

two ways. First, it could help in the processes of developing and reviewing

the selection of goals, strategies, and objectives. Second, major

management problems could impede OPM’s efforts to achieve its goals and

objectives, and stakeholders could benefit from knowing what OPM has

done, is doing, or plans to do to address such problems.

We believe our past work, as well as that of OPM’s Inspector General and

MSPB’s Office of Policy and Evaluation, identified problem areas that are

significant enough to warrant some discussion in the plan. At a minimum,

in problem areas where OPM has taken successful corrective actions, some

discussion of how OPM addressed the problems and intends to prevent

them from resurfacing would be informative and useful. If they do

resurface, these problems could have a negative impact on OPM’s ability to

achieve goals and measure performance. For other problem areas where

OPM may have had less success, the plan could identify these and discuss

how OPM plans to resolve them. If these management problems persist,

OPM’s ability to successfully implement the Results Act may be hampered.

Some of the major management challenges OPM faces include (1) ensuring

that the federal government is adequately competitive in obtaining future

workers; (2) determining whether federal employee compensation (e.g.,

pay and benefits) is appropriate; and (3) ensuring that decisions for

information technology projects are based on assessments of mission

benefits, risks, and costs.

Attracting and Retaining

Well-Qualified Employees

We reported in 1992 that the federal government faced stiff competition

from other employers, who also wanted to hire and retain the “best and

brightest.” In this competition for talent, the dimensions (in addition to

pay) that we said affected the federal government’s competitive position

included recruiting and hiring processes, benefits’ structures, and

approaches to downsizing when workforces had to be reduced. However,

Page 15 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

we noted that many other employers had more progressive approaches in

these areas than the federal government. The ability of the federal

government to attract and retain well-qualified employees is recognized in

OPM’s draft plan, but a fuller analysis of what, if anything, needs to be done

to ensure future competitiveness in a rapidly changing labor market would

be useful. (See, for example, GAO/GGD-92-38, GAO/GGD-92-84, GAO/T-GGD-96-42, and

GAO/GGD-96-35.)

Determining Appropriate

Compensation

Nine years ago, it was generally recognized that inadequate salaries were a

primary cause of the government’s recruitment and retention problems. In

1990, the administration and Congress reached an agreement on a

comprehensive, long-term pay reform program that was designed to

ultimately make federal salaries competitive with the private sector. The

program was enacted into law.

However, the pay adjustments called for under the pay comparability

methodology established by the act often have not been authorized. Full

pay comparability adjustments have not been authorized, in part because,

according to OPM officials, the administration believes that the pay

comparability methodology is flawed. Although the act allows for denials

of the full comparability adjustment, at the time of the act’s passage, full

implementation of pay reform was considered to be a key building block

of a more effective government and important to the government’s ability

to attract and retain a highly qualified and motivated workforce. Thus, this

is a key issue for OPM to consider; however, the draft plan does not

specifically address this and other compensation matters, such as whether

federal retirement and health benefits are now and likely will continue to

be competitive with those offered by other employers. (See, for example,

GAO/GGD-90-117, GAO/GGD-91-63FS, and GAO/OCE-95-1.)

Addressing Information

Management and

Technology Issues

OPM’s plan indicates that information technology will play a significant role

in accomplishing its goals and objectives over the next 5 years. For

example, the plan states that OPM has improved customer service in

employee earned benefit programs through investment in technology.

However, the strategic plan does not address how OPM intends to meet

requirements of the Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 for implementing a

framework of modern technology management to improve performance

and meet strategic goals. This management framework would describe

OPM’s approach for ensuring that (1) senior executives are involved in

information management decisions, (2) a qualified senior-level Chief

Page 16 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Information Officer is appointed, (3) appropriate agencywide technology

standards are established, (4) discipline over information technology (IT)

spending is imposed through implementation of an IT investment strategy,

and (5) performance measures are used to assess technology’s

contribution in achieving mission results.

