United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

June 1998 INSPECTORS

GENERAL

Efforts to Develop

Strategic Plans

GAO/AIMD-98-112

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

Accounting and Information

Management Division

B-279470 

June 12, 1998

The Honorable Dan Burton

Chairman

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Stephen Horn

Chairman, Subcommittee on Government Management,

 Information and Technology

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

The Honorable Charles E. Grassley

Chairman

Special Committee on Aging

United States Senate

This letter responds to your request that we survey inspectors general (IG)

to obtain information on IG strategic planning efforts. The Government

Performance and Results Act of 1993, commonly known as GPRA or the

Results Act, established strategic plans as the starting point and basic

underpinning within a larger framework of performance-based

management and accountability. Although the Results Act requires each

agency head to develop a strategic plan covering the major functions and

operations of the agency, it does not specifically require that IGs have

separate strategic plans.

We developed and sent a questionnaire on strategic planning to the 48 IGs

whose respective agencies are required to prepare a strategic plan in

accordance with the Results Act. We asked (1) which IGs presently prepare

strategic plans, (2) the extent to which IG strategic plans were consistent

with Results Act requirements, (3) what additional information IGs

included in their strategic plans, (4) the extent to which IGs used their

respective agencies’ strategic plans to develop their own plans, (5) the

extent to which IGs have been involved in developing their agencies’

strategic plans, (6) the extent to which a strategic plan prepared consistent

with the requirements of the Results Act would be useful to the Congress,

the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the IG, and (7) the IGs’

views on statutorily requiring them to prepare strategic plans. All 48 IGs

responded to the questionnaire. Appendixes I and II provide detailed

Page 1 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
B-279470 

information on the IGs’ responses to these seven questions. The IGs’

responses are summarized below.

Results in Brief The 48 IGs we surveyed indicated that they are all engaged in strategic

planning efforts. Thirty-nine IGs reported that they had completed strategic

plans, with the remaining 9 stating that they planned to complete their

plans during 1998. Most IGs (69 percent) were of the opinion that the

requirements contained in the Results Act provided an appropriate

framework for preparing IG strategic plans. Further, the IGs’ responded

that their plans address many of the elements that the Results Act requires

for agency plans. For example, almost all indicated that their plan

contained a mission statement, general goals and objectives, and

approaches or strategies for achieving goals. However, fewer IG plans

addressed such elements as the relationship between general goals and

annual performance goals (74 percent) and identification of external

factors that could affect achievement of goals (64 percent). In addition, the

plans addressed key management issues to varying degrees including

financial management issues (about 64 percent), information technology

(about 49 percent), the Year 2000 problem1

 (about 10 percent), and

computer security (about 33 percent). The IGs we surveyed generally

indicated that these management issues, if not included in their strategic

plans, were covered in other planning documents such as annual audit

plans.

Most IGs also indicated that they considered the agency’s Results Act

strategic plan at least to some extent in preparing their own plan. In

addition, more than half of all the IGs reported that they had at least some

involvement in preparing the agency’s strategic plan. A majority believed

that a strategic plan that satisfies the requirements of the Results Act

would be useful to the Congress, OMB, and the IG in assessing IG

performance and operations. The IGs were about evenly divided on the

need for a statutory requirement on strategic planning. Overall, about

29 percent agreed, 33 percent disagreed, 27 percent agreed as much as

disagreed, and the remaining 10 percent2

 had no opinion. Of the IGs that

cited a reason for their disagreement, the most frequent comment made

was that such a mandate was unnecessary because IGs recognize the

importance of strategic planning as a basic part of good management and

are already engaged in planning efforts.

1

The Year 2000 problem involves the inability of computer programs at the Year 2000 to interpret the

correct century from a recorded or calculated date having only two digits to indicate the year.

