Report to Congressional Committees

United States Government Accountability Office

GAO

October 2004 U.S. COMMISSION ON 

CIVIL RIGHTS 

Management Could 

Benefit from 

Improved Strategic 

Planning and 

Increased Oversight 

GAO-05-77 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77.

To view the full product, including the scope 

and methodology, click on the link above. 

For more information, contact Bob Robertson 

at (202) 512-9889 or robertsonr@gao.gov. 

Highlights of GAO-05-77, a report to 

congressional committees 

October 2004

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Management Could Benefit from 

Improved Strategic Planning and 

Increased Oversight 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency that 

monitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United States—has 

not fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this act, agencies 

are required to submit strategic plans and annual performance plans that 

detail their long-term and annual goals as well as information on how they 

plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires agencies to submit annual 

performance reports that provide information on their progress in meeting 

the goals. However, the Commission has not updated or revised its strategic 

plan since 1997. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacks 

a firm basis on which to develop its annual goals and evaluate its 

performance. In addition, its most recent annual performance plan and 

annual performance report contain weaknesses that limit the agency’s ability 

to effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance. For 

example, the performance plan does not discuss the Commission’s strategies 

or resources for achieving its goals, does not provide budgetary information 

for its programs, and does not provide performance indicators for some 

annual goals. Similarly, the performance report does not account for the 

Commission’s performance for many of the annual goals set forth in its 

performance plan and does not provide plans, schedules, or 

recommendations for addressing each of the Commission’s unmet goals. 

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commission’s 

budgetary and human capital operations in recent years. OMB’s oversight 

has focused on the Commission’s budget requests and GPRA plans and 

reports. OPM conducted two reviews of the Commission’s human capital 

management systems in the 1990s and made recommendations for 

improvement, including improvements to its grievance and performance 

appraisal systems. Although the Commission has implemented some of 

OPM’s earlier recommendations, it has not implemented five of six broader, 

systemic recommendations made in 1999 for improvement to its human 

capital management systems. Unlike many other executive agencies, the 

Commission does not have an Inspector General to provide oversight of its 

operations beyond OMB and OPM. 

GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commission’s management 

operations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in response 

to the recommendations in GAO’s 1994 and 1997 reports. However, the 

Commission has not implemented three of the four recommendations in 

GAO’s October 2003 report for improving the agency’s management and 

procurement practices. 

The Chairmen of the Senate and 

House Committees on the Judiciary 

asked GAO to determine (1) the 

extent of the U.S. Commission on 

Civil Rights’ compliance with the 

requirements of the Government 

Performance and Results Act 

(GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federal 

oversight is provided to the 

Commission, and (3) the status of 

the implementation of 

recommendations from GAO’s past 

reviews of the Commission. 

What GAO Recommends

To enhance oversight of the 

Commission, the Congress should 

consider legislation directing the 

Commission to obtain the services 

of an existing Inspector General. 

 

To strengthen the Commission’s 

management practices, GAO 

recommends that the Commission 

(1) update its strategic plan and 

ensure that its performance plans 

and reports include all elements 

required under GPRA; (2) 

implement OPM’s and GAO’s 

recommendations; and (3) seek the 

services of an existing Inspector 

General to conduct necessary 

audits and investigations. 

In responding to our draft report, 

the Commission did not comment 

on our recommendations and 

disagreed with most of our findings 

and conclusions. We continue to 

believe that our findings, 

conclusions, and recommendations 

are sound and necessary for 

strengthening the Commission’s 

management practices. 
Page i GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2 

Background 4 

The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA 

Requirements 7 

OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has 

Made Limited Changes in Response to OPM’s Recommendations 13 

Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to

Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist 16 

Conclusion 18 

Matter for Congressional Consideration 19 

Recommendations for Executive Action 19 

Agency Comments 20 

Appendix I Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 22 

GAO’s Response to Comments 32 

Appendix II Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the 

Commission’s Response 43 

Appendix III GAO’s October 2003 Recommendations and the 

Commission’s Response 47 

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50 

GAO Contacts 50 

Staff Acknowledgments 50 

Contents 
Page ii GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 

HRM human resource management 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

OPM Office of Personnel Management 

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

United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further 

permission from GAO. 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. 
Page 1 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

October 8, 2004 

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

United States Senate 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. 

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

House of Representatives 

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established as an independent, 

bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency to monitor and report on the status 

of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception in 1957, the 

Commission has worked on critical civil rights issues, including racial 

segregation, impediments to voting rights, and the debate on federal 

affirmative action programs. In recent years, the Congress has requested 

that we assess the adequacy of the Commission’s management practices 

and procedures. In 1994, we reported problems identified in the 

Commission’s handling of travel activities and made recommendations for 

specific actions. 1 In a 1997 study of the Commission, we found numerous 

management and operational issues2

 and, in October 2003, we found that 

the Commission lacked good project management and that its contracting 

procedures were inadequate.3

Organizations with management weaknesses can learn from the practices 

of high-performing organizations, which strengthen their management 

practices and focus on achieving results by setting clear goals, aligning 

their management systems with these goals, and regularly evaluating their 

performance. For federal agencies, the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) incorporated these practices, requiring federal 

agencies to set goals and use performance measures for management and 

budgetary purposes. To comply with GPRA, federal agencies—including 

 1

See GAO, Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners’ Travel Activities, 

GAO/GGD-94-130 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 1994). 

2

See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls, 

GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997). 

3

See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial Oversight 

Needed, GAO-04-18 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003). 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 
Page 2 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

independent commissions—must periodically submit long-term strategic 

plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. The 

Chairmen of both the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary 

asked us to determine (1) the extent of the Commission’s compliance with 

the planning and reporting requirements of GPRA, (2) federal oversight 

that is provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of the Commission’s 

implementation of recommendations from GAO’s reviews in the past 

decade. 

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant 

statutes and regulations; the Commission’s most recent GPRA plans and 

reports; guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on 

the implementation of GPRA; and guidance and reports from the Office of 

Personnel Management (OPM) on human resources management (HRM) 

and the Commission’s HRM practices. We also reviewed GAO reports on 

the Commission’s management practices and our guidance on the 

implementation of GPRA. In determining the federal oversight provided to 

the Commission, we focused on executive branch oversight provided by 

OMB and OPM. We also reviewed the Commission’s June 2004 response to 

the recommendations we made in our October 2003 report on the 

Commission. Finally, we conducted interviews with the Commission’s 

Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human Resources 

Director, and Budget Chief, as well as with officials from OPM and OMB. 

We conducted our work from April to August 2004 in accordance with 

generally accepted government auditing standards. 

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997, 

and its most recent annual performance plan and report contain 

weaknesses that limit the Commission’s ability to effectively manage its 

operations and communicate its performance. Because it has not updated 

its strategic plan, the Commission has not reexamined its strategic goals 

since 1997 to affirm their ongoing significance to the agency’s overall 

mission. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm 

basis on which to develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance. 

Although the Commission’s most recent annual performance plan contains 

annual performance goals, these goals are often not distinguished from 

program activities. The plan also does not provide information on the 

resources and strategies required to meet the Commission’s annual goals, 

nor does it provide performance measures for evaluating the achievement 

of these goals. Although OMB guidance now directs agencies to include 

budget information in its annual performance plans, the Commission’s 

plan for fiscal year 2005 does not align the cost of its programs with 

Results in Brief 
Page 3 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

specific annual goals. In addition, the Commission’s most recent 

performance report does not, in many cases, clearly indicate whether the 

goals were achieved and does not include 3 years of performance data for 

all of its annual goals as required. In addition, the report does not provide 

the Commission’s plans or timeframes for accomplishing its unmet goals. 

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human 

capital oversight of the Commission, and, overall, the agency has made a 

limited number of changes in response to OPM’s report recommendations 

to the Commission. OMB reviewed the Commission’s budget request and 

GPRA plans and reports in preparing the President’s annual budget, but 

has not focused on Commission management issues. According to OMB 

officials, OMB does not provide the same level of oversight for 

organizations with small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, as 

that provided for larger organizations, such as the Securities and 

Exchange Commission. In the 1990s, OPM conducted two evaluations of 

the Commission’s human capital management systems. In 1996, OPM 

found that the Commission was “badly in need of managerial attention,” 

citing, for example, a lack of credible grievance and performance appraisal 

systems. In its 1999 evaluation, OPM noted that several problems 

identified in the previous evaluation had not been addressed and made 

further recommendations to improve the Commission’s human capital 

management practices. To date, the Commission has not adopted five of 

six broader, systemic human capital recommendations from OPM’s 1999 

review. For example, the Staff Director continues to retain final authority 

for approving all performance appraisal ratings and promotions instead of 

delegating that authority to managers, as recommended. The Commission 

also does not have an Inspector General, who can provide an additional 

means of oversight for federal agencies and commissions, nor is it required 

to have one. 

While the Commission took some actions to address the recommendations 

in our earlier reports, our more recent reviews indicate that financial and 

management problems persist. In 1994, we made recommendations to 

improve the Commission’s handling of travel activities for specific 

individuals, and the agency indicated in 1995 that it had acted on these 

recommendations. In 1997, we made recommendations to improve the 

agency’s project management and accountability for daily operations. 

Although the Commission made changes in response to these 1997 

recommendations, in 2003 we found problems with the agency’s project 

management similar to those found in 1997. In our October 2003 report, we 

made four additional recommendations for improving the Commission’s 

management and procurement practices. Although the Commission has 
Page 4 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

made a few changes, such as contracting with a contract and procurement 

specialist, the Staff Director disagrees with the need for most of the 

recommendations, and the agency has not adopted them. 