Further, the discussion of two additional critical areas would strengthen

OPM’s strategic plan. These areas—the year 2000 problem and information

security—are so important that we have identified them as high-risk areas

for the entire federal government. The year 2000 problem is rooted in the

way dates are recorded and computed in many computer systems. Many of

OPM’s critical systems are date dependent and exchange data with virtually

every federal government agency. And, as a result of problems associated

with the year 2000, OPM’s systems could malfunction or produce incorrect

information. For the past several decades, systems have typically used the

last two digits to represent the year, such as “97” to represent 1997, in

order to conserve on electronic data storage and reduce operating costs.

With this two-digit format, however, the year 2000 is indistinguishable

from 1900, 2001 from 1901, and so on. As a result of this ambiguity,

calculations, comparisons, or sorting may generate incorrect results when

applied to years after 1999. OPM’s plan does not address the need to ensure

that its systems are year-2000 compliant so that operations are not

disrupted and mission performance is not adversely affected. Also,

because of the sensitivity and criticality of its information systems, it is

important for the OPM plan to address how it intends to ensure that

systems are secure and adequately protected from unauthorized access.

Plan Provides Little

Discussion About

Agency Capacity to

Provide Reliable

Performance

Information

OPM uses or maintains information systems that often rely on the quality of

input from other federal agencies. These systems range from the CPDF,

which contains information about the status of more than 1.8 million

federal civilian employees, to information systems that directly support

OPM’s role as the administrator and fiduciary for federal employees’ major

benefit programs. The OPM draft plan has little, if any, discussion of these

systems and whether they are and will be adequate to provide reliable

performance information related to OPM’s goals. A discussion would be

valuable since the systems for supporting benefit programs need to be

improved and other systems may not be adequately reliable to support

future uses.

OPM is one of the 24 federal agencies covered under the Chief Financial

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

Page 17 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Reform Act (GMRA) of 1994. GMRA requires agencies to have their

agencywide financial statements annually audited, beginning with the

fiscal year 1996 statements. However, OPM’s responsibilities under, and

efforts to meet the requirements of, this act are not discussed in the draft

plan. The importance of OPM’s efforts to comply with the CFO Act is

perhaps most dramatically linked to its responsibility for administering

and managing the federal retirement, health, and life insurance programs.

This includes determining and paying benefits, maintaining accurate

benefit records, providing retirement support services, negotiating and

administering contracts with insurance carriers, and developing legislative

initiatives for all three programs.

OMB guidance on implementing the audit requirements of the CFO Act

requires agency auditors to determine whether the agency’s internal

control structure provides reasonable assurance that the data supporting

the reported performance measures exist and are complete, so as to

permit preparation of reliable and complete performance information. An

official from OPM’s OIG told us that the OIG had not done any audits or

issued any reports on performance measures. However, the OIG official

told us that an evaluation group within the OIG will look at performance

measures to determine, among other things, whether the measures are

appropriate.

For a number of years, OPM has reported in its Federal Managers’ Financial

Integrity Act reports on material weaknesses in its financial management

systems and financial management reporting. Moreover, the independent

public accountant auditing OPM’s fiscal year 1996 financial statements

under the CFO Act issued a qualified opinion on the retirement program

due to OPM’s inability to adequately verify the determination of benefit

payments to annuitants. In addition, the federal health benefits program

received a disclaimer of opinion as a result of the independent public

accountant’s inability to satisfy itself as to the accuracy of the transactions

and balances related to insurance premiums and activities of insurers.

In its fiscal year 1996 financial report, the independent public accountant

noted that OPM had not implemented adequate financial management

policies and procedures that establish internal controls and financial

management/accounting systems that provide useful and reliable financial

information for numerous areas. Also, it was reported that OPM did not

have ongoing oversight and monitoring procedures for responsibilities it

had delegated to federal agencies. The independent public accountant also

reported the following:

Page 18 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

• OPM’s departmental and individual financial management responsibilities

did not incorporate policies and procedures designed to monitor and

ensure the accuracy and completeness of the financial records of the plans

for retirement, health benefits, and life insurance.