2

Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 2 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
B-279470 

Background The Inspector General Act of 1978 (IG Act), Public Law 95-452, as

amended, established Inspector General offices in federal departments

and agencies to create independent and objective units responsible for

(1) conducting and supervising audits and investigations, (2) providing

leadership and coordination and recommending policies to promote

economy, efficiency, and effectiveness, and (3) detecting and preventing

fraud and abuse in their agencies’ programs and operations. The IG Act

identifies 26 federal establishments that are to have an IG appointed by the

President with Senate confirmation and 30 designated federal entities

(DFE) that are to have an IG appointed by their agency’s head.

The Results Act is a key component of the statutory framework that the

Congress put in place during the 1990s to help resolve long-standing

management problems that have undermined the federal government’s

effectiveness and efficiency and to provide greater accountability for

results.3

 The Results Act seeks a shift in focus away from such traditional

concerns as activity levels towards a single overriding issue: results. The

act requires that goals be set, performance measured, and

accomplishments reported. An important element in results-oriented

management is an entity’s strategic planning effort. This effort is the

starting point and foundation for defining what an entity seeks to

accomplish, identifying the strategies it will use to achieve desired results,

and then determining how well it succeeds in reaching results-oriented

goals and achieving objectives. Developing a strategic plan can help clarify

organizational priorities.

The Results Act requires that an agency’s strategic plan contain six key

elements. These elements are (1) a comprehensive mission statement,

(2) general goals and objectives for all major functions and operations,

(3) approaches or strategies and the various resources needed to achieve

the goals and objectives, (4) a description of the relationship between the

general goals and objectives and the annual performance goals, (5) an

identification of key factors external to the agency and beyond its control

that could significantly affect the achievement of the general goals, and

(6) a description of how past program evaluations were used to establish

or revise general goals and a schedule for future program evaluations.

Under the act, agency strategic plans are to cover a time period of not less

than 5 years forward from the fiscal year in which they are submitted and

are to be updated at least every 3 years.

3

Managing for Results: The Statutory Framework for Performance-Based Management and

Accountability (GAO/GGD/AIMD-98-52, January 28, 1998).

Page 3 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
B-279470 

Objective, Scope, and

Methodology

Our objective was to respond to the seven questions noted above. To

accomplish our objective, we used a questionnaire to obtain information

on the IGs’ strategic planning efforts. Prior to sending out the

questionnaire, it was pretested with the IGs from the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation and the Department of State and revised as needed.

The questionnaire was sent to the 48 IGs whose respective agencies are

required to prepare a strategic plan in accordance with the Results Act. Of

the 48 IGs, 26 are presidentially appointed and 22 are DFE IGs. All 48 of the

IGs responded to the questionnaire. In addition, we obtained and reviewed

the most recent strategic plan completed by each IG. We used these plans

to confirm the responses provided by the IGs on the contents of their

plans. We performed our review between December 1997 and March 1998

in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We

requested oral comments on a draft of this report from the office of OMB’s

Deputy Director for Management, the Vice Chair of the President’s Council

on Integrity and Efficiency, and the Vice Chair of the Executive Council on

Integrity and Efficiency.

Agency Comments On April 30, 1998, we received oral comments from the Office of

Management and Budget, the Vice Chair of the President’s Council on

Integrity and Efficiency, and the Vice Chair of the Executive Council on

Integrity and Efficiency. They generally agreed with the contents of the

report and we have incorporated their comments as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the Ranking Minority Members of

the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight and its

Subcommittee on Government Management, Information and Technology

and the Senate Special Committee on Aging; the Chairmen and Ranking

Minority Members of the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs,

House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, House and Senate

Committees on the Budget; and the Director, Office of Management and

Budget. Copies will also be made available to others upon request.

Page 4 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
B-279470 

The major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. If you have

any questions concerning this report, please contact me at (202) 512-6240.

