COAST GUARD

Actions Needed to 

Improve Data Quality 

and Transparency for 

Reporting on Mission 

Performance and 

Capital Planning

Statement of Nathan Anderson, Acting Director 

Homeland Security and Justice

Testimony 

Before the Subcommittee on Coast 

Guard and Maritime Transportation, 

Committee on Transportation and 

Infrastructure, House of Representatives

For Release on Delivery 

Expected at 2:00 p.m. ET

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

GAO-18-408T

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-18-408T, a testimony 

before the Subcommittee on Coast Guard and 

Maritime Transportation, Committee on 

Transportation and Infrastructure, House of 

Representatives

March 2018

COAST GUARD

Actions Needed to Improve Data Quality and 

Transparency for Reporting on Mission Performance 

and Capital Planning

What GAO Found

GAO’s prior work recommended multiple actions to improve the Coast Guard’s 

program management by improving the quality of data it uses to manage and 

report on its mission performance. Specifically, GAO recommended actions such 

as collecting more complete data and clarifying the data limitations to facilitate 

more effective program management. For example, in December 2017, GAO 

found that more information is needed to calculate vessel safety statistics that 

could enhance the Coast Guard’s knowledge about accident, injury, and fatality 

trends involving commercial fishing vessels. Having more complete information 

could be useful to carrying out its marine safety mission, and GAO 

recommended, among other things, that the Coast Guard ensure that data 

collected during commercial fishing vessel incident investigations is accurately 

captured. In 2018, the Coast Guard reported taking initial steps to capture more 

accurate data.

Coast Guard Ships

GAO’s prior work also identified areas where the Coast Guard could improve the 

transparency of the data it uses for reporting on its mission performance as well 

its capital planning purposes. For example, in an October 2017 report on 

performance goals, GAO found the Coast Guard’s Annual Performance Report 

(APR) has not been released publicly since 2011. Consequently, there has not 

been full visibility over performance across all of the Coast Guard’s missions. 

Coast Guard officials stated that a decision by Department of Homeland Security 

(DHS) leadership to limit the number of performance goals shared publicly had 

deterred the Coast Guard from public release of its APR. GAO recommended 

that APRs be available on the Coast Guard’s website; the Coast Guard plans to 

publicly release future APRs. In addition, previous GAO reports found that the 

Coast Guard’s annual 5-year capital investment plan, which projects acquisition 

funding needs for the upcoming 5 years, did not consistently reflect current total 

cost estimates or the effects of tradeoffs made as part of the annual budget 

cycle. GAO made recommendations to help the Coast Guard plan for future 

acquisitions and the difficult trade off decisions it will face given funding 

constraints. The Coast Guard agreed, but it is unclear when it will complete the 

20-year plan.

View GAO-18-408T. For more information, 

contact Nathan Anderson at (202) 512-3841 or 

andersonn@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

The Coast Guard, a component of 

DHS, serves as the principal federal 

agency responsible for maritime safety, 

security, and environmental 

stewardship in U.S. ports and 

waterways. To ensure that the Coast 

Guard is effectively fulfilling its 

missions, agency managers must have 

accurate information and base 

decisions on sound analyses for 

effective program management.

This statement discusses Coast Guard 

actions needed to (1) improve the 

quality of data used for program 

management and (2) improve the 

transparency of its data for reporting 

on mission performance and planning.

This statement is based on relevant

products GAO issued from June 2014 

through December 2017 on Coast 

Guard strategic planning and 

management issues, as well as related 

recommendation follow-up conducted 

through February 2018. GAO reviewed 

applicable laws, regulations, policies 

and guidance. GAO also interviewed 

Coast Guard officials responsible for 

administering these programs and 

obtained information on how they used 

data to inform decisionmaking. GAO 

interviewed a range of stakeholders, 

including federal and industry officials.

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making new 

recommendations in this statement but 

has made them to the Coast Guard 

and DHS in the past on improving its 

program management through, among 

other things, better quality and more 

transparent data. DHS and the Coast 

Guard agreed with these 

recommendations and reported actions 

or plans to address them.
Letter

Page 1 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and Members of the 

Subcommittee:

I am pleased to be here today to discuss U.S. Coast Guard (Coast 

Guard) actions that could improve its program management by improving 

the quality and transparency of the data it uses to manage its mission

performance and capital planning. The Coast Guard, within the 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS), serves as the principal federal 

agency responsible for maritime safety, security, and environmental 

stewardship in U.S. ports and waterways. The Coast Guard’s 11 primary 

statutory missions identified in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 

amended, encompass the agency’s important roles and responsibilities.1

For example, as part of its marine safety mission, the Coast Guard 

performs mandatory safety inspections, conducts accident investigations, 

and promotes accident prevention involving vessels at sea, including for 

commercial fishing vessels.