We are including a matter for congressional consideration to strengthen 

the Commission’s accountability. We are also making six 

recommendations intended to strengthen the Commission’s compliance 

with GPRA requirements, management practices, and oversight. 

In commenting on our draft report, the Commission did not comment on 

our recommendations, but disagreed with most of the findings and 

conclusions upon which our recommendations are based. For example, 

the Commission disagreed with our findings on its GPRA products and 

human capital practices, asserting that these products and processes were 

appropriate and sound for an agency with a small budget and staff. 

Overall, we did not agree with the Commission’s comments on our draft 

report. We continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations are sound and that the implementation of our 

recommendations is needed to strengthen the Commission’s management 

practices. The Commission’s detailed comments and our responses to 

them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated clarifications in the 

report as appropriate. 

Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission is a factfinding agency required to report on civil rights issues. It is required to 

study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies with regard to 

illegal discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. It must also 

submit at least one report annually to the President and the Congress that 

monitors federal civil rights enforcement efforts. Other reports may be 

required or issued as considered appropriate by the Commission, the 

President, or the Congress. The Commission serves as a national 

clearinghouse for information related to its mission. In addition, it 

investigates charges by individual citizens who claim to be deprived of 

their voting rights. The Commission may hold hearings and, within specific 

guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and have witnesses 

appear at hearings. However, because it lacks enforcement powers that 

would enable it to apply remedies in individual cases, the Commission 

Background 
Page 5 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

refers specific complaints to the appropriate federal, state, or local 

government agency for action.4

 

The Commission’s annual appropriation has averaged about $9 million 

since fiscal year 1995. It is currently directed by eight part-time 

Commissioners who serve 6-year terms on a staggered basis. Four 

Commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the President 

Pro Tempore of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives. No more than four Commissioners can be of the same 

political party. With the concurrence of a majority of the Commission’s 

members, the President may also designate a Chairperson or Vice 

Chairperson from among the Commissioners. 

A Staff Director, who is appointed by the President with the concurrence 

of a majority of the Commissioners, oversees the daily operations of the 

Commission and manages the staff in six regional offices and the 

Washington, D.C., headquarters office. The Commission operates four 

units in its headquarters whose directors and managers report directly to 

the Staff Director: the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, Office of General 

Counsel, Office of Management, and a Regional Programs Coordination 

Unit. As of June 2004, the Commission employed approximately 70 staff 

members, including the eight Commissioners and their eight assistants. 

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees—the minimum 

required by statute—one for each state and the District of Columbia. The 

State Advisory Committees are composed of citizens familiar with local 

and state civil rights issues. Their members serve without compensation 

and assist the Commission with its fact-finding, investigative, and 

information dissemination functions. 

To encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in 

federal programs, the Congress passed the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993, which requires agencies to develop and issue certain 

documents to be made available to the public and used by congressional 

decision-makers.5

 OMB provides guidance to federal agencies on 

 4

Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights issues. For example, the Equal 

Employment Opportunity Commission is charged with enforcing specific federal 

employment antidiscrimination statutes. Also, the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, 

disability, religion, and national origin. 

5

Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285(1993). 

Planning and Reporting 

Requirements under GPRA 
Page 6 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

complying with GPRA requirements through its Circular A-11, which is 

updated annually. In addition, we have published guidance and reports to 

federal agencies on best practices for complying with GPRA.6

Under GPRA or OMB guidance, agencies must submit the following three 

documents to the President, Congress, and OMB:7

• Strategic plan. This document, which must cover a period of no less 

than 5 years from the fiscal year in which it is submitted, should be 

updated every 3 years and include the agency’s mission statement and 

long-term strategic goals. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting 

point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management. 

Strategic goals are long-term, outcome-oriented goals aimed at 

accomplishing the agency’s mission. In developing goals for their 

strategic plans, agencies are required to consult with the Congress and 

other stakeholders. 

• Annual performance plan. This document sets forth the agency’s 

annual performance goals, which should be linked to its strategic goals. 

An agency’s annual goals provide the intermediary steps needed to 

reach its long-term strategic goals. Annual goals should be objective, 

quantifiable, and measurable. OMB guidance now directs agencies to 

include budget information in their performance plans and encourages 

agencies to align resources with annual goals.8

 Prior to their 

submissions for fiscal year 2005, agencies were not directed to 

associate program costs in this way. 

• Annual performance report. This document provides information on 

an agency’s actual performance for the previous fiscal year. This report 

should provide information on the results of its progress in meeting 

 6

See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and 

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996); Agencies’ Strategic Plans 

Under GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16

(Washington, D.C.: May 1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator’s Guide to Assessing Agency 

Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1998); and 

Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for Achieving 

Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004). 

7

Although, under the statute, OMB can exempt organizations with annual outlays of $20 

million or less from the requirements to produce a strategic plan, annual performance plan, 

and annual performance report, OMB has not exempted the Commission from these 

requirements. 

8

OMB Circular A-11 pt 6, § 220 (July 2003). 
Page 7 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

annual goals. If agencies have not met their goals, they are required to 

explain what issues are keeping them from meeting the goals and 

describe their plans for addressing these issues. 

Several federal agencies have oversight responsibilities in relation to the 

Commission, including OMB for financial management and OPM for 

personnel management. OMB, located within the Executive Office of the 

President, is responsible for preparing and implementing the President’s 

annual budget and for providing guidance to agencies on how to comply 

with GPRA.9

 OPM is the central personnel management agency of the 

federal government charged with administering and enforcing federal civil 

service laws, regulations, and rules. OPM is also required to establish and 

maintain an oversight program to ensure that agencies comply with 

pertinent laws, regulations, and policies.10

Oversight can also be provided by an Inspector General. The Inspector 

General Act of 1978 provides for Offices of Inspector General to serve as 

independent, objective offices within certain federal departments or 

agencies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as well as 

prevent and detect fraud and abuse.11 Agencies that do not have their own 

Office of Inspector General can obtain Inspector General services from 

other federal agencies.12

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 

1997, as required under GPRA, and its most recent annual performance 

plan and report contain weaknesses that limit the Commission’s ability to 

effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance. 

 9

See 31 U.S.C. §§ 501, 503(2000). 

105 U.S.C. § 1104(b)(2). 

11Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101(1978); 5 U.S.C. app. 3. 

12Agencies can obtain the services of an Inspector General from other agencies using their 

authority under the Economy Act of 1932 (31 U.S.C. § 1535) or by procuring such services 

directly. 

Executive Branch 

Oversight Responsibilities 

The Commission Has 

Not Fully Complied 

with Key GPRA 

Requirements 
Page 8 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since fiscal 

year 1997 and has missed two scheduled submissions required under 

GPRA. According to GPRA and OMB guidance, the Commission should 

have submitted, updated, and revised its strategic plan in fiscal years 2000 

and 2003. The 2003 revision should have covered the period through at 

least fiscal year 2008. Commission officials told us that the agency is 

working on developing an updated strategic plan and intends to submit it 

to OMB by Fall 2004. However, while they were in the process of revising 

their strategic plan as of June 2004, critical actions, such as consulting 

with the Congress as required by the act, have not yet occurred, according 

to Commission officials. 

Because it has not updated or revised its strategic plan, the Commission 

has not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to affirm their ongoing 

significance to the agency’s overall mission. The Commission has not 

determined if changes to its strategic goals are warranted due to factors 

such as external circumstances or not meeting its annual goals. In 

addition, because the Commission has not updated its strategic plan, its 

strategic goals also are not informed by a current analysis of the 

Commission’s purpose and work. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the 

Commission does not have a firm basis on which to develop its annual 

goals. The Commission continues to rely on strategic goals from 1997 to 

formulate its current annual goals. 

Without a current strategic plan the Commission also lacks a key tool for 

communicating with the Congress, the public, and its own staff, including 

informing them of the significance of its work. In addition to serving as a 

document for external use, the strategic plan can be used as a 

management tool and, according to OMB guidance, should outline the 

process for communicating goals and strategies throughout the agency 

and for assigning accountability to managers and staff for achievement of 

the agency’s goals. 

The Commission Has Not 

Updated Its Strategic Plan 

Since 1997 
Page 9 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

The Commission’s most recent performance plan, for fiscal year 2005, 

includes several program activities that are referred to as goals; however, 

it is unclear how these activities will help the agency achieve its strategic 

goals or accomplish its mission. For example, the plan lists 14 fact-finding 

projects, each of which has as many as 5 annual goals.13 Many of these 

goals, however, are activities, such as holding a public hearing or 

publishing a report. Similarly, one of the goals in the plan is for each of the 

Commission’s State Advisory Committees to focus on regular meetings in 

fiscal year 2005 and on completing their projects. However, this goal is not 

linked to achieving the agency’s strategic goal to enhance the Committees’ 

ability to monitor civil rights in the United States. 

In addition, the annual performance plan does not contain all elements 

required under GPRA. The plan does not provide information on how the 

Commission will pursue and accomplish the annual performance goals 

laid out in its plan. Performance plans must include descriptions of how an 

agency’s annual goals are to be achieved, including the resources and 

strategies required to meet the goals. However, the Commission’s fiscal 

year 2005 plan does not discuss the strategies or resources needed to 

achieve its goals. For example, according to the performance plan, the 

Commission will update its Civil Rights Directory, but the plan does not 

indicate which offices will be responsible or describe the strategies and 

resources needed to carry out this task. 