Linda D. Koontz

Associate Director, Audit Oversight and Liaison

Page 5 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Questions and

Answers on IGs’

Strategic Plans

8

Appendix II 

Selected

Characteristics of

Presidential and

Designated Federal

Entity Inspectors

General Strategic

Plans

16

Appendix III 

Major Contributors to

This Report

18

Figures Figure I.1: Number of IGs That Have Completed or Are

Developing Strategic Plans

8

Figure I.2: Results Act Elements Included in the IGs’ Strategic

Plans

9

Figure I.3: Information Included in the IGs’ Strategic Plans 11

Figure I.4: Extent to Which the Agencies’ Plans Were Considered

in Developing the IGs’ Strategic Plans

12

Figure I.5: Extent to Which the IGs Were Involved in Developing

Their Agencies’ Strategic Plans

13

Figure I.6: Extent to Which the IGs Believe That a Strategic Plan

Prepared Consistent With the Requirements of the Results Act

Would Be Useful to the Congress, OMB, and the IG

14

Figure I.7: Extent to Which the IGs Believe Strategic Plans Should

Be Statutorily Required

15

Page 6 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Contents

Abbreviations

DFE designated federal entity

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

IG inspector general

OMB Office of Management and Budget

Page 7 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

1. Which IGs presently prepare strategic plans?

As of January 14, 1998, the 48 IGs we surveyed responded that they either

had completed or were developing strategic plans. As shown below, 39 of

the 48 IGs had completed a strategic plan. The nine remaining IGs stated

that they plan to complete their plans during 1998. Appendix II identifies

the IGs that have completed a strategic plan and those that are developing

a plan.

Figure I.1: Number of IGs That Have

Completed or Are Developing Strategic

Plans

Number of agencies

0

5

10

15

20

Completed plans Developing

plans

20

19

6

3

Presidential IGs

Designated federal entity IGs

Page 8 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

2. Are IG strategic plans consistent with the Results Act’s requirements for

strategic plans prepared by agencies?

As shown below, virtually all of the IGs stated that their strategic plans

contained a mission statement, goals, and approaches or strategies for

achieving the goals. However, the plans less frequently identified IG

resource and skill needs, described the key external factors that could

affect achievement of the goals, or discussed how past efforts were used

in formulating the current plan.

As detailed in appendix II, a majority of the IG plans covered a period of 5

to 6 years with plans to update them every 1 to 3 years. These time frames

are consistent with Results Act requirements for agency strategic plans.

Figure I.2: Results Act Elements

Included in the IGs’ Strategic Plans Percent of agencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Mission

Goals

Approaches

Resources

Performance goals

External goals

Past efforts

95

100 100100

95 95

65

89

75 74 75

53

45

53

Presidential IGs

Designated federal entity IGs

Note: This figure is based on the 39 IGs that have strategic plans.

Page 9 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

3. What additional information do the IGs include in their strategic plans?

We also asked the IGs the extent to which their plans addressed certain

issues relevant to their operations. First, we asked about the IG vision

statement which was unanimously adopted by the IGs in 1994 and

emphasized their role as change agents for continuous improvement in

their agencies. Further, we asked if the IG’s strategic plans addressed areas

in their agency that have been identified by GAO as being at high risk1

because of vulnerabilities to waste, fraud, abuse, and

mismanagement—risks that are of central concern to IGs. These high-risk

areas include two governmentwide issues—computer security and the

Year 2000 problem—as well as numerous specific agency programs.

Finally, we asked about two critical areas in which governmentwide

improvement is needed to resolve high-risk problems and improve

accountability: financial management and information management and

technology.

The IGs’ responses indicated that these items were addressed to varying

degrees. For example, most plans (90 percent of the presidentially

appointed and 68 percent of the DFE IGs) included the IG vision statement.

On the other hand, only 5 percent of the presidentially appointed and

16 percent of the DFE IGs addressed the Year 2000 conversion issue. Most

of the IGs (about 78 percent) did not discuss agency-specific high-risk

areas in their plans, when applicable. The IGs indicated, however, that

high-risk and other management issues, if not addressed in their strategic

plans, were generally discussed in other IG documents, such as annual

audit plans.