To ensure that the Coast Guard is effectively fulfilling its missions, agency 

managers must have accurate and reliable mission performance 

information to monitor and track the progress the agency is making 

toward achieving its goals.2 We have previously reported that evaluation 

can play a key role in strategic planning and program management, and 

that findings supported by sound analyses strengthen decision making.3

Our findings are consistent with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 

 1

The Coast Guard’s 11 missions outlined in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as 

amended, as well as other mission responsibilities, are identified in table 1 of this 

statement. See 6 U.S.C. § 468(a).

2

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), as updated and 

expanded by the GPRA Modernization Act of 2010 (GPRAMA), requires agencies to 

establish annual performance goals with target levels of performance to measure progress 

towards those goals. See Pub. L. No. 111-352, 124 Stat. 3866 (2011) (amending Pub. L. 

No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (1993)). Although GPRA and GPRAMA requirements apply to 

those goals reported by departments (e.g., DHS), they can also serve as performance 

management leading practices at other organizational levels, such as for component 

agencies (e.g., Coast Guard). In addition, GPRA requires executive agencies to prepare 

an annual performance report (APR) on program performance for the previous fiscal year, 

including a discussion of why any performance goals were not met and plans to meet 

those goals in the future. 

3

GAO, Designing Evaluations 2012 Revision, GAO-12-208G (Washington, D.C.: January 

2012). This report addresses the logic of program evaluation design, presents generally 

accepted statistical principles, and describes different types of evaluations for answering 

varied questions about program performance, the process of designing evaluation studies, 

and key issues to consider toward ensuring overall study quality.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

guidance on assessing an agency’s performance, which emphasizes the 

need for frequent, data-driven reviews, including data analyses, and 

identifying steps necessary to increase agency performance.4 However, 

we have previously raised questions about whether annual performance 

goals5 and reported performance information accurately reflect the extent 

to which the Coast Guard is accomplishing its mission goals. We have 

also raised concerns about the Coast Guard’s management of its capital 

asset acquisitions given the impact these assets can have on the Coast 

Guard’s ability to conduct some of its missions.

• In 2014, we reported that better information on performance and 

funding was needed to address Coast Guard acquisition shortfalls.6

• In 2016, we reported that the Coast Guard did not provide field units 

with realistic strategic goals to allocate their limited resources, and 

testified on Coast Guard actions to improve its asset allocation 

process.

7

• In 2017, we issued five reports and testimonies that collectively 

underscore the importance of collecting good data and addressing its 

 4

GAO, Managing for Results: Agencies Report Positive Effects of Data-Driven Reviews on 

Performance but Some Should Strengthen Practices, GAO-15-579 (Washington D.C.: July 

7, 2015); OMB Circular No. A-11, Preparation, Submission, and Execution of the Budget, 

pt. 6, Section 270.3 (July 2017). 

5

Throughout this statement we use the term performance goal, which the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and Government Performance Results Act (GPRA) of 

1993 define as comprising a measure, a target, and a time frame. This is the term that 

most federal agencies use to assess and report performance. See Pub. L. No. 103-62, 

107 Stat. 285 (codified as amended at 31 U.S.C. §§ 1115-11125). However, DHS and the 

Coast Guard use the term performance measure instead of performance goal to 

distinguish its performance measures from high level mission goals. Since DHS and the 

Coast Guard use the term performance measure as also comprising a measure, target 

and a time frame, they have all the elements of what we consider to be a performance 

goal, and therefore we evaluated them as such.

6

GAO, Coast Guard Acquisitions: Better Information on Performance and Funding 

Needed to Address Shortfalls, GAO-14-450 (Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2014).

7

GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Needed to Improve Strategic Allocation of Assets and 

Determine Workforce Requirements, GAO-16-379 (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2016).

