United States General Accounting Office

GAO Report to Congressional Requesters

December 1995 OFFICE OF

MANAGEMENT AND

BUDGET

Changes Resulting

From the OMB 2000

Reorganization

GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50

GAO United States

General Accounting Office

Washington, D.C. 20548

General Government Division

B-260096 

December 29, 1995

The Honorable Ted Stevens, Chairman

The Honorable John Glenn, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Governmental Affairs

United States Senate

The Honorable William F. Clinger, Jr., Chairman

The Honorable Cardiss Collins, Ranking Minority Member

Committee on Government Reform and Oversight

House of Representatives

This report responds to your request that we describe the changes that

have occurred as a result of OMB 2000—a major reorganization and process

change at the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that was announced

March 1, 1994, as part of the National Performance Review (NPR).1

 The

primary goal of OMB 2000 was to integrate OMB’s budget analysis,

management review, and policy development roles under a new structure

to improve the decisionmaking process and oversight of executive branch

operations. The objectives of our review were to describe (1) changes in

OMB’s organizational structure, responsibilities, and staffing as a result of

OMB 2000; (2) changes to OMB’s three statutory offices; (3) changes in the

attention OMB gave to management issues in the budget formulation

process before and after OMB 2000; and (4) the way OMB planned to

evaluate OMB 2000. We did not evaluate OMB’s overall capacity to carry out

its central management responsibilities.

Scope and

Methodology

We developed the information in this report from numerous interviews of

OMB managers and staff and reviews of budget documents for fiscal years

1995 and 1996. In total, we interviewed 87 OMB officials and staff,

representing over 15 percent of all OMB employees. However, because the

interviews were not a random sample drawn from all components of OMB,

the information obtained from them is not generalizable to all OMB

employees. We reviewed budget documents that related to four executive

departments and one agency: the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Labor,

Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental

Protection Agency. To obtain access to OMB’s internal budget review

documents, we agreed to keep the information the documents contained

confidential and to describe examples from them that illustrated the

changes before and after OMB 2000 in a general manner.

1

NPR, under the direction of Vice President Gore, is a major management reform initiative intended to

identify ways to make the government work better and cost less.

Page 1 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

In contrast to our 1989 general management review of OMB,

2

 this review

focused on a specific reorganization initiative. As agreed with your offices,

our review was descriptive rather than evaluative in nature because, at the

time we started our review, it was too early to evaluate this complex and

significant reorganization of OMB. Moreover, it was very difficult to

separate the influence of OMB 2000 from concurrent management reform

initiatives, such as the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993

(GPRA)3

 or other components of NPR. We did our work in Washington, D.C.,

from November 1994 through July 1995 in accordance with generally

accepted government auditing standards. Appendix I provides additional

details on our objectives, scope, and methodology.

We provided a draft of this report to the Director of OMB for her review and

comment on November 28, 1995. OMB’s comments are presented and

evaluated on page 28 of this report, and a copy of OMB’s comments is in

appendix V.

Background Management and budget issues have long competed for attention and

resources within the Executive Office of the President, with management

concerns commonly subordinated to the exigencies of the budget process.

During the past 50 years, a number of presidential advisory groups have

recommended changes designed to strengthen the Office’s central

management leadership. In response to the recommendations of one of

these groups, the Bureau of the Budget was reorganized in 1970 and

renamed OMB, thereby signaling the intent to heighten the management

focus in the agency. However, the creation of OMB did not produce an

institutionalized capacity for governmentwide management leadership.

OMB’s budget role continued to dominate management responsibilities, and

its capacity to provide management direction for the executive branch

remained a persistent concern. Observers have debated how to best

ensure that management issues are not overwhelmed by budgeting

pressures. Some observers have advocated integrating the two functions,

while others have proposed the creation of dedicated offices, or even a

separate agency to provide governmentwide management leadership.

2

Managing the Government: Revised Approach Could Improve OMB’s Effectiveness (GAO/GGD-89-65,

May 4,1989) assessed OMB’s recent and long-term performance in providing leadership and promoting

management improvements in the executive branch.

3

GPRA requires agencies to develop strategic plans, obtain input on desired goals from key

stakeholders, and measure and report progress toward achieving those goals.

Page 2 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Previous OMB reorganizations have reflected these different points of view,

alternating between integrating management into the budget review

process and creating separate management offices. Proponents of

integrating management into the budget review process believed doing so

could increase the attention both OMB examiners and agencies give to

management issues by linking these issues to budgetary consequences.

However, budget issues have tended over time to squeeze out management

issues and erode attempts to dedicate specific resources to management.

On the other hand, proponents of creating separate management offices

believed the separation of management and budget functions could help

ensure a consistent level of attention to specific management issues.

However, these offices may have marginal impact in leading changes at the

agencies without the influence of potential budgetary consequences.

Our 1989 report on OMB examined the agency’s repeated reorganizations

and management improvement efforts and concluded that OMB had been

unable to coordinate its management and budget functions effectively and

had not established a stable management capacity. We found that OMB’s

short-term, budget-driven focus often made it difficult for the agency to

address long-term management problems. We recommended that OMB

(1) establish a systematic process within the annual budget cycle for

identifying and overseeing agency progress on key management issues,

(2) give budget divisions the responsibility and resources to oversee

agency implementation of management policy, (3) improve coordination

between management and budget staff, and (4) consider creating the

position of Deputy Director for Management (DDM).

Congress has used its legislative power for the past two decades to help

direct OMB’s governmentwide management leadership. For example, the

Federal Managers Financial Integrity Act of 1982 required OMB to help

establish guidelines agencies could use to evaluate their internal control

systems. To increase attention to certain management problems, Congress

created three separate statutory offices in OMB focused on specific

management areas: the Office of Federal Financial Management (OFFM) to

guide the establishment of systems and controls needed for agencies’

financial management; the Office of Federal Procurement Policy (OFPP) to

provide overall direction for executive agencies’ procurement policies,

regulations, and procedures; and the Office of Information and Regulatory

Affairs (OIRA) to direct and oversee agencies’ management of information

resources and reduction of unnecessary paperwork. In addition, in the

Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, Congress established the DDM position

to strengthen federal management in general. In 1993, Congress also

Page 3 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

required OMB to lead the implementation of GPRA, which was designed to

improve the efficiency and effectiveness of federal programs by

establishing in each agency a system for setting goals for program

performance and measuring results. Congress did not create a separate

office in OMB for GPRA, but OMB initially placed responsibility for that

function in its General Management Division, where responsibility for

other governmentwide management initiatives was housed.

Results in Brief OMB 2000 created a new organizational structure for the agency by

reorganizing and replacing OMB’s former budget program areas with five

Resource Management Offices (RMO) staffed by employees reassigned to

new program examiner positions. The RMOs were assigned integrated

responsibilities for examining agency management, budget, and policy

issues. In general, the agency-specific oversight responsibilities of the

three statutory offices were shifted to the RMOs, but OMB decided to retain

responsibility for developing governmentwide management policies in the

statutory offices. OMB’s General Management Division was eliminated.

Our review of budget documents and interviews with OMB staff indicated

that there was greater attention to agency management issues in the fiscal

year 1996 budget process (after OMB 2000 was implemented) than in the

fiscal year 1995 process. A greater variety of management issues was

presented in more depth in the fiscal year 1996 budget documents than in

the previous year’s documents. These results reflected the clear

commitment of OMB’s top officials to ensure the treatment of management

issues in the budget cycle.

Although RMO staff said that budget examiners had looked at agency

management issues before OMB 2000, they said that after the reorganization

more attention was given to particular management issues by the RMOs,

specifically the fiscal year 1996 budget initiatives on agencies’ streamlining

plans and use of performance information. They also said that OMB and

agencies were more likely to take action on management issues when they

were associated with the budget. However, some RMO staff said that the

expansion of their responsibilities raised concerns that short-term budget

pressures could limit their examination of long-term management issues.