1

High-Risk Series: An Overview (GAO/HR-97-1, February 1997).

Page 10 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

Figure I.3: Information Included in the

IGs’ Strategic Plans Percent of agencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

IG vision

statement

Financial

management

Information

technology

Computer

security

Year 2K problem

90

68 65 63

40

58

20

47

5

16

Presidential IGs

Designated federal entity IGs

Note: This figure is based on the 39 IGs that have strategic plans.

Page 11 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

4. To what extent did the IGs’ consider their respective agencies’ strategic

plans to develop their strategic plans?

An agency’s strategic plan, which identifies its goals and strategies, could

be useful to IGs in formulating their own goals and priorities. The majority

of IGs indicated that they considered their respective agency’s plan at least

to some extent in developing their own plan. A greater percentage of

presidentially appointed IGs considered the agency plan than did the DFE

IGs (73 percent versus 59 percent).

Figure I.4: Extent to Which the

Agencies’ Plans Were Considered in

Developing the IGs’ Strategic Plans

Percent of agencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

Very great

Great

Moderate

Some

Little or none

No response

0 0

23

18

31 32

19

9

23

41

4

0

Presidential IGs

Designated federal entity IGs

Page 12 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

5. To what extent have the IGs been involved in preparing their respective

agencies’ strategic plans?

The IGs’ knowledge of program performance and vulnerabilities could be

useful to agencies in preparing their strategic plans. The IGs’ responses

indicated that the majority were involved, at least to some extent, in

developing their agencies’ strategic plans. These IGs indicated that their

roles included participating in meetings, providing comments on draft

plans, or giving advice. The DFE IGs were proportionately less involved,

with 59 percent having little or no involvement in developing their

agencies’ plans.

Figure I.5: Extent to Which the IGs

Were Involved in Developing Their

Agencies’ Strategic Plans

Percent of agencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very great

Great

Moderate

Some

Little or none

No basis to judge

0

5 4 5

38

14

27

18

31

59

0 0

Presidential IGs

Designated federal entity IGs

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 13 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

6. To what extent is a strategic plan prepared consistent with the

requirements of the Results Act useful to the Congress, OMB, and the IG?

As shown below, the majority of respondents were of the opinion that a

strategic plan prepared consistent with the requirements of the Results Act

would be useful to the Congress, OMB, and the IG itself in assessing IG

operations and performance. In their narrative comments to the

questionnaire, several IGs noted that other documents, such as the

semiannual reports to agency heads and the Congress, which are already

required under the IG Act, are also good sources of information.

Figure I.6: Extent to Which the IGs Believe That a Strategic Plan Prepared Consistent With the Requirements of the Results

Act Would Be Useful to the Congress, OMB, and the IG

Percent of agencies

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Strongly agree Agree Agree/disagree Disagree Strongly disagree No basis to judge

6 6

15

50 48

58

19 21

17

13 13

8

0 0 0

13 13

2

Useful to the Congress

Useful to OMB

Useful to the IG

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 14 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix I 

Questions and Answers on IGs’ Strategic

Plans

7. What are the views of the IGs on being statutorily required to prepare

strategic plans?

Although most IGs supported the concept of strategic planning, they were

divided on whether they should be statutorily required to prepare strategic

plans. In the aggregate, about 29 percent strongly agreed or agreed,

27 percent agreed as much as disagreed, and 33 percent disagreed or

strongly disagreed. Of the IGs that cited a reason for their disagreement,

the most frequent comment made was that such a mandate was

unnecessary because IGs recognize the importance of strategic planning as

a basic part of good management and are already engaged in planning

efforts.

Figure I.7: Extent to Which the IGs

Believe Strategic Plans Should Be

Statutorily Required

Percent of agencies

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Strongly agree

Agree

Agree/disagree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

No basis to judge

4

9

27

18

23

32 31

27

8

0

8

14

Presidential IGs

Designated federal entity IGs

Note: Numbers may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.