The Commission’s performance plan for fiscal year 2005 also does not 

include budgetary information in accordance with OMB guidance. Instead 

of associating the cost of its programs with specific annual goals, the plan 

includes a single amount for its total operations. The potential problems 

stemming from the Commission’s failure to associate costs with specific 

annual goals or break down its budget request by goal may be exacerbated 

by the large gap between the Commission’s budget requests and its actual 

appropriations. Since 1999, the Commission’s appropriations have 

averaged approximately 26 percent less than the amount requested. For 

fiscal year 2004, the Commission based its annual performance plan on a 

 13In conducting fact-finding projects, the Commission gathers and analyzes information 

from a wide range of sources, including research, statistical analysis, and hearings. 

According to the Commission’s performance report, fact-finding projects can involve five 

performance goals, including report publication, public event, report dissemination, 

consideration of recommendations by agencies, and action initiated by agencies in 

response to findings. 

The Commission’s Annual 

Performance Plan Falls 

Short of Meeting GPRA 

Requirements and OMB 

Guidance 
Page 10 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

budget request of $15.2 million, but its appropriation for that year totaled 

only $9.1 million. 

In addition, the Commission has consistently not revised its annual 

performance plans to reflect its actual appropriations and illustrate the 

impact on its annual goals. Although agencies are not required to revise 

their plans to reflect actual appropriations under GPRA, the fact that the 

Commission’s plans are based upon a budget that is so much larger than 

its actual appropriations limits the plans’ usefulness in detailing how the 

agency will achieve its annual goals and in assessing the impact of 

appropriations decisions on its planned performance. 

Furthermore, the Commission’s annual performance plan for fiscal year 

2005 does not provide the performance indicators to be used in measuring 

achievement of each annual goal. According to GPRA, an agency’s 

performance plan shall include performance indicators to be used in 

measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes 

of each program activity, and provide a basis for comparing actual 

program results with annual goals. For some annual goals—particularly 

those related to promoting greater public awareness, assisting individuals 

in protecting their civil rights, and enhancing the capacity of the State 

Advisory Committees—the performance plan does not have any 

performance indicators. For example, the performance plan states that, in 

fiscal year 2005, the Commission will develop and implement a 

coordinated multimedia public service announcement campaign designed 

to educate the public about important civil rights matters and discourage 

discrimination while promoting tolerance. However, the plan does not 

describe measures that can be used to evaluate the attainment of this goal 

in terms of outputs, such as the number of public service announcements, 

or outcomes, such as increased awareness of civil rights matters. 

In the annual performance plan, the Commission does not adequately 

describe how it will verify and validate the performance measures used to 

assess the accomplishment of its annual goals. GPRA requires agencies to 

submit information on how they plan to verify and validate the 

performance measures used to assess the accomplishment of their annual 

goals. This requirement helps to ensure that their assessments are valid, 

reliable, and credible. The Commission’s fiscal year 2005 plan includes a 

general description of its verification and validation processes, but it does 

not specify the evaluation methods to be used or identify the limitations or 

constraints of these methods. For example, the plan states that, in 

assessing the outcomes achieved through issuance of its reports, the 

Commission may conduct follow-up meetings with affected agencies, 
Page 11 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

congressional committees, and other interested organizations. However, 

the plan does not describe how these groups will be selected, the data to 

be collected, how the data will be assessed, or who will be responsible for 

conducting these meetings or collecting and assessing the data. 

Although the Commission’s most recent annual performance report, for 

fiscal year 2003, describes the agency’s achievements as well as reasons 

for not meeting certain goals, the report does not include several elements 

required under GPRA and provides little evidence and context for 

evaluating the agency’s performance. Furthermore, many of the results are 

descriptive narratives that do not characterize the Commission’s 

performance. Overall, these problems diminish the report’s usefulness as a 

tool for managing the Commission’s operations and holding the agency 

accountable for achieving its goals. 

The performance report for fiscal year 2003 is incomplete because it does 

not account for all of the annual goals in the Commission’s fiscal year 2003 

performance plan—a fundamental GPRA requirement.14 The report 

provides no account of the Commission’s performance for many of the 

annual goals set forth in its fiscal year 2003 performance plan. In 

particular, the report does not account for the Commission’s performance 

for 6 fact-finding projects—a core activity of the agency. For example, the 

fiscal year 2003 plan stated that the Commission’s fact-finding project, 

“Media Role in Civil Rights,” would accomplish four goals, including 

having a public event, yet the performance report provides no account of 

this project or any description of the agency’s progress in meeting these 

goals. 

Furthermore, while the report includes results for other annual goals, the 

information provided for many of these goals is incomplete or ambiguous. 

For example, the Commission’s environmental justice project has three 

goals: publication of a report, report dissemination, and formal 

consideration of the recommendations of the report by affected agencies. 

However, although the performance report describes the purpose of the 

environmental justice report as well as its publication and dissemination, 

the performance report does not indicate whether the Commission 

 14For this analysis, we compared the results reported in the Commission’s fiscal year 2003 

performance report with the goals described in the agency’s performance plan for fiscal 

year 2003. 

The Commission’s Annual 

Performance Report for 

Fiscal Year 2003 Does Not 

Fulfill Several GPRA 

Requirements and Overall 

Does Not Communicate 

the Commission’s 

Performance 
Page 12 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

obtained any formal response to its recommendations from affected 

agencies. Similarly, the performance plan stated that each State Advisory 

Committee Chairperson or Representative would participate in at least 

one civil rights activity per year. Although the performance report includes 

extensive narrative describing the work of the State Advisory Committees, 

it does not indicate whether this goal had been achieved. 

The Commission’s performance report also does not provide the relevant 

data needed to assess the achievement of its annual goals. Under GPRA, 

performance reports must include 3 years of actual performance data in 

describing the agency’s progress in achieving its goals. While the 

performance report includes 3 years of performance data for one goal 

from its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, for the remaining goals, the 

report does not include 3 years of data, or the data are not relevant for 

assessment. For example, the performance report includes data describing 

the type and number of complaints received in fiscal year 2003 and for the 

3 prior years. However, the report does not include data—such as the 

amount of time it took to respond to complaints—that could be used to 

assess whether the Commission met its goal of responding in a timely 

manner. 

Moreover, the fiscal year 2003 performance report provides no plans, 

schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission’s 

unmet goals. GPRA states that, when an annual goal is not achieved, the 

agency must describe why, outline plans or schedules for achieving the 

goal, and if the goal was determined to be impractical, describe why that 

was the case and what action is recommended. While the report explains 

why some goals were not met, it does not provide plans, schedules, or 

recommendations for addressing these unmet goals. For example, the 

performance report states that, due to limited resources, the Commission 

was unable to track its referrals to federal enforcement agencies to ensure 

that civil rights complaints were received and appropriately processed. 

However, the report does not provide any detail on whether it would 

continue to pursue this goal, how the Commission plans to meet this goal 

in the future, or what actions could be taken to help the Commission meet 

this goal, such as obtaining assistance from other federal agencies in 

maintaining accessible and relevant records. 
Page 13 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human 

capital management oversight for the Commission. OMB’s oversight of the 

Commission focuses primarily on the budgetary process. In providing 

oversight of its human capital management, OPM conducted reviews and 

made recommendations to the Commission in the 1990s to improve the 

Commission’s human capital management and overall management. In 

response, although the Commission implemented some of the 

recommended changes, many issues that OPM raised in 1996 continued to 

be of concern in 1999. Although an Inspector General can provide an 

additional means of oversight for agencies and independent commissions, 

the Commission does not have an Inspector General and is not required to 

have one. 

OMB’s oversight of the Commission is primarily budgetary, according to 

OMB officials. In the fall of each fiscal year, OMB is responsible for 

reviewing the Commission’s annual performance plan, budget request, 

apportionment request, and annual performance report.15 Before the 

Commission’s budget request is due, OMB provides the Commission with 

guidance and updated information on the submission of GPRA documents. 

With regard to the annual performance plan, OMB generally reviews the 

long-term goals and performance measures used to determine the 

Commission’s performance in meeting its goals. OMB also reviews the 

Commission’s budget request as part of its role in developing the 

President’s budget. While OMB reviews the Commission’s annual 

performance plans and budget requests, according to OMB officials, it 

does not approve or reject these documents, but acknowledges their 

receipt and sends comments back to the agency as appropriate. However, 

Commission officials said that OMB has not provided feedback on its 

annual performance plans in recent years. Each fall, OMB also receives the 

Commission’s apportionment request, which describes how the 

Commission would like its appropriations distributed. According to OMB 

officials, once an apportionment agreement has been reached between the 

Commission and OMB, the Commission sends this agreement to the 

Treasury, which issues a warrant to release funds to the agency. Finally, 

OMB reviews the Commission’s annual performance report to ensure that 

 15Apportionment refers to the action by which OMB distributes amounts available for 

obligation in an appropriation or fund account. An apportionment divides amounts 

available for obligation by specific time periods (usually quarters), activities, projects, 

objects, or a combination. 

OMB and OPM Have 

Provided Oversight, 

and the Commission 

Has Made Limited 

Changes in Response 

to OPM’s 

Recommendations 

OMB Provides Oversight 

for the Commission’s 

Budgetary Process, but 

Has Not Focused on 

Management Issues 
Page 14 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

its funds are spent according to its performance plans and that its goals 

were met. 