Some program examiners also said they did not have and could not easily

locate the expertise needed to address certain management issues for

which they were responsible. However, despite these concerns about its

initial implementation, OMB staff generally had a positive view of OMB 2000.

Page 4 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Only one budget cycle has been completed under this reorganization.

Therefore, some of the problems experienced to date may be merely

transitional in nature, and it remains to be seen whether the initial positive

results can be sustained over the longer term. Top OMB officials have

fostered greater attention to management issues in the budget, but our

interviews revealed concerns over whether this focus has become

institutionalized for the longer term. We believe that OMB needs to address

the longer term prospects for its capacity to provide central management

leadership. Although OMB initially planned to evaluate OMB 2000 as a

distinct management initiative, it now plans to assess more broadly its

overall effectiveness in formulating and implementing management

policies for the government in response to GPRA requirements. In

recognition of the continued key role Congress expects OMB to play in

addressing federal management issues, and in recognition of the history of

tension between the two concepts of (1) integrating management and

budget responsibilities and (2) segregating management responsibilities to

prevent them from being overwhelmed by budget responsibilities, we

believe it is important that OMB understand how the reorganization has

affected its capacity for sustained management leadership.

Changes in OMB’s

Organizational

Structure,

Responsibilities, and

Staffing

OMB 2000 altered OMB’s organizational structure and the responsibilities of

units within that structure. As a result of OMB 2000, the RMOs were created

and made responsible for all agency-specific reviews, and the statutory

offices continued to be responsible for developing governmentwide policy.

Each RMO consists of at least one division, with several branches in each

division. OMB 2000 created new staff positions, moved staff to different

units within the new structure, and made other staffing changes. Overall,

the RMOs were assigned about 26 percent more staff than the former

budget program areas had, although OMB’s total fiscal year 1994 staffing

allocation (556 full-time equivalents) was unchanged. (App. II shows OMB’s

staffing profile before and after OMB 2000.)

Creation of the RMOs OMB 2000 created five RMOs from five former budget program areas, which

had examined agency budget requests and made funding

recommendations to OMB’s Director. OMB 2000 redistributed some former

budget program area assignments in order to balance the workload within

and among RMOs. Before OMB 2000, OMB had separate management offices

that examined agencies’ implementation of management initiatives. OMB

had a General Management Division prior to OMB 2000 that was

responsible for, among other things, performance measurement, program

Page 5 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

evaluation, and federal personnel and property management issues. In

addition, OMB has three management-related offices that were created by

statute: OFFM, OFPP, and OIRA. OMB reassigned staff from both the former

budget program areas and the management offices to the RMOs to examine

agencies’ specific management, budget, and policy issues. Figure 1 shows

OMB’s organization before OMB 2000.

Page 6 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Page 7 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Figure 1: Office of Management and Budget, Before OMB 2000

B

Divisions


Branches


Entire branch transferred by OMB 2000


Eliminated by OMB 2000

Natural Resources,
 Human Resources
 Health


Energy and Science


Natural Resources


Energy and Science


Special Studies


Economics and


Government


Transportation, 


Commerce and Justice


Housing, Treasury


and Finance


Special Studies

Budget and Program Areas

Communications 
 Legislative Affairs 


OMB-Wide Staff and 


Support Offices

Deputy 


Director

Deputy Director 


for Management

Director 

Legend

National Security and 


International Affairs


National Security


International Affairs


Special Studies

A

General Counsel

Human Resources Health

Page 8 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Statutory Offices 

Management Offices

B

Office of Federal and 


Financial Management

Office of Information


and Regulatory Affairs

Information Policy


Information Technology


Commerce and Lands


Human Resources 


and Housing


Natural Resources


Statistical Policy

Office of Federal


Procurement Policy

Management Controls


Procurement Law 


and Legislation


Procurement Policy


Development


Cost Accounting


Standards Board

General Management


Division


Federal Services


Federal Personnel


Policy


Evaluation and 


Planning

Economic Policy
 Legislative
 Budget Review


Reference and 


Administration


A

OMB-Wide Staff and 


Support Offices

Financial Standards


and Systems


Management Integrity


Credit and Cash


Management

Page 9 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

The National Security and International Affairs and the Natural Resources,

Energy, and Science budget program areas became RMOs with comparable

agency coverage. The Health budget program area became the Health and

Personnel RMO and acquired responsibility for the Department of Veterans

Affairs, the Office of Personnel Management, the Executive Office of the

President, and the Postal Service. Some of the Human Resources budget

program area’s examining responsibilities (such as responsibility for the

Department of Veterans Affairs) were moved elsewhere. Coincident with

these changes, the Human Resources budget program area became an RMO.

Finally, the Economics and Government budget program area became the

General Government and Finance RMO, maintaining responsibility for the

Departments of Commerce, Justice, Housing and Urban Development,

Transportation, and Treasury; and federal financial institutions; and

adding responsibility for the General Services Administration. (The RMOs’

organizational structure and examining responsibilities are illustrated in

app. III in figs. III.1 through III.5.) Figure 2 shows OMB’s organization after

OMB 2000.

Page 10 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Page 11 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Figure 2: Office of Management and Budget, After OMB 2000

Resource 


Management Offices


OMB-Wide Staff and 


Support Offices 

B

Deputy 


Director

Deputy Director 


for Management

Director 

Communications 
 General 


Counsel


Economic 


Policy


Legislative 


Affairs 


National Security and 


International Affairs


National Security


International Affairs

Natural Resources,


Energy and Science


Natural Resources


Energy and Science


General Government


and Finance


Transportation,


Commerce, Justice 


and Services


Housing, Treasury


and Finance

Human Resources


Human Resources

Health and Personnel


Health


Veterans Affairs/


Personnel

Divisions


Branches


Legend

A

Page 12 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

B

Office of Federal and 


Financial Management

Financial Standards


and Reporting


Federal Financial


Systems


Management Integrity

Office of Federal


Procurement and Policy

Procurement Innovation


Procurement Law and 


Legislation


Cost Accounting


Standards Board

Office of Information


and Regulatory Affairs

Information Policy


Information Technology


Commerce and Lands


Human Resources 


and Housing


Natural Resources


Statistical Policy

Statutory Offices 

Legislative
 Budget Review


Reference


Administration


A

OMB-Wide Staff and 


Support Offices 

Page 13 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

The RMOs were also given responsibility for overseeing agencies’

implementation of governmentwide management policies—a

responsibility that had formerly been assigned to OMB’s management

offices (the statutory offices and the General Management Division). For

example, OMB made the RMOs responsible for examining agencies’ audited

financial statements and for assessing agencies’ high-risk, procurement,

and information resources management (IRM) issues. OMB eliminated

OFFM’s Credit and Cash Management Branch and the Special Studies

Divisions that had been associated with three of the five budget program

areas. The Special Studies Divisions, which had originally been established

to provide management expertise within the budget program areas, had

most recently focused on longer term policy analysis.

The General Management Division was eliminated when two of its three

branches (the Federal Services and Federal Personnel Policy Branches)

were moved to RMOs and the third branch (Evaluation and Planning) was

eliminated. The movement of the Division’s responsibilities for examining

the other two central management agencies (the General Services

Administration and the Office of Personnel Management) reversed a

previous initiative to give the General Management Division some budget

examining responsibilities.