GAO, Coast Guard: Actions Underway to Develop Acquisition Plans that Reflect New 

Assets and Improve the Asset Allocation Process, GAO-16-633T (Washington, D.C.: June 

14, 2016).
Page 3 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

limitations and being transparent about it for the benefit of 

congressional decisionmakers and the public.8

My testimony today describes some of the findings and recommendations 

from these reports. Specifically, I will discuss Coast Guard actions 

needed to (1) improve the quality of data used for program management 

and (2) improve the transparency of data used for reporting on its mission 

performance and capital planning.

This statement is based on eight products we issued from June 2014 

through December 2017 on Coast Guard strategic planning and 

performance management, and recommendation follow-up activities 

conducted through February 2018. To perform the work for our previous 

reports, among other things, we reviewed applicable laws, regulations, 

policies and guidance for selected performance goals. We interviewed 

Coast Guard officials responsible for administering these programs and 

obtained information on their processes for ensuring data reliability, 

including performing electronic testing for obvious errors in accuracy and 

completeness. We determined that data were sufficiently reliable for 

reporting some information, but in other instances, data reliability 

limitations precluded us from reporting information, which we describe 

later in this statement. We also conducted site visits and interviewed a 

range of other stakeholders, including federal officials and industry 

representatives. Further details on the scope and methodology for the 

previously issued reports are available within each of the published 

products. In addition, after the issuance of our reports and through 

February 2018 we contacted the Coast Guard to obtain updated 

information and documentation, as appropriate, on the status of 

recommendations we made.

We conducted the work on which this statement is based in accordance 

with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards 

 8

GAO, Coast Guard Cutters: Depot Maintenance Is Affecting Operational Availability and 

Cost Estimates Should Reflect Actual Expenditures, GAO-17-218 (Washington, D.C.: 

March 2, 2017). GAO, Coast Guard Recapitalization: Matching Needs and Resources 

Continue to Strain Acquisition Efforts, GAO-17-654T (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2017). 

GAO, Coast Guard Acquisitions: Limited Strategic Planning Efforts Pose Risk for Future 

Acquisitions, GAO-17-747T (Washington, D.C.: July 25, 2017). GAO, Coast Guard: 

Actions Needed to Enhance Performance Information Transparency and Monitoring, 

GAO-18-13 (Washington, D.C.: October 27, 2017). GAO, Commercial Fishing Vessels: 

More Information Needed to Improve Classification Implementation, GAO-18-16 

(Washington, D.C.: Dec 14, 2017).
Page 4 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate 

evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe the evidence obtained provides 

a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 

objectives.

With a staff of over 47,000 members, the Coast Guard operates a 

multimission fleet of 201 fixed and rotary-wing aircraft and over 1,400 

boats and ships.9 Operational control of surface and air assets is divided 

into two geographic Areas (Pacific and Atlantic), within which are nine 

Districts consisting of 37 sectors and the stations within them. The Coast 

Guard’s program oversight, policy development, and personnel 

administration are carried out at the Coast Guard’s headquarters. As 

shown in table 1, the Coast Guard is responsible for 11 statutory missions 

identified in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended.10 The 

Coast Guard manages these missions through six mission programs, also 

listed in table 1. As part of its marine safety mission, for example, the 

Coast Guard conducts, among other activities, safety inspections and 

vessel accident investigations, including those involving commercial 

fishing vessels, which are part of an industry with one of the highest death 

rates of any industry in the United States.

 9

In addition to the 47,000 members of the Coast Guard military component (active and 

reserve), Coast Guard officials reported that about 8,500 civilians support the Coast 

Guard in both field and staff positions, and these staff are further supplemented by 

approximately 26,500 volunteer members of the Coast Guard Auxiliary.

106 U.S.C. § 468(a).

Background
Page 5 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

Table 1: Information on the Coast Guard’s Mission Programs and 11 Statutory Missionsa

Mission program Statutory mission Description

Maritime security operations Ports, waterways, and coastal 

security (response activities)

Ensure the security of the waters subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States and the waterways, ports, and intermodal landside 

connections that comprise the marine transportation system, and 

protect those who live or work on the water or who use the maritime 

environment for recreation.

Maritime law enforcement Migrant interdiction Stem the flow of undocumented alien migration and human 

smuggling activities via maritime routes.

Drug interdiction Stem the flow of illegal drugs into the United States.

Living marine resources Enforce laws governing the conservation, management, and recovery 

of living marine resources, marine protected species, and national 

marine sanctuaries and monuments.

Other law enforcement Enforce international treaties, including the prevention of illegal 

fishing in international waters and the dumping of plastics and other 

marine debris.