In addition to reviewing the Commission’s annual budget submissions, 

OMB reviewed and approved the Commission’s February 2004 request to 

reduce its personnel costs by offering voluntary separation incentive 

payments, or “buyouts,” to encourage staff in certain job classifications to 

voluntarily leave their jobs. The Commission requested authority to offer 

buyouts to six employees. OMB officials discussed this request with 

Commission officials and approved the request in April. The Commission 

offered buyouts to all employees who had 3 or more years of government 

service in several job classifications. The Commission granted buyouts to 

three staff members, who accepted. 

OMB also is responsible for providing oversight of agencies’ management, 

including the Commission, but this oversight has been limited because of 

the small size of the agency and its budget, according to OMB officials. 

OMB officials told us that the agency does not provide the same level of 

oversight for organizations with small budgets and staff, such as the 

Commission, as that provided for larger organizations, such as the 

Securities and Exchange Commission. For example, even though the 

Commission does not have a current strategic plan, OMB has not 

requested an updated plan from the Commission, according to 

Commission officials. In addition, OMB officials told us that they have 

taken no actions in response to our October 2003 findings that the 

Commission violated federal procurement regulations and lacked key 

management practices because the volume of purchasing by the 

Commission is far below the levels that concern OMB. For example, the 

Commission’s largest contract is for less than $160,000. 
Page 15 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

According to OPM officials, OPM provides the Commission with human 

capital oversight through its audits of agencies’ human capital 

management systems, which can be conducted on a cyclical basis every 

4 to 5 years or on request, as needed.16 In 1996 and 1999, OPM conducted 

two reviews of the Commission’s human capital management systems and 

made recommendations in each report for improvements. 

In analyzing the Commission’s response to OPM reviews, we focused on 

six recommendations from OPM’s 1999 report that involved systemic 

changes to the Commission’s human capital management systems.17 As of 

August 2004, the Commission had not implemented five of these six 

recommendations. Findings from these reviews included the following: 

• In its November 1996 report, OPM’s main finding was that the 

Commission was an agency “badly in need of managerial attention,” 

citing the Commission’s poor documentation practices, lack of credible 

grievance and performance management systems, and employees’ 

highly negative perceptions of the Commission’s organizational 

climate. 

• In its October 1999 report, OPM found that, although the Commission’s 

human capital management systems complied with Merit System 

Principles, its human resource practices continued to have weaknesses 

associated with accountability, delegation, recruitment, performance 

appraisals, and incentive awards. The report noted that these concerns 

were similar to the concerns OPM had identified in the earlier report. 

For example, as of 1999, the Commission had not established an 

internal self-assessment program as OPM recommended in 1996. OPM 

made 16 recommendations in 1999 to help the Commission improve its 

management of human resources. As of August 2004, we found that the 

Commission had not implemented five of six broader, systemic 

 16These reviews are conducted to determine how well an agency’s human resources 

programs, operations, and use of personnel authorities contribute to mission 

accomplishment and whether the actions taken comply with Merit Systems Principles, 

laws, and regulations. Merit Systems Principles constitute the framework for federal 

human resources management. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301. 

17Of the 16 recommendations made by OPM in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6 

recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the Commission. We 

did not analyze the Commission’s responses to the 10 remaining recommendations. (For 

descriptions of these six OPM recommendations and the Commission’s responses, see 

appendix II.) 

OPM Provides Oversight 

for the Commission’s 

Human Capital 

Management Systems, and 

the Commission Has Made 

Limited Improvements in 

Response to OPM’s 

Recommendations 
Page 16 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

recommendations made by OPM. (See appendix II for descriptions of 

these six OPM recommendations and the Commission’s responses.) 

Although in the course of their reviews OMB, OPM, and GAO have 

identified continuing management and accountability problems at the 

Commission, it may not be sufficient to resolve such longstanding 

concerns through annual budgetary reviews and management reviews 

based on congressional requests or periodic audit cycles. An Inspector 

General can provide an additional means of oversight for federal agencies, 

including independent commissions and boards, but the Commission 

currently has no such oversight. Several small agencies have obtained 

such services for audits and investigations through memorandums of 

understanding with the General Services Administration. However, the 

Commission does not have an Inspector General of its own, nor does it 

obtain these services from another agency. The Staff Director told us that, 

although he has thought about the possibility of obtaining these services, 

he does not believe the Commission has the funds needed to obtain the 

services of an Inspector General. 

Over the past decade, we reviewed the Commission’s travel, management, 

and financial practices and made recommendations for improvement. The 

Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in 

our 1994 and 1997 reports. In addition, the Commission has not 

implemented three of the four recommendations in our October 2003 

report. This most recent report included several recommendations to 

improve the Commission’s management and procurement practices. The 

Staff Director issued a letter in June 2004 in response to this report 

disagreeing with most of the recommendations and describing the actions 

taken by the agency. We also interviewed Commission officials to clarify 

their responses to the recommendations in our October 2003 report. 

Although the Commission took various actions to address the 

recommendations in our 1994 and 1997 reports, many similar problems 

persist. In 1994, we reported on problems identified in the Commission’s 

handling of travel activities for specific individuals and made 

recommendations for improvement. For example, in response to our 

finding that Commissioners had not submitted travel vouchers in a timely 

manner, we recommended that the Commission direct the Commissioners 

to do so, as required by federal travel regulations. In 1995, the Commission 

issued revised travelg procedures that incorporated our recommendation 

for timely filing of travel vouchers by the Commissioners. (As part of a 

The Commission Lacks the 

Oversight of an Inspector 

General 

Although the 

Commission Has 

Taken Some Actions 

in Response to

Recommendations in 

GAO Reports, 

Problems Persist 

The Commission Took 

Actions in Response to the 

Recommendations in Our 

1994 and 1997 Reports, but 

Related Problems 

Continue 
Page 17 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

separate assignment, we are currently reviewing the Commission’s fiscal 

year 2003 financial transactions that include a review of travel-related 

transactions.) In 1997, we found numerous operational issues, reporting 

that the management of the Commission’s operations lacked control and 

coordination; its projects lacked sufficient documentation; senior officials 

were unaware of how Commission funds were used and lacked control 

over key management functions; and records had been lost, misplaced, or 

were nonexistent.18 In the report, we made recommendations for specific 

changes to the Commission’s administrative procedures and project 

management systems, and the agency took some actions in response. 

However, in 2003, we found that the actions taken did not fully address the 

problems identified in our 1997 report. 

In October 2003, we reported that, although the Commission had made 

some improvements in its project management procedures for 

Commissioners and staff, the procedures lacked certain key elements of 

good project management, such as providing Commissioners with project 

cost information and opportunities to contribute to Commission reports 

before they are issued. We also reported that the Commission lacked 

sufficient management control over its contracting procedures and that 

little, if any, external oversight of the Commission’s financial activities had 

taken place, since no independent accounting firm had audited the 

Commission’s financial statements in at least 12 years.19 To address these 

issues, we recommended that the Commission 

1. monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information 

provided to Commissioners, 

2. adopt procedures that provide for increased Commissioner 

involvement in project implementation and report preparation, 

 18See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls, 

GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997) and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: 

Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls, GAO/T-HEHS-97-177 (Washington, D.C.: July 

17, 1997). In 1998, we reported on the status of the Commission’s progress in addressing 

our recommendations. See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Update on Its 

Response to GAO Recommendations, GAO/HEHS-98-86R (Washington D.C.: Feb. 3, 1998). 

19See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial Oversight 

Needed, GAO-04-18, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003). 

The Commission Has Not 

Implemented Most 

Recommendations from 

Our 2003 Report 
Page 18 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

3. establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order to be 

in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and 

4. take immediate steps to meet the financial statement preparation and 

audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for 

fiscal year 2004. 

The Staff Director generally disagreed with these recommendations, and 

the Commission has not adopted three of them. In their June 2004 letter 

responding to our report recommendations, Commission officials asserted 

that the first two recommendations were a matter of internal policy to be 

decided by the Commissioners.20 In addition, they disagreed with the need 

for the third recommendation and asserted that they were taking steps to 

address the last recommendation. Although they disagreed with the third 

recommendation, the Commission hired a contracting and procurement 

specialist starting in December 2003 to provide supplemental services, and 

the Staff Director acknowledged that the Commission could improve in 

this area. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had yet to contract 

with an independent auditor to prepare for meeting the requirements of 

the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002.21 (See appendix III for 

further details on the Commission’s responses to these recommendations.) 

With its history of management problems, the Commission faces 

significant challenges. Strategic planning is not a static or occasional 

event. Instead, it is a dynamic and inclusive process that, if done well, is 

integral to an organization’s entire operations. By not devoting the time 

and resources required to update its strategic plan, the Commission has no 

assurance that it is pursuing long-term goals that reflect the needs of its 

key stakeholders and that address the many management challenges 

presented by the shifting external and internal environments in which it 

operates. Furthermore, the Commission lacks a foundation to use in 

 20Under 31 U.S.C. 720, when the Comptroller General issues a report that includes a 

recommendation to the head of an agency, the head of the agency is required to submit a 

written statement on the actions taken. This statement must be submitted to the Senate 

Committee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not 

later than 60 days from the date of the report. However, the Commission did not provide a 

statement to the committees in response to our October 2003 report recommendations 

until June 1, 2004, after we had asked for the status of their statements in our entrance 

conference on May 20, 2004. These statements were due to the committees in December 

2003. 