• OPM had not clearly defined the Financial Management Division’s business

purposes and the responsibilities of its sections and employees, and OPM

had limited internal controls and accounting systems. In addition, the

financial information provided by and for management was not necessarily

reliable or useful in the decisionmaking process.

Concerning automated information management systems, the independent

public accountant found that OPM (1) did not have an Information

Resources Management plan that provided for a 1- to 5-year forecast of

activities, (2) had not finalized its documentation and implemented a

system security plan for general support systems and major applications,

and (3) did not have a System Development Life Cycle for major systems

implementation efforts.

The independent public accountant recommended that OPM focus on

re-engineering and streamlining its financial operations. The independent

accountant said that such fundamental thinking was needed because OPM’s

processes and systems have evolved over a long period of time and have

changed to address specific issues or weaknesses in individual processes

or systems, without necessarily assessing the overall effects on OPM’s

financial management operations. The independent public accountant

recommended that OPM recharge its Quality Improvement Teams to

improve its financial management systems, and establish time frames and

action plans for each significant area and then aggressively monitor the

plans and time frames.

OPM and public policy officials also rely on the CPDF to gain an

understanding of the current federal workforce and to track trends in

employment levels, grade and pay, and other matters related to federal

personnel policies. However, this system is not comprehensive. Only those

agencies covered by Title 5 are required to provide data to OPM. Those

agencies not covered by Title 5 provide data for the CPDF on a voluntary

basis.6

 Although OPM has various controls in place to ensure the accuracy

of data entered into the CPDF, to our knowledge a comprehensive study of

the reliability of CPDF data, or its suitability to support federal personnel

decisions in an era of significant change in such policies, has not been

6

OPM officials indicated that the CPDF currently covers approximately 93 percent of civilian federal

employees, excluding the Postal Service.

Page 19 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

done. We are currently studying issues related to the CPDF. Since OPM and

federal policymakers rely on the CPDF, a discussion of the reliability of the

system and what, if anything, OPM believes may be necessary to make the

system more useful in an evolving federal personnel arena, would be a

useful addition to the draft strategic plan.

Agency Comments On July 10, 1997, the Director of OPM provided written comments on our

draft letter. OPM said that it found our suggestions related to its May 14

draft strategic plan to be constructive and that most would be adopted as

OPM continues to revise its plan. Among other things, OPM said that its

(1) revised plan would contain all six of the Act’s required components in

clearly recognizable formats; (2) objectives would be revised to be more

results oriented, with time frames for completion where appropriate;

(3) revised plan would include linkages between external factors and

goals/objectives; (4) program evaluation discussion would include more

information on OPM’s evaluation agenda; (5) revised plan would discuss

OPM’s statutory authorities, crosscutting issues, and management

challenges; (6) revised plan would include more information on OPM’s

information technology systems and the objectives of its financial

management systems; and (7) discussion of strategies for achieving goals

and objectives would be more clearly identified. However, OPM also

disagreed with some of our suggestions and suggested that including

certain additional information in our draft would provide useful context.

On the OPM mission statement, for example, OPM disagreed that its mission

statement does not fully reflect its role. OPM said that its mission was the

product of a very thorough development process that began soon after the

current Director came to OPM. This process included steps that involved

OPM senior managers, the OPM workforce, and the agency directors of

personnel for other federal agencies. OPM said it believes the mission

statement has assisted the agency in maintaining its focus during its

downsizing effort and remains on target for guiding the agency over the

period to be covered by the draft OPM strategic plan. On the other hand,

OPM said it does plan to revise portions of the draft plan to provide greater

specificity on why OPM exists and what it does. We agree that revising

portions of the plan to provide greater specificity on why OPM exists and

what it does would be valuable. Nevertheless, to the extent OPM can more

precisely reflect these factors in its mission statement, we believe the

mission statement itself would be more useful, especially to those external

to OPM, who want to understand OPM’s mission. We modified our text to

more clearly reflect this observation. In response to another OPM concern,

Page 20 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

we corrected references that said the mission statement was a draft; it has

been OPM’s mission statement since December 1993 according to OPM.