Maritime prevention Ports, waterways, and coastal 

security (prevention activities)

Ensure the security of the waters subject to the jurisdiction of the 

United States and the waterways, ports, and intermodal landside 

connections that comprise the marine transportation system, and 

protect those who live or work on the water or who use the maritime 

environment for recreation.

Marine safety Enforce laws that prevent death, injury, and property loss in the 

marine environment.

Marine environmental 

protection (prevention activities)

Enforce laws that deter the introduction of invasive species into the 

maritime environment, stop unauthorized ocean dumping, and 

prevent oil and chemical spills.

Maritime response Search and rescue Search for, and provide aid to, people who are in distress or imminent 

danger in the maritime environment.

Marine environmental 

protection (response activities)

Respond to oil and chemical spills.

Defense operations Defense readiness Maintain the training and capability necessary to immediately 

integrate with Department of Defense forces in both peacetime 

operations and during times of war.

Marine transportation 

system management

Aids to navigation Mitigate the risk to safe navigation by providing and maintaining more 

than 51,000 buoys, beacons, lights, and other aids to mark channels 

and denote hazards.

Ice operations Establish and maintain tracks for critical waterways, assist and escort 

vessels beset or stranded in ice, and remove navigational hazards 

created by ice in navigable waterways.

Source: Coast Guard. | GAO-18-408T

a

See 6 U.S.C. § 468(a). The Coast Guard divides responsibilities for 2 of the 11 missions into 

separate Coast Guard programs. Specifically, the Ports Waterways and Coastal Security mission 

encompasses the Maritime Security Operations response activities and Maritime Prevention 

activities. Similarly, the Marine Environmental Protection mission encompasses the Maritime 

Response program activities and Maritime Prevention activities. The Coast Guard has other mission 

responsibilities not explicitly delineated in the Homeland Security Act of 2002, as amended. These 

include products and services for the Intelligence Community; activities and efforts to support U.S. 
Page 6 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

diplomacy and international relations, Bridge Administration, Great Lakes Pilotage, and other 

Waterways Management functions supplementary to providing Aids to Navigation.

For each of its 11 missions, the Coast Guard has developed goals and 

targets to assess and communicate agency performance. The Coast 

Guard’s performance assessment process also includes identifying 

performance gaps and implementing corrective actions to address unmet 

performance goals. As part of its process, the Coast Guard is to establish 

targets for the current and subsequent 2 fiscal years, according to Coast 

Guard officials. Each target is set by the Coast Guard, but according to 

the Coast Guard’s Annual Performance Report (APR), some are derived 

from external factors. For example, DHS requires that Coast Guard set a 

100 percent target for the percent of people in imminent danger saved in 

the maritime environment. Further, several of the Coast Guard’s assets 

used to conduct these missions are approaching the end of their intended 

service lives. As part of its efforts to modernize its assets used to carry 

out various missions, the Coast Guard has begun acquiring new vessels, 

such as the National Security Cutter, the Fast Response Cutter as well as 

other assets. However, concerns surrounding the affordability of this effort 

remain as the Coast Guard continues to pursue multiple new acquisitions 

without long-term planning to guide the affordability of its acquisition 

portfolio. Figure 1 shows the Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter and 

National Security Cutter.

Figure 1: The Coast Guard’s Fast Response Cutter and National Security Cutter
Page 7 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

We previously reported on actions the Coast Guard could take to ensure 

that, among other things, it addresses limitations posed by incomplete 

data, the use of unrealistic asset performance data, and limitations with 

its performance goal data, for more effective program management.11

Examples of data limitations that we have recommended that the Coast 

Guard take action on are below.

Improve completeness of mission data. In December 2017, we found 

that several different federal agencies play a role in overseeing and 

promoting commercial fishing vessel safety, including the Coast Guard.12

As part of its marine safety activities, the Coast Guard conducts, among 

other activities, safety inspections and vessel accident investigations. 

Commercial fishing has one of the highest death rates of any industry in 

the United States and vessel disasters are the leading cause of fatalities 

among fishers, according to the National Institute for Occupational Safety 

and Health. However, our December 2017 review found that more 

information is needed to calculate vessel safety statistics that could 

enhance the Coast Guard’s knowledge about accident, injury, and fatality 

trends involving commercial fishing vessels.