21Pub. L. No. 107-289, 116 Stat. 2049(2002). 

Conclusion 
Page 19 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

aligning its daily activities, operations, and resources to support its 

mission and achieve its goals. Without using the GPRA planning process to 

periodically reexamine its long-term goals and set its course, the 

Commission is not in a strong position to set relevant annual goals or 

develop measures for assessing whether it has achieved them. Given the 

consistent shortfall between the Commission’s annual budget requests and 

its appropriations over the past decade, it is even more important for the 

Commission to chart a strategic course that is realistic. 

Although the Commission has improved some policies and practices in 

response to recommendations from OPM and GAO, the problems that 

remain are still cause for concern, particularly given the lingering nature 

of the Commission’s management difficulties. Unless the Commission 

systematically monitors its implementation of OPM’s and GAO’s 

recommendations, it is not likely that it will significantly improve its 

management and human capital management systems. Finally, annual 

budgetary and other reviews based on periodic cycles or specific requests 

may not be sufficient to address longstanding concerns about the 

Commission’s management and accountability. Because the Commission 

does not have an Inspector General, it does not appear likely that it will 

have the additional independent oversight needed to address management 

problems that others have identified and to hold itself accountable for 

resolving them. 

To strengthen the Commission’s accountability, the Congress should 

consider legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of an 

existing Inspector General at another agency. 

To strengthen the Commission’s management practices, we recommend 

that the Commission 

• update its 5-year strategic plan according to GPRA’s required schedule 

and include all elements required under GPRA and OMB guidance; 

• ensure that future annual performance plans include all elements 

required under GPRA and OMB guidance, reflect funding levels 

requested in the President’s Budget, and are revised if necessary to 

reflect actual appropriations; 

Matter for 

Congressional 

Consideration 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 
Page 20 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

• ensure that annual performance reports include all elements required 

under GPRA; 

• implement all of the recommendations in OPM’s and GAO’s previous 

reports; 

• include the status of the Commission’s efforts to implement OPM’s and 

GAO’s recommendations in its GPRA plans and reports; and 

• seek the services of an existing Inspector General from another agency 

to help keep the Commission and the Congress informed of problems 

and deficiencies and to conduct and supervise necessary audits and 

investigations. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Commission for comment. The 

Commission’s formal comments and our responses are contained in 

appendix I. 

In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on our 

recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and 

conclusions. We have carefully reviewed the Commission’s concerns and 

overall do not agree with its comments on our findings and conclusions. 

For example, the Commission disagreed with our GPRA findings, asserting 

that its GPRA processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its 

size. The Commission also asserted that, as a small agency, it was not costeffective or efficient for it to institute its own accountability system for 

managing its human resources, as OPM had recommended. The 

Commission similarly cited its small size in asserting that it would be an 

“extreme” challenge to institute our October 2003 report 

recommendations. We disagree with these assertions. The Commission’s 

size is not relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the 

Commission to address longstanding management and human capital 

problems identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, 

instead of implying that it is acceptable for the Commission as a small 

agency to operate under diminished expectations for GPRA compliance, 

the Commission could make use of GPRA’s planning and reporting 

framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the Commission 

could use GPRA's planning framework to update and sharpen its goals, 

clearly identify the strategies and resources needed to achieve those goals, 

and improve its management and human capital practices. The 

Commission could then also use GPRA’s reporting framework to 

demonstrate the progress it has made towards achieving those goals. 

Agency Comments 
Page 21 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

In addition to providing these comments, the Commission criticized our 

approach to our work, asserting that the draft report contained inaccurate 

and incomplete analyses and that we rushed to complete the report within 

an artificially constrained timeline. We strongly disagree. At all times, we 

scoped, designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with 

applicable professional standards and our quality assurance requirements. 

Furthermore, many of the Commission’s comments about how we 

conducted our work were themselves misleading and inaccurate. For 

example, we did not suddenly and drastically change our focus, as the 

Commission asserted. In our May 2004 entrance conference with the 

agency, we noted our specific focus on certain areas, including the 

Commission’s GPRA products and the agency’s actions in response to 

OPM and GAO recommendations. Our focus on oversight of the 

Commission and GPRA requirements remained consistent throughout the 

assignment. As we designed our work, we formulated our objectives and 

methodologies more specifically, and we shared our refocused objectives 

with the Commission when we completed the design phase of our work in 

July. We therefore continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and 

recommendations are sound. The Commission’s detailed comments and 

our responses to them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated 

clarifications in the report as appropriate. 

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 

distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will 

send copies of this report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and other 

interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon 

request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s 

Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

Please contact me or Revae Moran on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staffs 

have any questions about this report. Other contacts and staff 

acknowledgments are listed in appendix III. 

Robert E. Robertson 

Director, Education, Workforce, 

 and Income Security Issues 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 22 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Note: GAO comments 

supplementing those in 

the report text appear at 

the end of this appendix. 

See response to broad 

assertions. 

See response to broad 

assertions. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 23 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 2. 

See response to broad 

assertions. 

See response 1. 

See response to broad 

assertions. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 24 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 5. 

See response 6. 

See response 4. 

See response 3. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 25 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 11. 

See response 10. 

See response 9. 

See response 8. 

See response 7. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 26 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 12. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 27 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 16. 

See response 15. 

See response 14. 

See response 13. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 28 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 17. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 29 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 18. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 30 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

See response 23. 

See response 22. 

See response 21. 

See response 20. 

See response 19. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 31 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 32 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

In general, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights’ comments on our 

findings make four broad assertions in addition to having numerous 

specific points of disagreement with our findings. We address both in the 

following sections. 

The four broad assertions in the Commission’s comments on our draft 

report, as well as our responses to these assertions, are summarized 

below. 

• The Commission asserted that we rushed to complete the report within 

an artificially constrained timeline and did not take the time to conduct 

thorough fact-finding or analyses to ensure a quality report. We 

disagree strongly with this assertion. To the contrary, we scoped, 

designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with 

applicable professional standards and our quality assurance 

requirements. To further ensure the quality of our work, we included 

an initial design period, in which we built upon our considerable 

knowledge of the Commission from previous GAO reports and 

obtained further information as needed. In designing and conducting 

our work, we also consulted with our internal experts on GPRA and 

other issues. Far from rushing through the engagement, we in fact 

extended our design period so that we could perform high-quality work 

within a timeframe useful to our congressional requesters. At the end 

of this design period in July, we narrowed our scope, deferring a 

potential objective on the organizational structure of the Commission. 

Refining the scope of an engagement following a design phase is not an 

unusual audit practice. By agreement with our requesters, we did not 

include work on the Commission’s organizational structure not 

because of any arbitrary decision, as the Commission alleges, but 

rather to enable us to complete our work on time and in accordance 

with our quality standards. Our focus on GPRA, oversight, and the 

Commission’s response to our October 2003 report recommendations 

remained consistent throughout the assignment, from initial 

notification to report drafting. Furthermore, in our May 2004 entrance 

conference with the agency, we noted our focus on these areas, and in 

July 2004, at the end of our design phase, we shared these objectives 

and our approach with Commission staff in an interview. 

• The Commission asserted that we did not follow up with its staff as 

needed to obtain answers to questions and that they expected us to 

interview more people, both staff and Commissioners, in the course of 

our work. We disagree. Our methodology called for analyzing 

Commission documents, pertinent legislation and guidance, and 

GAO’s Response to 

Comments 

Response to Broad 

Assertions in 

Commission’s Comments 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 33 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

various reports by OPM and GAO. Although at the beginning of our 

project, we envisioned interviewing key managers and all of the 

Commissioners as part of possible work on the Commission’s 

organizational structure, these interviews became unnecessary when 

we decided to focus on the Commission’s GPRA plans and reports, 

oversight of the Commission, and the agency’s response to our 

previous report recommendations. As noted in our report, to obtain 

information for these objectives, we conducted interviews with the 

Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human 

Resources Director, and Budget Chief. We also followed up with emails and telephone calls as needed. Finally, in our exit conference, we 

presented all of our findings and provided an opportunity for 

Commission staff to comment on our findings and provide technical 

corrections. At that meeting, Commission officials provided a few 

comments, but no technical corrections; with few exceptions, they did 

not disagree with the facts or conclusions we presented.1

 

• The Commission asserted that it cooperated with us fully, at all times. 

However, while our working relationships were professional and 

Commission officials were usually responsive in providing documents 

as requested, we do not agree that Commission staff cooperated fully 

with us throughout our work. Obtaining interviews with the 

Commission and key staff was frequently difficult, with each one 

requiring a minimum of 3 weeks to schedule. For example, although we 

notified the Commission on April 19, 2004, about our planned work and 

called shortly thereafter to schedule an initial meeting, it took 

numerous calls to set up our entrance conference on May 20, 2004. This 

delay in scheduling the initial meeting occurred despite our reference 

to the need for a rapid response. In addition, since it was difficult for 

Commission officials to find the time to meet with us, we combined our 

entrance conference with that of another GAO team that was 

examining the Commission’s financial transactions so that they would 

not also experience a delay in starting their work. We had similar 

difficulties scheduling other meetings as well. 

• The Commission has repeatedly asserted that it is a small agency, with 

a budget of approximately $9 million and fewer than 70 staff—

information that we noted in the draft report. In commenting on the 

 1

About 10 days after our exit conference, we received a faxed letter from the Special 

Assistant to the Staff Director in which he disagreed with our findings on GPRA. However, 

the letter did not provide any new information on the Commission’s compliance with GPRA 

requirements. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 34 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

draft report, the Commission asserted that its GPRA and personnel 

processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. The 

Commission also cited its size in asserting that it would be an 

“extreme” challenge to institute our October 2003 recommendations. 