OPM also said that the goals it identified in the draft plan are at the core of

what it will do in the next 5 years and that OPM was confident that it had

identified the right goals. We have not analyzed whether OPM has identified

the right goals. However, we believe that, as OPM revises its plan, the goals

could be clarified to provide a better sense of what the results are that OPM

intends to achieve during the plan period and how those results might be

measured. As to its objectives for each goal, OPM said that it was revising

the objectives to be more results oriented and to outline time frames for

their completion, where appropriate. These changes will, in our opinion,

be beneficial, particularly if the revised objectives will lend themselves

more readily to progress assessments.

On one specific goal in the draft plan, related to providing services to

employees and annuitants, OPM said it believed our suggestion for a

timeliness and accuracy objective was more appropriate for the annual

performance plan than the strategic plan. We agree that OPM’s annual

performance plans could contain specific goals or objectives to make

quantifiable improvements in timeliness and accuracy of payments to

annuitants. However, it can also be appropriate to set long-term goals in a

strategic plan that are subsequently to be achieved in increments over the

period of the strategic plan. It is in this sense that we used a timeliness and

accuracy objective for OPM’s retirement program as an illustrative example

of improvements that could be made in the OPM draft strategic plan.

OPM also acknowledged that it was just starting its formal consultation

process with stakeholders on its strategic plan but noted that it consults

regularly with other executive branch agencies as it develops policies and

programs. We added some discussion of OPM’s routine consultations to our

text. OPM also believed that our discussion of crosscutting issues suggested

that OPM’s responsibilities significantly overlapped or duplicated those of

other agencies. OPM summarized its interpretation of our text as saying

that a fuller discussion of these responsibilities would assist others in

determining which OPM responsibilities should “in any sense be modified.”

OPM strongly disagreed with this premise and noted that at Congress’

request the administration had done a comprehensive study of the

adjudicatory functions of OPM and related agencies. That study, according

to OPM, found little overlap. We believe our text appropriately discussed

this issue. We did not draw any conclusion that the relationship between

OPM and other agencies with related responsibilities was problematic.

Page 21 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

Rather, we highlighted the utility of a discussion in the draft plan that

would more fully show those interrelationships and whether the

relationships were optimal for achieving OPM’s and the related agencies’

missions.

In relation to our observations on the discussion of program evaluations in

OPM’s draft plan, OPM did not understand why we said the plan’s discussion

of customer satisfaction was “not consistent with the intention of this

provision of the Act.” OPM said that its sense was that the Act supports

customer satisfaction as one key outcome measure. We clarified our text

to better reflect our point that the program evaluation section would be

more consistent with the Act’s overall intent if it included a schedule for

future evaluations and an explanation of how evaluations were used, if at

all, to establish goals and objectives.

Although OPM said that it would discuss management challenges in its

revised draft plan, it offered observations on our discussion of challenges

OPM faces. Specifically, on determining appropriate compensation for

federal employees, OPM agreed that this was a major management

challenge and said that the plan would include a specific objective on the

issue. However, OPM said that its plan did address compensation matters.

We revised our text as appropriate to better reflect OPM’s discussion of the

issue in the draft plan. Also, OPM said that the challenge of ensuring high

ethical standards was more appropriately a responsibility of the Office of

Government Ethics (OGE) rather than OPM’s. We believe ethical issues

clearly are tied to merit principles such as that of maintaining high

standards of integrity. However, we agree that OGE has lead responsibility

on ethics and eliminated this discussion from our letter.

Finally, OPM offered several technical and clarification comments, which

we addressed as appropriate in the letter.