The Coast Guard collects some data on commercial fishing vessels that 

operate in federal waters—including a vessel’s length and construction 

date—but data on the population of the active U.S. commercial fishing 

vessel fleet are not complete. Between 2006 and 2015, the Coast Guard 

investigated 2,101 commercial fishing vessel accidents that were 

identified as occurring in federal waters.13 While the number of accidents 

generally increased over this time period, the number of injuries and 

fatalities declined over the same 10-year period. However, we could not 

 11GAO-18-16; GAO-18-13; GAO-16-379.

12GAO-18-16.

13In this statement, a commercial fishing vessel accident refers to instances where the 

Coast Guard responded after the vessel’s crew reported a marine casualty involving 

damage to the vessel or other property, injury or loss of life, or harm to the environment. 

Accidents that did not occur in federal waters include, for example, those that occurred in 

state waters or misclassified observations. The United States’ federal waters—also called 

the Exclusive Economic Zone—begin at the seaward boundary of each of the coastal 

states (generally 3 nautical miles from shore) and extends to 200 nautical miles from 

shore. In the instances of Texas, Puerto Rico, and the Gulf side of Florida, federal waters 

begin at 9 nautical miles from shore. The area within 3 nautical miles is generally referred 

to as state waters.

Coast Guard Actions 

that Could Improve 

Data Quality
Page 8 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

assess the number of accidents, injuries, and fatalities by fishery—

meaning the area in which a certain type of fish (e.g., shrimp, salmon, 

crab) is caught—because the Coast Guard’s data is not complete.14

Further, we were unable to calculate the rates of commercial fishing 

vessel accidents, injuries, and fatalities, because reliable data on certain 

information needed to do so—including the total number of vessels that 

are actively fishing and the fishery or region in which the vessel 

operates—are either not maintained or are not collected by the Coast 

Guard or other federal agencies. Having this information could be useful 

to carrying out the Coast Guard’s marine safety mission, which includes 

enforcing laws to prevent death, injury and property loss in the marine 

environment.

We recommended in our December 2017 report that the Coast Guard 

ensure that data it collects during commercial fishing vessel incident 

investigations is accurately captured. We also recommended that the 

Coast Guard work with stakeholders to form a working group to determine 

an efficient means to establish a reliable estimate of the population of 

active commercial fishing vessels. The Coast Guard agreed with both 

recommendations, and in February 2018 informed us that it is in the 

process of developing additional data fields to capture more information, 

such as the fishery in which the commercial fishing is involved, and is 

engaging stakeholders to establish an appropriate working group. We will 

continue to monitor these actions.

Use more realistic asset performance data. In our May 2016 report on 

Coast Guard strategic planning, we found that the Coast Guard did not 

provide field units with realistic goals for allocating assets, by mission.15

We reported that the Coast Guard’s strategic allocations of assets were 

based on unrealistic assumptions about the performance capacity of its 

assets and did not reflect asset condition and unscheduled maintenance. 

This was due, in part, to the Coast Guard not including information from 

its field units on the actual performance of its assets. For example, 

agency officials noted that one of its classes of cutters was 50 years old 

and these cutters were hampered by mechanical failures requiring 

emergency dry dock repairs, which resulted in reduced availability to 

carry out their missions during the year. In another example, a field unit 

 14A fishery is the combination of one or more fish stocks, and fishing for such fish stocks.

15GAO-16-379.
Page 9 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

stated that based on historical use, it planned for 575 hours per vessel for 

one type of cutter instead of the 825 hours performance capacity. 

Because actual asset use has consistently fallen below asset 

performance capacities, there is not a direct alignment between the Coast 

Guard’s strategic operational goals and its prospects for achieving those 

goals. As a result, the headquarters’ strategic intent, which is based on 

asset capacity rather than actual performance, did not provide the field 

with strategic, realistic goals for allocating assets by mission. Agencies 

should use quality information that is appropriate, current, complete, 

accurate, accessible, and timely to achieve objectives and address 

related risks.16 We recommended that the Coast Guard incorporate field 

unit input, such as information on assets’ actual performance, to inform 

more realistic asset allocation decisions. The Coast Guard concurred with 

this recommendation, and in February 2018 informed us that it plans to 

address this recommendation through changes to two process 

documents that are under revision, with an expected completion date in 

March 2018.

Improve performance goal data. In our October 2017 review of Coast 

Guard performance goals, we reported that the Coast Guard and DHS 

identified limitations with two of the seven selected performance goals we 

reviewed, including the five year average number of recreational boating 

deaths and injuries.

17 In particular, officials believe that many recreational 

boating injuries that do not require hospitalization are not reported to the 

Coast Guard. These officials believe that the amount of underreporting 

may vary over time due to changes in industry trends, making it difficult to 

accurately determine actual injury rates and program performance.18 We 

determined that the data for this performance goal was not sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of our reporting objectives due to these likely 

limitations. We found that the Coast Guard did not report the possible 

extent of these limitations with this performance goal in its fiscal year 

2016 APR.

 16GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO-14-704G 

(Washington, D.C.: Sept. 10, 2014).

17GAO-18-13.

18For example, officials cited the increased use of stand-up paddleboards as an example 

of changing industry trends. 
Page 10 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

For the other performance goal, the Coast Guard and DHS identified 

limitations with the number of detected incursions of foreign fishing 

vessels violating U.S. waters, which is publicly reported in DHS’s APR. 

DHS’s review of this performance goal, reported in August 2015, raised 

questions about the validity of this goal—that is, whether it provides a 

useful measure of the Coast Guard’s performance. Specifically, the 

review noted that this performance goal is intended to measure a 

deterrence effect, but doing so is inherently difficult and may lead to 

contradictory interpretations of performance. In October 2017, we found 

that the data for this performance goal was sufficiently reliable for our 

reporting objective purposes, but questions remain about its validity. 

Reliable data is not a useful indication of performance unless it is also a 

valid representation of the goal being addressed.19 DHS officials reported 

that they did not include a discussion of the limitations for this 

performance goal in DHS’s fiscal year 2015 APR because the 

performance goal met the minimum threshold for data reliability despite 

the goal’s limitations. Coast Guard officials reported they were aware of 

these limitations and were working with DHS and OMB to improve the 

performance goal and implement corrective actions within 1 to 2 years. 

We recommended that the Coast Guard assess the extent to which 

documentation on performance data reliability contains appropriate 

information on known data reliability limitations and update these 

documents, as needed, based on the results of the assessment. The 

Coast Guard concurred and in February 2018, informed us that it had 

taken initial actions to address our recommendation. However, our 

preliminary review of these actions indicates that further action will be 

needed to fully address our recommendation, such as documenting and 

reporting the limitations of performance data.

 19GAO, Assessing the Reliability of Computer-Processed Data, GAO-09-680G

(Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2009).
Page 11 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

Our previous reports have identified areas in which the Coast Guard 

could improve the transparency of its data used for reporting on its 

mission performance and planning.

Improve transparency of data on mission performance. In our 

October 2017 report on performance goals, we found that the Coast 

Guard’s APR has not been released publicly since 2011 due to a previous 

DHS leadership decision.20 Consequently, there has not been full visibility 

over performance across all of the Coast Guard’s missions.21 For 

example, one of the Coast Guard’s missions—defense readiness—has 

no goals that are publicly reported or shared with Congress, even though 

measures related to defense readiness are included in the Coast Guard’s 

APR.

Coast Guard officials stated that they could see the benefit of publicly 

releasing their APR; however, DHS’s decision to limit the number of 

performance goals shared publicly has so far deterred the Coast Guard 

from pursuing the public release of its APR. DHS officials told us that the 

department is concerned about conflicting information that a component’s 

APR might present because it is vetted and produced separately from the 

DHS APR. However, the lack of transparency regarding performance 

data shared publicly and with Congress can result in an incomplete 

picture of mission performance and can limit effective oversight of Coast 

Guard operations. As a result, the public and Congress may be unable to 

determine the extent to which the Coast Guard is meeting its missions. 

We recommended that future Coast Guard APRs be available on the 

Coast Guard’s public website. The Coast Guard concurred with this 

recommendation and in February 2018, the Coast Guard informed us that 

 20GAO-18-13.

21To measure mission performance, the Coast Guard uses three types of performance 

goals and measures established by DHS for performance reporting by the Coast Guard 

and other DHS components: Strategic goals are used to reflect achievement of missions 

that are publicly reported in the DHS APR. As part of DHS’s APR, these goals are subject 

to GPRA and GPRAMA requirements. Management goals are used to gauge program 

results and tie to resource requests that are reported to Congress and publicly available 

through the DHS Congressional Budget Justification, along with the strategic goals. 

Operational measures are additional DHS component measures not reported by DHS, but 

used internally by components to inform management of operations and activities. The 

Coast Guard has at least 150 additional internal performance measures used to inform 

management of operations and activities based on our analysis of the Coast Guard’s 

Strategic Performance Directive and Operational Performance Assessment Report.

Coast Guard Actions 

that Could Improve 

Transparency of Data 

for Reporting on Its 

Mission Performance 

and Capital Planning
Page 12 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

it had completed its 2017 APR and are determining an appropriate 

approach for making it publicly available.

Improve capital planning transparency. In our previously issued work 

on the Coast Guard’s annual 5-year capital investment plan (CIP),22 we 

found that the CIP does not consistently reflect current total cost 

estimates or the effects of tradeoffs that are made as part of the annual 

budget cycle.23 We made several recommendations in recent years 

intended to help the Coast Guard plan for future acquisitions and the 

difficult tradeoff decisions it will likely face. The Coast Guard generally 

concurred with these recommendations and is in various stages of 

implementation. For example, in 2017 we reported that we have made 

recommendations that DHS and the Coast Guard take several actions to 

gain an understanding of what the Coast Guard needs to meet its mission 

within its likely acquisition funding levels.24 These recommended actions 

included the Coast Guard: (1) conducting a comprehensive portfolio 

review across all its acquisitions to develop revised baselines that meet 

mission needs and reflect realistic funding scenarios and (2) developing a 

20-year plan that identifies all necessary recapitalization efforts and any 

fiscal resources likely necessary to complete these efforts. For example, 

in 2014 we recommended the Coast Guard develop a 20-year fleet 

modernization plan that identifies all acquisitions needed to maintain the 

current level of service and the fiscal resources needed to acquire them. 

Without these efforts, the Coast Guard will continue, as it has in recent 

years, to plan its future acquisitions through the annual budgeting 

process, an approach that has led to delayed and reduced capabilities.

In 2016, the Coast Guard revised its 2005 Mission Needs Statement, 

which provides a basic foundation for long-term investment planning that 

is to serve as the basis for evaluating the effectiveness of various fleet 

mixes, and inform the Coast Guard’s CIP. However, the 2016 Mission 

Needs Statement did not identify specific assets the Coast Guard needs 

to achieve its missions, nor did it update the annual hours it needs from 

22Since 2012, the Coast Guard has been legislatively required to submit a CIP annually to 

certain Congressional committees, alongside its budget proposal, that includes, among 

other things, projected funding for capital assets in such areas as acquisition, 

construction, and improvements needed for the upcoming 5 fiscal years. 14 U.S.C. § 

2902.

23GAO-14-450. 

24GAO-14-450; GAO-17-654T. 
Page 13 GAO-18-408T Coast Guard

each asset class to satisfactorily complete its missions.25 The Coast 

Guard has stated it is developing a 20-year Long-term Major Acquisition 

Plan, but it has not stated when the plan will be completed or what will be 

included in this plan, such as potential trade-offs that could be made 

across the Coast Guard’s portfolio of acquisitions to better meet mission 

needs within realistic funding levels. A long-term plan with a tradeoff 

analysis would facilitate a full understanding of the affordability challenges 

facing the Coast Guard while it builds the Offshore Patrol Cutter. DHS 

concurred with our 2014 recommendation, but it is unclear when the 

Coast Guard plans to complete the 20-year plan.

Chairman Hunter, Ranking Member Garamendi, and members of the subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you may have at this time.

If you or your staff members have any questions about this testimony, 

please contact Nathan Anderson at (202) 512-3841 or 

andersonn@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 

statement. Other individuals making key contributions to this work, and 

the underlying reports on which it is based, include Dawn Hoff (Assistant 

Director); Andrew Curry (Analyst-in-Charge); Chuck Bausell; David Bieler; 

Richard Cederholm; John Crawford; Timothy J. DiNapoli; Michele Fejfar; 

Laurier R. Fish; Peter Haderlein; Eric Hauswirth; Laura Jezewski; Tracey 

King; Benjamin Licht; Marie A. Mak; Gary Malavenda; Diana Moldafsky; 

Heidi Nielson; Meg Ullengren; and Kayli Westling.

 25GAO-16-633T.

GAO Contacts and 

Staff 

Acknowledgments

(102618)
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

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

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537.

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube.

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts.

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov.

Contact:

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.