We disagree with these assertions. The Commission’s size is not 

relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the Commission to 

address longstanding management and human capital problems 

identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, the 

Commission could make use of GPRA’s planning and reporting 

framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the 

Commission could use GPRA's planning framework to update and 

sharpen its goals, clearly identify the strategies and resources needed 

to achieve those goals, and improve its management and human capital 

practices, as recommended. The Commission could then also use 

GPRA’s reporting framework to demonstrate the progress it has made 

towards achieving those goals. 

In addition to making these broad comments, the Commission disagreed 

with our findings more specifically. Our detailed responses to the 

Commission’s comments follow. 

1. We disagree that the Commission has implemented or was 

“engaged in implementing” all of the recommendations in our 

October 2003 report. See responses 2 through 6. 

2. Although the Commission reported that it has taken various steps 

to meet the financial statement preparation and audit requirements 

of the act, we disagree that it is in a position to meet the act’s 

requirements for financial statement preparation and audit this 

year. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had not hired an 

independent auditor to conduct this work. The agency’s ability to 

meet the act’s requirements in the less than 2 remaining months is 

highly doubtful, since the agency has not had its fiscal activities 

independently audited in more than 12 years, and no audit work 

has begun. 

3. The Commission’s assertion is not accurate: The Commission has 

not implemented our recommendation to provide for increased 

commissioner involvement in project implementation and report 

preparation. In fact, as the Commission noted in its comments, the 

Commission has “continued to follow longstanding Commission 

policy on Commissioner-staff interaction.” As we reported in 

Response to Specific 

Comments from the 

Commission 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 35 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

October 2003, this policy does not provide for systematic 

Commissioner input throughout projects. Nothing precludes the 

Staff Director from providing additional information about projects 

and report status to Commissioners as a matter of good project 

management and quality assurance. Furthermore, the Staff 

Director could respond in various ways to Commissioners’ 

concerns for increased input without obtaining a formal vote to 

change the Commission’s procedures. For example, 

Commissioners could receive a summary of preliminary facts and 

findings or an outline of a planned report. 

4. The Commission asserted that there is no requirement that the 

Commissioners’ judgment must be substituted with our judgment 

on policy decision matters. While our recommendations are not 

requirements, we provide recommendations in our reports in 

accordance with our statutory responsibilities to investigate the 

use of public money, analyze agency expenditures, and evaluate 

the results of federal programs and activities. Our reports and 

recommendations provide agencies with the information necessary 

to improve their mission performance and Congress with the 

information necessary for oversight, including the development of 

legislation that will help agencies in their efforts. As the 

administrative head of the Commission, the Staff Director is 

authorized to make administrative changes that are consistent with 

the law and Commission policies. While it may be difficult at times 

to distinguish between an administrative and policy matter, we are 

not aware of any Commission policies that would prevent the Staff 

Director from implementing our recommendations nor would it be 

contrary to the law. 

5. The Commission asserted that it has provided the Commissioners 

with project cost information and made efforts to monitor the 

adequacy and timeliness of the information given, as recommended 

in our October 2003 report. According to Commission staff, the 

agency provides cost information on a quarterly basis to 

Commissioners and has done so since the last quarter of fiscal year 

2003.2

 However, we continue to believe that having regular project 

cost reports, such as monthly reports, would enhance the 

 2

In April 2003, the Commissioners passed a motion to receive quarterly cost information on 

its projects, by project and by office. 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 36 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Commissioners’ ability to plan for and monitor projects during 

their monthly meetings. Monthly reports would allow greater 

accountability for the projects by integrating cost information in a 

timely manner into project management. Since the Commission’s 

Budget Chief told us that he prepares monthly project cost reports 

for the Staff Director, preparing reports for the Commissioners’ 

monthly meetings should not be unduly burdensome. To ensure 

that cost reports can be best used to strengthen project monitoring 

and management, these reports should also be provided to 

Commissioners shortly after the month ends. 

6. We believe that it is a deficiency for the Commission to provide 

quarterly cost reports to Commissioners 3 months after a quarter 

has ended. Our October 2003 recommendation called for the 

Commission to monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project 

cost information provided to Commissioners. In our view, 

information provided in 3-month-old project cost reports cannot be 

considered timely. 

7. We believe that it is a deficiency for project cost reports to omit 

mention of the status of planned projects. The Commission’s 

second quarter 2004 cost report for the Commissioners did not 

indicate the status of 4 of the 12 projects. To be useful for decision 

making and monitoring, the project cost report should have noted 

that some planned projects had already been completed and that 

some work had not yet begun, so that the Commissioners 

monitoring the projects would have also been aware of the status 

of these projects. 

8. We disagree that our conclusions on the Commission’s response to 

OPM’s 1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. See 

responses 9 through 16 as well as our response to broad assertions 

in the Commission’s comments. 

9. The Commission asserted that we did not indicate concerns about 

its implementation of OPM’s 1999 recommendations until officials 

received the draft report. However, it is not clear to us why 

Commission officials should have been unaware of the direction of 

our findings. Four Commission officials, including the Human 

Resources Director, participated in two major meetings, one of 

which focused extensively on the Commission’s actions in 

response to six of OPM’s human resources recommendations. The 

Human Resources Director also participated in our exit conference 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 37 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

in which we summarized our findings, including our finding on the 

Commission’s responses to oversight by OPM. We noted explicitly 

during this meeting that we had focused on certain 

recommendations and had found that the actions taken by the 

Commission were limited. The Human Resources Director did not 

provide any corrections or technical comments on the agency’s 

human resources practices during this meeting, nor did any other 

Commission official. In addition to these meetings, we obtained 

additional documents, comments, and answers to questions by 

e-mail from the Commission during the course of our work and 

incorporated this information into our draft report as appropriate. 

10. The Commission asserts that we did not dispute that it complied 

with 11 of OPM’s 1999 recommendations. This statement is 

incorrect. We selected 6 of OPM’s 16 recommendations for 

analysis; we did not analyze the Commission’s response to the 

remaining recommendations. We noted in our report that the 

Commission had implemented 1 of the 6 recommendations that we 

analyzed. We have clarified our methodology in the final report. 

See comment 11 for more information on our methodology. 

11. The Commission asserted that we arbitrarily decided to focus on 6 

of the 16 recommendations OPM made in 1999. We strongly 

disagree. To follow up on the Commission’s response to OPM’s 

recommendations, we judgmentally selected six recommendations 

that had broader, more systemic implications for the agency. At no 

point, however, did we pre-select these recommendations in order 

to emphasize a particular outcome or “cast the agency in a bad 

light.” We have clarified the basis for our selection of these 

recommendations in the final report. 

12. We do not agree that the Commission has implemented OPM’s 

recommendation to delegate HRM authority to managers. OPM’s 

report stated that “the Staff Director retains final approving 

authority for most [human resources] decisions, including 

appointments, promotions, and performance ratings.” Policies 

described in OPM’s 1999 report remain in place at the Commission 

today. For example, in our interviews this year, Commission 

officials told us that the Staff Director must approve all hiring and 

promotion decisions as well as managers’ evaluations of 

employees. As of February 2004, according to the Commission’s 

administrative manual, “the staff director retains approval 

authority” as well for quality step increases, accomplishment 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 38 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

awards, performance awards for its employees, and 

recommendations to OPM for other awards. While the Commission 

has taken certain actions to improve its human resources 

management practices, such as developing an employee handbook 

on human resources matters and providing managers with OPM’s 

HRM Accountability System Development Guide, the Commission 

has not delegated human resource authorities to managers in all 

program areas, as OPM had recommended. 

13. The Commission’s assertion that it was acting in accordance with 

Merit System Principles is misleading and largely irrelevant for this 

discussion. OPM’s recommendation for an accountability system 

stemmed from its analysis of the Commission’s human resource 

accountability and internal self-assessment efforts (an area of 

weakness also identified in its 1996 review). In 1999, OPM found 

that the Commission had not “developed an effective system to 

hold managers accountable for HRM-related decisions.” OPM 

further noted that the “Staff Director retains final approving 

authority for most [human resource] decisions... leaving managers 

uncertain about their own accountability when making these HRM 

decisions . . . Employees see this lack of accountability too, saying 

that the supervisory chain of command is unclear and that they are 

unsure of where work assignments and agency work priorities 

originate. Also, employees report that their jobs do not make good 

use of their skills and abilities; that they are not satisfied with their 

jobs; and that they do not feel free to disclose waste, fraud, and 

abuse without fear of reprisal.” OPM noted that an internal selfassessment program was “urgently needed to assure 

accountability.” References to the Commission’s delegated 

examining authority and general compliance with OPM’s Merit 

System Principles are not pertinent to the finding that led to this 

recommendation. 

14. The Commission is inaccurate in asserting that OPM “may have 

made a recommendation for additional improvement of the 

Commission’s personnel processes.” As we noted in our report, 

OPM made 16 recommendations for improvement of the 

Commission’s human resource management practices in its 1999 

report. The Commission is also inaccurate in asserting that OPM 

found that “those basic [personnel] processes were already sound,” 

and that “there was no real need to implement this 

recommendation [on using OPM’s HRM Accountability System 

Guide], since Commission operations were good.” This is an 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 39 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

inaccurate reading of OPM’s 1999 findings and recommendations. 