OMB assigned most of the responsibilities and staff from these units to the

RMOs. For example, the two staff members who coordinated OMB Circular

A-764

 activities and credit and cash management responsibilities were

moved from the General Management Division and OFFM, respectively, to

the General Government and Finance RMO. The staff member who

coordinated GPRA responsibilities was transferred initially from the

General Management Division to the Human Resources RMO. In May 1995

OMB relocated the individuals responsible for coordinating GPRA and OMB

Circular A-76 initiatives from the RMOs to its Budget Review Division,

because it determined that these crosscutting issues could be better

handled centrally.

OMB attempted to reassign staff with specific expertise from the pre-OMB

2000 management offices to areas where they could continue to use their

skills. For example, OMB assigned two former OFPP staff to an RMO branch

that works on Department of Defense procurement issues and a former

OFFM staff member to an RMO branch that works on housing loan issues.

4

OMB Circular A-76 establishes the federal policy on commercial services. The circular specifies

cost-comparison procedures for determining when it is more economical to contract out for services

currently done by federal employees.

Page 14 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

However, competing priorities prevented OMB from assigning some staff to

areas related to their expertise and also prevented some RMO branches

from receiving any new staff. Following the initial OMB 2000 staff

reassignments, it was up to each branch chief to determine what, if any,

technical skills the branch needed to fulfill its new responsibilities and to

develop those skills within given staffing allocations. No specific guidance

or technical support was provided toward this end, and we observed no

organized assessment on OMB’s part to identify required skills or any

deficiencies.

The branches within the RMOs were given discretion to decide how they

would address management issues, and the methods they used varied.

Some RMO branches used former management staff primarily as

management specialists, while others assigned them program examiner

responsibilities to examine specific agency accounts. For example, the

Housing and Urban Development/Federal Emergency Management Agency

Branch of the General Government and Finance RMO assigned two former

management staff a lighter load of agency examining responsibilities than

other examiners in the branch, allowing them to spend at least half of their

time on management issues. In contrast, the Income Maintenance Branch

of the Human Resources RMO assigned a former financial management

staff member a workload similar to that assigned to the other program

examiners in the branch, with responsibility for examining budget, policy,

and management issues within specific program areas.

Creation of the RMO

Program Examiner

Position

Before OMB 2000, budget examiners were responsible for budget review

and program oversight for an assigned agency or agency program. As a

result of OMB 2000, OMB replaced its budget examiner positions with

program examiner positions and reassigned staff from the budget program

areas, the General Management and Special Studies Divisions, and the

statutory offices to fill those positions in the RMOs. Program examiners are

employed in the RMOs as federal General Schedule (GS) employees in

grades GS-9 through GS-15, with GS-15 the full performance level.

Program examiners’ position descriptions were expanded from those of

budget examiners to more explicitly include responsibility for

management issues. For example, before OMB 2000, budget examiners

were to assist General Management Division staff in analyzing

reorganization proposals; after OMB 2000, the program examiners were

made responsible for conducting those reviews on their own. Program

examiners were also given responsibility for planning and conducting

studies on financial management and procurement. However, the position

description does not explicitly mention IRM responsibilities. (See fig. IV.1

Page 15 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

in app. IV for a comparison of examiners’ major duties before and after

OMB 2000.)

OMB also developed a new set of performance standards to cover all of its

professional staff, including RMO and statutory office staff.5

 Before OMB

2000, standards were individually tailored to particular positions. For

example, previous performance standards for a budget examiner were

focused specifically on budget formulation and review responsibilities.

OFFM policy analyst standards included analyzing, coordinating, and

monitoring financial systems issues; General Management Division policy

analyst standards included analyzing the implementation of management

initiatives, program evaluation, and long-range planning. OMB revised its

performance standards to make them more uniform, to simplify them, and

to encompass broader responsibilities, but the standards no longer

identify specific responsibilities, including management responsibilities.

(Fig. IV.2 in app. IV shows OMB’s new critical job elements and

performance standards for professional staff.)

As it has done traditionally, OMB primarily used on-the-job training to

familiarize its examiners with their responsibilities. However, OMB also

offered (but did not require) some formal training for the new

responsibilities given to program examiners as a result of OMB 2000. For

example, OMB offered training primarily on budget concepts, laws, and

procedures for new program examiners who transferred from the

management offices. OMB also invited all its staff to attend an OMB-wide

“dialogue” on the fiscal year 1996 budget process and gave them the option

of attending sessions designed for new OMB staff. The training included 1-

to 2-hour sessions on such topics as the budget process; streamlining plans

and the use of performance information (crosscutting issues that were

emphasized in the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle); legislation; and initiatives

related to certain statutory office responsibilities (e.g., procurement

reform). OMB officials told us that 80 to 90 percent of OMB’s program

examiners and statutory office staff attended these sessions. In addition,

some of the statutory offices provided informal training or other guidance

for program examiners and RMO branch chiefs on certain management

issues. For example, OFFM conducted seminars on financial management

issues, such as reviewing audited financial statements.

5

In addition to RMO program examiners, OMB’s professional staff includes such positions as policy,

management, and program analysts; accountants; economists; attorneys; statisticians; and other

specialists. These professionals are employed throughout OMB, such as in the statutory management

offices and in other OMB-wide offices. Program examiners are employed in the RMOs.

Page 16 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

Changes to OMB’s

Statutory Offices

As a result of OMB 2000, OMB reduced the number of authorized staff

positions in each of its statutory offices and moved those staff to the RMOs.6

The size of the staff reductions varied by office. All the statutory offices

retained their governmentwide policymaking roles, and OIRA retained its

oversight responsibilities for regulatory and paperwork issues. However,

the offices’ responsibilities for overseeing agencies’ implementation of

other governmentwide management initiatives were transferred to the

RMOs. Each statutory office followed a different approach in devolving

these responsibilities. During our interviews, OMB staff identified a number

of benefits that occurred as a result of changes to the statutory offices,

such as enhanced coordination with agencies and the visibility of the

financial management or procurement issues that became tied to the

budget process. However, they also expressed some concerns about these

changes, including concerns about how OMB 2000 had affected OMB’s

capacity to address financial management and procurement issues. These

issues are only a part of the many responsibilities of a program examiner;

prior to OMB 2000, they had been the responsibility of a limited number of

management staff dedicated specifically to these issues.

Office of Federal Financial

Management

As a result of OMB 2000, 21 of OFFM’s 41 authorized staff positions were

shifted to the RMOs, including most of the staff of the Credit and Cash

Management Branch, which was abolished. According to the March 1,

1994, memorandum announcing the reorganization, these staff were

shifted from OFFM to increase the RMOs’ analytical capabilities. OFFM

retained responsibility for developing and coordinating governmentwide

financial management policies, but OMB transferred responsibility for

assessing agencies’ implementation of these policies to the RMOs. RMO

program examiners also were made responsible for assessing the status of

agencies’ progress regarding high-risk issues and for reviewing agencies’

audited financial statements—functions that had been the responsibility of

OFFM.

Several RMO officials said that there was better coordination between OFFM

and other parts of OMB following OMB 2000. For example, OFFM took steps

to work jointly with the RMOs and increase RMO officials’ participation in

6

Generally, these authorized positions were staffed by OMB employees who were moved to the RMOs

from the statutory offices. In some instances, however, the statutory office positions were vacant and

OMB abolished these positions and established new positions in the RMOs. Therefore, changes in the

number of authorized positions were somewhat greater than the total number of staff who were

transferred.

Page 17 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

the Chief Financial Officers Council.7 OFFM sent Council meeting agendas

and minutes to RMO officials and solicited their input. OFFM also held

several training sessions for RMO staff on a range of financial management

issues, including accounting standards, the form and content of audited

financial statements, and consolidated reporting.

Despite these efforts to improve the RMOs’ knowledge and analytical

capabilities, a number of OMB staff we talked to expressed concerns about

the program examiners’ capacity to address financial management issues.

They said some program examiners did not yet have the expertise they

needed to carry out their agency-specific financial management oversight

responsibilities, such as reviewing audited financial statements. They also

said that they were uncertain how to address credit and cash management

questions since responsibility had been devolved to the RMOs.

Office of Federal

Procurement Policy

OMB reallocated 10 of OFPP’s 30 authorized staff positions to the RMOs as a

result of OMB 2000. Six of the 10 former OFPP staff became jointly managed

under a “matrix management” approach in which they were made

responsible for working on both the agency-specific issues in their RMOs

and crosscutting procurement issues (e.g., electronic commerce) on an

OFPP team. OFPP’s responsibilities for overseeing agency implementation of

governmentwide procurement policies were reassigned to the RMOs.

According to OFPP’s Administrator, the matrix approach was used to

provide the structure needed to implement OMB’s statutory procurement

responsibilities and provide the RMOs with the procurement expertise they

needed to perform their oversight responsibilities. He said that RMO

matrixed staff who worked on OFPP teams could also oversee the

implementation of the teams’ ideas by the agencies for which they had

responsibility. For example, he said that the RMO matrixed staff serving on

OFPP’s research contracting team collaborated on this issue with several

agencies on major research contracts, developed appropriate points of

contact in the agencies, and worked jointly with OFPP staff and agency

officials to address the issue. OFPP extended the matrix approach to

include nonmatrixed staff from RMOs on the OFPP electronic commerce

team.

7

The Chief Financial Officers Council was established by the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 to

advise and coordinate the agencies’ activities on such matters as consolidation and modernization of

financial systems, improved quality of financial information, financial data and information standards,

internal controls, legislation affecting financial operations and organizations, and other financial

management matters. The Council is chaired by OMB’s DDM.

Page 18 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

However, some of the OMB staff we interviewed said that OFPP’s matrix

management approach caused difficulties for the matrixed staff because

they reported to managers in two different organizations with different

expectations. One reported difficulty was the attempt to integrate former

OFPP staff as RMO program examiners when OFPP’s Administrator expected

the matrixed staff to work solely on procurement issues. Most of the

matrixed staff said it was difficult to sort out work priorities under this

staffing arrangement.

Office of Information and

Regulatory Affairs

OIRA’s 56 authorized staff positions were relatively unchanged by OMB 2000,

with only 4 authorized positions transferred to the RMOs. OIRA’s 12 IRM staff

retained responsibility for establishing governmentwide IRM policies, but

responsibility for overseeing agency implementation of those policies

shifted to the RMOs. However, OMB’s program examiner position

description does not explicitly include IRM oversight responsibilities. OIRA

also continued to be responsible for all regulatory and paperwork reviews

as well as statistical policy issues. According to the March 1, 1994,

memorandum, OMB postponed any major reorganization of OIRA because of

its responsibility for implementing Executive Order 12866 on regulatory

planning and review.8

OIRA’s Administrator told us that as an alternative to decentralizing staff to

the RMOs, OIRA used IRM teams, composed of RMO program examiners and

OIRA staff. The teams were developed to enhance working relations

between the groups and to ensure that RMOs were knowledgeable about

IRM issues. The Administrator and some RMO staff said OIRA generally had a

good working relationship with the examiners before OMB 2000 in both the

regulatory and IRM areas, and that this relationship continued after the

reorganization. Also, OIRA staff still concentrate on governmentwide and

crosscutting issues. For example, a team composed of OIRA and GAO staff

developed a best practices guide to help OMB program examiners and

agency personnel identify important issues in oversight of information

technology investments.9

 Also, each IRM specialist in OIRA’s Information

Policy and Technology Branch serves as a liaison to at least one

interagency group, including groups on wireless communications,

8

Executive Order 12866 was issued on September 30, 1993, making OMB responsible for ensuring that

agencies’ rulemaking is consistent with applicable law, the President’s priorities, and the Executive

Order’s principles.

9

Evaluating Information Technology Investments: A Practical Guide, Oct. 1995 Draft.

Page 19 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

international trade data, electronic mail, wage tax reporting, and system

benefits.10

OMB’s Attention to

Management Issues

Changed After OMB

2000

The budget documents we reviewed and our interviews with OMB staff

indicated that OMB’s attention to management issues changed following

OMB 2000. The documents showed that the quantity and quality of

information about management issues presented during the budget

process increased after the reorganization. Many of the OMB staff we

interviewed also reported that they believed there had been an increased

focus on management issues in the budget process after OMB 2000 and said

this focus had resulted in changes in their work. However, they also

expressed some concerns regarding OMB’s attention and capacity to

address certain issues.

OMB Fiscal Year 1996

Documents Showed an

Increased Focus on

Management Issues

The budget documents we reviewed related to five selected agencies

generally contained more substantive and detailed discussions of

management issues for fiscal year 1996 than the previous year’s

documents, although the information provided by agencies and the level of

analysis by OMB staff varied. Changes in OMB’s management emphasis were

apparent in three areas—OMB’s management priorities, issues related to

OMB’s statutory offices, and other program-related management issues.

OMB Management Priorities OMB’s top management priorities for the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle were

agencies’ streamlining plans and use of performance information.11 OMB

budget preparation guidance published in July 1994 said agencies’ fiscal

year 1996 budget submissions were to identify the key features of their

streamlining plans (e.g., increased span of control, reduced organizational

layers, and/or milestones for full-time equivalent reductions). The

guidance also encouraged agencies to include performance goals and

indicators in their budget justifications and to include output and outcome

measures instead of workload and other process measures.12 During their

review of agency budget submissions, RMO program examiners were

10In early 1995 the Information Policy and Information Technology Branches were merged into the

Information and Technology Branch.

11The identification of these areas of emphasis and any subsequent change of emphasis in the budget

process may have been related to other events occurring simultaneously, such as the implementation

of GPRA, the passage of the Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-226), and

the implementation of NPR recommendations.

12OMB’s Circular A-11 guidance for fiscal year 1997 includes instructions on the preparation and

submission of agencies’ strategic plans. These plans should set the agencies’ strategic course; describe

their overall programmatic and policy goals; and spell out how these goals will be achieved.

Page 20 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

expected to assess whether agencies’ streamlining plans were acceptable

and, if not, to recommend changes. They were also asked to identify

(1) whether performance information had been provided, (2) why such

information was not provided or was limited, and (3) what additional

information would be useful.

In September 1994, the OMB Director and the DDM established more specific

guidance for RMO program examiners to use when reviewing agency fiscal

year 1996 budget submissions for these areas of emphasis. For example,

guidance stated that the examiners’ reviews of streamlining plans should

be more than a “numbers exercise” and that they should consider the

quality, scope, and nature of each agency’s streamlining effort. The

guidance instructed RMO program examiners to include performance

measurement information, where available, in all their analyses of major

issues.13

The budget documents we reviewed indicated that OMB’s priorities on

streamlining plans and the use of performance information had a clear

impact on the fiscal year 1996 agencies’ submissions and OMB’s internal

budget review documents. Whereas the fiscal year 1995 documents

discussed streamlining primarily in terms of the number of positions to be

eliminated, the fiscal year 1996 documents also included discussions about

how proposed staff reductions could affect the agencies’ performance. In

the documents for one agency, RMO staff commented that its fiscal year

1996 plan was thorough and comprehensive and was designed to meet

NPR’s targeted staffing levels while providing better customer service, cost

savings, and an improved working environment for agency employees. OMB

internal budget documents for another agency included a detailed analysis

of the agency’s performance management system. The analysis noted that

the resources the agency requested were justified in terms of activities to

be funded but also said that the agency lacked a clear picture of the

outcomes that would result from the requested funding. The documents

also highlighted problems with the agency’s performance reporting system

(e.g., lack of cost data and limited data quality and comparability), noting

that the system did not contain enough information to identify underlying

problems and did not link outcomes to reported outputs. RMO staff

recommended specific performance measures that would be useful to OMB

and identified problems that confronted the agency in designing an

effective performance measurement system (including potential conflicts

13OMB continued this emphasis on performance information by reinstituting a Spring Review as a

prelude for the fiscal year 1997 budget. Unlike prior Spring Reviews that emphasized program policy

and budget issues, this review was intended to help OMB and agencies work together to identify useful

performance information.

Page 21 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

between federal agencies’ goals and missions, exogenous effects on

outcomes, and linkages between social costs and outcomes).

Statutory Office and Other

Management Issues

Issues related to OMB’s statutory offices were also generally discussed in

greater depth in the fiscal year 1996 budget documents than they were in

the fiscal year 1995 documents. For example, the discussion of financial

management issues in internal OMB documents for one agency was much

narrower before OMB 2000 than it was after the reorganization. The

discussion in the fiscal year 1995 documents was limited to a statement

that the agency faced challenges in such areas as contract management

and financial systems. The fiscal year 1996 documents included an

assessment of financial management issues at the agency, such as a review

of the agency’s 5-year plan and how it related to reengineering and

streamlining efforts.

The fiscal year 1996 budget documents also included a broader discussion

of other types of management issues than there was in the fiscal year 1995

documents. For example, in the fiscal year 1995 documents, both the

Department of Justice and OMB raised the issues of prison overcrowding

and the continuing growth in full-time equivalent requirements for the

Department’s Bureau of Prisons as strictly resource issues. In contrast, in

the fiscal year 1996 documents, OMB’s assessment extended beyond the

resource issues to include information on trends in state and county

prison systems, operating costs at the Bureau’s medium- and low-security

facilities compared to private facilities, and issues involving the quality of

confinement and the adequacy of security. In OMB’s review of the

Department of Housing and Urban Development’s fiscal year 1995 budget

request, OMB budget examiners discussed the Department’s credit

management and asset disposition strategies. In OMB’s review of the

Department’s fiscal year 1996 request, RMO staff again discussed these

issues but also analyzed the relationship of improved credit management

and asset disposition to budget savings, reduced administrative and

full-time equivalent requirements, and improved customer service. In their

analysis, the RMO staff included selected performance measures and

identified specific actions that could be adopted on the basis of evidence

from the Department’s financial statements, Federal Managers Financial

Integrity Act and audit reports, and other sources.

OMB not only increased its attention to certain management issues in the

fiscal year 1996 budget cycle, it also changed the type of information it

requested from the agencies under OMB Circular A-11 for high-risk and

information systems reports. Although the individual high-risk programs

Page 22 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

were discussed in as much or more detail in the fiscal year 1996

documents, OMB required agencies to report on fewer high-risk programs

and to concentrate their high-risk efforts on those operational

improvements not requiring legislative authorization.14 OMB Circular A-11

guidance for the fiscal year 1996 budget process consolidated

requirements for some financial management and financial systems

reports and reduced the level of detail that agencies were required to

report to OMB. In consolidating or reducing these requirements, OMB

attempted to concentrate on financial and mixed systems critical to

agencywide financial management, reporting, or control and no longer

required data on nonfinancial reporting systems.

OMB Staff Reported

Uneven but Improved

Attention to Management

Issues

The OMB staff we interviewed said that changes arising from OMB 2000 had

mixed effects on OMB’s ability to address management issues. OMB staff

expressed a widespread view that OMB’s attention to certain management

issues, such as streamlining plans and the use of performance information,

had increased in the fiscal year 1996 budget cycle. Former budget

examiners generally said that they felt more responsible for management

issues after OMB eliminated what some viewed as an artificial separation

between management and budget. Some of the staff also said, however,

that OMB’s attention to other management issues that were formerly

statutory office or General Management Division responsibilities had

decreased or varied across the RMO branches. RMO staff, both those who

had formerly been management staff and those who had formerly been

budget examiners, voiced specific concerns about the reorganization,

although they generally expressed positive views about OMB 2000.

Program examiners who were formerly budget examiners generally said

that although they had looked at management issues before OMB 2000, the

degree to which they emphasized those issues had increased since the

reorganization. Many of the OMB staff we interviewed said that the Director

and the DDM were clearly committed to improving federal management and

that their commitment had raised the importance of management issues in

OMB as a whole. However, because the management focus of OMB 2000 was

so closely identified with these officials, some of the staff raised questions

about whether that emphasis would survive when those officials left OMB.

Several OMB staff also said that OMB and agencies were more likely to act

on management issues when those issues were raised in the context of

14According to OMB Circular A-11 for the fiscal year 1997 budget process, OMB program examiners

will have the discretion to decide whether an agency must report on its high-risk programs with its

budget submission.

Page 23 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

budget reviews. They said linking management and budget issues provided

examiners with more leverage for change in the agencies. For example, an

OFFM staff member cited financial management restructuring as an

example of an area where agencies took action more quickly when the

issue was raised by an RMO during the budget review process than when

this issue was raised outside of budget discussions by OFFM.

Some of the OMB staff we interviewed said that the discretion given to RMOs

in overseeing agency implementation of management issues resulted in a

more varied approach to addressing management issues within OMB than

had been the case before OMB 2000. They said the RMO branches differed in

both whether and how they treated management issues for which the

statutory offices or the General Management Division were formerly

responsible. RMO staff said that the particular management focus an RMO

takes depends on the kinds of activities and issues at the agencies being

examined. For example, procurement issues may be more prominent in

OMB’s examination of agencies that do a lot of purchasing, such as the

Department of Defense.

One of the goals of OMB 2000 had been to realign resources so that program

examiners could do more long-term “mid-range” analysis.15 However, RMO

staff frequently said there had been an increase in their responsibilities as

a result of OMB 2000, and their workload increased in response to such

initiatives as reinventing government and congressional agency

restructuring proposals. They also said they had not been told to eliminate

any responsibilities or tasks as a result of OMB 2000. Because they had to

balance competing responsibilities, several program examiners said that

less emphasis had been placed on certain management issues—those that

lacked a clear budgetary impact, did not require an immediate response to

a short-term deadline, or did not reflect the administration’s priorities. In

particular, they said the short-term pressures of the budget process left

little time for long-term analysis.

Although they felt more responsible for agency management issues, some

program examiners said that they did not know how to address all of these

issues. They also said that the reduction of centralized management

expertise in the statutory offices and the elimination of the General

Management Division left them with fewer sources of expertise and

assistance. Because program examiners had little time to spend looking

15The memorandum announcing OMB 2000 indicated that a lack of time to do such analysis had been a

common complaint from OMB staff for some time. In our 1989 report on OMB (GAO/GGD-89-65,

May 4, 1989), we reported that OMB’s focus on the short-term consequences of actions had limited

OMB’s efforts to help resolve long-term problems.

Page 24 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

for the expertise that was available, they said that certain management

issues were not addressed or received less attention. OMB staff were not

always sure how various management issues related to each other and to

the budget process. According to OMB’s Director and DDM, OMB is working

to develop a unified framework to bring together the various

management-related laws and initiatives with a performance focus.

OMB Has Not

Formally Evaluated

OMB 2000

OMB initially planned to assess the OMB 2000 effort. However, the Associate

Director for Administration said that OMB decided not to evaluate OMB 2000

in the spring of 1995 because the unprecedented pace of the fiscal year

1996 budget process left insufficient time to perform any evaluation. He

said OMB no longer planned any formal assessment of the personnel and

organizational changes in OMB 2000. However, a Special Assistant to the

DDM said OMB intends to assess the effectiveness of OMB as a whole in

response to GPRA requirements. Part of this assessment will be an

evaluation of the integration of OMB’s management and budget

responsibilities.

Conclusions The changes associated with OMB 2000 should be viewed in the context of

OMB’s perennial challenge of carrying out its central management

leadership responsibilities in an environment in which its budgetary role

necessarily remains a vital mission. Previous congressional and OMB

attempts to elevate the status of management and protect it from

budgetary pressures by creating separate management units within OMB

sought to ensure that a consistent level of effort was focused on

management issues. However, these efforts were widely acknowledged to

have been only marginally successful in affecting budget decisions and

sustaining attention to OMB’s role of leading management improvement in

the agencies. Sustained attention to management issues often remained

subordinated to budget concerns and perspectives, and the leverage the

budget could offer to advance management efforts was not directly

available to the management units.

OMB 2000 represents another OMB approach to try to strengthen its

management leadership capacity and influence. Although policy

development responsibilities were retained within its separate

management offices, OMB attempted to elevate the importance of

management by linking its management oversight and budget preparation

responsibilities within newly created RMOs. In decentralizing responsibility

for management issues throughout the RMOs, OMB 2000 increased reliance

Page 25 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

on the commitment of RMO managers and staff and coordination of their

activities with the statutory offices. OMB’s initial experience with this

approach during the 1996 budget process showed the clear support of top

OMB officials and staff to enhance the treatment of certain management

issues in the budget. Even though this was a particularly difficult budget

cycle, there was a noticeable increase in the attention given to

management issues that transcended immediate budgetary concerns.

However, given the many issues competing for the attention of RMO

officials and staff, top leadership direction will continue to be an

important factor in ensuring consistent guidance across RMOs and

continued concern for governmentwide management issues. At the time of

our review only one budget cycle had elapsed since the inception of OMB

2000, so it remains an open question whether the heightened attention to

management issues will be sustained after the current leadership leaves

OMB.

In addition, sustained congressional oversight of both management

policies and reform initiatives will continue to play a vital role in ensuring

a consistent focus on management issues within OMB. Some recent

statutory management initiatives have, in fact, provided a new set of tools

that may aid the integration of management issues in the budget process.

The Chief Financial Officers Act requires agencies to produce, for the first

time, audited financial data that can be used in the budget process to

better measure the actual costs of programs and promote improved

financial management of scarce resources by federal agencies. Under

GPRA, agencies are required to generate performance measures and

information that may help OMB better assess the management of program

resources and achievement of program goals.

A critical question facing OMB is whether its new approach toward

integrating management and budgeting as well as its implementation of

statutory management responsibilities can be sustained over the long

term. Sustaining a management focus in budgeting relies on the capacity

and expertise of the program examining staff to address management

issues. These issues warrant continued attention and periodic assessment

by OMB itself to help promote the organization’s long-term capacity to

achieve an integrated approach to management as part of the budget

process.

OMB needs to periodically assess how well its RMOs and statutory offices

are working together to address management issues. Such an assessment

should most appropriately be undertaken as part of a broader assessment

Page 26 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

of OMB’s performance in formulating and implementing management

policies for the government that address a larger range of issues affecting

the effectiveness of OMB’s management role. This assessment could also

inform the ongoing debate on how best to protect management from being

overwhelmed by budgetary pressures—specifically, whether a separate

office of management is needed. The most effective evaluation would be

one where all stakeholders reached mutual agreement on the particular

elements of the evaluation and the indicators used to measure

performance. The GPRA strategic planning process offers an excellent

opportunity for OMB to evaluate its own institutional capacity and to

identify opportunities to strengthen leadership of management issues.

Our review suggested a number of possible areas to consider for

evaluation. For example:

• Although the OMB staff we spoke with were generally positive about the

reorganization, they expressed some concerns about whether program

examiners had sufficient time and expertise to adequately address certain

management issues during their agency budget reviews. OMB could

examine whether on-the-job training and a decentralized staffing approach

are appropriate to develop the skills and abilities needed by RMOs to carry

out management oversight responsibilities.

• OMB used three different approaches during the first year of OMB 2000 to

structure RMOs’ relationships with statutory offices and to provide program

examiners with access to management expertise: (1) direct transfer of

responsibilities and resources to RMOs, as used in reorganizing certain

general and financial management activities; (2) joint assignment of staff,

as used in matrixing federal procurement policy and oversight

responsibilities; and (3) use of “best practices” guidance, as developed for

information resources management. OMB could evaluate each of these

approaches to determine whether any of them are more effective than the

others, or whether changes are needed in the way they have been

implemented.

Recommendation OMB 2000 has clearly affected how the agency addresses management

issues, but a broader assessment of OMB’s management strategies and

approaches is the most appropriate context in which to consider how to

best ensure the integration of management and budgeting. Accordingly, as

part of its planned broader assessment of its role in formulating and

implementing management policies for the government, OMB should

consider the lessons learned from OMB 2000. Such a review should focus

Page 27 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

on specific concerns that need to be addressed to promote more effective

integration, including (1) the way OMB currently trains its program

examiners and whether this is adequate given the additional management

responsibilities assigned to these examiners, and (2) the effectiveness of

the different approaches taken by OMB in the statutory offices to

coordinate with RMOs and provide program examiners with access to

expertise.

Agency Comments

and Our Evaluation

We provided copies of a draft of this report for review by OMB officials. On

December 1, 1995, we met with OMB’s DDM and one of his special assistants,

the Associate Director for Administration, and a staff assistant. They

generally agreed with the facts presented and said they found the report

useful. The OMB officials provided some additional information on the

training OMB has provided and on OMB’s planned assessment of OMB as a

whole.

On December 10, 1995, the DDM provided written comments on this report

(see app. V) in which OMB generally concurred with the report’s

conclusions and recommendation. In its letter, OMB said that it found our

report to be thorough, accurate, and constructive in describing the OMB

2000 changes. OMB agreed that the strategic planning process it will be

working on in the coming year offers an excellent opportunity for OMB to

evaluate its institutional capacity and to identify opportunities to

strengthen leadership of critical governmentwide management issues.

OMB’s letter stated that its planning effort will address the integration of

management and budget responsibilities, including the adequacy of

employee training and different approaches to integration and

coordination among OMB’s various units. In addition, the DDM wrote that

OMB’s Management Committee, consisting of the DDM and 13 other

members from all levels within OMB, deals with the entire range of issues

and initiatives pertaining to OMB’s organizational effectiveness, structure,

and work practices. We cannot yet evaluate the adequacy of the actions

OMB plans to take in the coming year.

We are sending copies of this report to the Director and Deputy Director

for Management, OMB; and other interested Members of Congress. We will

also make copies available to others on request.

Major contributors are shown in appendix VI. If you have any questions

concerning this report, please call either of us. Nye Stevens can be

Page 28 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
B-260096 

reached on (202) 512-8676, and Paul Posner can be reached on

(202) 512-9573.

L. Nye Stevens

Director, Federal Management and

 Workforce Issues

General Government Division

Paul L. Posner

Director, Budget Issues

Accounting and Information Management

 Division

Page 29 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Contents

Letter 1

Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope,

and Methodology

32

Appendix II 

Staffing Profile,

Before and After OMB

2000

34

Appendix III 

Resource

Management Office

(RMO) Branches and

Responsibilities

35

Appendix IV 

Program Examiners’

Major Duties and

Performance

Standards

40

Appendix V 

Agency Comments

43

Appendix VI 

Major Contributors

44

Figures Figure 1: Office of Management and Budget, Before OMB 2000 8

Figure 2: Office of Management and Budget, After OMB 2000 12

Figure III.1: National Security and International Affairs RMO:

Divisions, Branches, and Agency Examining Responsibilities

35

Page 30 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Contents

Figure III.2: Natural Resources, Energy and Science RMO:

Divisions, Branches, and Agency Examining Responsibilities

36

Figure III.3: General Government and Finance RMO: Divisions,

Branches, and Agency Examining Responsibilities

37

Figure III.4: Human Resources RMO: Division, Branches, and

Agency Examining Responsibilities

38

Figure III.5: Health and Personnel RMO: Divisions, Branches, and

Agency Examining Responsibilities

39

Figure IV.1: Comparison of Budget and Program Examiners’

Major Duties

41

Figure IV.2: OMB’s Critical Job Elements and Performance

Standards for All OMB Professional Staff

42

Abbreviations

DDM Deputy Director for Management

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act

IRM Information Resources Management

NPR National Performance Review

OIRA Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs

OFFM Office of Federal Financial Management

OFPP Office of Federal Procurement Policy

OMB Office of Management and Budget

RMO Resource Management Office

Page 31 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of our review were to describe (1) changes in OMB’s

organizational structure, responsibilities, and staffing as a result of OMB

2000; (2) changes to OMB’s three statutory offices; (3) changes in the

attention OMB gave to management issues in the budget formulation

process before and after OMB 2000; and (4) how OMB planned to evaluate

OMB 2000.

To describe changes in OMB’s organization, responsibilities, and staffing as

a result of OMB 2000, we reviewed OMB memoranda, personnel data, and

other documents.1

 We also interviewed OMB officials, including the Human

Resources Manager, the Associate Director for Administration, and special

assistants to the DDM. To describe changes in OMB’s statutory offices, we

examined what OMB is required to do by statute and reviewed OMB

documents that described these offices’ responsibilities. We also

interviewed the top officials, selected branch chiefs, and other staff within

the statutory offices—OFFM, OFPP, and OIRA.

We determined changes in the attention OMB gave to management issues in

the budget formulation process by comparing fiscal year 1995 and fiscal

year 1996 budget guidance, agency budget submissions, internal OMB

budget documents, and the President’s budget for fiscal years 1995 and

1996 related to five agencies: the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Labor,

Justice, Housing and Urban Development, and the Environmental

Protection Agency. For background information, we interviewed officials

in each of the five selected agencies who were identified by their agencies

as knowledgeable about the budget process and submissions for fiscal

years 1995 and 1996. We selected these agencies for our review to provide

examples of the agencies that the RMOs oversee (four of the five RMOs were

included in our review: the Natural Resources, Energy and Science RMO;

the General Government and Finance RMO; the Human Resources RMO; and

the Health and Personnel RMO). The agencies were also selected to

represent a mix of program activities (e.g., regulatory and grants); modes

of service delivery (e.g., direct and third-party providers); and

organizational structures (e.g., centralized and decentralized).

We reviewed OMB’s budget preparation and submission guidance and other

related OMB documents for fiscal years 1995 and 1996 and interviewed

officials and staff from all the levels within the RMOs, including divisions

and branches, who were responsible for examining these agencies. We

also interviewed RMO program examiners from other branches who, before

1

All staffing data presented in this report are from fiscal year 1994, when OMB 2000 was announced

and initially implemented. Staffing levels since the reorganization have remained relatively unchanged.

Page 32 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix I 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

the OMB 2000 restructuring, were budget examiners, management staff, or

Special Studies Division analysts. To determine how OMB planned to

evaluate OMB 2000, we interviewed the DDM and other top OMB officials. We

also asked OMB staff if they were aware of any formal performance

measures or goals for OMB 2000 or if they knew of any OMB plans to

evaluate OMB 2000.

We asked all OMB staff and officials we interviewed a standard set of

questions about OMB 2000, along with additional questions relevant to their

positions or organizational location within OMB. Consequently, the number

that constituted “some” of the respondents varied from question to

question.

Page 33 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix II 

Staffing Profile, Before and After OMB 2000

Number of staff

Offices Organizational component

Before OMB

2000a

After OMB

2000b

Percent

change

Directors, staff, and support offices Office of the Director 13 16 23.1

Communications 2 2 0.0

Legislative Affairs 6 6 0.0

General Counsel 8 8 0.0

Economic Policy 11 10 –9.1

Legislative Referencec 27 27 0.0

Administrationc 15 19 26.7

Budget Review 73 72 –1.4

Subtotal 155 160 3.2

Budget program

areas/RMOs

National Security and

International Affairs

56 64 14.3

Natural Resources, Energy 

and Science

64 72 12.5

Economics and Government/

General Government and

Finance

55 73 32.7

Human Resources 39 39 0.0

Health and Personnel 27 56 107.4

Subtotal 241 304 26.1

Management and statutory offices Federal Financial Management 41 20 –51.2

Federal Procurement Policy 30 20 –33.3

Information and Regulatory Affairs 56 52 –7.1

General Management Division 33 0 –100.0

Subtotal 160 92 –42.5

Total 556 556 0.0

aBefore OMB 2000 staffing data are as of January 1, 1994.

bAfter OMB 2000 staffing data are as of June 18, 1994.

cAlthough the Office of Administration and the Office of Legislative Reference were not

established as separate offices until OMB 2000, for purposes of this analysis, staff data are

presented separately both before and after OMB 2000.

Page 34 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix III 

Resource Management Office (RMO)

Branches and Responsibilities

The following figures illustrate each RMO’s organization and the agencies

for which it has examining responsibilities. The listings of agencies for

which the RMO has examining responsibilities are not comprehensive. The

agencies listed represent those with statutory Inspectors General and are

included to illustrate RMO program responsibilities.

Figure III.1: National Security and

International Affairs RMO: Divisions,

Branches, and Agency Examining

Responsibilities National Security and International Affairs RMO

Agencies for Which RMO Has Examining Responsibilities


Branches 

 Command Control 


 Communications and 


 Intelligence 


 Force Structure and 


 Investment 


 Operations and Support 


 

Branches


 Economic Affairs 


 State/U.S. Information


 Agency 

 Peace Corps


 Department of State


 U.S. Information Agency


 U.S. International Trade 


 Commission

 Agency for International Development


 Arms Control and Disarmament Agency


 Board for International Broadcasting


 Central Intelligence Agency


 Department of Defense

National Security Division
 International Affairs Division


Page 35 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix III 

Resource Management Office (RMO)

Branches and Responsibilities

Figure III.2: Natural Resources, Energy

and Science RMO: Divisions,

Branches, and Agency Examining

Responsibilities Natural Resources, Energy and Science RMO


Branches

 Environment 


 Interior 


 Agriculture


 Water Resources

Branches


 Energy 


 Science and Space Programs

 Department of Agriculture


 Department of Energy


 Environmental Protection Agency


 Farm Credit Administration


 Department of the Interior


 Army Corps of Engineers


 National Aeronautics and Space 


 Administration


 National Science Foundation


 Nuclear Regulatory Commission


 Smithsonian Institution


 Tennesee Valley Authority

Natural Resources Division Energy and Science Division


Agencies for Which RMO Has Examining Responsibilities


Page 36 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix III 

Resource Management Office (RMO)

Branches and Responsibilities

Figure III.3: General Government and

Finance RMO: Divisions, Branches,

and Agency Examining

Responsibilities

General Government and Finance RMO

Branches


 Transportation 


 Commerce and Justice 


 Federal Services 


 Amtrak


 Appalachian Regional Commission


 Department of Commerce


 Commodity Futures Trading 


 Commission


 Corporation for National and 


 Community Development


 Corporation for Public Broadcasting


 Department of Housing and Urban 


 Development


 Federal Communications Commission


 Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation


 Federal Emergency Management 


 Agency


 


 

Branches


 Housing/Federal Emergency 


 Management Agency 


 Treasury 


 Financial Institutions 

Transportation, Commerce, 


Justice, and Services Division


Housing, Treasury and 


Finance Division


Agencies for Which RMO Has Examining Responsibilities


Department of the Treasury

Federal Housing Finance Board


Federal Maritime Commission


General Services Administration


Interstate Commerce Commission


Department of Justice


National Credit Union 


 Administration


Panama Canal Commission


Resolution Trust Corporation


Securities and Exchange 


 Commission


Small Business Administration


Department of Transportation


 

Federal Trade Commission

Page 37 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix III 

Resource Management Office (RMO)

Branches and Responsibilities

Figure III.4: Human Resources RMO:

Division, Branches, and Agency

Examining Responsibilities Human Resources RMO

Branches


 Education 


 Income Maintenance 


 Labor 


 Department of Education


 Equal Employment Opportunity 


 Commission


 Federal Election Commission


 Department of Labor


 Legal Services Corporation

 National Endowment for the Arts


 National Endowment for the 


 Humanities


 National Labor Relations Board


 Pension Benefit Guaranty 


 Corporation


 Railroad Retirement Board


 Social Security Administration

Human Resources Division


Agencies for Which RMO Has Examining Responsibilities


Page 38 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix III 

Resource Management Office (RMO)

Branches and Responsibilities

Figure III.5: Health and Personnel

RMO: Divisions, Branches, and

Agency Examining Responsibilities Health and Personnel RMO

Branches


 Health Financing 


 Health and Human Services 


 Unit

 Consumer Product Safety Commission


 Federal Labor Relations Authority


 Department of Health and Human Services


 Department of Veterans Affairs


 Office of Personnel Management


 Postal Service

Branches 


 Veterans Affairs 


 Office of Personnel Management, 


 Postal, and Executive 


 Office of the Presidenta 


Health Division
 Veterans Affairs/Personnel Division 


Agencies for Which RMO Has Examining Responsibilities


aExcludes the National Security Council and the Office of Science and Technology.

Page 39 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix IV 

Program Examiners’ Major Duties and

Performance Standards

The following figures illustrate (1) the major job responsibilities of

program examiners, comparing these duties with those of the former

budget examiner position; and (2) the new critical job elements and

performance standards that OMB has adopted for all OMB professional staff.

Page 40 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix IV 

Program Examiners’ Major Duties and

Performance Standards

Figure IV.1: Comparison of Budget and Program Examiners’ Major Duties

·Senior examiner, OMB expert and focal point for all matters pertaining to

specific area of assignment.

·Coordinates the formulation and execution of the budget. Develops, reviews,

and advises on the preparation of formal documents (e.g., Executive Orders

and budget submissions). Participates in review of and is primary advisor on

OMB recommendations relative to apportionments.

·Prepares materials for Director’s review, arranges and chairs hearings.

Assists with internal administration and management of the office.

·Prepares letters from the White House and OMB.

·Within assigned program areas, assists in the review and clearance of

legislative proposals and testimony. Presents the need for new legislation as

well as changes in legislation.

·Performs legislative, economic, policy, program, organizational, and

management analyses; reviews issues needing special attention, as well as

executive orders and regulations.

·Plans, conducts, and completes analyses and studies on financial

management and procurement.

·Reviews major reorganization proposals. Studies personnel

management and systems development to help develop and initiate

long-range plans and goals.

·Develops and recommends strategies for approaches to improvement

in the value and effectiveness of management systems, field

administration, program operations, mid-range and strategic planning,

and program evaluation. Determines the most efficient and costeffective methods of management and program service delivery

services as well as an assessment of performance and results.

·Provides leadership and procurement management direction.

Participates in the development, implementation, and oversight of

policies, regulations, and procedures followed by executive agencies in

providing for the procurement of property and services and by

recipients of federal grants and assistance.

·Reviews and analyzes agency submissions, studies, research materials,

and other information related to assigned areas. Synthesizes highly

complex and voluminous materials. Assists in the review and clearance

of reports to Congress.

·Reviews, comments on, and leads negotiations on policy issues.

Budget Examiner; GS-560-15

·Senior examiner, OMB expert and focal point for all matters pertaining to

specific area of assignment.

·Coordinates the formulation and execution of the budget. Develops, reviews,

and advises on the preparation of formal documents (e.g., Executive Orders

and budget submissions). Participates in review of and is primary advisor on

OMB recommendations relative to apportionments.

·Prepares materials for Director’s review, arranges and chairs hearings.

Assists with internal administration and management of the office.

·Prepares letters from the White House and OMB.

·Within assigned program areas, assists in the review and clearance of

legislative proposals and testimony. Presents the need for new legislation as

well as changes in legislation.

·Performs legislative, economic, policy, program, organizational, and

management analyses; reviews issues needing special attention, as well as

executive orders and regulations.

·Assists Management Division staff on reorganization proposals, clarification

on relations among the integration of programs, and other management

improvement items.

 Program Examiner; GS-301-15

Note: Shaded text indicates additional responsibilities assumed by program examiners.

Page 41 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix IV 

Program Examiners’ Major Duties and

Performance Standards

Figure IV.2: OMB’s Critical Job Elements and Performance Standards for All OMB Professional Staff

Job Knowledge

Fully Successful Performance Standards:

• Demonstrates thorough knowledge of assigned program areas and applicable policies.

• Identifies relevant issues and options for analysis and develops appropriate recommendations for

 decisions.

• In the context of established time constraints, produces staff work on issues that is complete, concise,

 accurate, unbiased, creative, quantitative wherever possible, and analytically and logically sound.

• Evaluates significant existing program policies, plans, and performance to assess whether they achieve

 intended purposes cost effectively and consistent with administration priorities.

Job Execution

Fully Successful Performance Standards:

• Assignments are completed accurately and on-time, provide meaningful information, conform to

 applicable requirements, are internally consistent, and properly reflect decisions that have been made.

• Analysis (legislative, regulatory, paperwork, policy, procurement, budget, and management) is completed

 in time for action by policy officials and taken to the appropriate organization level for resolution.

• Accurately identifies policy or program issues that contribute to improving program effectiveness;

 evaluates problems and remedial actions, such that appropriate policy decisions can be reached and

 actions taken.

Job Effectiveness

Fully Successful Performance Standards:

• Plans, schedules, and executes work assignments to be responsive to management needs.

• Displays initiative, creativity, resourcefulness, and collegiality in completion of assigned duties.

• Ensures broad integration and coordination of work within and outside OMB.

• Works well as a team leader or member with others within and outside OMB.

• Maintains positive, professional working relationship with staff in OMB, throughout the Executive Office

 of the President, and with agencies.

Page 42 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix V 

Agency Comments

Page 43 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
Appendix VI 

Major Contributors

General Government

Division

Curtis W. Copeland, Assistant Director, (202) 512-8101

Susan Ragland, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-8486

A. Elizabeth Powell, Senior Evaluator

Kiki Theodoropoulos, Communications Analyst

Thomas Beall, Analyst

Accounting and

Information

Management Division

Michael J. Curro, Assistant Director, (202) 512-2991

Denise M. Fantone, Evaluator-in-Charge, (202) 512-4997

Carol M. Henn, Evaluator

Office of General

Counsel

Ann H. Finley, Senior Attorney

(246077/935152) Page 44 GAO/GGD/AIMD-96-50 OMB 2000
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. 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 6015

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015

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 (301) 258-4066, or TDD (301) 413-0006.

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

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