Page 15 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix II 

Selected Characteristics of Presidential and

Designated Federal Entity Inspectors

General Strategic Plans

Strategic plan

Years covered by plan Years plan updated

Agency Yes No

5 to 6

years Other

1 to 3

years Other

Presidential Inspectors General

Agency for International Development X 5 1

Corporation for National Service X 5 3

Department of Agriculture X 6 3

Department of Commerce Xa

Department of Defense X 5 2

Department of Education X Otherb 3

Department of Energy X 5 3

Department of Health and Human Services X 5 3

Department of Housing and Urban Development Xa

Department of Interior X 5 1

Department of Justice Xa

Department of Labor X 5 1

Department of State X 5 1

Department of Transportation Xa

Department of the Treasury X 5 3

Department of Veterans Affairs X 6 3

Environmental Protection Agency X 5 3

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation X Otherb 1

Federal Emergency Management Agency X 5 1

General Services Administration X 6 1

National Aeronautics and Space Administration X Otherb 1

Nuclear Regulatory Commission Xa

Office of Personnel Management X 5 3

Railroad Retirement Board Xa

Small Business Administration X 6 3

Social Security Administration X 2 1

Total Presidential Inspectors General 20 6 16 4 20

(continued)

Page 16 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix II 

Selected Characteristics of Presidential and

Designated Federal Entity Inspectors

General Strategic Plans

Strategic plan

Years covered by plan Years plan updated

Agency Yes No

5 to 6

years Other

1 to 3

years Other

Designated Federal Entity Inspectors General

Commodity Futures Trading Commission X 5 Semiannual

Consumer Product Safety Commission X 5 2

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission X 5 2

Farm Credit Administration X 3 1

Federal Communications Commission X 5 1

Federal Election Commission Xa

Federal Labor Relations Authority X 5 As needed

Federal Housing Finance Board X 5 1

Federal Maritime Commission X 5 5

Federal Trade Commission X 5 5

National Archives and Records Administration X 5 2

National Credit Union Administration X 5 3

National Endowment for the Arts X 5 3

National Endowment for the Humanities Xa

National Labor Relations Board X 5 4

National Science Foundation Xa

Peace Corps X 5 3

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation X 5 2

Securities and Exchange Commission X 5 3

Tennessee Valley Authority X Otherb 1

United States International Trade Commission X 5 3

Postal Service X 5 1

Total Designated Federal Entities

Inspectors General 19 3 17 2 14 5

Total 39 9 33 6 34 5

aPlan is being developed.

bYears covered by plan are unspecified or updated as needed.

Page 17 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Appendix III 

Major Contributors to This Report

Accounting and

Information

Management Division,

Washington, D.C.

Jackson W. Hufnagle, Assistant Director

Robert A. Pewanick, Assistant Director

Edith A. Pyles, Assistant Director

Darby W. Smith, Assistant Director

Clarence A. Whitt, Senior Accountant

Cristina T. Chaplain, Communications Analyst

Kansas City Field

Office

Dieter M. Kiefer, Assistant Director

San Francisco Field

Office

Perry G. Datwyler, Senior Evaluator

RoJeanne Liu, Senior Evaluator/Computer Specialist

(911842) Page 18 GAO/AIMD-98-112 IG Strategic Planning
Ordering Information

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

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

following address, accompanied by a check or money order

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when

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

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

are discounted 25 percent.

Orders by mail:

U.S. General Accounting Office

P.O. Box 37050

Washington, DC 20013

or visit:

Room 1100

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

U.S. General Accounting Office

Washington, DC

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

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

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

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

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

touchtone phone. A recorded menu will provide information on

how to obtain these lists.

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

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

info@www.gao.gov

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

http://www.gao.gov

PRINTED ON RECYCLED PAPER
United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548-0001

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use $300

Address Correction Requested

Bulk Rate

Postage & Fees Paid

GAO

Permit No. G100