While OPM found overall that the Commission’s human resource 

program complied with the Merit System Principles, OPM also 

urged the Commission to consider its recommendations in five 

broad areas of human resource management. In the executive 

summary of the 1999 report, the first of 12 bullets highlighting 

OPM’s findings summarizes concerns raised in its earlier 1996 

report on the Commission; acknowledges that the Commission 

“has improved its administration of the HRM program, particularly 

in the recruitment and placement area”; and continues by saying, 

“However, the other concerns we identified in 1996 continue to 

require attention.” [Italics ours.] Of the 11 remaining bulleted 

findings in OPM’s summary, 7 describe problem areas, 3 are 

positive, and 1 is mixed. 

15. The Commission asserts that using OPM’s guide instead of 

designing its own system is appropriate because it is a small 

agency. However, the Commission’s assertions reflect a 

misunderstanding of OPM’s guidance to agencies and of what 

constitutes an accountability system for human resources. 

According to OPM, an HRM accountability system is a process and 

should be seen as a continuous cycle. This systemic, continuous 

process “enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the 

information or data on which accountability is ultimately based.” It 

includes identifying the agency’s strategic goals, including human 

resource goals; developing performance measures and a baseline 

to assess whether human resource goals are being met; and using 

this information to make improvements. The accountability 

process also requires cyclical, periodic reassessment. The 

Commission has taken various actions to improve its human 

resources management, including updating several administrative 

instructions, conducting an employee survey in fiscal year 2000, 

and developing an employee handbook. However, the Commission 

has not developed an accountability system—an ongoing process 

involving goal setting, evaluation, improvements, and 

reassessment—to address the concerns raised in OPM’s report. 

16. We cannot agree that goals established in 1997 address and 

implement OPM’s 1999 recommendation, nor do we agree that our 

referring to the Commission’s strategic plan in this discussion is 

unfair. The Commission’s strategic plan was developed in 1997 and 

remains the Commission’s only strategic plan. In 1999, OPM 

recommended that the Commission’s strategic plan include human 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 40 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

resources elements that OPM did not find in the Commission’s 

1997 plan. In examining goal six in the Commission’s 1997 strategic 

plan, OPM “did not find that a link between HRM and agency 

mission accomplishment has been made apparent in the Strategic 

Plan. Further, the Strategic Plan does not list specific HRM goals 

and measures that could be used to assess the HRM function’s 

ability to effectively and efficiently support agency mission 

accomplishment. We found no evidence that key measures and/or 

outcome indicators are used by [the Commission] to track its 

efforts to achieve HRM goals.” The Commission’s assertion that the 

1997 strategic plan contains human resources goals, measures, and 

indicators is therefore neither accurate nor relevant: The 1997 plan 

does not include human resources measures and indicators and it 

was not part of the Commission’s response to OPM’s 

recommendation because it was developed 2 years before OPM 

made this recommendation. 

17. The Commission’s statement that we examined its GPRA processes 

is incorrect, and its description of the processes it used in 1997 to 

develop its strategic plan and first performance plan and report are 

irrelevant. Our objective was to assess the Commission’s 

compliance with GPRA’s requirements for agency strategic plans, 

annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. We 

did not focus on the agency’s process for developing these GPRA 

plans and reports, nor did we analyze the Commission’s initial 

performance plan for fiscal year 1999 or its initial performance 

report for fiscal year 1999. As noted in our report, we analyzed the 

Commission’s most recent performance plan (for fiscal year 2005) 

and the most recent performance report (for fiscal year 2003). We 

also compared the Commission’s plan for fiscal year 2003 to its 

performance report for the same year. 

18. The Commission is incorrect in asserting that its descriptions of 

completed studies in its performance report provide information 

equivalent to performance indicators and that its plans and reports, 

by implication, comply with GPRA standards. Under GPRA, a 

performance indicator means a particular value or characteristic 

used to measure output or outcome. A narrative description of a 

report’s findings cannot be used for measurement purposes. See 

comment 19 as well. 

19. The assertion that the Commission can use non-quantifiable 

measures in its reports is misleading. GPRA allows the Director of 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 41 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

OMB to authorize the use of alternative, nonquantifiable 

performance goals for annual performance plans if necessary. 

However, Commission officials explicitly told us that the agency 

did not apply for or receive authorization from OMB to submit 

goals in their annual performance plan in an alternative, 

nonquantifiable format. Agencies that are authorized to use 

alternative formats must comply with certain other requirements, 

which the Commission has not done. 

20. The Commission has not received an exemption from GPRA 

reporting requirements. Although agencies with annual outlays of 

$20 million or less are eligible to apply to OMB for an exemption, 

as the Commission notes, Commission officials told us that the 

agency has not applied for nor received such an exemption. 

21. Although the Commission has filed annual performance plans and 

annual reports each year, as required under GPRA, it has not 

revised and updated its strategic plan, which is also required under 

GPRA. Furthermore, we cannot agree that the Commission’s plans 

and reports comply with “material requirements” of GPRA because 

of the numerous shortcomings in these products, as described in 

our report. 

22. As noted in our report, according to OMB officials, OMB conducts 

primarily budgetary reviews and does not provide agencies that 

have small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, with the 

same level of scrutiny that it provides to larger agencies. OMB 

officials further told us that OMB does not approve or reject 

agencies’ GPRA plans and reports, but provides comments as 

appropriate. Because of OMB’s focus on budgetary reviews and on 

larger agencies, the absence of criticism from OMB does not 

necessarily constitute approval of an agency’s GPRA plans and 

reports. 

23. Contrary to the Commission’s assertion, GPRA does require 

agencies to update and revise its strategic plan at least every 3 

years. [Italics ours.] The Commission has not updated and revised 

its strategic plan since 1997 when it should have done so in fiscal 

year 2000 and again in fiscal year 2003. The Commission further 

asserts that its 1997 plan does not need updating or revision 

because its authorizing statute has not changed in the interim. This 

assumption is incorrect and demonstrates a misunderstanding of 

GPRA’s purposes and requirements. As noted in our report, 
Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. 

Commission on Civil Rights 

Page 42 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

strategic planning is not a static or occasional event. If done well, it 

is dynamic, continuous, and results-oriented, and it provides the 

foundation for everything the organization does. 
Appendix II: Key Recommendations from 

OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response 

Page 43 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Of the 16 recommendations that the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) made to the Commission in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6 

recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the 

agency. We did not analyze the Commission’s response to the 10 remaining 

recommendations. 

OPM Recommendation: Include human resources goals, measures, 

and indicators in the Commission’s Strategic Plan and involve 

Commission staff in the human resource planning and 

measurement process. 

The Commission has not addressed this recommendation. Because the 

Commission has not updated its strategic plan, it has not included 

additional human capital goals and assessment measures. In addition, 

although the Commission issued a Human Resources Plan in fiscal year 

2000 that contains five human capital performance goals, the plan does not 

link these goals to its overall strategic goals, set forth a timeframe for 

achieving them, or describe how it will assess its progress.1

 The plan also 

does not describe how Commission staff will participate in human 

resource planning and evaluation, as OPM recommended. 

OPM Recommendation: Use OPM’s Human Resource Management 

Accountability System Development Guide as a framework for 

creating an accountability system that will ensure that the 

Commission’s employees are used efficiently and effectively and 

that personnel actions are taken in accordance with Merit Systems 

Principles in support of agency mission accomplishment. 

Although Commission officials reported that they have developed and 

implemented an accountability system, we found little evidence to support 

this claim. OPM recommended that the Commission use its Human 

Resource Management Accountability System Development Guide as a 

 1

The performance goals in the Commission’s fiscal year 2000 Human Resources Plan were 

(1) refine performance measurement systems to establish usable measures, (2) provide all 

employees with training opportunities to improve their job skills, (3) ensure that the 

Commission workforce reflects the diversity of their clientele, (4) make family-friendly 

programs that can complement the Commission, and (5) provide all Commission 

employees access to the Internet. 

Appendix II: Key Recommendations from 

OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response
Appendix II: Key Recommendations from 

OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response 

Page 44 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

framework for creating an accountability system.2 The Commission’s fiscal 

year 2000 annual performance report noted that their managers were 

provided copies of the Accountability Guide for review and that the 

Commission planned to adopt or modify some of its procedures and 

recommendations. According to Commission officials, they used the 

Accountability Guide to develop a system similar to the one OPM outlines 

in its guide. They also told us that Commission managers were presented 

with a copy of the Accountability Guide and that their employees are 

aware of the system. According to the Commission’s Human Resources 

Manager, the accountability system the agency developed in response to 

OPM’s recommendation is in the Commission’s Administrative 

Instructions Manual and its fiscal year 2000 Human Resources Plan. The 

Commission has taken various actions to improve its human resources 

management since OPM’s 1999 review, such as conducting an employee 

survey in fiscal year 2000 and developing an employee handbook. 

Although the Commission has also updated several key sections of its 

administrative manual, most of the manual was published in April 1999, 

before OPM issued its report. Furthermore, the Commission’s most recent 

annual performance plan does not refer to a human capital accountability 

system, nor does it detail human capital goals or baselines to use in 

evaluating such goals. 

OPM Recommendation: Delegate human resources management 

authorities to managers in all program areas. Hold managers 

accountable for exercising the delegations through the Human 

Resources Management Accountability System. 