As arranged with your offices, unless you publicly announce its contents

earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days from its

issuance. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to the Ranking

Minority Members of your Committees; to the Chairmen and Ranking

Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,

Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation, and Federal

Services; the House Committee on Governmental Reform and Oversight,

Subcommittee on the Civil Service; and to the Director, Office of

Personnel Management. We will send copies to others on request. Please

Page 22 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
B-277421 

contact me on (202) 512-9039 if you or your staff have any questions

concerning this letter. Major contributors to this letter are listed in

enclosure II.

Michael Brostek

Associate Director, Federal Management

 and Workforce Issues

Page 23 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 24 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 25 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 26 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 27 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure I 

Comments From the Office of Personnel

Management

Page 28 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Enclosure II 

Major Contributors to This Report

General Government

Division, Washington,

D.C.

Steven J. Wozny, Assistant Director, Federal Management and Workforce

Issues

Clifton G. Douglas, Jr., Evaluator-in-Charge

Michael J. O’Donnell, Advisor

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Ronald B. Bageant, Assistant Director

John P. Finedore, Assistant Director

Joan B. Hawkins, Assistant Director

Brian C. Spencer, Technical Assistant Director

Office of the General

Counsel, Washington,

D.C.

Alan N. Belkin, Acting Associate General Counsel

Robert J. Heitzman, Attorney

Page 29 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 30 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 31 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Page 32 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Related GAO Products

Personnel Practices: Improper Personnel Actions on Selected CPSC

Appointments (GAO/GGD-97-131, June 27, 1997).

Federal Civilian Personnel: Cost of Lump-Sum Annual Leave Payments to

Employees Separating From Government (GAO/GGD-97-100, May 29, 1997).

The Excepted Service: A Research Profile (GAO/GGD-97-72, May 1997).

Federal Retirement: Federal and Private Sector Retirement Program

Benefits Vary (GAO/GGD-97-40, Apr. 7, 1997).

Information Management and Technology (GAO/HR-97-9, Feb. 1, 1997).

Exposure Draft Entitled Year 2000 Computing Crisis: An Assessment

Guide (GAO/AIMD-10.1.14, Feb. 1997).

Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal Agencies’ IT

Investment Decision-making (GAO/AIMD-10.1.13, Feb. 1997).

Federal Downsizing: Better Workforce Strategic Planning Could Have

Made Buyouts More Effective (GAO/GGD-96-62, Aug. 26, 1996).

Privatization of OPM’s Investigations Service (GAO/GGD-96-97R, Aug. 22, 1996).

Cost Analysis: Privatizing OPM Investigations (GAO/GGD-96-121R, July 5, 1996).

Federal Downsizing: The Costs and Savings of Buyouts Versus

Reductions-in-Force (GAO/GGD-96-63, May 14, 1996).

Transforming the Civil Service: Building the Workforce of the Future,

Results of a GAO-Sponsored Symposium (GAO/GGD-96-35, Dec. 20, 1995).

Retention Allowances: Usage and Compliance Vary Among Federal

Agencies (GAO/GGD-96-32, Dec. 11, 1995).

Federal Employee Redress: An Opportunity for Reform (GAO/T-GGD-96-42,

Nov. 29, 1995).

Federal Pensions: Thrift Savings Plan Has Key Role in Retirement Benefits

(GAO/HEHS-96-1, Oct. 19, 1995).

Page 33 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Related GAO Products

Civil Service Reform: Changing Times Demand New Approaches

(GAO/T-GGD-96-31, Oct. 12, 1995).

Equal Employment Opportunity: Women and Minority Representation at

Interior, Agriculture, Navy, and State (GAO/GGD-95-211, Sept. 29, 1995).

Federal Personnel Management: Views on Selected NPR Human Resource

Recommendations (GAO/GGD-95-221BR, Sept. 18, 1995).

Federal Retirement: Benefits for Members of Congress, Congressional

Staff, and Other Employees (GAO/GGD-95-78, May 15, 1995).

Federal Affirmative Employment: Progress of Women and Minority

Criminal Investigators at Selected Agencies (GAO/GGD-95-85, Apr. 24, 1995).

Conflict-of-Interest Controls: Documented Recusal Obligations of Top

Political Appointees in DOE and EPA (GAO/GGD-95-81FS, Mar. 7, 1995).

Federal Personnel: Federal /Private Sector Pay Comparisons (GAO/OCE-95-1,

Dec. 14, 1994).

Personnel Practices: Presidential Transition Conversions and

Appointments: Changes Needed (GAO/GGD-94-66, May 31, 1994).

Executive Guide: Improving Mission Performance Through Strategic

Information Management and Technology (GAO/AIMD-94-115, May 1994).

Performance Management: Comments on Reauthorization of the

Performance Management and Recognition System (GAO/T-GGD-93-37,

June 24, 1993).

Inadequate Enforcement of Federal Ethics Requirements at VA Medical

Centers (GAO/HRD-93-39, Apr. 30, 1993).

Federal Personnel Management: OPM Reliance on Agency Oversight of

Personnel Systems Not Fully Justified (GAO/GGD-93-24, Dec. 8, 1992).

The Public Service (GAO/OCG-93-7TR, Dec. 1992).

Whistleblower Protection: Determining Whether Reprisal Occurred

Remains Difficult (GAO/GGD-93-3, Oct. 27, 1992).

Page 34 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Related GAO Products

Tax Administration: IRS’ Progress on Integrity and Ethics Issues

(GAO/T-GGD-92-62, July 22, 1992).

Federal Employment: How Federal Employees View the Government as a

Place to Work (GAO/GGD-92-91, June 18, 1992).

Senior Executive Service: Opinions About the Federal Work Environment

(GAO/GGD-92-63, May 1, 1992).

The Changing Workforce: Comparison of Federal and Nonfederal

Work/Family Programs and Approaches (GAO/GGD-92-84, Apr. 23, 1992).

The Changing Workforce: Demographic Issues Facing the Federal

Government (GAO/GGD-92-38, Mar. 24, 1992).

Federal Health Benefits Program: Stronger Controls Needed to Reduce

Administrative Costs (GAO/GGD-92-37, Feb. 12, 1992).

Employee Conduct Standards: Some Outside Activities Present

Conflict-of-Interest Issues (GAO/GGD-92-34, Feb. 10, 1992).

Government Contractors: Are Service Contractors Performing Inherently

Governmental Functions? (GAO/GGD-92-11, Nov. 18, 1991).

Federal Affirmative Employment: Status of Women and Minority

Representation in the Federal Workforce (GAO/T-GGD-92-2, Oct. 23, 1991).

Federal Labor Relations: A Program in Need of Reform (GAO/GGD-91-101,

July 30, 1991).

Fraud and Abuse: Stronger Controls Needed in Federal Employee Health

Benefits Program (GAO/GGD-91-95, July 16, 1991).

Federal Pay: Private Sector Salary Differences by Locality (GAO/GGD-91-63FS,

Apr. 29, 1991).

Performance Management: How Well Is the Government Dealing With

Poor Performers? (GAO/GGD-91-7, Oct. 2, 1990).

Recruitment and Retention: Inadequate Federal Pay Cited as Primary

Problem by Agency Officials (GAO/GGD-90-117, Sept. 11, 1990).

Page 35 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
Related GAO Products

Federal Recruiting and Hiring: Making Government Jobs Attractive to

Prospective Employees (GAO/GGD-90-105, Aug. 22, 1990).

Financial Disclosure: USDA’s Systems Limited by Insufficient Top

Management Support (GAO/GGD-90-100, July 13, 1990).

Office of Personnel Management: Better Performance Information Needed

(GAO/GGD-90-44, Feb. 7, 1990).

Managing Human Resources: Greater OPM Leadership Needed to Address

Critical Challenges (GAO/GGD-89-19, Jan. 19, 1989).

Ethics Enforcement: Results of Conflict of Interest Investigations

(GAO/GGD-88-34, Feb. 19, 1988).

(410161) Page 36 GAO/GGD-97-150R OPM’s Draft Strategic Plan
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
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