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. Overall, the 

Staff Director’s authority for most human resources decisions remains 

 2

OPM’s Accountability Guide, issued in 1998, describes a model for establishing and 

maintaining an HRM accountability system within an organization, with particular 

emphasis of human resource goals and measures in support of an agency’s mission. 

According to the Accountability Guide, human resources management accountability 

starts with identifying the agency’s strategic goals. The agency should then develop human 

resources goals in support of these goals. From there, performance measures should be 

developed and a baseline established to permit assessment of whether the goals are being 

met. According to OPM, an HRM accountability system should be seen as a continuous, 

systemic, process that “enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the information or 

data on which accountability is ultimately based.” 
Appendix II: Key Recommendations from 

OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response 

Page 45 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

essentially the same as in OPM’s 1999 report findings.3 According to 

Commission officials, managers can recommend employees for hire, 

promotion, and awards and conduct annual and mid-year reviews of their 

staff. However, the Staff Director must approve all hiring and promotion 

decisions as well as managers’ evaluations of employees before appraisals 

are given to employees. 

OPM Recommendation: Develop a system for periodically collecting 

employee feedback regarding human resources services and 

policies. Incorporate that feedback in the Human Resources 

Management Accountability System. 

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. To date, the 

Commission has not developed a formal system to regularly collect 

employee feedback about its human capital services and policies, even 

though a similar recommendation to obtain customer feedback and track 

customer views was also made in OPM’s earlier 1996 review.4

 In fiscal year 

2000, the Commission administered a staff survey on human resources and 

other Commission issues. According to officials, the Commission plans to 

administer another staff survey in the fall of 2004. However, the 

Commission has not developed plans to survey staff on a regular basis. In 

addition, since the Commission was unable to locate the results of its 2000 

survey, its managers cannot use earlier human capital findings to 

systematically set goals and make improvements. According to OPM 

officials, OPM will conduct a Web-based Human Capital Survey of 

Commission staff beginning in September or October of 2004. 

OPM Recommendation: Require that all managers make progress 

reviews and performance appraisals in a timely manner when the 

Human Resources Division notifies them they are due, and require 

that the Staff Director review appraisals when they are made 

without delay. 

 3

In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not yet developed an effective system for 

holding managers accountable for HRM decisions. OPM’s report stated that “the Staff 

Director retains final approval authority for most human resources decisions, including 

appointments, promotions, and performance ratings, leaving managers uncertain about 

their own accountability when making human resources management decisions.” 

4

In 1996, OPM’s review called for the Commission to “establish a self-assessment program 

to include a review of program compliance and customer feedback on the quality of 

services provided. In particular, the personnel office should track customer views on the 

timeliness and accuracy of services provided.” 
Appendix II: Key Recommendations from 

OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response 

Page 46 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

The Commission has implemented this recommendation, which was also 

made in OPM’s 1996 review.5

 According to the Commission’s Human 

Resources Director, the agency is on schedule for its fiscal year 2004 

performance appraisals. Commission guidance on the 2004 performance 

appraisal cycle requires Commission supervisors and managers to conduct 

annual and mid-year performance reviews of their staff. For non-Senior 

Executive Service employees, the process is outlined in a memorandum 

that the Human Resources Director sends annually to Commission 

supervisors and managers. 

OPM Recommendation: With employee involvement, consider 

developing a new performance management system linked to 

organizational and agency goals established under the 

Commission’s Strategic Plan. 

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. The 

Commission’s performance management system is described in its 

Administrative Instructions Manual, most of which was issued in April 

1999—6 months before OPM issued the recommendations in its October 

1999 report. The Administrative Instructions do not clearly require that 

employees’ performance plans link individual staff goals to broader 

strategic goals. The parts of the manual that set forth the Commission’s 

policies and procedures on appraisals make no reference to the 

Commission’s strategic plan, nor does it specify how to link individual 

staff goals to the Commission’s strategic goals or how to involve 

employees in this process. 

 5

In 1996, OPM made several recommendations on the Commission’s performance 

management, noting in particular that the Commission should “monitor whether managers 

are conducting progress reviews,” and “create a more timely process for handling 

performance appraisal ratings.” 
Appendix III: GAO’s October 2003 

Recommendations and the Commission’s 

Response 

Page 47 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

GAO Recommendation: Monitor the adequacy and timeliness of 

project cost information that the Staff Director provides to 

Commissioners and make the necessary adjustments, which could 

include providing information on a monthly, rather than a 

quarterly, basis and as necessary. 

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In our 2003 

review, we found that the Commission’s procedures did not provide for 

the Commissioners to systematically receive project cost information—a 

key element of good project management. As a result, the Commissioners 

approved the majority of projects and products each year without having 

any specific information on how much the project would cost, or how 

much similar projects have cost in past years. 

In the Commission’s June 2004 letter responding to our 2003 

recommendations, the Staff Director stated that this recommendation 

spoke to “Commission policy on the proper level and mode of interaction 

between the Commissioners and staff ... [and that] the Commissioners 

have reaffirmed on numerous occasions the current policy regarding 

interaction with staff.” He added that the Commission “is continuing to 

monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information provided 

to Commissioners.” 

According to the Staff Director, his office provides the Commissioners 

with cost information for each project and office on a quarterly basis, and 

they began doing so during the last quarter of 2003. However, the cost 

report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, ending March 31, was not 

sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004, and was sent in response to 

requests from the Commissioners for this information. It is also not clear 

that the Commission is monitoring the adequacy and timeliness of project 

cost information, as recommended. For example, the quarterly report for 

the second quarter of 2004 cites costs for only 8 of the 12 projects outlined 

in the Commission’s fiscal year 2004 performance plan. 

GAO Recommendation: Adopt procedures that provide for 

increased Commissioner involvement in project implementation 

and report preparation. 

The Staff Director does not agree with this recommendation and has not 

implemented it. In our 2003 review, we found that Commissioners have 

limited involvement in the management of projects once they have been 

approved. As a result, we recommended that the Commission adopt 

procedures for increasing Commissioner involvement after project 

Appendix III: GAO’s October 2003 

Recommendations and the Commission’s 

Response 
Appendix III: GAO’s October 2003 

Recommendations and the Commission’s 

Response 

Page 48 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

implementation by providing them with project updates and allowing them 

to review the product at various stages in the drafting process, so that they 

participate more actively in shaping products released to the public. 

The Staff Director did not agree with this recommendation and told us that 

he believes that the current procedures that govern Commissioner 

involvement in the development of products are appropriate and efficient. 

In his June 2004 letter responding to our recommendations, the Staff 

Director wrote that the responsibility for determining policy on 

Commissioners’ interaction with the staff is “delegated by statute to the 

Commissioners.” According to the Staff Director, the Commissioners 

requested that he assess the situation and issue recommendations on their 

involvement in report preparation. The Staff Director said that involving 

the Commissioners in the writing stage would “bog down” the process and 

that it would be difficult to incorporate the viewpoints of the eight 

Commissioners. To date, the Commission has not adopted any procedures 

to increase Commissioner involvement in the report preparation stage. 

GAO Recommendation: Establish greater controls over contracting 

activities in order to comply with the Federal Acquisition 

Regulation. 

Although the Staff Director disagreed with this recommendation, the 

Commission took one step towards establishing greater controls by 

contracting with a contracts and procurement specialist to supplement its 

operations. In 2003, we reported that the Commission lacked sufficient 

management controls over its contracting procedures. We found that, in 

fiscal year 2002, the Commission had not followed proper federal 

procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. Moreover, we found that 

the Commission failed to follow procedures that would allow it to track 

vendors’ performance against objective measures and ensure that public 

funds are being used effectively. 

While the Staff Director disagreed in his June 2004 response letter with the 

need for the actions associated with this recommendation, he later told us 

that the Commission “could be stronger” in the area of procurement. Since 

our 2003 report was issued, the Commission has supplemented its 

contracts and procurements operations by contracting with a contracts 

and procurements specialist with over 30 years of experience in 

government contracting. According to Commission officials, this specialist 

began providing services to the Commission in December 2003 and 

generally addresses complex procurement issues. 
Appendix III: GAO’s October 2003 

Recommendations and the Commission’s 

Response 

Page 49 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

GAO Recommendation: Take steps immediately in order to meet 

the financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the 

Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004. 

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In 2003, we 

found that the Commission’s fiscal activities had not been independently 

audited in at least 12 years. We concluded that the Commission’s limited 

financial management controls and lack of external oversight makes the 

Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to waste, mismanagement, 

or abuse. 

Although in the June 2004 response, the Commission reported working 

with its accounting vendor to ensure that it would meet these 

requirements, as of August 2004, the Commission had not taken the 

necessary steps, such as hiring an independent auditor, to ensure that it 

will meet the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act this 

year. 
Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 50 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights 

Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-3863 

Deborah A. Signer, (202) 512-7158 

Friendly M. VangJohnson and Caroline Sallee made significant 

contributions to this report. In addition, Richard P. Burkard, Elizabeth H. 

Curda, Julian P. Klazkin, Benjamin T. Licht, Corinna Nicolaou, and Michael 

R. Volpe provided key technical and legal assistance throughout the 

engagement. 

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

(130373) 
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 Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday, GAO posts 

newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go 

to www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.” 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 each. 

A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of 

Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 

more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders 

should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548 

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 

TDD: (202) 512-2537 

Fax: (202) 512-6061 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

Jeff Nelligan, Managing Director, NelliganJ@gao.gov (202) 512-4800 

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

Washington, D.C. 20548 

GAO’s Mission 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Mail or Phone 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs 

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER