Accountability Integrity Reliability

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Serving The Congress And The Nation

Performance & 

 Accountability

 Report

Fiscal Year 2009
SERVING THE CONGRESS

M i s s i o n 

GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities and 

to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of the federal 

government for the benefit of the American people. 

Accountability

We help the Congress oversee federal programs and operations to ensure 

accountability to the American people. GAO’s analysts, auditors, lawyers, economists, 

information technology specialists, investigators, and other multidisciplinary 

professionals seek to enhance the economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and credibility 

of the federal government both in fact and in the eyes of the American people.

I n t e g r i t y 

We set high standards for ourselves in the conduct of GAO’s work. Our agency takes a 

professional, objective, fact-based, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, and balanced 

approach to all activities. Integrity is the foundation of our reputation, and the GAO 

approach to work ensures it. 

R e l i a b i l i t y 

We at GAO want our work to be viewed by the Congress and the 

American public as reliable. We produce high-quality reports, 

testimonies, briefings, legal opinions, and other products and 

services that are timely, accurate, useful, clear, and candid. 

S c o p e o f w o r k 

GAO performs a range of oversight-, insight-, and foresightrelated engagements, a vast majority of which are conducted 

in response to congressional mandates or requests. GAO’s 

engagements include evaluations of federal programs and 

performance, financial and management audits, policy 

analyses, legal opinions, bid 

protest adjudications, and 

investigations.

Source: See Image Sources.
GAO-10-234SP i

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Contents

Source: See Image Sources.

Contents

Abbreviations....................................................................................................................................................iii

How to Use This Report................................................................................................................................. v

Introduction.................................................................................................................................................................. 1

From the Acting Comptroller General........................................................................................................ 2

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements................................................................................................ 5

About GAO......................................................................................................................................................... 7

Mission....................................................................................................................................................... 7

Strategic Planning and Management Process ................................................................................. 8

Organizational Structure ..................................................................................................................... 12

Strategies for Achieving Our Goals.................................................................................................. 16

How We Measure Our Performance................................................................................................. 18

Part I: Management’s Discussion and Analysis...............................................................................................21

Assisting the Congress and the Nation During Changing and Challenging Times....................... 22

Focusing on Results.............................................................................................................................. 25

Focusing on Our Client........................................................................................................................ 32

Focusing on Our People .......................................................................................................................34

Focusing on Our Internal Operations ............................................................................................. 37

GAO’s High-Risk Program................................................................................................................. 38

Assisted with the Transition ..............................................................................................................42

The Troubled Asset Relief Program ...............................................................................................44

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 ............................................................ 45

Managing Our Resources....................................................................................................................46

Strategic and Annual Work Planning ...............................................................................................51

Internal Management Challenges and Mitigating External Factors That 

Could Affect Our Performance ........................................................................................................ 55

Part II: Performance Information ....................................................................................................................... 63

Performance Information by Strategic Goal ...........................................................................................64

Goal 1 Overview: Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the federal 

government to address current and emerging challenges to the well-being and 

financial security of the American people.............................................................................................. 65

Financial Benefits.................................................................................................................................. 67

Nonfinancial Benefits............................................................................................................................ 67

Testimonies.............................................................................................................................................68
ii GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Contents 

Goal 2 Overview: Provide timely, quality service to the Congress and the federal 

government to respond to changing security threats and the challenges of global 

interdependence ...........................................................................................................................................69

Financial Benefits.................................................................................................................................. 71

Nonfinancial Benefits............................................................................................................................ 71

Testimonies............................................................................................................................................. 72

Goal 3 Overview: Help transform the federal government’s role and how it does 

business to meet 21st century challenges............................................................................................... 73

Financial Benefits.................................................................................................................................. 75

Nonfinancial Benefits............................................................................................................................ 75

Testimonies............................................................................................................................................. 76

Goal 4 Overview: Maximize the value of GAO by being a model federal agency 

and a world-class professional services organization .......................................................................... 77

Data Quality and Program Evaluation...................................................................................................... 78

Verifying and Validating Performance Data ................................................................................... 78

Program Evaluation..............................................................................................................................90

Part III: Financial Information............................................................................................................................. 93

From the Chief Financial Officer................................................................................................................ 94

Audit Advisory Committee’s Report .......................................................................................................... 97

Independent Auditor’s Report...................................................................................................................... 98

Purpose of Each Financial Statement....................................................................................................... 101

Financial Statements....................................................................................................................................102

Notes to Financial Statements...................................................................................................................106

Part IV: From the Inspector General................................................................................................................119

From the Inspector General.......................................................................................................................120

Part V: Appendixes.................................................................................................................................................. 121

1. Accomplishments and Other Contributions.......................................................................................122

2. GAO’s Report on Personnel Flexibilities............................................................................................ 152

3. GAO’s FISMA Efforts............................................................................................................................. 156

Image Sources ..........................................................................................................................................................159

Providing Comments on This Report..............................................................................................................160

Obtaining Copies of GAO Documents ...........................................................................................................160

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

product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this 

work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you 

wish to reproduce this material separately.

On November, 20, 2009, we reissued this report to correct miscellaneous typographical errors on pages 22, 23, 34, 35, 36, 

and 89.
GAO-10-234SP iii

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Abbreviations

AGA Association of Government 

Accountants

APSS Administrative Professional and 

Support Staff

ATF Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms and Explosives

BRAC Base Realignment and Closure

CGAB Comptroller General Advisory 

Board

CMS Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services

CSRS Civil Service Retirement System

CVRA Crime Victims’ Rights Act of 2004

DEA Drug Enforcement Administration

DHS Department of Homeland Security

DOD Department of Defense

DOE Department of Energy

DOJ Department of Justice

DOT Department of Transportation

EAC Employee Advisory Council

EPA Environmental Protection Agency

ESC Enterprise Service Center

FAA Federal Aviation Administration

FCC Federal Communications 

Commission

FDA Food and Drug Administration

FECA Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act

FEGLI Federal Employees’ Group Life 

Insurance

FEHBP Federal Employees’ Health Benefits 

Program

FEMA Federal Emergency Management 

Agency

FERS Federal Employees Retirement 

System

FHA Federal Housing Administration

FICA Federal Insurance Contributions Act

FISMA Federal Information Security 

Management Act

FMFIA Federal Managers’ Financial 

Integrity Act of 1982

FSI Forensic Audits and Special 

Investigations unit

FTE full-time equivalent

FWS Federal Wage System

GAO Government Accountability Office

GPS Global Positioning System

GS General Schedule

GSA General Services Administration

HCTC Health Care Tax Credit

HHC handheld computer

HHS Department of Health and Human 

Services

HIT Health Information Technology

HSPD Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive

HUD Department of Housing and Urban 

Development

IAF Intergovernmental Audit Forum

ICE Immigration and Customs 

Enforcement

ICWG Internal Control Working Group

IFPTE International Federation of 

Professional and Technical 

Engineers

IG inspector general

IIA Institute of Internal Auditors

INTOSAI International Organization of 

Supreme Audit Institutions

IRB Institutional Review Board

IRIS Integrated Risk Information System

IRS Internal Revenue Service

IT information technology

ITIL Information Technology 

Infrastructure Library framework

LRP local and regional procurement

MAS Multiple Award Schedules

NASA National Aeronautics and Space 

Administration

NFC National Finance Center

Abbreviations
iv GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Abbreviations 

NIAF National Intergovernmental Audit 

Forum

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology

OIG Office of the Inspector General

OMB Office of Management and Budget

OPM Office of Personnel Management

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration

PAR performance and accountability 

report 

PBC performance-based compensation

PBGC Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation

QCI Quality and Continuous 

Improvement office

SAI supreme audit institution

SAT Senior Assessment Team

SEC Securities and Exchange 

Commission

SES Senior Executive Service

SBA Small Business Administration

SL Senior Level

SOC Senior Oversight Committee

SRS standardized rating score

SSA Social Security Administration

TAA Trade Adjustment Assistance

TARP Troubled Asset Relief Program

TSA Transportation Security 

Administration

USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

USAID U.S. Agency for International 

Development

USDA Department of Agriculture

USPS U.S. Postal Service

VA Department of Veterans Affairs

VPP voluntary protection program

WHD Wage and Hour Division
GAO-10-234SP v

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

How to Use This Report

This report describes the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office’s (GAO) performance 

measures, results, and accountability 

processes for fiscal year 2009. In assessing 

our performance, we compared actual results 

against targets and goals that were set in our 

annual performance plan and performance 

budget and were developed to help carry 

out our strategic plan. Our complete set of 

strategic planning and performance and 

accountability reports is available on our Web 

site at http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. 

This report has an introduction, four major 

parts, and supplementary appendixes as 

follows: 

Introduction

This section includes the letter from the 

Acting Comptroller General and a statement 

attesting to the reliability of our performance 

and financial data in this report and the 

effectiveness of our internal control over 

our financial reporting. This section also 

includes a summary discussion of our mission, 

strategic planning process, organizational 

structure, strategies we use to achieve 

our goals, and process for assessing our 

performance. 

Management’s Discussion and 

Analysis

This section discusses our agencywide 

performance results and use of resources in 

fiscal year 2009. It also includes information 

on our internal controls and the management 

challenges and external factors that affect our 

performance. 

Performance Information

This section includes details on our 

performance results by strategic goal in 

fiscal year 2009 and the targets we are 

aiming for in fiscal year 2010. It also 

includes an explanation of how we ensure 

the completeness and reliability of the 

performance data used in this report. 

Financial Information

This section includes details on our finances 

in fiscal year 2009, including a letter from 

our Chief Financial Officer, audited financial 

statements and notes, and the reports from 

our external auditor and Audit Advisory 

Committee. This section also includes an 

explanation of the kind of information each of 

our financial statements conveys. 

From the Inspector General 

This section includes our Inspector General’s 

assessment of our agency’s management 

challenges. 

Appendixes

These sections include detailed summaries 

of our most significant accomplishments 

and contributions recorded in fiscal year 

2009 and information on certain human 

capital management flexibilities and on our 

information security management efforts. 

How to Use This Report
vi GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

This page intentionally left blank
Serving The Congress And The Nation

Introduction
2 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Acting Comptroller General 

Source: See Image Sources.

From the

Acting Comptroller General

November 13, 2009

Reflecting on the past fiscal year, I am especially proud of our work in 

support of the Congress and the American people which we convey in this 

fiscal year 2009 performance and accountability report. Our mission is 

to help improve the way the federal government works, and based on the 

information in this report, I believe you will agree that we succeeded in this 

regard last fiscal year. I am confident that the performance and financial 

information in this report is complete and reliable and meets our high 

standards for accuracy and transparency. 

Fiscal year 2009 ushered in a period of change and challenge for the nation 

and GAO, and our people worked together creatively and tirelessly to 

support the Congress and the nation throughout the year. The election of 

a new U.S. President in November marked the first wartime presidential 

transition in 40 years and the first administration change since 9/11. To 

ensure that the government carried out its essential missions as efficiently 

and effectively as possible during this time of change, we did our part to 

help affect a seamless transition by outreaching to key members of the new 

administration and the Congress in person and through our transition 

Web site made available November 6, 2008—2 days after the national 

election. We highlighted for these policymakers and their staffs a number 

of pressing issues that demand urgent attention and continuing oversight to 

ensure the nation’s security and well-being. We also identified management 

challenges facing the government as well as several cost-saving 

opportunities. Many of the urgent issues discussed on the site—such as 

financial markets regulation; Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan; and the 2010 

Census—received attention in the early months of the new administration 

and the Congress and will continue to do so during the current fiscal year. 

Also during fiscal year 2009 the Congress, through mandates in the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (Stabilization Act) and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Act of 2009 (Recovery Act), 

solicited our assistance with its efforts to address the nation’s financial and 

economic crisis. We assembled an interdisciplinary team of financial market 
GAO-10-234SP 3

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Acting Comptroller General

experts, accountants, lawyers, and economists to produce bimonthly reports 

on the accountability, transparency, and integrity of efforts carried out under 

the $700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP) created by the 

Stabilization Act. We also leveraged our internal resources, hired new staff, 

and coordinated with the accountability community to fulfill our Recovery 

Act mandates which include reporting every 2 months on how selected states 

and localities are using Recovery Act funding over the next several years. 

Federal programs administered by 16 selected states and the District of 

Columbia that we examine in these bimonthly reports account for 90 percent 

of the Recovery Act outlays administered by states and localities for fiscal 

year 2009.

In concert with these additional expectations, we successfully carried out our 

fiduciary functions—which included two new funding streams provided by 

TARP and the Recovery Act—our new mandates, and our basic legislative 

responsibilities. For example, we again received from independent auditors 

an unqualified or “clean” opinion on our financial statements for fiscal year 

2009 and met or exceeded all 15 of our annual performance measures. We 

were also good stewards of the nation’s purse, documenting in fiscal year 

2009 $43 billion in financial benefits—a return of $80 for every dollar 

invested in us. In addition, we recorded over 1,300 nonfinancial benefits that 

helped to change laws, such as the Weapon Systems Acquisition Reform Act 

of 2009 (Pub. L. No. 111-23); improve services to the public; and promote 

sound management governmentwide. Our testimonies measure indicates 

that the 111th Congress continued to rely on us for information as it debated 

important national and international issues, with our senior officials 

testifying at 203 hearings during fiscal year 2009. Over two-thirds of our 

reports contained recommendations, and the rate at which federal agencies 

and the Congress implemented recommendations we made in past years met 

the 80 percent target we set for this measure. 

This level of performance could not have been achieved without the 

extraordinary efforts and support of our highly professional, diverse, 

and multidisciplinary staff. The hard work and dedication they displayed 

throughout the past fiscal year made it possible for us to meet our legislative 

deadlines, both anticipated and unforeseen. Our people measures for fiscal 

year 2009 indicate that we are doing many of the right things to ensure 

that our staff have the training, work experiences, tools, and services they 

need to be productive in this very demanding environment. Specifically, 

we exceeded the targets we set for all seven of our people measures—new 

hire rate, retention rate with and without retirements, staff development, 

staff utilization, effective leadership by supervisors, and organizational 

climate—from 2 to 4 percentage points. Also, we rated second on the 

2009 list of best places to work in the federal government among large 
4 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Acting Comptroller General 

federal agencies, according to rankings released in fiscal year 2009 by the 

Partnership for Public Service and the Institute for the Study of Public Policy 

Implementation at American University. 

But our work is not done. Like the nation, we must continue to address our 

internal management challenges—physical security, information security, 

and human capital—as they evolve. For example, in fiscal year 2009, we 

continued to focus on developing a more inclusive and diverse workplace by 

implementing and updating our 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan. We also 

reassessed our recruiting and hiring practices and began briefing managers 

on the Americans with Disabilities Act provisions and GAO’s new reasonable 

accommodation process to ensure that our practices align with the vision 

set forth in the Workforce Diversity Plan. In addition, we examined our 

performance appraisal process, surveyed all agency staff concerning their 

views of and experiences with the process, and implemented a standardized 

appraisal review process to ensure that all staff receive a fair and equitable 

assessment of their performance during annual performance reviews. 

These human capital issues and others constitute the primary focus of our 

agencywide management improvement efforts that we began in fiscal year 

2009. Streamlining our processes and products is also another important 

part of our management improvement effort and should result in shorter 

testimony statements and reports in the coming months. 

We continued to maintain a good working relationship with the employees’ 

union, GAO Employees Organization, International Federation of 

Professional and Technical Engineers, Local 1921. GAO management has 

established an important line of communications with the union via weekly 

meetings with GAO Workforce Relations staff and union officers to discuss 

ongoing and emerging issues. We are also working with the Employee 

Advisory Council and the Diversity Advisory Council on a range of issues. 

In summary, fiscal year 2009 was a very fast-paced and demanding time 

for us, yet we succeeded at performing our mission and mandates and 

accomplishing the goals we set. We are committed to continuing our efforts 

to support the Congress and the taxpayers as the nation confronts the 

challenges ahead. 

Gene L. Dodaro

Acting Comptroller General 

of the United States
GAO-10-234SP 5

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements

Financial Reporting Assurance 

Statements

November 13, 2009

We, as GAO’s executive committee, are responsible for preparing and 

presenting the financial statements and other information included in this 

performance and accountability report. The financial statements included 

herein are presented in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting 

principles; incorporate management’s reasonable estimates and judgments, 

where applicable; and contain appropriate and adequate disclosures. Based on 

our knowledge, the financial statements are presented fairly in all material 

respects, and other financial information included in this report is consistent 

with the financial statements.

We are also responsible for establishing and maintaining adequate internal 

control over financial reporting. We conducted an assessment of the 

effectiveness of our internal control over financial reporting consistent 

with the criteria in 31 U.S.C. 3512 (c), (d) (commonly referred to as the 

Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA)) and in Appendix A 

of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123, Management’s 

Responsibility for Internal Control. Based on the results of this assessment, 

we have reasonable assurance that internal control over financial reporting 

as of September 30, 2009, was operating effectively and that no material 

weaknesses exist in the design or operation of the internal control over 

financial reporting.

On the basis of our comprehensive management control program, we are 

pleased to certify, with reasonable assurance, the following:

■ Our financial reporting is reliable—transactions are properly recorded, 

processed, and summarized to permit the preparation of financial 

statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting 

principles, and assets are safeguarded against loss from unauthorized 

acquisition, use, or disposition.

■ We are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations—

transactions are executed in accordance with laws governing the use of 

budget authority and other laws and regulations that could have a direct 

and material effect on the financial statements.
6 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Reporting Assurance Statements 

■ Our performance reporting is reliable—transactions and other data that 

support reported performance measures are properly recorded, processed, 

and summarized to permit the preparation of performance information 

consistent with the criteria set forth in the Government Performance and 

Results Act of 1993 and related OMB guidance.

We also believe that (1) these same systems of accounting and internal 

controls provide reasonable assurance that we are in compliance with the 

spirit of FMFIA and (2) we have implemented and maintained financial 

systems that comply substantially with federal financial management 

systems requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the 

U.S. Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level consistent 

with the requirements in the Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act and OMB guidance. These are objectives that we set for ourselves even 

though, as part of the legislative branch of the federal government, we are not 

legally required to do so.

Gene L. Dodaro

Acting Comptroller General

of the United States

Sallyanne Harper Lynn H. Gibson

Chief Financial Officer Acting General Counsel
GAO-10-234SP 7

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

Source: See Image Sources.

GAO is an independent, nonpartisan 

professional services agency in the legislative 

branch of the federal government. Commonly 

known as the audit and investigative arm 

of the Congress or the “congressional 

watchdog,” we examine how taxpayer dollars 

are spent and advise lawmakers and agency 

heads on ways to make government work 

better. As a legislative branch agency, we 

are exempt from many laws that apply to 

the executive branch agencies. However, we 

generally hold ourselves to the spirit of many 

of the laws, including 31 U.S.C. 3512 (c), (d) 

(FMFIA), the Government Performance 

and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA), and the 

Federal Financial Management Improvement 

Act of 1996 (FFMIA).1 Accordingly, this 

performance and accountability report for 

fiscal year 2009 provides what we consider 

to be information that is at least equivalent to 

that supplied by executive branch agencies in 

their annual performance and accountability 

reports.

1

FMFIA requires ongoing evaluations and annual reports on the 

adequacy of the systems of internal accounting and administrative 

control of each agency. GPRA seeks to improve public confidence 

in federal agency performance by requiring that federally funded 

agencies develop and implement accountability systems based on 

performance measurement, including setting goals and objectives 

and measuring progress toward achieving them. FFMIA emphasizes 

the need to improve federal financial management by requiring that 

federal agencies implement and maintain financial management 

systems that comply with federal financial management systems 

requirements, applicable federal accounting standards, and the U.S. 

Government Standard General Ledger at the transaction level.

Mission

Our mission is to support the Congress in 

meeting its constitutional responsibilities and 

to help improve the performance and ensure 

the accountability of the federal government 

for the benefit of the American people. 

The strategies and means that we use to 

accomplish this mission are described in the 

following pages. In short, we accomplish our 

mission by providing objective and reliable 

information and informed analysis to the 

Congress, to federal agencies, and to the 

public, and we recommend improvements, 

when appropriate, on a wide variety of issues. 

Three core values—accountability, integrity, 

and reliability—form the basis for all of our 

work, regardless of its origin. These are 

described on the inside front cover of this 

report.

GAO’s History

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 required the 

President to issue an annual federal budget and established 

GAO as an independent agency to investigate how federal 

dollars are spent. In the early years, we mainly audited 

vouchers, but after World War II we started to perform more 

comprehensive financial audits that examined the economy 

and efficiency of government operations. By the 1960s, 

GAO had begun to perform the type of work we are noted 

for today—program evaluation—which examines whether 

government programs are meeting their objectives. 

About GAO
8 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO 

Strategic Planning and 

Management Process 

To accomplish our mission, we use a 

strategic planning and management 

process that is based on a hierarchy of four 

elements (see fig. 1), beginning at the highest 

level with the following four strategic goals:

■ Strategic Goal 1: Provide Timely, Quality 

Service to the Congress and the Federal 

Government to Address Current and 

Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being 

and Financial Security of the American 

People

■ Strategic Goal 2: Provide Timely, Quality 

Service to the Congress and the Federal 

Government to Respond to Changing 

Security Threats and the Challenges of 

Global Interdependence

■ Strategic Goal 3: Help Transform the 

Federal Government’s Role and How 

It Does Business to Meet 21st Century 

Challenges

■ Strategic Goal 4: Maximize the Value of 

GAO by Being a Model Federal Agency 

and a World-Class Professional Services 

Organization

Our audit, evaluation, and investigative work 

is primarily aligned under the first three 

strategic goals, which span issues that are 

both domestic and international, affect the 

lives of all Americans, and influence the 

extent to which the federal government serves 

the nation’s current and future interests 

(see fig. 2).

The fourth goal is our only internal one and 

is aimed at maximizing our productivity 

through such efforts as investing steadily 

in information technology to support our 

work; ensuring the safety and security of 

our people, information, and assets; pursuing 

human capital transformation; and leveraging 

our knowledge and experience. 

Figure 1: GAO’s Strategic Planning Hierarchy 

Source: GAO.

An Example of Our Strategic 

Planning Elements 

Strategic Goal 1: Provide Timely, Quality Service to the 

Congress and the Federal Government to Address Current 

and Emerging Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial 

Security of the American People 

Strategic Objective: The Health Needs of an Aging and 

Diverse Population

Performance Goal: Evaluate the Effectiveness of Federal 

Programs to Promote and Protect the Public Health

Key Efforts:

 Evaluate impediments and barriers to the development 

of new prescription drugs and vaccines

 Assess the regulatory structure for ensuring the safety 

and efficacy of medical devices, drugs, and other 

medical products and therapies

 Evaluate programs targeted at improving the health 

status of the population

 Evaluate the effectiveness of programs to provide 

prevention, treatment, and other services related to 

mental health conditions, including substance abuse
GAO-10-234SP 9

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

Strategic

Goal 1

Provide timely, quality 

service to the Congress 

and the federal 

government to address 

current and emerging 

challenges to the wellbeing and financial 

security of the American 

people

 Highlighted weaknesses in the Food and Drug Administration’s oversight of medical 

devices

 Helped to improve the health care provided wounded soldiers returning home

 Investigated the death and abuse of children at public and private schools

 Recommended additional oversight and controls of voluntary workplace safety and 

health programs administered by some companies

 Enhanced management at the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

 Enhanced federal efforts to combat drug trafficking

 Identified ways the Department of Housing and Urban Development could promote 

energy efficiency and green building in federal public housing programs

 Informed the debate on hardrock mining reform

 Reported on the Environmental Protection Agency’s reforms of its toxic chemical 

assessment process

 Informed the Congress about the U.S. Postal Service’s deteriorating financial 

situation

Strategic 

Goal 2

Provide timely, 

quality service to the 

Congress and the 

federal government to 

respond to changing 

security threats and the 

challenges of global 

interdependence

 Recommended actions to improve the Department of Defense’s (DOD) management 

of contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan 

 Helped the Congress assess DOD’s ability to provide trained and ready forces for 

military operations

 Recommended that the State Department develop outcome measures for its capacitybuilding program in Iraq

 Helped to improve DOD’s accounting of weapons provided to Afghan security forces 

 Helped to strengthen aviation security through improved passenger watch-list 

matching

 Developed a framework to help the Congress evaluate proposals for revamping the 

U.S. financial regulatory system

 Helped to assess the implementation of TARP

 Informed the Congress about weaknesses in lender data that limit regulators’ability 

to identify financial institutions at higher risk of discriminatory lending practices

Strategic 

Goal 3

Help transform the 

federal government’s 

role and how it does 

business to meet 21st 

century challenges

 Helped to track how states and localities are using Recovery Act funds

 Strengthened federal planning and preparedness efforts for the influenza pandemic

 Helped DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs better share electronic health 

records

 Identified shortcomings in the Department of Homeland Security’s management of 

major acquisitions

 Tested the adequacy of the complaint intake process at the Department of Labor’s 

Wage and Hour Division

 Helped to reduce governmentwide improper payments

 Recommended ways to reduce tax noncompliance

Strategic 

Goal 4

Maximize the value of 

GAO by being a model 

federal agency and a 

world-class professional 

services organization

 Mobilized staff quickly to conduct mandated oversight work and ensure 

accountability of the federal assistance available through the Recovery Act 

 Contributed to enhancing the ability of the domestic accountability community to 

prevent fraud, waste, and abuse of federal funds

 Helped enhance international accountability organizations’ capacity to implement 

strong professional standards by sponsoring training and participating in 

international forums 

How GAO Assisted the Nation • Fiscal Year 2009

Figure 2:
10 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO 

We revisit the focus and appropriateness of 

these four strategic goals each time that we 

update our strategic plan. We last updated 

our strategic plan in March 2007. These four 

broad outcome goals are an outgrowth of 

our mission statement and explain our major 

focus areas and the long-term results they 

are intended to achieve. Each of our strategic 

goals is supported by four to eight strategic 

objectives that elaborate on each strategic 

goal. We list the strategic goals and strategic 

objectives under each one in figure 3, our 

strategic planning framework for serving the 

Congress. Several multiyear performance 

goals define a specific level of achievement 

for each strategic objective, and at the base of 

our strategic planning hierarchy, key efforts 

describe a body of work that operationalizes 

each performance goal. Complete descriptions 

of the steps in our strategic planning and 

management process are included in our 

strategic plan for fiscal years 2007 through 

2012, which is available on our Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov. This site also provides 

access to our annual performance plans since 

fiscal year 1999 and our performance and 

accountability reports since fiscal year 2001. 

To ensure that we are well positioned to meet 

the Congress’s current and future needs, we 

update our 6-year strategic plan every 3 years, 

consulting extensively during the update 

with our clients on Capitol Hill and with 

other experts (see our complete strategic plan 

on http://www.gao.gov/sp/d04534sp.pdf). 

Using the plan as a blueprint, we lay out the 

areas in which we expect to conduct research, 

audits, analyses, and evaluations to meet our 

clients’ needs, and we allocate the resources 

we receive from the Congress accordingly. 

Given the increasingly fast pace with which 

crucial issues emerge and evolve, we design 

a certain amount of flexibility into our plan 

and staffing structure so that we can respond 

readily to the Congress’s changing priorities. 

When we revise our plan or our allocation of 

resources, we disclose those changes in annual 

performance plans, which are posted—like 

our strategic plan—on the Web for public 

inspection (http://www.gao.gov/sp.html).

We revised our strategic plan in fiscal year 

2007 for the third time since we first issued a 

strategic plan in 2000. The broad goals and 

objectives of our strategic plan for 2007-2012 

did not change significantly since our last 

update, but events such as the continuing war 

in Iraq and recent natural disasters account 

for some modification in emphasis. Seven 

broad issues or “themes” provide the context 

for our strategic plan (see fig. 3), many of 

which were raised repeatedly by our client 

and other stakeholders during our outreach 

efforts and discussions we initiated while 

preparing the plan. For more information 

about the themes, see Forces That Will Shape 

America’s Future: The Themes from GAO’s 

Strategic Plan (GAO-07-467SP, March 2007). 

We are in the process of updating our current 

strategic plan and intend to release it in the 

spring of 2010. 

Each year, we hold ourselves accountable to the Congress 

and to the American people for our performance, primarily 

through our annual performance and accountability report. 

We have included some information about 

future plans in this report to provide as 

cohesive a view as possible of what we have 

done, what we are doing, and what we expect 

to do to support the Congress and to serve 

the nation. 

Last year, the Association of Government 

Accountants awarded us for the eighth 

consecutive year its Certificate of Excellence 

in Accountability Reporting for our fiscal 

year 2008 performance and accountability 

report. According to the association, this 

certificate means that we produced an 

interesting and informative report that 
GAO-10-234SP 11

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

Serving the Congress and the Nation 

GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework

Mission

GAO exists to support the Congress in meeting its constitutional

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and ensure the accountability of 

the federal government for the benefit of the American people.

Themes Goals & Objectives

Provide Timely, Quality Service to the Congress and the 

Federal Government to . . .

. . . Address Current and Emerging Challenges to the Well-being

and Financial Security of the American People related to . . .

. . . Respond to Changing Security Threats and the Challenges of 

Global Interdependence involving . . .

Help Transform the Federal Government’s Role and How It Does 

Business to Meet 21st Century Challenges by assessing . . .

Maximize the Value of GAO by Being a Model Federal Agency and 

a World-Class Professional Services Organization in the areas of . . .

Accountability Integrity Reliability

Core Values

Changing

Security Threats

Sustainability

Concerns

Economic

Growth &

Competitiveness

Global

Interdependency

Societal Change

Quality of Life

Science &

Technology •	 Client and customer satisfaction

•	 Strategic leadership

•	 Institutional knowledge and experience

•	 Process improvement

•	 Employer of choice

•	 Health care needs

•	 Lifelong learning

•	 Work benefits and protections

•	 Financial security

•	 Effective system of justice

•	 Viable communities

•	 Natural resources use and 

environmental protection

•	 Physical infrastructure

•	 Homeland security

•	 Military capabilities and readiness

•	 Advancement of U.S. interests

•	 Global market forces

•	 Roles in achieving federal 

objectives

•	 Government transformation

•	 Key management challenges 

and program risks

•	 Fiscal position and financing of the 

government

Source: GAO. GAO Strategic Plan 2007-2012

Figure 3: GAO’s Strategic Plan Framework
12 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO 

achieved the goal of complete and fair 

reporting. We also received an award from 

Graphic Design USA for the full version 

of our fiscal year 2008 performance and 

accountability report, as well as for its 

summary version known as the Citizens’ 

Report. (See fig. 4.) 

Organizational Structure

As the Acting Comptroller General of the 

United States, Gene L. Dodaro is the head 

of GAO. On March 13, 2008, he succeeded 

David L. Walker who resigned before the 

end of his 15-year term that began in 1998. 

Mr. Dodaro previously served as GAO’s Chief 

Operating Officer for 9 years, and he retained 

this position after assuming the top post. 

Two other executives join Acting Comptroller 

General Dodaro to form our Executive 

Committee: Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer Sallyanne Harper 

and Acting General Counsel Lynn Gibson. 

Mr. Dodaro will serve as Acting Comptroller 

General until the President nominates and 

the Senate confirms a successor from a list of 

candidates proposed by the Congress. 

To achieve our strategic goals, our staff are 

organized as shown in figure 5. For the most 

part, our 14 evaluation, audit, research, and 

investigative teams perform the work that 

supports strategic goals 1, 2, and 3—our 

three external strategic goals—with several 

of the teams working in support of more 

than one strategic goal.2 In addition, FSI 

follows up on engagements and referrals from 

our other teams when its special services 

are required in areas such as specific fraud 

allegations or for assistance in evaluating 

security matters. Also, FSI manages 

Fraudnet, which is our online system created 

2

In fiscal year 2009, our FSI team—which investigates fraud, waste, 

and abuse; evaluates security vulnerabilities; and conducts other 

investigative services—functioned as a unit within our FMA team; it 

is now a separate team.

for the public to report to GAO allegations 

of fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement 

of federal funds. FSI is an integrated unit 

composed of investigators, analysts, auditors 

who have experience with forensic auditing 

and data mining, and staff in General 

Counsel.

Senior executives in charge of the teams 

manage a mix of engagements to ensure that 

we meet the Congress’s need for information 

on quickly emerging issues as we also 

continue longer-term work that flows from 

our strategic plan. To serve the Congress 

effectively with a finite set of resources, senior 

managers consult with our congressional 

clients and determine the timing and 

priority of engagements for which they are 

responsible.

As described below, General Counsel 

supports the work of all of our teams. 

In addition, the Applied Research and 

Methods team assists the other teams on 

matters requiring expertise in areas such as 

economics, research design, and statistical 

analysis. Staff in many offices, such as 

Strategic Planning and External Liaison, 

Congressional Relations, Opportunity and 

Inclusiveness, Quality and Continuous 

Improvement, Public Affairs, and the Chief 

Administrative Office, support the efforts 

of the teams. This collaborative process, 

which we refer to as matrixing, increases 

our effectiveness, flexibility, and efficiency 

in using our expertise and resources to meet 

congressional needs on complex issues.
GAO-10-234SP 13

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

Source: GAO.

Figure 4: GAO’s Performance and Accountability Report Awards
14 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO 

Figure 5: Organizational Structure

Inspector General Opportunity and

Inclusiveness

Congressional

Relations

Public

Affairs

Source: GAO.

Teams

Comptroller General

of the United States

Chief Operating Officer

Quality and

Continuous

Improvement

Strategic Planning

and External Liaison

General

Counsel

Chief Administrative Officer/

Chief Financial Officer

Goal

4

Goal

2

Goal

3

Goal

1

Goal

4

Goal

3

Goal

2

Goal

1

• Provide audit and 

other legal support 

services for all goals 

and staff offices

• Manage GAO’s bid 

protest and 

appropriations law work

Provide timely, quality

service to the Congress

and the federal

government to respond

to changing security

threats and the

challenges of global

interdependence

• Acquisition and 

Sourcing 

Management

• Defense Capabilities 

and Management

• International Affairs 

and Trade

Provide timely, quality

service to the Congress

and the federal

government to address

current and emerging

challenges to the wellbeing and financial

security of the

American people

• Education,

Workforce, and 

Income Security

• Financial Markets 

and Community 

Investment

• Health Care

• Homeland Security 

and Justice

• Natural Resources 

and Environment

• Physical 

Infrastructure

Help transform the

federal government’s

role and how it does

business to meet 21st

century challenges

• Applied Research

and Methods

• Financial 

Management and 

Assurance

• Forensic Audits

and Special

Investigations

• Information 

Technology

• Strategic Issues

Maximize the value of

GAO by being a model

federal agency and a

world-class professional

services organization

• Controller

• Human Capital 

Office

– Chief Human

Capital Officer

• Information Systems 

and Technology 

Services

– Chief Information

Officer

• Knowledge Services

– Chief Knowledge

Services Officer

• Professional 

Development 

Program

• Field Operations

Note: General Counsel’s structure largely mirrors the agency’s goal structure, and attorneys who are assigned to goals work with the 

teams on specific engagements. Thus, the dotted lines in this figure indicate General Counsel’s support of or advisory relationship with 

the goals and teams rather than a direct reporting relationship. 

General Counsel is structured to facilitate 

the delivery of legal services to the teams 

and staff offices that support our four 

strategic goals. This structure allows General 

Counsel to (1) provide legal support to our 

staff offices and audit teams concerning 

all matters related to their work and (2) 

produce legal decisions and opinions for 

the Comptroller General. Specifically, the 

goal 1, goal 2, and goal 3 groups in General 

Counsel are organized to provide each of 

the audit teams with a corresponding team 

of attorneys dedicated to supporting each 

team’s needs for legal services. In addition, 
GAO-10-234SP 15

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

these groups prepare advisory opinions to 

committees and members of the Congress 

on agency adherence to laws applicable 

to their programs and activities. General 

Counsel’s Legal Services group provides 

in-house support to our management on a 

wide array of human capital matters and 

initiatives and on information management 

and acquisition matters and defends the 

agency in administrative and judicial forums. 

Finally, attorneys in the Procurement Law 

and the Budget and Appropriations Law 

groups prepare administrative decisions and 

opinions adjudicating protests to the award 

of government contracts or opining on the 

availability and use of appropriated funds. 

For strategic goal 4—our only internal 

strategic goal—staff in our Chief 

Administrative Office take the lead. They 

are assisted on specific key efforts by the 

Applied Research and Methods team and by 

staff offices such as Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison, Congressional Relations, 

Opportunity and Inclusiveness, Quality and 

Continuous Improvement, and Public Affairs. 

In addition, attorneys in General Counsel, 

primarily in the Legal Services group, 

provide legal support for goal 4 efforts. 

We maintain a workforce of highly trained 

professionals with degrees in many 

academic disciplines, including accounting, 

law, engineering, public and business 

administration, economics, and the social 

and physical sciences. About three-quarters 

of our approximately 3,100 employees are 

based at our headquarters in Washington, 

D.C.; the rest are deployed in 11 field offices 

across the country (see fig. 6). Staff in these 

field offices are aligned with our research, 

audit, investigative, and evaluation teams 

and perform work in tandem with our 

headquarters staff in support of our external 

strategic goals.

In September 2008, the Government 

Accountability Office Act of 2008 was 

enacted establishing the Office of the 

Inspector General (OIG) of the Government 

Accountability Office as an independent 

statutory office within the agency. Under 

the legislation, the OIG is responsible for 

conducting audits and investigations relating 

to the administration of the programs 

and operations of GAO and for making 

recommendations to promote its economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness. The OIG 

also keeps the Comptroller General and 

Figure 6: GAO’s Office Locations

Chicago

Dayton

Los Angeles

San Francisco

Huntsville

Seattle

Norfolk

Dallas

Denver

Boston

Atlanta

Washington, D.C.

Source: See Image Sources.
16 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO 

the Congress fully informed through its 

semiannual reports that describe its findings. 

In addition, the OIG investigates allegations 

from GAO employees and other interested 

parties concerning activities within GAO that 

may constitute the violation of any law, rule, 

or regulation; mismanagement; or a gross 

waste of funds or other wrongdoing.

Strategies for Achieving Our 

Goals

The Government Performance and Results 

Act directs agencies to articulate not just 

goals, but also strategies for achieving those 

goals. As detailed in part I of this report, 

we emphasize two overarching strategies for 

achieving our goals: (1) providing information 

from our work to the Congress and the public 

in a variety of forms and (2) continuing and 

strengthening our human capital and internal 

operations. Specifically, our strategies 

emphasize the importance of working with 

other organizations on crosscutting issues 

and effectively addressing the challenges to 

achieving our agency’s goals and recognizing 

the internal and external factors that could 

impair our performance. Through these 

strategies, which have proven successful for 

us for a number of years, we plan to achieve 

the level of performance that is needed to 

meet our performance measures and goals. 

This level of performance, in turn, will allow 

us to achieve our four, broad strategic goals.

Attaining our three external strategic 

goals (goals 1, 2, and 3) and their related 

objectives rests, for the most part, on 

providing professional, objective, factbased, nonpartisan, nonideological, fair, 

and balanced information to support the 

Congress in carrying out its constitutional 

responsibilities. To implement the 

performance goals and key efforts related 

to these three goals, we develop and present 

information in a number of ways, including

■ evaluations of federal policies, programs, 

and the performance of agencies;

■ oversight of government operations 

through financial and other management 

audits to determine whether public funds 

are spent efficiently, effectively, and in 

accordance with applicable laws;

■ investigations to assess whether illegal or 

improper activities are occurring;

■ analyses of the financing for government 

activities;

■ constructive engagements in which we 

work proactively with agencies, when 

appropriate, to provide advice that may 

assist their efforts toward positive results;

■ legal opinions that determine whether 

agencies are in compliance with applicable 

laws and regulations;

■ policy analyses to assess needed actions 

and the implications of proposed actions; 

and

■ additional assistance to the Congress 

in support of its oversight and decisionmaking responsibilities.

We conduct specific engagements as a result 

of requests from congressional committees 

and mandates written into legislation, 

resolutions, and committee reports. In 

fiscal year 2009, we devoted 95 percent 

of our engagement resources to work 

requested or mandated by the Congress. 

We devoted the remaining 5 percent of 

the engagement resources to work we 

initiated under the Comptroller General’s 

authority. Much of this work addressed 

various challenges that are of broad-based 
GAO-10-234SP 17

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

interest to the Congress, such as the cost 

and status of both security stabilization 

and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and the 

United States’ efforts to secure Afghanistan 

and combat terrorism in Pakistan.3 Also 

covered by this work were reviews of 

government programs and operations that 

we have identified as at high risk for fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement as well 

as reviews of agencies’ budget requests to 

help support congressional decision making. 

By making recommendations to improve 

the accountability, operations, and services 

of government agencies, we contribute 

to increasing the effectiveness of federal 

spending and enhancing the taxpayers’ trust 

and confidence in their government.

Our staff are responsible for following high 

standards for gathering, documenting, 

and supporting the information we collect 

and analyze. More often than not, this 

information is documented in a product that 

is made available to the public. In some cases, 

we develop products that contain classified 

or sensitive information that cannot be made 

available publicly. We generally issue around 

1,200 products each year, primarily in an 

electronic format. In addition, we publish 

about 250 to 350 legal decisions and opinions 

each year. Our products include the following:

■ reports and written correspondence;

■ testimonies and statements for the record, 

where the former are delivered orally by 

one or more of our senior executives at a 

congressional hearing and the latter are 

provided for inclusion in the congressional 

record;

■ briefings, which are usually given directly 

to congressional staff members; and

3

In fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the work performed under the 

Comptroller General’s authority represented 10 percent and 6 

percent, respectively, of our engagement efforts. 

■ legal decisions and opinions resolving 

bid protests and addressing issues of 

appropriations law, as well as opinions 

on the scope and exercise of authority of 

federal officers.

We also produce special publications on 

specific issues of general interest to many 

Americans, such as our report on the fiscal 

future of the United States, GAO’s role in 

the federal bid protest process, and critical 

issues for congressional consideration related 

to improving the nation’s image abroad.4 Our 

publication, Principles of Federal Appropriations 

Law, is viewed both within and outside of 

the government as the primary resource on 

federal case law related to the availability, 

use, and control of federal funds. In addition, 

we maintain the government’s repository 

of reports on Antideficiency Act violations 

and make available on our Web site various 

information extracted from those reports. 

Collectively, our products always contain 

information and often conclusions and 

recommendations that allow us to achieve our 

external strategic goals.

Another means of ensuring that we are 

achieving our goals is through examining 

the impact of our past work and using 

that information to shape our future work. 

Consequently, we evaluate actions taken by 

federal agencies and the Congress in response 

to our past recommendations. The results 

of these evaluations are reported in terms 

of the financial benefits and nonfinancial 

benefits that reflect the value of our work. 

We actively monitor the status of our open 

recommendations—those that remain valid but 

4

GAO, The Nation’s Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: March 2009 Update, 

GAO-09-405SP (Washington, D.C.: April 2009); Bid Protests at 

GAO: A Descriptive Guide (Ninth Edition, 2009), GAO-09-471SP

(Washington, D.C.: April 2009), and U.S. Public Diplomacy: Key 

Issues for Congressional Oversight, GAO-09-679SP (Washington, 

D.C.: May 27, 2009).
18 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO 

have not yet been implemented—and report 

our findings annually to the Congress and the 

public (http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html).

Similarly, we use our biennial high-risk 

report, most recently issued in January 

2009, to provide a status report on major 

government operations that we consider high 

risk because they are vulnerable to fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement or are in 

need of broad-based transformation. In fiscal 

year 2009 we also used our transition Web 

site to alert the nation’s leaders to current 

and emerging issues facing the nation—

including food safety, defense spending, and 

the stability of U.S. financial markets and 

institutions—and the reports and testimonies 

we issued that address them. These products 

are valuable planning tools because they help 

us to identify those areas where our continued 

efforts are needed to maintain the focus on 

important policy and management issues that 

the nation faces.

To attain our fourth strategic goal—an 

internal goal—and its five related objectives, 

we conduct surveys of our congressional 

clients and internal customers to obtain 

feedback on our products, processes, and 

services and perform studies and evaluations 

to identify ways in which to improve them.

Because achieving our strategic goals 

and objectives also requires strategies for 

coordinating with other organizations with 

similar or complementary missions, we

■ use advisory panels and other bodies to 

inform our strategic and annual work 

planning and

■ maintain strategic working relationships 

with other national and international 

government accountability and 

professional organizations, including the 

federal inspectors general, state and local 

audit organizations, and other national 

audit offices.

These two types of strategic working 

relationships allow us to extend our 

institutional knowledge and experience; 

leverage our resources; and in turn, improve 

our service to the Congress and the American 

people. Our Strategic Planning and External 

Liaison office takes the lead and provides 

strategic focus for the work with external 

partner organizations, while our research, 

audit, and evaluation teams lead the work 

with most of the issue-specific organizations.

How We Measure Our 

Performance

To help us determine how well we are 

meeting the needs of the Congress and 

maximizing our value as a world-class 

organization, we assess our performance 

annually using a balanced set of quantitative 

performance measures that focus on four key 

areas—results, client, people, and internal 

operations. These categories of measures are 

briefly described below.

■ Results. Focusing on results and the 

effectiveness of the processes needed 

to achieve them is fundamental to 

accomplishing our mission. To assess 

our results, we measure financial 

benefits, other (nonfinancial) benefits, 

recommendations implemented, and 

percentage of new products with 

recommendations. 

Financial benefits and nonfinancial 

benefits provide quantitative and 

qualitative information, respectively, on 

the outcomes or results that have been 

achieved from our work. They often 

represent outcomes that occurred or 

are expected to occur over a period of 
GAO-10-234SP 19

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

several years. The remaining measures 

are intermediate outcomes in that they 

often lead to achieving outcomes that 

are ultimately captured in our financial 

and nonfinancial benefits. For financial 

benefits and nonfinancial benefits, we 

first set targets for the agency as a 

whole, and then we set targets for each 

of the external goals—that is, goals 1, 

2, and 3—so that the sum of the targets 

for the goals equals the agencywide 

targets. For past recommendations 

implemented and percentage of products 

with recommendations, we set targets and 

report performance for the agency as a 

whole because we want our performance 

on these measures to be consistent across 

goals. We track our performance by 

strategic goal in order to understand why 

we meet or do not meet the agencywide 

target. We also use this information to 

provide feedback to our teams on the 

extent to which they are contributing to 

the overall target and to help them identify 

areas for improvement.

■ Client. To judge how well we are serving 

our client, we measure the number of 

congressional hearings where we are asked 

to present expert testimony as well as 

our timeliness in delivering products to 

the Congress. Our strategy in this area 

draws upon a variety of data sources (e.g., 

our electronic client feedback form and 

in-person discussions with congressional 

staff) to obtain information on the services 

we are providing to our congressional 

clients. 

We set a target at the agencywide level for 

the number of hearings and then assign 

a portion of these hearings as a target for 

each of the external goals—that is, goals 

1, 2, and 3—based on each goal’s expected 

contribution to the agencywide total. 

We base this target on our assessment of 

the congressional calendar and hearing 

trend data. As in measuring the results 

of our work, we track our progress on 

this measure at the goal level in order 

to understand why we met or did not 

meet the agencywide target. We set an 

agencywide target for timeliness because 

we want our performance on this measure 

to be consistent across goals.

■ People. As our most important asset, 

our people define our character and 

capacity to perform. A variety of data 

sources, including an internal survey, 

provide information to help us measure 

how well we are attracting and retaining 

high-quality staff and how well we are 

developing, supporting, using, and leading 

staff. We set targets for these measures at 

the agencywide level.

■ Internal operations. Our mission and 

people are supported by our internal 

administrative services, including 

information management, building 

management, knowledge services, human 

capital, and financial management 

services. Through an internal customer 

satisfaction survey, we gather information 

on how well our internal operations 

help employees get their jobs done and 

improve employees’ quality of work life. 

Examples of surveyed services include 

providing secure Internet access and voice 

communication systems, performance 

management, and benefits information 

and assistance. We set targets for these 

measures at the agencywide level.

Setting Performance Targets

To establish targets for all of our measures, 

we examine what we have been able to 

achieve in the past (for example, by looking at 

our 4-year rolling averages) for most of our 

results measures (see p. 24) and the external 
20 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

About GAO

factors that influence our work (see p. 60). 

The teams and offices that are directly 

engaged in the work discuss their views of 

what must be accomplished in the upcoming 

fiscal year with our top executives, who 

then establish targets for the performance 

measures.

Once approved by the Comptroller General, 

the targets become final and are presented 

in our annual performance plan and budget.5

We may adjust these targets after they are 

initially published when our expected future 

work or level of funding provided warrants 

doing so. If we make changes, we include the 

changed targets in later documents, such as 

this performance and accountability report, 

and indicate that we have changed them. In 

part II, we include detailed information on 

data sources that we use to assess each of 

these measures, as well as the steps we take 

to verify and validate the data.

On the pages that follow, we assess our 

performance for fiscal year 2009 against our 

previously established performance targets. 

We also present our financial statements, the 

independent auditor’s report, and a statement 

from GAO’s Inspector General.

5

Our most recent performance plan is available on our Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?rptno=GAO-09-304SP.
Serving The Congress And The Nation

Part I

Management’s 

Discussion and Analysis
22 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Assisting the Congress and the Nation During 

Changing and Challenging Times

In fiscal year 2009, the challenges that 

most urgently engaged the attention of the 

Congress and the public helped to define 

our priorities. Our work on issues such as 

the home mortgage market and financial 

systems meltdown that led to one of the 

most significant downturns in the U.S. 

economy and a global economic crisis, 

the implementation of domestic economic 

recovery initiatives, military conflicts 

abroad, the health care provided to veterans 

returning from the battlefield, as well as 

concerns about food safety and worldwide 

public health emergencies all helped 

congressional members, the administration, 

and their staffs develop new federal policies 

and programs and oversee ongoing ones to 

address these and other issues. 

We monitored how well we performed our 

work and supported our staff using 15 annual 

performance measures. The results of our 

efforts are reflected in our solid performance 

in fiscal year 2009—we met or exceeded all 

of the performance targets we set for each 

of these measures (see table 1). We exceeded 

our financial benefits target of $42 billion for 

the fiscal year by $1 billion. This represents 

a $80 return on every dollar the Congress 

invested in us.6 In addition, we exceeded our 

target of 1,200 nonfinancial benefits by more 

than 100 benefits. We also met our target 

for past recommendations implemented and 

exceeded the target for new products with 

recommendations by 8 percentage points. We 

slightly exceeded our target of 200 hearings 

at which we were asked to testify and met 

the target for delivering our products and 

6

 Over the last 4 fiscal years, our return on investment has ranged 

from $83 in fiscal year 2005 to $114 in fiscal year 2008—a record 

year for us.

testimonies to our clients in a timely manner. 

We also exceeded our annual targets for all 

seven of our people measures—our highest 

performance on these measures over the last 

5 fiscal years. 

Concerning our two internal operations 

measures, we will assess our performance 

related to how well our internal 

administrative services (e.g., computer 

support, mail service, and Internet service) 

help employees get their jobs done or improve 

employees’ quality of work life once data 

from our November 2009 annual customer 

satisfaction survey have been analyzed. These 

measures are directly related to our goal 4 

strategic objectives of continuously enhancing 

our business and management processes 

and becoming a professional services 

employer of choice. There will always be a 

lag in reporting on this measure because our 

customer feedback survey is distributed after 

we issue the performance and accountability 

report. In fiscal year 2008, we met our 

target of 4.0 (a composite score based on 

employees’ responses from an internal survey) 

for our measure help get the job done and 

exceeded our target for our quality of work 

life measure. These scores indicate that our 

employees were satisfied with the internal 

administrative services they used during 

their workday. The survey asked staff to rank 

the importance of each service to them and 

indicate their satisfaction with it on a scale 

from 1 to 5.
GAO-10-234SP 23

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 1: Agencywide Summary of Annual Measures and Targets 

Performance 

measure

2005

actual

2006

actual

2007

actual

2008

actual

2009

target actual

Met/

not met

2010

target

Results

Financial benefits

(dollars in billions) $39.6 $51.0 $45.9 $58.1 $42.0 $43.0 Met $42.0 

Nonfinancial benefits 1,409 1,342 1,354 1,398 1,200 1,315 Met 1,200

Past recommendations implemented 85% 82% 82% 83% 80% 80% Met 80%

New products with 

recommendations 63% 65% 66% 66% 60% 68% Met 60%

Client

Testimonies 179 240 276 298a 200 203 Met 220

Timelinessb 92% 93% 95% 95% 95% 95% Met 95%

People

New hire rate 94% 94% 96% 96% 95% 99% Met 95%

Retention rate

With retirements 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 94% Met 90%

Without 

retirements 94% 94% 94% 93% 94% 96% Met 94%

Staff developmentc,d 76% 76% 77% 76% 79% Met 76%

72%

Staff utilizationc,e 75% 75% 73% 75% 75% 78% Met 75%

Effective leadership 

by supervisorsc,f 80% 79% 79% 81% 80% 83% Met 80%

Organizational 

climatec 76% 73% 74% 77% 75% 79% Met 75%

Internal operationsg

Help get job done 4.1 4.1 4.05 4.0 4.0 N/A N/A 4.0

Quality of work life 3.98 4.0 3.98 4.01 4.0 N/A N/A 4.0

Source: GAO.

Note: Information explaining all of the measures included in this table appears in the Data Quality and Program Evaluations section in 

part II of this report. 

a

In fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently reported six additional hearings. This entry reflects the correct total.

b

The timeliness measure is based on one question on a form sent out to selected clients. The response rate for the form in fiscal year 

2009 is 28 percent, and 96 percent of the clients who responded answered this question. The percentage shown in the table represents 

the percentage of respondents who answered favorably to this question on the form.

c

This measure is derived from our annual agencywide employee feedback survey. From the staff who expressed an opinion, we 

calculated the percentage of those who selected favorable responses to the related survey questions. Responses of “no basis to judge/

not applicable” or “no answer” were excluded from the calculation. While including these responses in the calculation would result in 

a different percentage, our method of calculation is an acceptable survey practice, and we believe it produces a better and more valid 

measure because it represents only those employees who have an opinion on the questions. 

d

Beginning in fiscal year 2006 we changed the way that the staff development people measure was calculated. Specifically, we 

dropped one question regarding computer-based training because we felt such training was a significant part of (and therefore 

included in) the other questions the survey asked regarding training. We also modified a question on internal training and changed 

the scale of possible responses to that question. We show the fiscal year 2005 data on a separate line to indicate that those data are not 

comparable to the data beginning in fiscal year 2006.
24 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Table 2: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Selected GAO Measures

Performance measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Results

Financial benefits (billions) $39.2 $43.0 $45.10 $48.7 $49.5

Nonfinancial benefits 1,139 1,248 1,325 1,376 1,352

New products with recommendations 58% 61% 64% 65% 66%

Client

Testimonies 200 206 228 248a 254

Source: GAO.

a

In fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently reported six additional hearings. This entry reflects the correct total.

e

Our employee feedback survey asks staff how often the following occurred in the last 12 months: (1) my job made good use of my 

skills, (2) GAO provided me with opportunities to do challenging work, and (3) in general, I was utilized effectively.

f

In fiscal year 2009 we changed the name of this measure from “Leadership” to its current nomenclature to clarify that the measure 

reflects employee satisfaction with their immediate supervisor’s leadership.

g

For our internal operations measures, we will report actual data for fiscal year 2009 once data from our November 2009 internal 

customer satisfaction survey have been analyzed. N/A indicates that the data are not available yet.

Our fiscal year 2010 targets for all 15 of 

our performance measures are the same as 

those targets we reported in our fiscal year 

2009 performance plan in January 2009. We 

believe that these targets are challenging yet 

realistic for our staff. For example, we did not 

increase our financial benefits target for 2010 

above our fiscal year 2009 actual because 

this target is more consistent with our actual 

performance in 3 of the last 5 fiscal years. 

Moreover, we cannot always anticipate whether 

agencies or the Congress will implement our 

recommendations or the benefits that may 

accrue from these actions in a given year. 

Thus, we believe our target of $42 billion for 

financial benefits for fiscal year 2010 (shown 

on p. 23) is reasonable and achievable.

To help us examine trends over time, we 

also look at 4-year rolling averages for the 

following performance measures: financial 

benefits, nonfinancial benefits, new products 

with recommendations, and testimonies. We 

calculate 4-year rolling averages because 

historically our performance on these 

measures has fluctuated from year to year, 

and this calculation minimizes the effect of an 

atypical result in any given year. We consider 

this calculation, along with other factors, 

when we set our performance targets. Table 2

shows that from fiscal year 2005 through 

fiscal year 2009 our averages for financial 

benefits, new products with recommendations, 

and testimonies steadily increased during 

this period. However, the average number of 

nonfinancial benefits we recorded declined 

between fiscal years 2008 and 2009 after 

reaching a high of 1,376 in fiscal year 2008.

Though we consider our 4-year rolling 

averages and our past performance when 

setting our target for the number of hearings 

at which our senior executives testify, we base 

our testimonies target largely on the cyclical 

nature of the congressional calendar. Our 

experience has shown that during the fiscal 

year in which an election occurs, generally 

the Congress holds fewer hearings because 

the congressional members are reorganizing 

during the months after the election. This 
GAO-10-234SP 25

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

situation provides fewer opportunities for us 

to be invited to testify.

Focusing on Results

Focusing on outcomes and the efficiency 

of the processes needed to achieve them is 

fundamental to accomplishing our mission. 

The following four annual measures—

financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, past 

recommendations implemented, and new 

products containing recommendations—

indicate that we have fulfilled our mission and 

delivered results that benefit the nation.

Financial Benefits and Nonfinancial 

Benefits

We describe many of the results produced by 

our work as either financial or nonfinancial 

benefits. Both types of benefits result from 

our efforts to provide information to the 

Congress that helped to (1) change laws 

and regulations, (2) improve services to the 

public, and (3) promote sound agency and 

governmentwide management. In many 

cases, the benefits we claimed in fiscal year 

2009 are based on work we did in past 

years because it often takes the Congress 

and agencies time to implement our 

recommendations or to act on our findings.

To claim either type of benefit, our staff 

must document the connection between 

the benefits reported and the work that we 

performed. We can claim benefits within 2 

years of when the Congress or an agency 

takes action on our recommendations.

Financial Benefits

Our findings and recommendations produce 

measurable financial benefits for the federal 

government after the Congress acts on or 

agencies implement them and the funds 

are made available to reduce government 

expenditures or are reallocated to other areas. 

The monetary effect realized can be the result 

of 

■ changes in business operations and 

activities;

■ the restructuring of federal programs; or

■ modifications to entitlements, taxes, or 

user fees.

Financial benefits result if, for example, 

the Congress reduces the annual cost of 

operating a federal program, lessens the cost 

of a multiyear program or entitlement, or 

reallocates funds to other areas. Financial 

benefits could also result from increases in 

federal revenues—because of changes in 

laws, user fees, or asset sales—that our work 

helped to produce.

In fiscal year 2009, our work generated 

about $43 billion in financial benefits (see 

fig. 7). We slightly exceeded our target by 

2 percent due to several accomplishments 

with multiyear effects. Of the total amount 

documented in fiscal year 2009, about 

$18 billion (or approximately 42 percent) 

resulted from changes in laws or regulations 

(see fig. 8). The amount of financial benefits 

we were able to document in fiscal year 

2009 was lower than in fiscal year 2008 

because fiscal year 2008 was an exceptional 

year for us as figure 7 indicates. That year 

we recorded several unexpected and large 

financial benefits that significantly contributed 

to our performance. However, the amount 

of financial benefits we documented in fiscal 

year 2009 is more consistent with our actual 

performance in several of the last 5 years. 
26 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Figure 7: Financial Benefits GAO Recorded

Dollars in billions

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

$42.0 $43.0

$58.1

$45.9

$51.0

$39.6

Figure 8: Types of Financial Benefits Recorded 

in Fiscal Year 2009 from Our Work

Agencies acted on GAO information to improve services 

to the public

Information GAO provided to the Congress resulted in 

statutory or regulatory changes 

Core business processes improved at agencies and 

governmentwide management reforms advanced by 

GAO’s work

Categories

Source: GAO.

Financial Benefits

Total $43 billion

$16.6 billion

(39%)

$8.2 billion

(19%)

$18.2 billion

(42%)

Financial benefits included in our 

performance measures are net benefits—that 

is, estimates of financial benefits that have 

been reduced by the estimated costs associated 

with taking the action that we recommended. 

We convert all estimates involving past and 

future years to their net present value and use 

actual dollars to represent estimates involving 

only the current year. Financial benefit 

amounts vary depending on the nature of the 

benefit, and we can claim financial benefits 

over multiple years based on a single agency 

or congressional action. We limit the period 

over which benefits from an accomplishment 

can accrue to no more than 5 years. Estimates 

used to calculate our financial benefits come 

from non-GAO sources. These non-GAO 

sources are typically the agency that acted on 

our work, a congressional committee, or the 

Congressional Budget Office.

To document financial benefits, our 

staff complete reports documenting 

accomplishments that are linked to 

specific recommendations or actions. Each 

accomplishment report for financial benefits is 

documented and reviewed by (1) another GAO 

staff member not involved in the work and (2) 

a senior executive in charge of the work. Also, 

a separate unit, our Quality and Continuous 

Improvement (QCI) office, reviews all 

financial benefits and approves benefits of 

$100 million or more, which amounted to 95 

percent of the total dollar value of benefits 

recorded in fiscal year 2009. During this 

past fiscal year, the GAO Inspector General 

(IG) performed an independent review of all 

financial accomplishments over $1 billion. 

(See the financial benefits section in table 16 

in part II of this report for more details about 

our process for reviewing accomplishment 

reports claiming financial benefits.) Figure 9

lists several of our major financial benefits for 

fiscal year 2009 and briefly describes some 

of our work contributing to each financial 

benefit.
GAO-10-234SP 27

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Source: See Image Sources.

Description

Amount

(Dollars in 

billions)

Avoided costs associated with federal government contracting. In February 2005, we reported on the General Services Administration’s (GSA) Multiple Award Schedules (MAS) program designed to take advantage 

of the federal government’s significant aggregate buying power and to provide a simplified method for procuring commonly used goods and services, ranging from office supplies to technical support. The report highlighted the importance of pre-award audits of MAS contracts by contract negotiators to verify that vendor-supplied 

pricing information is accurate, complete, and current before a contract is awarded. We reported that the annual 

number of pre-award audits had decreased dramatically—from 130 in fiscal year 1992 to 14 in fiscal year 

2003. As a result of our work, GSA and its Inspector General hired additional staff to improve and increase the 

use of pre-award audits for both new contract offers and contract extensions. According to GSA’s data, over 

the 5-year period—from fiscal 2004 through 2008—the increased use of pre-award audits resulted in a total of 

$3.66 billion in cost avoidances, or about $3.97 billion in net present value. $3.97

Prompted the elimination of seller-funded down payments assistance for Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgages. In a 2006 report, we reported that the proportion of FHA-insured mortgages with 

seller-funded down payment assistance (i.e., assistance from nonprofit organizations funded by property 

sellers) had grown from 6 percent in 2000 to 30 percent in 2004 and that such loans had substantially higher 

delinquency and insurance claim rates than similar loans without such assistance. We also reported that homes 

with seller-funded down payment assistance sold for about 2 to 3 percent more than comparable homes without such assistance, resulting in homebuyers having less equity in the transaction than would otherwise be the 

case. We recommended that FHA take a number of steps to mitigate the risks associated with seller-funded 

down payment assistance, including treating such assistance as a seller inducement and therefore subject 

to FHA’s prohibition against using seller contributions to meet the borrower contribution requirement. At 

congressional hearings in 2007 we reiterated our concerns about loans with seller-funded down payment assistance and noted that such loans were contributing to FHA’s deteriorating financial performance. On October 

1, 2008, the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 became effective and prohibited seller-funded down 

payment assistance. The estimated financial benefit associated with this provision is about $2.89 billion. $2.89

Focused federal oversight on Medicaid payment practices vulnerable to fraud. As part of our 2002 reporting on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Service’s (CMS) financial oversight activities, we identified several weaknesses in CMS’s oversight of Medicaid financial management. We recommended that CMS target its 

oversight resources to areas most vulnerable to improper payments and increase oversight of high-risk areas. 

Beginning in 2004 and 2005, CMS took action in response to our recommendations, including hiring about 

90 funding specialists tasked with helping CMS better identify state payment and funding practices that could 

result in inappropriate claims for federal reimbursement or increased federal costs. For fiscal year 2008, CMS 

determined that almost $1.3 billion in inappropriate claims for federal Medicaid payments was avoided that 

year as a result of the funding specialists’ proactive work with states to identify and resolve potential issues 

before states filed potentially problematic claims. We recorded about $1.27 billion in benefits associated with 

fiscal year 2008. $1.27

Figure 9: GAO’s Selected Major Financial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2009

Financial Benefits
28 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Reduced the number of unneeded federal properties overseas. In a 1996 report involving the Department 

of State’s (State) overseas real estate, we identified millions of dollars in unneeded overseas real estate that 

could potentially be sold by State. On the basis of our recommendation, an independent advisory panel was 

established to help State decide which properties should be sold. In 2002, we assessed State’s performance in 

working with the new panel in identifying and disposing of excess property. This report noted that although 

progress had been made, State still had a large number of unneeded properties in its inventory, had inaccuracies 

in its inventory database causing some properties not to be properly identified, and had failed to sell several of 

the properties recommended by the advisory board. State agreed to improve the accuracy of its property inventory and make greater efforts to expedite the sale of unneeded property. State reported that it sold 34 properties 

from the second quarter of fiscal year 2006 through the third quarter of fiscal year 2007. The net present value 

of this financial benefit is about $562 million. $0.562

Source: GAO.

Nonfinancial Benefits

Many of the benefits that result from our 

work cannot be measured in dollar terms. 

During fiscal year 2009, we recorded a total 

of 1,315 nonfinancial benefits (see fig. 10). 

We exceeded our target by almost 10 percent 

due largely to a number of accomplishments 

we documented that related to the nation’s 

homeland security efforts, such as border 

security and immigration enforcement, and 

weapon systems acquisition programs.

Figure 10: Nonfinancial Benefits GAO Recorded

0

300

600

900

1200

1500

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

Number

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

1,315

1,200

1,398 1,342 1,354 1,409

In fiscal year 2009 we documented 626 

instances where federal agencies used our 

information to improve services to the 

public, 69 instances where the information 

we provided to the Congress resulted in 

statutory or regulatory changes enacted in 

fiscal year 2009, and 620 instances where 

agencies improved core business processes 

or governmentwide reforms as a result of 

our work. (See fig. 11.) These actions covered 

a variety of issues, such as strengthening 

the federal government’s planning and 

preparedness for an influenza pandemic, 

improving governmentwide sharing of 

information about the past performance of 

contractors that do business with the federal 

government, identifying federal employees 

who fraudulently sold their transit benefits on 

the Internet, and improving federal oversight 

of care in nursing homes. In figure 12, we 

provide examples of some of the nonfinancial 

benefits we claimed as accomplishments in 

fiscal year 2009.

Figure 11: Types of Nonfinancial Benefits Documented in Fiscal Year 2009 from Our Work

Agencies acted on GAO information to improve services 

to the public

Information GAO provided to the Congress resulted in 

statutory or regulatory changes 

Core business processes improved at agencies and 

governmentwide management reforms advanced by 

GAO’s work

Categories

Source: GAO.

Nonfinancial Benefits

Total 1,315

620

(47%) 626

(48%)

69

(5%)
GAO-10-234SP 29

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Figure 12: GAO’s Selected Nonfinancial Benefits Reported in Fiscal Year 2009

Source: See Image Sources.

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to change laws

Weapon Systems 

Acquisition Reform 

Act of 2009, Pub. L. 

No. 111-23 

Enhanced oversight of major weapon systems development and cost estimates. The Congress included three provisions in this law citing some of our long-standing and recent work in 

the weapon systems acquisition area as partly the impetus. For example, we reported that many 

technologies critical to U.S. defense acquisition programs failed to meet minimum requirements 

for technological maturity. Section 104 of this law requires periodic review and assessment as well 

as annual reporting on the technological maturity and integration risk of critical technologies of 

the major defense acquisition programs. We also reported that the Department of Defense (DOD) 

often underestimates the development costs of major defense acquisition programs largely because 

the estimates are based on limited knowledge and optimistic assumptions about systems requirements and critical technologies. In addition, we testified on the need for DOD to use appropriate 

systems engineering practices to mitigate cost and scheduling risks during program development. 

Sections 101 and 102 of this law require that DOD create the positions of Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation, Director of Developmental Test and Evaluation, and Director of 

Systems Engineering to address these issues. 

American Recovery 

and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009, Pub. L. 

No. 111-5 

Improved access to benefits for workers who lose their jobs. The Trade Adjustment Assistance 

(TAA) program, administered by the Department of Labor, is the nation’s primary program providing income support, job training, and other benefits for manufacturing workers who lose their 

jobs as a result of international trade. We recommended, among other things, that the Congress 

consider (1) allowing a portion of TAA training funds to be used for case management services because workers often require help determining whether they need additional training and what type 

to take and (2) simplifying the confusing training enrollment deadline used to determine whether a 

worker is eligible for extended income support while completing training. The Congress amended 

TAA in this law to require that states spend for case management no less than one-third of the 

funds set aside for administration, employment, and case management services and use a single 

time period for the training enrollment deadline.

William Wilberforce 

Trafficking 

Victims Protection 

Reauthorization Act 

of 2008, Pub. L. No. 

110-457 

Strengthened process for investigating alleged household worker abuse by foreign diplomats.

We recommended that the Departments of State, Justice, and Homeland Security establish an 

interagency process outlining agreed-upon policies and time frames for determining techniques 

used to investigate allegations by household workers of abuse by their employers who are foreign 

diplomats. These investigations are often hampered by the amount of time it takes State to provide 

an opinion. Consistent with our recommendation, Section 203 of this law requires the Secretary of 

State to cooperate, to the fullest extent possible, with any U.S. law enforcement agencies regarding the exploitation of nonimmigrant domestic workers who come to the United States to work for 

foreign diplomats.

Nonfinancial Benefits
30 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Broadband Data 

Improvement Act, 

Pub. L. No. 110-385 

Improved data about Internet services on tribal lands. We found that the rate of Internet subscribership for Native American households on tribal lands was unknown and recommended that 

the Congress consider directing the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to determine 

what data were needed and how these data should be regularly collected. This law, passed early in 

fiscal year 2009, requires the FCC to compile a list of geographic areas that are not served by any 

Internet or broadband provider. The law also requires the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation 

with the FCC, to expand the American Community Survey conducted by the U.S. Census Bureau 

to gather information from residential households, including those on tribal lands, about their 

Internet or broadband services. 

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to improve services to the public

Strengthened 

the employment 

verification process

We found that the large number and variety of documents acceptable for proving employees’ work 

eligibility complicated the employment verification process used by millions of employers. The 

Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had not yet completed its review of the process, including revising the form used to certify employees’ work authorization. We recommended that DHS 

set a time frame for completing its review and issue regulations on changes to the process and 

form. In December 2008, DHS, among other things, amended its regulations on the type of acceptable work eligibility documents to strengthen the integrity of the employment verification process.

Improved DOD's 

Sexual Assault 

Prevention and 

Response Program

In our report on DOD's program to prevent and respond to incidents of sexual assault, we made 

a number of recommendations to improve implementation of the program, such as by analyzing 

installation-level assault data to better target resources and evaluating factors that may discourage 

servicemembers from accessing mental health services following an assault. As a result of this 

work, DOD is currently developing a centralized database of assault incidents and has completed 

an assessment of the military health system’s support of the program, and Army Central Command 

and individual bases have taken actions in response to our site visits.

Enhanced federal 

efforts to combat 

drug trafficking

Because most of the nation’s illegal drug supply is smuggled from abroad, the Drug Enforcement 

Administration’s (DEA) partnerships with agencies that have border-related missions—especially 

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest investigative agency of the DHS—are 

important. In response to our recommendations, DEA and ICE reached an agreement in June 2009 

to collaboratively share intelligence and leverage investigative resources. The interagency agreement resolves a long-standing and counterproductive rivalry that for years has generated concerns 

about duplicative investigations and officer safety.

Nonfinancial benefits that helped to promote sound agency and governmentwide management

Strengthened 

planning and 

preparedness for an 

influenza pandemic

In the aftermath of the H1N1 influenza outbreak, our work helped inform the Congress and the 

new administration about significant gaps in federal government pandemic influenza planning and 

preparedness efforts. In the summer of 2009, our testimony alerted the Congress to the need for the 

federal government to test shared federal pandemic leadership roles, update the National Pandemic 

Implementation Plan, improve coordination with state and local governments and the private sector, and monitor agencies readiness to protect federal workers in a pandemic. The House Homeland Security Committee directed DHS and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)

to report on progress by fall 2009.

Improved 

governmentwide 

sharing on 

contractor past 

performance 

information

In 2009, GAO identified shortfalls in the governmentwide system established to facilitate use of 

contractor past performance information. Given that in fiscal year 2007, federal agencies worked 

with over 160,000 contractors, obligating over $456 billion, this information is necessary to properly evaluate a contractor’s performance history and better inform agencies' contract award decisions. In response to our recommendations, the Office of Federal Procurement Policy revised the 

Federal Acquisition Regulation to improve past performance reporting across government, which 

will help agencies make better contract award decisions.
GAO-10-234SP 31

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Identified federal 

employees involved 

in transit benefit 

fraud

Our investigators identified dozens of federal employees who fraudulently sold their transit 

benefits over the Internet. Many of the employees admitted to intentionally falsifying their benefit 

applications to receive excess benefits. For seven agencies, we determined that the amount of potentially fraudulent transit benefits claimed during 2006 in the National Capital Region was at least 

$17 million and likely more. Agencies took action to hold federal employees accountable based 

on our work. For example, one Department of Transportation (DOT) employee repaid $1,440 and 

resigned in lieu of removal while a Department of Commerce employee was fired and criminally 

prosecuted.

Source: GAO.

Past Recommendations 

Implemented

One way we measure our effect on improving 

the government’s accountability, operations, 

and services is by tracking the percentage 

of recommendations that we made 4 years 

ago that have since been implemented. At 

the end of fiscal year 2009, 80 percent of the 

recommendations we made in fiscal year 2005 

had been implemented (see fig. 13), primarily 

by executive branch agencies. Putting these 

recommendations into practice generates 

tangible benefits for the nation.

Figure 13: Percentage of Past Recommendations Implemented

Four-year implementation rate

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

82% 83% 80% 80% 85% 82%

The 80 percent implementation rate for fiscal 

year 2009 met our target for the year. We 

have not been able to achieve the level of 

performance we did in past years because, 

in some cases, we were unable to obtain the 

agency data that would allow us to fully 

document that our recommendations had been 

implemented. As figure 14 indicates, agencies 

need time to act on recommendations. 

Therefore, we assess recommendations 

implemented after 4 years, the point at 

which experience has shown that if a 

recommendation has not been implemented, it 

is not likely to be.

Figure 14: Cumulative Implementation Rate for 

Recommendations Made in Fiscal Year 2005

Percentage

Source: GAO.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

After

4 years

After

3 years

After

2 years

After

1 year

80%

45%

31%

13%

New Products Containing 

Recommendations

In fiscal year 2009, about 68 percent of the 

576 written products we issued (excluding 

testimonies) contained recommendations. 

(See fig. 15.) We track the percentage of new 

products with recommendations because 

we want to encourage staff to develop 

recommendations that when implemented by 

the Congress and agencies, produce financial 

and nonfinancial benefits for the nation. 

We exceeded our target of 60 percent by 8 

percentage points because our audit teams 

are better emphasizing the need to identify 

possible recommendations as they plan and 
32 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

carry out their work. However, we set our 

target again in fiscal year 2010 at 60 percent 

because we recognize that our products 

do not always include recommendations 

and that the Congress and agencies often 

find informational reports just as useful 

as those that contain recommendations. 

Our informational reports have the same 

analytical rigor and meet the same quality 

standards as those with recommendations 

and, similarly, can help to bring about 

significant financial and nonfinancial 

benefits. Hence, this measure allows us ample 

leeway to respond to requests that result in 

reports without recommendations.

Figure 15: Percentage of New Products with 

Recommendations 

Percentage

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

68%

60%

65% 66% 66% 63%

Focusing on Our Client

To fulfill the Congress’s information needs, 

we strive to deliver the results of our work 

orally as well as in writing at a time agreed 

upon with our client. Our performance this 

year indicates that we assisted the Congress 

extremely well, by slightly exceeding 

our target on the number of hearings we 

participated in and delivering many of our 

products on time based on the feedback from 

our client.

Testimonies

Our clients often invite us to testify on our 

current and past work when it addresses 

issues that congressional committees are 

examining through the hearing process. 

During fiscal year 2009, experts from our 

staff testified at 203 congressional hearings 

covering a wide range of complex issues, 

and we slightly exceeded our target of 200 

hearings at which we testify (see fig. 16) by 3 

hearings. (See fig. 17 for a summary of issues 

we testified on by strategic goal in fiscal year 

2009.) About 70 of the hearings at which 

our senior executives testified were related 

to high-risk areas and programs, which are 

listed on page 40.

Figure 16: Testimonies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

Hearings at which GAO testified

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

200 203

298

276

240

179

Note: In fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently reported six additional 

hearings. This entry reflects the correct total.

The Congress asked our executives to testify 

in fiscal year 2009 more than 15 times on 

homeland security issues; more than 10 times 

each on climate change and Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and Pakistan; and 8 times on military and 

veterans’ health care and disability benefits. 

We believe that our fiscal year 2010 target 

of testimonies at 220 hearings is challenging 

and reflects the number of hearings we 

are likely to attend given the Congress’s 

continuing interest in our Troubled Asset 

Relief Program (TARP) and American 
GAO-10-234SP 33

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

 U.S. strategies and plans in Iraq, 

Afghanistan, and Pakistan 

 Reforming U.S. defense 

acquisitions

 Planning future army combat 

systems

 DOD’s business transformation

 Financial regulators’ oversight of 

large financial institutions

 Security and Exchange Commission 

enforcement resources 

 TARP 

 U.S. cybersecurity strategy

 Screening air cargo on 

passenger aircraft

 Post-Katrina Emergency 

Management Reform Act

 Climate change trade 

measures

 Small Business Administration 

Disaster Loan Program 

reforms

 Auto industry bailout

 Nonprime home loans and rising 

foreclosures 

 Pension Benefit Guaranty 

Corporation financial challenges

 Social Security Administration 

challenges with disability claims 

processing

 Wildland fire management

 Mental health services for 

Hurricane Katrina’s youngest 

victims

 Clean water trust fund

 Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) health care for 

women veterans

 Corporate crime and deferred 

prosecutions 

 D.C. public school reform 

efforts

 Limiting United States Postal 

Service losses

 Reverse mortgages

 Crime victims’ rights

 Federal Protective Service

 Recovery Act

 Influenza pandemic

 Health IT

 Management of DOD contractors

 Key National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration challenges

 U.S. government financial 

statements

 2010 Census preparations

 Improper federal payments to 

suspended businesses

 Offshore financial activity and 

tax enforcement

 VA and DOD electronic 

health records

 Illegal export of military 

technology

Goal 1: Address Challenges to the Well-Being and Financial 

Security of the American People

Goal 2: Respond to Changing Security Threats and the 

Challenges of Globalization 

Goal 3: Help Transform the Federal Government’s Role and 

How It Does Business

Selected Testimony Issues • Fiscal Year 2009

Source: FEMA News Photo.

Figure 17: 
34 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (Recovery 

Act) work along with our reviews of the U.S. 

financial markets and conflicts in Iraq and 

Afghanistan and terrorism in Pakistan. 

Timeliness 

To be useful to the Congress, our products 

must be available when our clients need them. 

We outreach directly to our clients through 

several means, including an electronic 

feedback form. We use the results of our 

client feedback form as a primary source and 

barometer for whether we are getting our 

products to our congressional clients when 

they need the information. In fiscal year 2009 

we met our timeliness target of 95 percent. 

To calculate this result we tally responses 

from the form we send to key congressional 

staff working for the requesters of our 

testimony statements and more significant 

written products (e.g., engagements assigned 

an interest level of “high” by our senior 

management7 and those expected to reach 

500 staff days or more), which represented 

about 65 percent of the congressionally 

requested written products we issued in fiscal 

year 2009. Because our products usually have 

multiple requesters, we often send forms to 

more than one congressional staff person per 

testimony or product. One of the questions on 

each form asks the client whether the product 

was provided or delivered on time. In fiscal 

year 2009, of the forms returned to us, 96 

percent of the congressional staff responding 

answered the question on timeliness. Overall, 

the response rate to our entire form was 28 

percent, though we received feedback on 53 

percent of the products for which we sent 

forms. 

7

As part of our risk-based engagement management process, we 

identify a new engagement as high interest if the work we need 

to perform will likely require a large investment of our resources, 

involve a complex methodology, or examine controversial or sensitive 

issues.

In fiscal year 2009, we met our timeliness 

target of 95 percent. We have always set 

our target for timeliness high because it is 

important for us to meet congressional needs 

when they occur, and we set our fiscal year 

2010 target at the same 95 percent level. 

Figure 18: Timeliness

Percentage of products on time

Source: GAO.

Actual Target Actual

92% 93% 95% 95% 95% 95%

0

20

40

60

80

100

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2009

Focusing on Our People

Our highly professional, multidisciplinary, 

and diverse staff were critical to the level of 

performance we demonstrated in fiscal year 

2009. Our ability to hire, develop, retain, 

and lead staff is a key factor to fulfilling our 

mission of serving the Congress and the 

American people.

Over the last 5 fiscal years, we have refined 

our processes for measuring how well we 

manage our human capital. In fiscal year 

2009, we exceeded all seven of our people 

measures. These measures are directly linked 

to our goal 4 strategic objective of becoming 

a professional services employer of choice. For 

more information about our people measures, 

see Verifying and Validating Performance 

Data on page 84 of this report.
GAO-10-234SP 35

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

New Hire Rate 

Our new hire rate is the ratio of the number 

of people hired to the number we planned 

to hire. Annually, we develop a workforce 

plan that takes into account strategic goals; 

projected workload changes; and other 

changes, such as retirements, other attrition, 

promotions, and skill gaps. The workforce 

plan for the upcoming year specifies the 

number of planned hires. The plan is 

conveyed to each of our units to guide hiring 

throughout the year. The Chief Operating 

Officer, the Chief Administrative Officer, 

the Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, 

the Chief Human Capital Officer, and the 

Controller meet monthly, or more frequently 

if needed, to monitor progress toward 

achieving the workforce plan. 

Adjustments to the workforce plan are made 

throughout the year, if necessary, to reflect 

changing needs and conditions. In fiscal year 

2009, our adjusted plan was to hire 345 staff. 

We were able to bring on board 340 staff by 

year-end. Table 3 shows that we exceeded 

by 4 percentage points the target we set for 

our new hire rate. Our success in achieving 

a 99 percent new hire rate resulted from 

an aggressive and structured recruitment 

strategy focused on meeting our current 

workload demands, as well as the additional 

requirements in fiscal year 2009 as a result of 

TARP and the Recovery Act.

Retention Rate

We continuously strive to make GAO a place 

where people want to work. Once we have 

made an investment in hiring and training 

people, we would like them to stay with us. 

This measure is one indicator of whether we 

are attaining this objective. We calculate this 

measure by taking 100 percent minus the 

attrition rate, where attrition rate is defined 

as the number of separations divided by the 

average onboard strength. We calculate 

this measure with and without retirements. 

Table 4 shows that prior to fiscal year 2009, 

we consistently met the 90 percent target 

rate for overall retention (with retirements), 

and that we exceed that rate considerably by 

4 percentage points in fiscal year 2009, with 

94 percent retention. This increase was likely 

due to the influence of the overall economy, 

which caused some staff to delay retirements 

and reduced other attrition via resignations 

or transfers to other agencies. Similarly, for 

retention without retirements, we consistently 

met the target of 94 percent for the 3 of the 4 

years prior to fiscal year 2009, but exceeded it 

in fiscal year 2009 by 2 percentage points. As 

with the overall retention rate, this increase 

was likely caused by the overall economy, 

which has slowed attrition via resignations 

and transfers.

Table 3: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our New Hire Rate Measure

Performance 

measure 

2005

actual 

2006

actual 

2007

actual

2008

actual

2009

target 

2009

actual

People

New hire rate 94% 94% 96% 96% 95% 99%

Source: GAO.
36 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Table 4: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Retention Rate Measures Including and 

Excluding Retirements

Performance 

measures 

2005

actual 

2006

actual 

2007

actual

2008

actual

2009

target 

2009

actual

People

Retention rate 

With retirements 90% 90% 90% 90% 90% 94%

Without retirements 94% 94% 94% 93% 94% 96%

Source: GAO.

Staff Development and Utilization, 

Effective Leadership by Supervisors, 

and Organizational Climate

One way that we measure how well we 

are supporting our staff and providing 

an environment for professional growth 

and improvement is through our annual 

employee feedback survey. This Web-based 

survey, which is conducted by an outside 

contractor to ensure the confidentiality of 

every respondent, is administered to all of our 

employees once a year. Through the survey, 

we encourage our staff to indicate what they 

think about our overall operations, work 

environment, and organizational culture and 

how they rate their immediate supervisors 

on key aspects of their leadership styles. 

The survey consists of over 100 questions. 

From the staff who expressed an opinion, 

we calculated the percentage of those who 

selected favorable responses to the related 

survey questions. Responses of “no basis 

to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” 

were excluded from the calculation. While 

including these responses in the calculation 

would result in a different percentage, our 

method of calculation is an acceptable survey 

practice, and we believe it produces a better 

and more valid measure because it represents 

only those employees who have an opinion on 

the questions. In fiscal year 2009, to better 

ensure confidentiality of individual responses, 

we used the same outside contractor that 

administered the survey to also analyze the 

data. (See Part II of this report on pp. 86-89

for additional information about these 

measures.)

This fiscal year about 74 percent of our 

employees completed the survey, and we 

exceeded all four targets (see table 5). In 

fact, our fiscal year 2009 performance on 

all of these measures was the highest since 

fiscal year 2005. The organizational climate 

measure showed the greatest increase 

among these measures, exceeding our fiscal 

year 2009 target by 4 percentage points 

and our actual performance last fiscal year 

by 2 percentage points. Our performance 

on the staff development and leadership 

measures also beat last fiscal year’s actual 

performance by 2 percentage points each, and 

staff utilization showed a 3 percentage point 

gain over last fiscal year’s results. Given our 

uneven performance on these measures over 

the last 5 years, we decided to retain our 

fiscal year 2009 targets for fiscal year 2010. 

(See table 1.)
GAO-10-234SP 37

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 5: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Measures of Employee Satisfaction with 

Staff Development, Staff Utilization, Effective Leadership by Supervisors, and Organizational Climate

Performance

measuresa

2005

actual 

2006

actual 

2007

actual

2008

actual

2009

target 

2009

actual

People

Staff developmentb 76% 76% 77% 76% 79%

72%

Staff utilization 75% 75% 73% 75% 75% 78%

Effective leadership 

by supervisorsc 80% 79% 79% 81% 80% 83%

Organizational 

climate 76% 73% 74% 77% 75% 79%

Source: GAO.

a

Certain portions of our Web-based survey are used to develop these four measures. 

b

Beginning in fiscal year 2006 we changed the way that the staff development people measure was calculated. Specifically, we 

dropped one question regarding computer-based training because we felt such training was a significant part of (and therefore 

included in) the other questions the survey asked regarding training. We also modified a question on internal training and changed 

the scale of possible responses to that question. We show the fiscal year 2005 data on a separate line to indicate that those data are not 

comparable to the data beginning in fiscal year 2006.

c

In fiscal year 2009 we changed the name of this measure from “Leadership” to its current nomenclature to clarify that the measure 

reflects employees’ satisfaction with their immediate supervisors’ leadership.

Focusing on Our Internal 

Operations 

Our mission and people are supported 

by our internal administrative services, 

including information management, facility 

management, knowledge services, human 

capital, financial management, and other 

services. To assess our performance related 

to how well our internal administrative 

services help employees get their jobs done or 

improve employees’ quality of work life, we 

use information from our annual customer 

satisfaction survey to set targets and assess 

our performance for both of these measures, 

which are shown in table 6. We asked staff 

to rank 31 internal services available to them 

and to indicate on a scale from 1 to 5 their 

satisfaction with each service. Our internal 

operations measures are directly related to 

our goal 4 strategic objectives of continuously 

enhancing our business and management 

processes and becoming a professional 

services employer of choice. The first measure 

encompasses 19 services that help employees 

get their jobs done, such as Internet access, 

desktop computer equipment, voice and 

video communication systems, shared service 

centers for copying and courier assistance, 

travel services, and report production. The 

second measure encompasses another 12 

services that affect quality of work life, such 

as assistance related to pay and benefits, 

building security and maintenance, and 

workplace safety and health. Using survey 

responses, we calculate a composite score for 

each service category that reflects employee 

ratings for (1) satisfaction with the service and 

(2) importance of the service.
38 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

GAO’s High-Risk Program

Since 1990, our high-risk program has 

highlighted long-standing challenges 

facing the federal government. Increasingly, 

the program has focused on those major 

programs and operations that are in urgent 

need of broad-based transformation and 

congressional as well as executive branch 

action to ensure that our national government 

functions in the most economical, efficient, 

and effective manner possible. Our latest 

regular update, released in January 2009, 

highlights 30 troubled areas across 

government. Many of these areas involve 

critical public service providers, such as 

the Department of Agriculture (USDA), 

the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and 

the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 

Services (CMS), which provides services 

to Medicare and Medicaid recipients. In 

July 2009 we added the U.S. Postal Service 

(USPS) financial condition to the list because 

the service urgently needs to restructure to 

address its current and long-term financial 

viability.

Issued to coincide with the start of each 

new Congress, our high-risk updates have 

helped sustain attention from members of the 

Congress who are responsible for oversight 

and from executive branch officials who 

are accountable for performance. Our focus 

on high-risk problems contributed to the 

Congress enacting a series of governmentwide 

reforms to address critical human capital 

challenges, strengthen financial management, 

improve IT practices, and instill a more 

results-oriented government. Overall, our 

high-risk program has served to identify and 

help resolve serious weaknesses in areas that 

involve substantial resources and provide 

critical services to the public.

In fiscal year 2009, we determined that 

sufficient progress was made to merit 

removing the high-risk designation from one 

area—the Federal Aviation Administration’s 

air traffic control modernization. We also 

designated three new areas as high risk: 

modernizing the outdated U.S. financial 

regulatory system, protecting public health 

through enhanced oversight of medical 

products, and transforming the Environmental 

Protection Agency’s (EPA) processes for 

assessing and controlling toxic chemicals. 

We added USPS financial condition to the 

high-risk list later in fiscal year 2009 because 

amid challenging economic conditions and 

an accelerated decline in mail volume, USPS 

is facing a deteriorating financial situation in 

which it does not expect to cover its expenses 

and financial obligations in fiscal years 2009 

and 2010. 

Table 6: Actual Performance and Targets Related to Our Internal Operations Measures

Performance 

measures 

2005

actual 

2006

actual 

2007

actual

2008

actual

2009

target 

2009

actual

Internal operations

Help get job done 4.10 4.10 4.05 4.00 4.00 N/A

Quality of work life 3.98 4.00 3.98 4.01 4.00 N/A

Source: GAO.

Note: We will report actual data for fiscal year 2009 once the data from our November 2009 internal operations survey have been 

analyzed. N/A indicates that the data are not available yet.
GAO-10-234SP 39

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Since our program began, the government 

has taken high-risk problems seriously and 

has made progress toward correcting them. 

The original high-risk list included 14 areas, 

but over the past 19 years, 38 areas were 

added, 19 areas were removed, and 2 were 

consolidated to reach the Current 31 areas. 

The Department of Defense (DOD) continues 

to dominate the list with 8 high-risk areas of 

its own and shared responsibility for 7 more. 

Table 7 lists each current high-risk area and 

the year it was placed on the high-risk list.

Our high-risk list work in 

fiscal year 2009:

 150 reports

 71 testimonies

 $25.7 billion in financial benefits

In fiscal year 2009, we issued 150 reports, 

delivered 71 testimonies to the Congress, 

and documented financial benefits totaling 

approximately $25.7 billion related to our 

high-risk areas. Included in these results 

are reviews we completed that examined the 

administration of the Medicaid program by 

CMS. For example, our recommendations to 

help modernize and safeguard the Medicaid 

program resulted in $3.6 billion in financial 

benefits. Additionally, we evaluated DOD’s 

acquisition of weapons systems resulting in 

financial benefits of over $7 billion. Some 

of our significant work in this area included 

reviewing the cost and risks of the Joint 

Strike Fighter program, target attack radar 

systems, and satellite systems. We also 

documented about $5.7 billion in financial 

benefits from our work examining IRS’s 

enforcement of tax laws. The actions IRS 

took to improve tax collections in response 

to our recommendations resulted in over 

90 percent of the financial benefits we 

documented for this high-risk list area in 

fiscal year 2009. Our work analyzing DOD’s 

attainment of new weapon systems resulted in 

approximately $8 billion in financial benefits. 

To learn more about our work on the highrisk areas or to download our January 2009 

high-risk update in full, go to http://www.

gao.gov/docsearch/featured/highrisk.html.

General Counsel Decisions 

and Other Legal Work

In addition to benefiting from our audit 

and evaluation work, the Congress and the 

public also benefited from some of our other 

activities in fiscal year 2009 in the following 

ways:

■ We handled more than 1,600 protests 

filed by parties who challenged the way 

individual federal procurements and 

contracts were handled, and we issued 

decisions on more than 250 protests 

addressing a wide range of issues involving 

compliance with, and the interpretation of, 

procurement statutes and regulations. For 

example, we issued decisions concerning 

the Army’s award of contracts for joint light 

technology vehicles,8 the Coast Guard’s 

award of a $1.3 billion contract for the 

fast response cutter,9 the Department of 

Energy’s (DOE) award of a $3.3 billion 

contract for liquid waste remediation 

services at the agency’s Savannah River 

site,10 and the National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration’s (NASA) award of a 

contract for commercial resupply services 

for the International Space Station.11 In 

addition, we issued revised bid protest 

regulations and a new guide to GAO 

protective orders.

8

B-400837 et al., Feb. 17, 2009. 

9

B-400697 et al., Jan. 12, 2009.

10B-400953 et al., Mar. 30, 2009. 11B-401016, B-401016.2, Apr. 22, 2009.
40 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Table 7: GAO’s High-Risk List as of July 2009

High-risk area

Year 

designated 

high risk 

Addressing Challenges in Broad-Based Transformations 

■ Restructuring the U.S. Postal Service to Achieve Sustainable Financial Viability 2009

■ Modernizing the Outdated U.S. Financial Regulatory Systema 2009

■ Protecting Public Health through Enhanced Oversight of Medical Products 2009

■ Transforming EPA’s Processes for Assessing and Controlling Toxic Chemicalsa 2009

■ 2010 Census 2008

■ Strategic Human Capital Managementa 2001

■ Managing Federal Real Propertya 2003

■ Protecting the Federal Government’s Information Systems and the Nation’s Critical Infrastructures 1997

■ Implementing and Transforming the Department of Homeland Security 2003

■ Establishing Effective Mechanisms for Sharing Terrorism-Related Information to Protect the 

Homeland 2005

■ DOD Approach to Business Transformationa 2005

■ Business Systems Modernization 1995

■ Personnel Security Clearance Program 2005

■ Support Infrastructure Management 1997

■ Financial Management 1995

■ Supply Chain Management 1990

■ Weapon Systems Acquisition 1990

■ Funding the Nation’s Surface Transportation Systema 2007

■ Ensuring the Effective Protection of Technologies Critical to U.S. National Security Interestsa 2007

■ Revamping Federal Oversight of Food Safetya 2007

Managing Federal Contracting More Effectively

■ DOD Contract Management 1992

■ DOE’s Contract Management for the National Nuclear Security Administration and Office of 

Environmental Management 1990

■ NASA Acquisition Management 1990

■ Management of Interagency Contracting 2005

Assessing the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Tax Law Administration

■ Enforcement of Tax Lawsa 1990

■ IRS Business Systems Modernization 1995

Modernizing and Safeguarding Insurance and Benefit Programs

■ Modernizing Federal Disability Programsa 2003

■ Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation Single-Employer Insurance Programa 2003

■ Medicare Programa 1990

■ Medicaid Programa 2003

■ National Flood Insurance Programa 2006

Source: GAO.

a

Legislation is likely to be necessary, as a supplement to actions by the executive branch, to effectively address this high-risk area.
GAO-10-234SP 41

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

■ We issued appropriations law and other 

legal decisions on, among other things, 

the purposes for which appropriated funds 

may be used, potential Antideficiency 

Act violations, and the obligational 

consequences of various contracting 

actions. A few decisions and opinions 

stand out. One opinion, issued in response 

to a legislative mandate, concluded that 

DOD’s outreach to retired military officers 

serving as media analysts did not violate 

the prohibition on using appropriations 

for publicity or propaganda purposes.12

The opinion suggested that DOD, 

nevertheless, should consider policies and 

procedures for future outreach activities 

to protect the integrity of, and public 

confidence in, its public affairs efforts. 

Another opinion, in which we disagreed 

with the views of the Department of 

Justice (DOJ) Office of Legal Counsel, 

reminded agencies that it is a violation of 

the Antideficiency Act whenever an agency 

violates a statutory prohibition on the 

use of appropriated funds, regardless of 

whether the prohibition was enacted in the 

appropriations act from which the funds 

were obligated.13 A third decision advised 

agencies that notwithstanding the GSA 

instructions to the contrary, they may not 

obligate expiring fiscal year appropriations 

to cover new motor vehicle orders to be 

finalized in the subsequent fiscal year.14

We also issued opinions and legal products 

addressing DOT’s authority to apportion 

federal highway funds based on states’ 

“public-private partnership” roadways,15

the Department of the Interior’s 

obligation to maintain the navigability 

of access channels leading to major U.S. 

waterways,16 and USDA’s plans to provide 

12B-316443, July 21, 2009.

13B-317450, Mar. 23, 2009.

14B-317249, July 1, 2009.

15B-317634, Aug. 17, 2009. 16B-316760, Feb. 19, 2009.

access easements to private parties on 

public lands.17

■ For fiscal year 2009, we received 12 

Antideficiency Act reports for our 

repository and made selected information 

from these reports publicly available on 

our Web site. Since the Congress amended 

the Antideficiency Act in December 2004, 

requiring agencies to send us a copy of 

reports of Antideficiency Act violations, we 

have maintained the official repository of 

Antideficiency Act reports. 

■ We continued to report under the 

Congressional Review Act to the standing 

committees of jurisdiction of both Houses 

of the Congress on major rules proposed 

by federal agencies. For fiscal year 2009, 

we issued 87 reports. In addition, we 

updated the Congressional Review Act 

reports page on our external Web site to 

make the external search capacity more 

useful and user-friendly. 

■ The General Counsel’s Legal Services 

group was instrumental in the completion 

of an interim collective bargaining 

agreement covering such matters as 

grievance and arbitration procedures 

and also served on the negotiating team 

that conducted the pay negotiations for 

the 2009 analyst pay increases. It also 

participated in informal, weekly meetings 

with the GAO Employees Organization, 

International Federation of Professional 

and Technical Engineers, Local 1921, 

at which a host of labor management 

relations issues were discussed.

■ We were also instrumental in drafting the 

provisions of H.R. 2646, the Government 

Accountability Office Improvement Act 

of 2009. This bill contains provisions 

designed to confirm GAO’s access and 

17B-317292, Oct. 10, 2008.
42 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

enhance congressional oversight in a 

number of areas, including the Medicare 

prescription drug benefit as well as 

antitrust enforcement.

In fiscal year 2009 we distributed volume 

III of the third edition of Principles of 

Federal Appropriations Law, commonly 

known as the Red Book. The Red Book 

is available to the public on our Web site 

and is considered the primary resource for 

appropriations law guidance in the federal 

financial community. The three-volume Red 

Book averages thousands of downloads per 

week as attorneys, budget analysts, financial 

managers, project managers, contracting 

officers, and accountable officers from all 

three branches of the government access 

it to research questions about budget and 

appropriations law. We also issued our annual 

update of the third edition of the Red Book. 

By the end of calendar year 2009, we will 

issue an interactive electronic Index and 

Table of Authorities for the third edition. 

Attorneys from General Counsel taught 

a 2-1⁄2-day course on appropriations law 

19 times this fiscal year to staff at 12 

agencies and to a number of congressional 

staff. The course explains the framework 

for analyzing appropriations law issues to 

ensure that funds are available for obligation 

with regard to purpose, amount, and time. 

In addition, appropriations lawyers taught 

two half-day and two full-day seminars on 

specialized appropriations law topics for three 

agencies. To further communication within 

the appropriations law community across 

all agencies and within the three branches 

of government, we hosted our fifth annual 

appropriations law forum in March 2009, 

with an analysis of significant decisions and 

opinions of 2008 and interactive sessions 

on no-cost contracts and interagency 

transactions, personal versus official 

expenses, and appropriations law issues for 

political appointees.

Assisted with the Transition

While we, as a legislative branch agency, 

have extensive experience helping each new 

Congress, the year 2000 amendments to 

the Presidential Transition Act point to us 

as a resource to incoming administrations 

as well. The act specifically identifies GAO 

as a source of briefings and other materials 

to help inform presidential appointees about 

the major management issues, risks, and 

challenges they will face. 

Our objectives for assisting the 111th 

Congress and the new administration were to:

■ Provide insight into pressing national 

issues. 

■ Highlight the growing need for innovative, 

integrated approaches to solve national and 

global challenges. 

■ Document targeted opportunities to 

conserve resources that can be applied to 

new initiatives. 

■ Underscore critical capacity-building 

needs in individual agencies that will affect 

implementation of whatever new priorities 

are pursued. 

■ Help inform the management improvement 

agendas of the Congress and the new 

administration. 

■ Monitor the implementation of the 

Presidential Transition Act provisions and 

identify potential improvements for future 

transitions
GAO-10-234SP 43

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Urgent Issues GAO Identified in 

November 2008 

(listed alphabetically)

 Caring for servicemembers

 Defense readiness

 Defense spending

 Food safety 

 Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan

 Oversight of financial institutions and markets

 Preparing for large-scale health emergencies

 Protecting the homeland

 Public diplomacy and international 

broadcasting

 Retirement of the space shuttle

 Surface transportation

 The 2010 Census

 Transition to digital TV

To accomplish these objectives, we 

synthesized the hundreds of reports and 

testimonies we issue every year to provide 

congressional and executive branch 

policymakers with a comprehensive snapshot 

of how things are working across government 

and to emphasize the need to update some 

federal activities to better align them with 

21st century realities and help transform 

government. On November 6, 2008, we 

launched our new transition Web site which 

reflected our institutional knowledge and 

broad-based, nonpartisan work on matters 

across the government spectrum and 

offered the incoming administration and 

the Congress key perspectives on program, 

policy, and management issues confronting 

the federal government. The site was 

organized into six major sections:

Urgent Issues: A number of pressing issues 

demand urgent attention and continuing 

oversight to ensure the nation’s security and 

well-being. GAO profiles 13 such issues, 

including oversight of financial institutions 

and markets; U.S. efforts in Iraq, Afghanistan, 

and Pakistan; oversight of food safety; 

protecting the homeland; and preparing for 

large-scale health emergencies.

Agency-by-Agency Issues: Each agency 

faces a range of distinctive major challenges 

affecting its mission, budget, and programs. 

GAO summarizes its work at 28 federal 

agencies.

Major Cost-Saving Opportunities: A 

number of opportunities exist to limit 

costs, reduce waste across agencies and 

programs, and collect revenues already due 

the government. GAO discusses about 50 

such opportunities identified in its previously 

published work.

Management Challenges across the 

Government: Agencies share a number 

of management challenges to improve 

operational efficiency and effectiveness and 

address current and emerging demands.

Long-Term Fiscal Outlook: Given the 

federal government’s long-term fiscal 

challenges, consideration should be given to 

an array of efforts to address the growing 

imbalance between expected spending and 

tax revenues. This is important to America’s 

long-term economic growth, quality of life, 

and security.

Examples of Upcoming GAO Reports on 

Major National Issues: GAO’s forthcoming 

work focuses on a wide range of key federal 

policies and programs. 

The site also included our recommendations, 

key reports for further research, and contacts 

for specific areas.
44 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

In addition to our Internet outreach through 

the transition Web site, our senior executives 

met with new and returning members of 

the Congress, key congressional staff, and 

members of the new administration as part of 

our transition activities. 

Since we launched the transition Web site, 

we have issued a number of products related 

to the urgent issues we identified for the 

new administration and the Congress, 

covering topics such as securing, stabilizing, 

and developing Pakistan’s border area with 

Afghanistan; improving solvency mechanisms 

for the U.S. highway trust fund; and 

sustaining focus on the nation’s planning and 

preparedness for the influenza pandemic. Our 

transition effort also included our high-risk 

report, which we discussed previously. We 

updated the site to focus on high risk and 

other major management challenges facing 

the government.

The Troubled Asset Relief 

Program

On October 3, 2008, the Congress assigned 

GAO important responsibilities in the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act 

of 2008 related to the $700 billion TARP, 

which was designed to help the nation deal 

with its serious financial and economic 

problems. Our work monitoring TARP, 

involved examining (1) TARP’s performance 

in meeting the purposes of the act; (2) the 

financial condition and internal controls of 

TARP, its representatives, and agents; (3) the 

characteristics of both asset purchases and 

the disposition of assets acquired, including 

any related commitments that are entered 

into; (4) the program’s efficiency in using 

the funds appropriated for its operation; (5) 

TARP’s compliance with applicable laws and 

regulations; (6) efforts to prevent, identify, 

and minimize conflicts of interest of those 

involved in TARP’s operations; and (7) the 

efficacy of contracting procedures. 

We are responsible for submitting reports 

to the Congress at least every 60 days 

regarding findings in these areas, and by 

the end of fiscal year 2009 we had issued 

over 15 products related to TARP, including 

7 60-day reports. These products covered 

issues such as financial assistance and 

restructuring of the automobile industry; the 

status of efforts to address home mortgage 

defaults and foreclosures; and efforts to 

address the transparency and accountability 

of TARP, which include 35 recommendations 

for improvements. The act also mandates a 

onetime report to the Congress on the role 

that leveraging and sudden deleveraging of 

financial institutions played in the nation’s 

financial crisis spurred by subprime home 

loans, which we issued on July 22, 2009 

(GAO-09-739). In addition, we were given 

responsibility for auditing the annual 

financial statements of the entity established 

to implement TARP—the Department of the 

Treasury’s Office of Financial Stability within 

the Office of Domestic Finance. 

To perform this work, we assembled 

interdisciplinary teams with a wide range of 

technical skills, including financial market 

and public policy analysts, accountants, 

lawyers, and economists who combined 

resources across the agency. In addition, 

we leveraged knowledge bases developed 

during our prior work that assessed actions 

taken in response to previous financial crises, 

such as the savings and loan crisis. We also 

buttressed our in-house technical expertise 

with targeted new hires and outside experts. 

We conducted this oversight work as we 

typically do—in an objective, fact-based, and 

independent manner. 
GAO-10-234SP 45

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

The American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009

The $787 billion Recovery Act is intended to 

address the nation’s most serious economic 

crisis since the Great Depression. The 

law, passed in February 2009, contains 12 

mandates for GAO, including requirements 

to conduct bimonthly reviews of how states 

and localities are using Recovery Act funds 

and to issue subsequent reports based on 

these reviews. We are also required to report 

quarterly on recipient reports on job creation 

under the act. 

To ensure that our work was coordinated 

with that of others in the accountability 

community who were also given significant 

Recovery Act responsibilities, we held 

meetings with the IGs from 17 federal 

agencies and met with the head of the 

Recovery Accountability and Transparency 

Board. In addition we participated in 

teleconferences with state auditors from 46 

states and with local government auditors 

who perform important oversight functions in 

their jurisdictions. 

In April 2009 we successfully completed 

our first Recovery Act task—to appoint 

13 members to a committee that will 

make recommendations concerning the 

electronic interchange of health information. 

We solicited and reviewed nearly 300 

nominations to fill the positions within 

the legislatively mandated 45-day time 

frame. We also issued our assessment on 

the Small Business Administration’s (SBA) 

efforts to increase liquidity in the secondary 

market for SBA loans within the 60-day 

time frame required by the Recovery Act 

(GAO-09-507R, Apr. 16, 2009). Later that 

month, we issued our first bimonthly report 

on selected states’ use of the Recovery Act 

funds (GAO-09-580, Apr. 23, 2009) and 

testified before the Congress on our findings 

and made a number of recommendations 

aimed at the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) to address concerns about 

the act’s accountability and transparency 

requirements, the use of Recovery Act 

funds to support state efforts to ensure 

accountability and oversight, and notification 

to interested parties of the availability of 

funds. We subsequently issued our second 

and third bimonthly reports (GAO-09-829

and GAO-09-1016). These reports are based 

on our longitudinal study of 16 states and 

certain localities within those jurisdictions as 

well as the District of Columbia that covers 

about two-thirds of the Recovery Act funds 

administered by states and localities. In 

those 17 locations, we are focusing on federal 

programs estimated to account for about 90 

percent of Recovery Act outlays administered 

by states and localities for fiscal year 2009. 

Teams of experienced staff from across our 

agency gathered information on how the 

states and the District of Columbia plan to 

use the funds, their accountability approaches, 

and their plans to evaluate the impact of 

funds. In these bimonthly reviews, we made 

a number of recommendations, primarily to 

OMB. In response, OMB has already issued 

guidance to federal agencies and state and 

local governments on how to track and report 

on the use and impact of Recovery Act funds. 

By the close of fiscal year 2009, we had issued 

three bimonthly reports and a number of 

other products.

Because of the high level of public interest in 

the Recovery Act, we established a separate 

page on our external Web site devoted to our 

work on Recovery Act mandates. In one place 

(www.gao.gov/recovery), individuals can find 

information about the Recovery Act, access 

our bimonthly reviews on the use of funds, 

use an interactive map to access reports on 

each the selected states and the District of 

Columbia, learn about other mandates and 

related work, and find out how to report 
46 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

allegations of abuse of Recovery Act funds. 

Our FraudNet also put out a special call 

for the public to report allegations of fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement in the use 

of Recovery Act funds (see http://www.gao.

gov/press/fraudnet2009mar30.pdf). 

Managing Our Resources

Resources Used to Achieve Our Fiscal 

Year 2009 Performance Goals

Our financial statements for the fiscal year 

ended September 30, 2009 were audited by 

an independent auditor, Clifton Gunderson, 

LLP, and received an unqualified opinion. 

They found our internal controls to be 

effective—which means that no material 

weaknesses were identified—and reported 

that we substantially complied with the 

applicable requirements for financial systems 

in FFMIA. In addition, they found no 

instances of noncompliance with the laws or 

regulations in the areas tested. In the opinion 

of the independent auditor, our financial 

statements are presented fairly in all material 

respects and are in conformity with generally 

accepted accounting principles. The auditor’s 

report, along with the statements and their 

accompanying notes, begin on page 98 in this 

report.18 Table 8 summarizes key data. 

Compared with the statements of large and 

complex agencies in the executive branch, 

our statements present a relatively simple 

picture of a small yet very important agency 

in the legislative branch. We focus most of 

our financial activity on the execution of our 

congressionally approved budget with most 

of our resources devoted to the human capital 

needed for our mission.

18Note 14 to the financial statements describes our Davis-Bacon 

Act trust function. For more detailed Davis-Bacon Act financial 

information, contact our General Counsel.

In fiscal year 2009, our budgetary resources 

included new appropriations of $556 million, 

which includes $25 million, available through 

September 2010, as provided by the Recovery 

Act. In fiscal year 2009, we hired 74 reemployed annuitants and other staff under 

temporary appointments, to supplement 

existing staff conducting the reviews and 

meet the 60-day reporting requirements 

under the Recovery Act, at a cost of $4.2 

million for staffing and related travel for 

the six month period ending September 30, 

2009. Approximately $20.8 million remains 

available to continue these efforts in fiscal 

year 2010. 

GAO also received $7.3 million in 

reimbursement from the Department of 

the Treasury to support activities related 

to monitoring the implementation of 

TARP including bimonthly reporting and 

conducting an annual financial audit of the 

$700 billion authorized for TARP. 

Our total assets were $136 million, consisting 

mostly of property and equipment (including 

the headquarters building, land and 

improvements, and computer equipment and 

software) and funds with the U.S. Treasury. 

The balance in Funds with the U.S. Treasury 

increased by $31 million, a result of the 

combination of increased fiscal year annual 

appropriation and the new appropriation for 

the Recovery Act that is available through 

September 2010. This is also reflected in the 

increase in unexpended appropriations this 

fiscal year. The net property and equipment 

balance decreased largely due to new assets 

under capital lease added at the end of fiscal 

year 2008 with related depreciation reflected 

this fiscal year. Total liabilities of $111 million 

were composed largely of employees’ 

accrued annual leave, amounts owed to other 

government agencies, workers’ compensation, 

and employees’ salaries and benefits. The 

greatest change in our liabilities is an 
GAO-10-234SP 47

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Table 8: GAO’s Financial Highlights: Resource Information (Dollars in millions)

Fiscal year 2009 Fiscal year 2008

Total budgetary resourcesa $580.6 $519.0

Total outlaysa $539.9 $500.4

Net cost of operations

Goal 1: Well-being and financial security of 

the American people $191.3 $201.2

Goal 2: Changing security threats and 

globalization challenges 168.4 161.1

Goal 3: Transforming the federal government’s 

role 177.1 150.6

Goal 4: Maximizing the value of GAO 27.7 22.6

Less reimbursable services not attributable to 

goals (5.7) (5.9)

Total net cost of operationsa $558.8 $529.6

Actual FTEs 3,204 3,081

Source: GAO.

a

The net cost of operations figures include nonbudgetary items, such as imputed pension and depreciation costs, which are not 

included in the figures for total budgetary resources or total outlays.

increase of $3.6 million in intragovernmental 

accounts payable due primarily to the timing 

of government billings resulting in a larger 

accrual this fiscal year as compared to last 

fiscal year. 

The net cost of operating GAO during 

fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2008 was 

approximately $559 million and $530 

million, respectively. Expenses for salaries 

and related benefits accounted for 79 and 

78 percent of our net cost of operations in 

fiscal years 2009 and 2008, respectively. The 

increase in operating costs reflects, in part, a 

combination of new hires due to TARP and 

Recovery Act work and a lower agencywide 

attrition rate in fiscal year 2009. Figure 19

shows how our fiscal year 2009 costs break 

down by category.

We report net cost of operations according 

to our four strategic goals, consistent with 

our strategic plan. Overall, our net costs 

of operations increased by $29 million, due 

primarily to increases in salaries and benefits. 

All four of our strategic goals show sizable 

shifts in costs in fiscal year 2009. The change 

in costs for goals 1, 2, and 3 can be explained 

largely by our efforts on both the TARP 

and Recovery Act efforts begun this fiscal 

year. As a result of these efforts, experienced 

personnel resources were diverted from our 

goal 1 (Well-being and financial security 

of the American people) efforts, that shows 

a net cost decrease, to assist in goal 2 

(Changing security threats and globalization 

challenges) and goal 3 (Transforming the 

federal government’s role). These personnel, 

in addition to the new hires previously 

discussed, contributed to the increases seen 

in both goals 2 and 3, which include TARP 

and Recovery Act efforts. The increase in 

net costs of goal 4 (Maximizing the value 

of GAO) reflects new technology-related 

projects, including developing our enterprise 

architecture, improving engagement system 

support, and beginning the process of 
48 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

modernizing our human capital information 

systems.

Figure 19: Use of Fiscal Year 2009 Funds by 

Category

Percentage of total net costs

Building and

hardware maintenance

services

Salaries

and benefits

12.3%

79.0%

Rent (space

and hardware) 2.1%

Depreciation

Other 4.6%

2.0%

Source: GAO.

Figures 20 and 21 show our net costs by goal 

for fiscal year 2006 through fiscal year 2009. 

Figure 20 shows costs unadjusted for inflation, 

while figure 21 shows the same costs in 2009 

dollars, that is, adjusted for inflation.

Figure 20: Net Cost by Goal, Unadjusted for 

Inflation

2006 191.9 154.7 146.8 23.7

2007 177.4 157.5 146.6 23.9

2008 201.2 161.1 150.6 22.6

2009 191.3 168.4 177.1 27.7

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO.

0

50

100

150

200

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4

Figure 21: Net Cost by Goal, Adjusted for 

Inflation

2006 205.9 166.0 157.5 25.4

2007 185.0 164.2 152.9 24.9

2008 205.0 164.2 153.5 23.0

2009 191.3 168.4 177.1 27.7

Dollars in millions

Source: GAO.

0

50

100

150

200

Goal 1 Goal 2 Goal 3 Goal 4

Financial Systems and Internal 

Controls

We recognize the importance of strong 

financial systems and internal controls to 

ensure our accountability, integrity, and 

reliability. To achieve a high level of quality, 

management maintains a quality control 

program and seeks advice and evaluation 

from both internal and external sources.

We complied with the spirit and intent 

of Appendix A, OMB Circular A-123, 

Management’s Responsibility for Internal 

Control, which provides guidance for agencies’ 

assessments of internal control over financial 

reporting. We performed this assessment by 

identifying, analyzing, and testing internal 

controls for key business processes. Based 

on the results of the assessment, we have 

reasonable assurance that internal control 

over financial reporting, as of September 

30, 2009, was operating effectively and that 

no material control weaknesses exist in the 

design or operation of the internal controls 

over financial reporting. Additionally, our 

independent auditor found that we maintained 
GAO-10-234SP 49

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

effective internal controls over financial 

reporting and compliance with laws and 

regulations. Consistent with our assessment, 

the auditor found no material internal control 

weaknesses.

We are also committed to fulfilling the 

internal control objectives of FMFIA. 

Although we are not subject to the 

act, we comply voluntarily with its 

requirements. Our internal controls are 

designed to provide reasonable assurance 

that transactions are properly recorded, 

processed, and summarized to permit the 

preparation of financial statements and 

assets are safeguarded against loss from 

unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition 

and transactions are executed in accordance 

with the laws governing the use of budget 

authority and other laws and regulations that 

could have a direct and material effect on the 

financial statements.

In addition, we are committed to fulfilling 

the objectives of FFMIA. Although not 

subject to the act, we voluntarily comply 

with its requirements. We believe that we 

have implemented and maintained financial 

systems that comply substantially with federal 

financial management systems requirements, 

applicable federal accounting standards, and 

the U.S. Government Standard General Ledger 

at the transaction level as of September 30, 

2009. We made this assessment based on 

criteria established under the Improvement 

Act and guidance issued by OMB. 

GAO’s IG also conducts audits and 

investigations that are internally focused. 

During fiscal year 2009, the IG examined 

compliance with our policy and procedures 

for conflict-of-interest determinations and 

conducted reviews of our information security 

program and internal control activities. In 

addition, the IG managed an internal hotline 

for use by our employees and contractors to 

report potential fraud, waste, and abuse in 

our operations. Finally, the IG independently 

tested our compliance with procedures related 

to several of our performance measures—this 

is done on a rotating basis. These actions are 

specifically identified in the table that begins 

on page 79. No material weaknesses were 

reported by the IG. 

In addition, our Audit Advisory Committee 

assists the Comptroller General in overseeing 

the effectiveness of our financial reporting 

and audit processes, internal controls over 

financial operations, and processes that 

ensure compliance with laws and regulations 

relevant to our financial operations. The 

committee is composed of individuals who are 

independent of GAO and have outstanding 

reputations in public service or business with 

financial or legal expertise. The current 

members of the committee are as follows:

■ Sheldon S. Cohen (Chairman), a certified 

public accountant and practicing 

attorney in Washington, D.C.; a former 

Commissioner and Chief Counsel of 

IRS; and a Senior Fellow of the National 

Academy of Public Administration.

■ Edward J. Mazur, CPA, Senior Advisor 

for Governmental Financial Management 

at Cherry, Bekaert & Holland, LLP; 

past member of the Governmental 

Accounting Standards Board; former 

State Comptroller of Virginia; and a 

former Controller of the Office of Federal 

Financial Management in OMB.

■ Judith H. O’Dell, CPA CVA, President of 

O’Dell Valuation Consulting LLC, Chair 

of Financial Accounting Standards Board’s 

Private Companies Financial Reporting 

Committee; former trustee of the 

Financial Accounting Foundation which 

is responsible of overseeing, funding, and 

appointing members of the Financial 
50 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

Accounting Standards Board and the 

Governmental Accounting Standards 

Board; and former member of the board 

of directors of the American Institute of 

Certified Public Accountants. 

The committee’s report appears in Part III of 

this report on page 97.

Limitation on Financial Statements

Responsibility for the integrity and 

objectivity of the financial information 

presented in the financial statements in 

this report rests with our managers. The 

statements were prepared to report our 

financial position and results of operations, 

consistent with the requirements of the Chief 

Financial Officers Act, as amended (31 U.S.C. 

3515). The statements were prepared from 

our financial records in accordance with 

the formats prescribed in OMB Circular 

No. A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. 

These financial statements differ from the 

financial reports used to monitor and control 

our budgetary resources. However, both were 

prepared from the same financial records.

Our financial statements should be read 

with the understanding that as an agency 

of a sovereign entity, the U.S. government, 

we cannot liquidate our liabilities (i.e., pay 

our bills) without legislation that provides 

resources to do so. Although future 

appropriations to fund these liabilities are 

likely and anticipated, they are not certain.

Planned Resources to Achieve Our 

Fiscal Year 2010 Performance Goals

In fiscal year 2010, we received an 

appropriation of $556.8 million—an increase 

of 4.9 percent over fiscal year 2009—and 

authorization to use $15.2 million in 

offsetting collections, including new authority 

to seek and retain reimbursements for audits 

of the financial statements of the IRS and the 

Schedule of Federal Debt. These resources 

will allow us to continue to perform a range 

of oversight-, insight-, and foresight-related 

engagements that support the Congress in 

meeting its constitutional responsibilities 

and to meet the performance goals outlined 

in our Strategic Plan. Our fiscal year 2010 

budget will be used to further strengthen 

our capacity to provide timely support to 

the Congress in confronting the difficult 

challenges facing the nation. We will also 

continue mandated work required by the 

Recovery Act and TARP. With the $21 

million unobligated balances available from 

the Recovery Act appropriation and $11.3 

million in anticipated reimbursements for 

TARP, GAO’s total budget authority in fiscal 

year 2010 is $604.4 million.

Table 9 provides an overview of our staffing 

full-time equivalent (FTE) and monetary 

resources by strategic goal. 
GAO-10-234SP 51

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Our fiscal year 2010 budget supports the 

strategic goals, including work related to the 

nation’s financial and housing market crisis, 

as well as other emerging issues through the 

following activities:

■ Increase our staff capacity, including 

Recovery Act and TARP, by 214 FTEs 

from fiscal year 2009 to fiscal year 2010 

to meet increased congressional demand 

and provide more timely responses to 

congressional requests.

■ Address human capital challenges and 

components, such as performance-based 

compensation, succession planning, and 

enhancing staff skills and competencies, 

including leadership and diversity training. 

■ Continue progress on (1) planned IT 

improvements that will enhance the 

productivity and effectiveness of our staff 

and (2) facility infrastructure maintenance 

and improvements to enhance energy 

efficiency and upgrade antiquated building 

and security systems.

Strategic and Annual Work 

Planning

Advisory boards and panels support our 

strategic and annual work planning to 

identify key trends, opportunities and 

challenges, and lessons learned across the 

national and international audit community 

that we should factor into our work. During 

fiscal year 2009, we framed the agendas of 

the Comptroller General advisory entities 

(i.e., the Comptroller General Advisory Board 

(CGAB), the Domestic Working Group, 

the Global Working Group, the Educators 

Advisory Panel, and the Accountability 

Advisory Council) around the theme of the 

global financial crisis. The CGAB, with over 

40 members from the public, private, and 

nonprofit sectors, has broad expertise in areas 

related to our strategic objectives and advises 

us on key trends and emerging issues that 

could affect the work we do in support of our 

strategic objectives. 

Domestically, our investment in the 

Intergovernmental Audit Forum (IAF) 

and the intergovernmental audit and 

accountability community allowed us to 

quickly tap into this community to facilitate 

our Recovery Act engagement work for 

the Congress. For example, through 

Table 9: Fiscal Year 2010 Budgetary Resources by Strategic Goal

Strategic goal FTEs

Amount

(dollars in 

millions)

Goal 1: Well-being and financial security of the American people 1,103 $195.1

Goal 2: Changing security threats and globalization challenges 1,053 186.2

Goal 3: Transforming the federal government’s role 1,147 202.8

Goal 4: Maximizing the value of GAO 115 20.3

Total 3,418 $604.4

Source: GAO.
52 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

our participation in the International 

Organization of Supreme Audit Institutions 

(INTOSAI) Public Debt Working Group, 

we obtained important perspectives on the 

anticipated consequences of the economic 

downturn. As a result of this and many other 

inputs, the Acting Comptroller General 

established an internal GAO coordinating 

group that monitored the financial crisis and 

met periodically to share information and 

knowledge across teams. 

Through the National Intergovernmental 

Audit Forum, we brought together OMB, 

IGs, state and local auditors, and the 

accountability community for a May meeting 

built around the theme of the global financial 

crisis and the challenges of performing 

“real time auditing.” We also organized 

nine meetings/seminars in the eight IAF 

regions where our staff serve as executive 

directors to promote dialogue among the 

intergovernmental audit and accountability 

community regarding the Recovery Act and 

associated opportunities and challenges. To 

facilitate coordination and communications 

with the IGs with substantial Recovery 

Act requirements, we also convened two 

meetings—a joint meeting with the entities 

formerly known as the President’s Council on 

Integrity and Efficiency and the Executive 

Council on Integrity and Efficiency, and the 

new entity, the Council of Inspectors General 

for Integrity and Efficiency. 

Typically, the Acting Comptroller General 

meets annually with the 18-member Domestic 

Working Group. However, we convened two 

meetings this year of the Domestic Working 

Group to leverage the knowledge of and 

network with the heads of select federal, state, 

and local audit institutions. By tapping our 

relationship with the National Association of 

State Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers 

we were able to leverage its communications 

infrastructure and quickly facilitate our access 

to people and information in the sample states 

we identified for our Recovery Act longitudinal 

study. Specifically, we coordinated a series 

of teleconferences that included the Acting 

Comptroller General, our Recovery Act 

engagement teams, OMB representatives, IGs, 

state auditors, and local auditors. 

The Global Working Group, comprising the 

Acting Comptroller General and 18 heads 

of national audit offices, served a similar 

purpose as the Domestic Working Group. 

During the fiscal year 2009 annual meeting, 

we gained information and knowledge 

relating to the experiences and lessons 

learned of supreme audit institutions (SAI) 

and their respective countries in past financial 

crises and the current global financial crisis. 

We also gained insights into emerging issues 

related to fraud and corruption, changes 

in the role of national audit offices, and 

environmental audit. 

In fiscal year 2009, we continued our process 

for updating our strategic plan for 2010 

through 2015. Our Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison office worked closely with 

all the teams and units across the agency that 

support our four strategic goals to identify 

any new issues or trends that in the near 

future could affect the work we do for the 

Congress or our internal initiatives. We also 

developed and incorporated new approaches 

into our strategic planning process. For 

example, we 

■ documented the strategic planning 

process as part of GAO’s overall enterprise 

architecture and identified potential 

inefficiencies and pain points, 

■ validated the results of our external 

environmental scan, and 

■ developed a Wiki page to enhance 

information and knowledge sharing 

regarding strategic planning across teams. 
GAO-10-234SP 53

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

Collaborating with Others

By collaborating with our domestic and 

global networks, we have acquired, expanded, 

and shared our knowledge and expertise, 

which helped to build capacity within 

our agency and among our collaborative 

partners. On the international front, this 

has become increasingly important as more 

of our domestic challenges require global 

collaboration and our staff are engaged in 

work that requires them to obtain information 

from foreign governments and officials. 

Through INTOSAI, we are leaders and 

active members of teams working on the 

strategic plan goals of enhancing professional 

standards, capacity building, knowledgesharing, and good governance. Through our 

participation in the Professional Standards 

Committee and subcommittees, we are able 

to stay abreast of changes in international 

accounting, auditing, and reporting 

standards. In participating in the knowledgesharing working groups (i.e., Public Debt, 

Information Technology, Environmental 

Auditing, Program Evaluation, Fight Against 

International Money Laundering and 

Corruption, and Key National Indicators) and 

task forces, we acquire knowledge and build a 

network of professionals and experts in other 

countries that we can access. This year, we 

organized meetings of GAO representatives 

to the INTOSAI working groups to facilitate 

knowledge sharing among our representatives 

in order to better disseminate knowledge 

gained through our INTOSAI working 

groups throughout GAO. 

In November 2008, INTOSAI’s Governing 

Board asked GAO to assume the 

chairmanship of the new Task Force on 

the Global Financial Crisis: Challenges to 

Supreme Audit Institutions (SAIs). GAO 

held two meetings with the first in-person 

meeting from June 29 through July 1, 2009, 

that was attended by 24 of the 25 member 

countries, including eight auditors general. 

The meeting provided a forum to share 

information and knowledge about the effect 

of the financial crisis globally and helped 

expand GAO’s knowledge about the causes 

of the financial crisis, the stimulus initiatives 

that had been implemented, the impact on the 

real economy, and challenges to the national 

audit offices. 

In addition, we published INTOSAI’s 

quarterly International Journal of Government 

Auditing in five languages to foster global 

understanding of professional standards, 

best practices, and technical issues. In fiscal 

year 2009, we developed a project plan for 

expanding the journal’s Web presence so 

that we can continue to make the publication 

more useful to INTOSAI members and more 

accessible to our global readership. 

As our contribution to building capacity in 

national audit offices around the world, we 

conduct an annual International Auditor 

Fellowship Program for mid- to senior-level 

staff from other countries. The program is in 

its 30th year, and is designed to strengthen 

the ability of the national audit offices 

to fulfill their missions and to enhance 

accountability and governance worldwide. 

Since the program’s inception, over 400 midto senior-level officials from counterpart 

offices of more than 101 countries have 

graduated. Many of them have become 

auditors general, deputy auditors general, 

or government ministers. Through this 

program, GAO instructors, mentors, and 

sponsors become part of a global network 

that helps support GAO engagements. Also, 

the goodwill engendered by the program 

supports our country’s image abroad. 

Other collaborative activities undertaken by 

our staff this year are as follows.
54 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

■ Donors Funding Initiative. The 

Acting Comptroller General assumed the 

responsibility from his predecessor to chair 

the INTOSAI Task Force on the Donor 

Funding Initiative. We have collaborated 

with our INTOSAI colleagues, the World 

Bank, donor organizations, and the 

United States government to support the 

principle that SAIs play an important role 

in good governance and that the donor 

community should support the SAIs in 

developing countries. On October 20, 

2009, representatives of about 15 donor 

organizations signed an international 

memorandum of understanding with 

INTOSAI marking the willingness of 

all parties to work in a coordinated way 

and make better use of scarce financial 

and human resources. To view the 

memorandum of understanding, go to 

http://www.intosai.org/en/portal/.

■ Peer review. We are part of the Global 

Working Group peer review assistance 

network. Canada has led the peer review 

of GAO twice thus far. This year, GAO 

led the peer review of Mexico’s SAI. 

This collaboration with our international 

counterparts saves GAO money in that we 

pay significantly less for our peer review 

when it is performed by our network 

rather than by a public accounting firm. In 

participating in the peer review network, 

we are also able to learn from each other 

and share best practices. 

■ Pandemic preparedness. Foreseeing 

the potential for a pandemic related to 

the avian flu, we collaborated with our 

Domestic Working Group network 

to assess preparedness at the federal, 

state, and local levels by monitoring 

preparedness in our respective 

jurisdictions. The collaborative work 

that we conducted has helped inform our 

pandemic work and is particularly relevant 

now that we are in the midst of a pandemic 

related to H1N1, commonly known as the 

swine flu. 

■ Communications. In addition to IAF 

meetings/conferences, GAO staff have 

participated in numerous conferences, 

Web casts, and teleconferences. An 

example of how this helps leverage GAO 

resources is the collaboration we engaged 

in with the Institute of Internal Auditors 

(IIA) for an IIA-sponsored Web cast 

on the Recovery Act. IIA has a global 

membership of 160,000. In collaborating 

with IIA, we were able to tap and educate 

a much broader audience domestically and 

internationally on GAO’s Recovery Act 

work than we otherwise could have using 

our existing resources.

Using Our Internal Experts

We coordinated extensively within our own 

organization on our strategic and annual 

performance planning efforts, as well as 

on the preparation of our performance 

and accountability reports. Our efforts are 

completed under the overall direction of 

the Acting Comptroller General. We relied 

on our Chief Administrative Officer/Chief 

Financial Officer and her staff to provide key 

information, such as the financial information 

that is included in part III of this report. Her 

staff also coordinated with others throughout 

the agency to provide the information on goal 

4’s results, which appears in part II of this 

report, and provided input on other efforts 

dealing with issues that include financial 

management, budgetary resources, training, 

and security. We obtained input on all aspects 

of our strategic and annual performance 

planning and reporting efforts from each of 

our engagement teams and organizational 

units through their respective managing 

directors, as well as other staff responsible 

for planning or engagement activities in the 
GAO-10-234SP 55

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

teams. Staff from QCI prepared the report, 

ensuring, among other things, that the report 

responded to comments and suggestions 

received from the Association of Government 

Accountants and other reviewers. In short, 

we involved virtually every part of our 

agency and used our internal expertise in our 

planning and reporting efforts.

Internal Management 

Challenges and Mitigating 

External Factors That Could 

Affect Our Performance

At GAO, management challenges are 

identified by the Comptroller General, the 

Executive Committee, and the agency’s senior 

executives through the agency’s strategic 

planning, management, and budgeting 

processes. Our progress in addressing 

the challenges is monitored through our 

annual performance and accountability 

process. Under strategic goal 4, we establish 

performance goals focused on each of our 

management challenges, track our progress 

in completing the key efforts for those 

performance goals quarterly, and report each 

year on our progress toward meeting the 

performance goals. Each year, we ask our 

IG to examine management’s assessment of 

the challenges and the agency’s progress in 

addressing them. (See part IV for the IG’s 

assessment.)

For fiscal year 2009, we continued to address 

three management challenges—physical 

security, information security, and human 

capital. We anticipate that we will continue 

to need to address all three challenges 

in future years because they are evolving 

and will require us to continually identify 

ways to adapt and improve. We will report 

any changes as we monitor and report on 

our progress in addressing the challenges 

through our annual performance and 

accountability process. The following sections 

describe our recent and planned efforts to 

address these challenges.

Physical Security Challenge

The impact of domestic and international 

events, both ongoing and anticipated, 

continues to present us with a physical 

security challenge, including emergency 

preparedness issues, now and in the 

foreseeable future. To strengthen our ability 

to protect our people and our assets, we must 

constantly assess our physical security profile 

and continuity of operations programs visà-vis the domestic and international climate. 

We continue to build on our previous efforts, 

identifying and implementing improvements 

and pursuing new initiatives to protect our 

workers and assets and ensure continuity of 

operations. During fiscal year 2009, we 

■ strengthened our continuity of operations 

program by documenting policy and 

program requirements, and further 

developed a number of new continuity 

components, including a command and 

control team, an evacuation/shelter in 

place team, and an IT contingency team to 

handle IT failures;

■ examined the effectiveness of recent 

improvements implemented to address 

vulnerabilities identified through an 

independent security assessment and 

developed recommendations for future 

enhancements;

■ strengthened our emergency readiness in 

headquarters through continuing training, 

exercises, and drills (e.g., evacuations, 

shelter in place drills, and tests of our 

Web Emergency Operation Center 

administration);
56 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

■ enhanced communications with our 

workforce, for example by, updating 

information on posters, reference guides, 

Web sites, and labels designating 

shelter in place areas, sponsoring a 

national preparedness month fair, and 

implementing emergency e-mail and 

automated phone notification capabilities;

■ coordinated emergency preparedness 

activities with a number of federal and 

local entities;

■ began upgrading electronic security 

systems in our field offices and conducted 

an assessment for integrating field 

office electronic security systems into 

headquarters’ system; 

■ initiated actions to develop a 

comprehensive GAO Facility Security Plan 

and reviewed other agency documents 

to identify government security best 

practices; 

■ opened for competitive bids a new security 

guard force contract at GAO headquarters 

to strengthen the contract requirements, 

address areas of concern, and gain 

efficiencies by merging two separate 

contracts into one; 

■ initiated security reviews on employees 

whose investigations are over 15 years old 

to meet Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive (HSPD) 12 requirements; and

■ contracted for an assessment and design of 

a new mobile radio system for the Security 

Operations Center in headquarters. 

To continue to improve our physical security 

profile, strengthen our efforts to become 

a model security agency, and address the 

continuing and future issues that will 

challenge us in upcoming years, in fiscal year 

2010 we plan to

■ continue upgrading the electronic security 

systems in field offices and begin their 

integration with headquarters’ system; 

■ develop and finalize a facility security plan 

that outlines all of our facility security 

functions and identifies specific responses 

to the different homeland security threat 

levels; 

■ examine the current visitor management 

processes to identify ways to streamline, 

improve customer service, and reduce 

visitor processing times while improving 

accountability and access control; 

■ assess the results of the mobile radio 

system assessment and design, and plan 

for a follow-on contract to install a new 

system with increased communications 

coverage, reliability, and availability 

throughout and around the headquarters 

building, to enhance security and 

emergency operations communications; 

and 

■ initiate security investigations on our 

contract workforce to meet HSPD-12 

requirements. 

Information Security Challenge

Given the constantly evolving nature of 

threats to information and information 

system assets, information security will 

continue to be a management challenge for 

us and all government and private sector 

entities in the foreseeable future. While we 

are not required by law to comply with the 

Federal Information Security Management 

Act (FISMA), we have adopted FISMA 

requirements to help us meet the challenges 

of ensuring information system security. 

Our overall goal is to ensure that information 

protection requirements extend across the life 

cycle of documentation from data collection, 
GAO-10-234SP 57

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

report production, data transmission, and 

storage to the eventual archiving and 

disposal of data. In support of this goal, 

our Information Security and Information 

Systems Security Programs address the 

full range of requirements associated with 

securely accessing, handling, storing, and 

disposing of classified and sensitive national 

security information stored electronically 

and on paper. They also work hand in 

hand to educate staff on handling sensitive 

information and raise awareness of the need 

to maintain appropriate security to reduce the 

risk of compromise of such information. 

In fiscal year 2009, we 

■ implemented a GAO Unit Security 

Manager’s program for headquarters 

and field offices and provided specialized 

security training to all managers;

■ conducted security inspections at 

headquarters and field offices to identify 

and address information security trends 

and weaknesses and inform our security 

education and awareness programs;

■ provided annual security awareness 

training to all employees and specialized 

training for systems managers, 

administrators, and developers;

■ strengthened our inventory controls 

over physical IT assets and improved 

our processes and procedures to manage 

receipt, storage, and issuance of equipment;

■ completed assessments of systems operated 

by third parties, developed guidance and 

testing procedures for conducting site 

visits, and validated the protection of GAO 

information based upon established federal 

standards;

■ increased oversight and security reviews 

of information systems and identified and 

remediated potential weaknesses;

■ established new standards for the 

certification and accreditation of 

information systems, including the 

mainframe processing system;

■ completed the deployment of secure 

desktop configurations that include 

encryption, two-factor authentication, and 

an integrated security suite for our new 

workstations to protect data on our laptops 

and other mobile media, such as USB flash 

drives;

■ increased our change management and 

configuration management capabilities by 

automating the monitoring of systems for 

unauthorized internal changes;

■ upgraded our network monitoring 

capability to better detect unauthorized 

intrusions (i.e., external threats) and 

monitor changes in our information 

system assets; and 

■ integrated the privacy impact assessment 

into our processes for system security 

reviews. 

We will further strengthen our information 

security programs in fiscal year 2010 to 

ensure our capability to address continuing 

and future issues by

■ revising our new hire, initial, and annual 

security awareness training for staff 

handling both classified and sensitive 

unclassified information;

■ identifying additional data protection 

encryption and identity management 

options to provide better access control to 

the GAO network and information;
58 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

■ increasing vigilance in the centralized 

auditing of network servers and devices 

through additional auditing staff 

resources, automated tools, and notebook 

computer security controls;

■ implementing new and updated security 

guidance from the National Institute 

of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

and OMB, and monitoring systems in 

accordance with OMB, NIST, and FISMA 

guidance; 

■ refining our security processes and 

procedures, enhancing our contingency 

operations, and identifying and 

implementing appropriate new 

technologies to improve our ability to 

respond to changing threats;

■ enhancing our configuration and change 

management capabilities by consolidating 

our automated monitoring process across 

all network systems; and 

■ establishing a program within GAO to 

address government best practices for 

appropriately declassifying documents 

based on determinations made by the 

original source of the information. 

To learn more about our information security 

program, see appendix 3 in this report.

Human Capital Challenge

We depend on a talented and diverse, highperforming, knowledge-based workforce 

to accomplish our work and carry out our 

mission in support of the Congress. At the 

same time, the federal government faces new 

and complex challenges in the 21st century, 

including long-term fiscal constraints, 

changing demographics, and evolving 

governance models. We expect that human 

capital will remain a management challenge 

for 2010 and into the foreseeable future. To 

enable us to meet these challenges, strategic 

human capital management must be the 

centerpiece of our change management and 

transformation efforts. We continue to build 

on our previous efforts, identifying and 

implementing improvements and pursuing 

new initiatives to promote and maintain 

a work environment that is fair, unbiased, 

and inclusive, as well as one that offers 

opportunities for all employees to realize their 

full potential. 

During fiscal year 2009, we continued our 

efforts to foster an inclusive, diverse work 

environment and took a number of steps to 

strengthen our human capital programs and 

processes. We

■ honored our commitments to bargain in 

good faith and maintain a positive working 

relationship with the union, which resulted 

in successfully negotiating our 2009 

pay agreement and an interim collective 

bargaining agreement;

■ fostered and enhanced relationships 

with our employee advisory groups by 

providing multiple opportunities for staff 

to engage agency leadership in enhancing 

human capital programs; 

■ implemented GAO Act provisions that 

provided retroactive salary payments to 

GAO staff, bringing closure to concerns 

raised regarding pay issues;

■ completed or initiated most actions in 

our 2008 Workforce Diversity Plan, such 

as expanding our one-to-one mentoring 

program, issuing an Equal Employment 

Opportunity statement, establishing 

a Special Assistant for diversity issues 

to the Acting Comptroller General, 

providing sexual harassment workshops, 

briefing managers on our reasonable 

accommodations process, and holding 
GAO-10-234SP 59

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

facilitated discussions on race with a 

majority of our staff; 

■ issued a 2009 Workforce Diversity Plan 

that identifies recommendations for 

ensuring GAO fosters inclusive workforce 

practices and areas that need continued 

attention;

■ assessed our recruiting and hiring 

programs and identified areas for nearterm and long-term improvements, 

including developing an overarching 

program goal and implementing strategic 

and targeted efforts to achieve a diverse 

and highly qualified workforce;

■ enhanced our staffing management 

practices to (1) provide for timely and 

specific feedback and (2) ensure fair and 

equitable developmental opportunities for 

all staff;

■ enhanced learning and development for 

our administrative support professionals 

through implementation of a unified 

learning curriculum, and for training 

delivery to provide cost-effective, just-intime training to geographically dispersed 

staff;

■ provided all interns with a core group of 

experiences through implementation of our 

intern program guidelines;

■ performed a comprehensive evaluation 

of our performance appraisal system 

that included analysis of past feedback 

on the system, interviews, focus groups, 

an agencywide survey, and a review of 

findings from the 2008 African American 

Performance Assessment Study to 

address concerns identified by internal 

stakeholders and the Ivy Planning Group, 

and developed short- and long-term 

recommendations for improvements that 

are being vetted with stakeholders; 

■ implemented an integrated human 

resource information system to enhance 

processing capabilities and provide for 

more timely, accurate human resource 

data;

■ enhanced our leadership training program 

to help supervisors provide feedback 

to their staff and receive feedback on 

themselves via a 360-degree feedback tool; 

and

■ completed an interim Human Capital 

Strategic Plan that establishes nearterm areas of concentration, including 

recruiting a diverse workforce, enhancing 

employee engagement, and leveraging data 

and technology solutions to improve our 

human capital service delivery. 

Efforts planned for fiscal year 2010 to 

continue addressing human capital challenges 

include

■ implementing the short-term 

recommendations and finalizing decisions 

for longer-term changes to improve our 

performance appraisal system; 

■ completing our analyses and implementing 

human capital recommendations in the five 

areas of our Management Improvement 

Framework;

■ finalizing a 5-year Human Capital 

Strategic Plan to ensure consistency 

with the new GAO Strategic Plan that is 

currently being developed;

■ improving the efficiency and effectiveness 

of our recruiting and hiring programs 

through a strategic and targeted approach, 

and increasing representation of certain 

demographic groups identified in our 

Workforce Diversity Plan through these 

enhanced programs;
60 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis 

■ equipping managers and supervisors with 

the requisite skills to provide effective 

feedback, coaching, and development 

opportunities for their staff; 

■ ensuring that we promote an inclusive 

work environment in which all employees 

have equal opportunity to develop and 

compete; 

■ enhancing GAO’s employee engagement 

through targeted initiatives addressing 

work-life balance, compensation, training, 

performance management, recognition, 

benefits, and wellness; 

■ improving the integration of our strategic 

workforce and budgeting activities to 

include establishing a human capital 

governance structure that facilitates 

collaborative, matrixed decision making on 

human capital issues;

■ leveraging technology solutions to 

improve GAO’s service delivery and 

reporting on human capital performance 

metrics; and

■ maintaining internal and external 

strategic working relationships that 

support GAO’s efforts to remain a 

leading practices professional services 

organization.

Mitigating External Factors

Several external factors could affect the 

achievement of our performance goals, 

including the amount of resources we receive, 

shifts in the content and volume of our work, 

and national and international developments. 

Limitations imposed on our work by other 

organizations or limitations on the ability 

of other federal agencies to make the 

improvements we recommend are additional 

factors that could affect the achievement of 

our goals.

As the Congress focuses on known challenges 

facing the nation and responds to unforeseen 

events, the mix of work we are asked to 

undertake may change, diverting our 

resources from some strategic objectives and 

performance goals. We can and do mitigate 

the impact of these events on the achievement 

of our goals in various ways. For example in 

fiscal year 2009, we

■ continued to track current events 

(such as the financial and housing 

market crises, the automobile industry 

bailout, vulnerabilities in the nation’s 

food supply system, and the quality of 

health facilities and services for soldiers 

returning from military conflicts abroad) 

and communicated frequently with our 

congressional clients in order to be alert to 

possibilities that could shift the Congress’s 

priorities or trigger new priorities;

■ quickly redirected our resources when 

appropriate (i.e., to respond to mandates 

related to TARP and the Recovery Act) so 

that we could deal with major changes as 

they occurred;

■ maintained broad-based staff expertise 

(i.e., in our financial markets, accounting, 

economics, Social Security, health care 

financing, and homeland security areas) 

so that we could readily address emerging 

needs; and

■ initiated evaluations under the Comptroller 

General’s authority on a limited number 

of selected topics, including the status of 

Iraq’s reconstruction efforts and our highrisk list update work.

Congressional demand for our analysis and 

advice is strong. In fiscal year 2009, we 

received over 900 requests and mandates. 

The number of new congressional mandates, 

our highest-priority work, increased from 

75 in fiscal year 2007 to 131 in fiscal year 
GAO-10-234SP 61

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

2009. Moreover, in fiscal year 2009 we 

devoted almost one-third of our audit 

resources to mandates such as the Recovery 

Act; the Emergency Economic Stabilization 

Act, which directs us to perform our 

TARP oversight activities; and the Honest 

Leadership and Open Government Act of 

2007, which directs us to report annually on 

lobbyists’ compliance with registration and 

reporting requirements. In addition, expanded 

bid protest provisions give us, among other 

things, bid protest jurisdiction over the 

issuance of task and delivery orders valued 

at over $10 million and contracts awarded by 

the Transportation Security Administration. 

In addition, the Recovery Act gave us a 

range of recurring responsibilities overseeing 

spending related to the act—including 

bimonthly reviews of how selected states and 

localities across the country are using the 

billions of dollars of funds provided—and 

providing targeted studies in several areas, 

such as small business lending, education, and 

expanded trade adjustment assistance.

As evidenced above, our studies are covering 

more and more complex issues across a broad 

range of federal programs, requiring greater 

analysis to complete. We expect to continue 

to receive a high volume of requests related 

to either new challenges, such as the nation’s 

response to address pandemic flu viruses and 

developments in the financial markets and 

economy, or the many emerging initiatives 

of the Congress and the administration. 

Moreover, all Senate committees are required 

to review programs within their jurisdiction 

to root out fraud, waste, and abuse in 

program spending—giving particular 

scrutiny to issues raised in our reports—and 

develop recommendations for improved 

government performance. In addition, recent 

changes to House rules require each standing 

committee or subcommittee to hold at least 

one hearing on issues raised by GAO that 

indicate that federal programs or operations 

authorized by the committee are at high risk 

for fraud, waste, abuse, or mismanagement 

(see p. 38 for more information about our 

high-risk list areas and programs.)

Federal funding and budget constraints could 

also affect our ability to serve the Congress 

and meet our performance targets. As we 

stated previously, almost 80 percent of our 

budget is composed of people-related costs, 

and any serious budget situation will have 

an impact on our staffing and human capital 

policies and practices. 

Another external factor that affects our 

ability to serve the Congress is the extent 

to which we can obtain access to agency 

information. This access to information plays 

an essential role in our ability to report on 

issues of importance to the Congress and 

the American people. Executive departments 

and agencies are generally very cooperative 

in providing us access to the information we 

need. It is fairly rare for an agency to deny 

GAO access to information, and rarer still 

for an agency to refuse to work toward an 

accommodation that will allow GAO to do its 

work.

While we generally receive very good 

cooperation, over time GAO has experienced 

access issues at certain departments 

and agencies. For example, the Justice 

Department has employed a centralized 

process for screening GAO’s access requests, 

resulting in delays and occasional denials of 

access to information. We actively pursue 

access issues as they arise and are engaged in 

discussions and efforts across the executive 

branch to enhance our access to information. 

One area of particular focus has involved 

our access to information at DHS. As we 

indicated last year, DHS has posed access 

challenges for us since it began operations in 

2003, due to its highly centralized processes. 
62 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Management’s Discussion and Analysis

DHS’s processes for working with us have 

included extensive coordination among 

program officials, liaisons, and attorneys at 

the departmental and component levels and 

centralized control for all of our incoming 

requests for information and outgoing 

documents.19 Appropriations act restrictions 

for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 directed DHS 

to take steps to provide us with more timely 

access to information.20 Accordingly, we are 

actively working with officials at the highest 

levels of DHS to revise its protocols for 

responding to our requests for information. 

There appears to be encouraging progress in 

the latest efforts to revise these protocols.

We have also experienced issues at some 

agencies due to long-standing and erroneous 

interpretations of our access authority, even 

where the agencies are generally cooperative. 

Specifically, in some cases agencies have 

interpreted language in program statutes 

limiting their disclosure or use of data as 

restricting our access, notwithstanding our 

statutory access rights. Examples include 

interpretations by HHS with respect to a 

provision of the Social Security Act relating 

to Medicare (Part D) data, and the Food 

and Drug Administration with respect to 

a provision of the Federal Food, Drug, and 

19See, GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Observations on 

GAO Access to Information on Programs and Activities, GAO-07-700T

(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 25, 2007).

20Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 (Pub. L. No. 110-161, 

Div. E, 121 Stat. 1844, 2042-43 (2007)) made $15,000,000 

unavailable for obligation until the Secretary certified and reported 

that DHS revised departmental guidance concerning relations 

with GAO. The objective of the statutory provision was to provide 

expedited time frames for granting GAO timely and complete 

access to records and interviews and to provide for a “significant 

streamlining” of the review process for document and interview 

requests. DHS made some revisions to its departmental guidance in 

response to this requirement. These revisions, however, did not result 

in a significant streamlining of the process. The fiscal year 2009 

appropriations act for DHS required it to submit quarterly reports to 

the House and Senate Appropriations Committees and GAO of each 

instance where a GAO request for records was not granted within 

20 calendar days and where a GAO request for an interview was 

not granted within 7 calendar days. Consolidated Security, Disaster 

Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act, 2009, Pub. L. No. 

110-329, Div. D, 122 Stat. 3574, 3652 (2008).

Cosmetic Act. Legislation pending in the 

House—the Government Accountability 

Office Improvement Act of 2009, H.R. 

2646—would confirm our access rights, 

refuting agency interpretations that 

restrict GAO’s access in these and similar 

circumstances. 

We devote a high level of attention to 

monitoring and aggressively pursuing access 

issues as they arise. We appreciate the 

interest of the Congress in helping to ensure 

that we obtain access to information and the 

efforts by agencies to cooperate with our 

requests.
Serving The Congress And The Nation

Part II

Performance Information
64 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Performance Information by Strategic Goal 

In the following sections, we discuss how 

each of our four strategic goals contributed 

to our fiscal year 2008 performance results. 

Specifically, for goals 1, 2, and 3—our 

external goals—we present performance 

results for the three annual measures that we 

assess at the goal level. Most teams and units 

also contributed toward meeting the targets 

for the agencywide measures that were 

discussed in part I of this report. 
GAO-10-234SP 65

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Source: See Image Sources.

Goal 1 

Overview

Provide timely, quality 

service to the Congress 

and the federal government 

to address current and 

emerging challenges to the 

well-being and financial 

security of the American 

people

Our first strategic goal upholds our mission 

to support the Congress in carrying out its 

constitutional responsibilities by focusing 

on work that helps address the current and 

emerging challenges affecting the well-being 

and financial security of the American people 

and American communities. Our multiyear 

(fiscal years 2007-2012) strategic objectives 

under this goal are to provide information 

that will help address 

■ the health needs of an aging and diverse 

population;

■ lifelong learning to enhance U.S. 

competitiveness;

■ benefits and protections for workers, 

families, and children;

■ financial security for an aging population;

■ a responsive, fair, and effective system of 

justice;

■ the promotion of viable communities;

■ responsible stewardship of natural 

resources and the environment; and

■ a safe, secure, and effective national 

physical infrastructure. 

These objectives, along with the performance 

goals and key efforts that support them, 

are discussed fully in our strategic plan, 

which is available on our Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. The work 

supporting these objectives was performed 

primarily by headquarters and field office 

staff in the following teams: Education, 

Workforce, and Income Security; Financial 

Markets and Community Investment; 

Health Care; Homeland Security and Justice; 

Natural Resources and Environment; and 

Physical Infrastructure. In line with our 

performance goals and key efforts, goal 1 

staff reviewed a variety of programs affecting 

the nation’s students and schools, employees 

and workplaces, health providers and patients, 

and social service providers and recipients. In 

addition, goal 1 staff performed work for our 

congressional clients related to improving the 

nation’s law enforcement systems and federal 

agencies’ ability to prevent and respond to 

terrorism and other major crimes.

Selected Work under Goal 1 

We identified areas where the Department of Housing 

and Urban Development (HUD) could be more proactive 

in promoting energy efficiency and green building. We 

reported that HUD had not completed regulations to require 

energy-efficient appliances in public housing or collected 

data to understand its multifamily housing portfolio utility 

costs. We reported that HUD should consider providing 

additional incentive points for energy efficiency and green 

building in competitive grant programs. Since our report was 

issued, HUD has made progress in these areas, including 

adding strong incentives for energy efficiency and green 

building in competitive grant programs funded through the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.

To accomplish our work under these 

strategic objectives in fiscal year 2009, we 

conducted engagements, audits, analyses, 

and evaluations of programs at major 

federal agencies, such as the Departments of 
66 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security (DHS), Transportation, Housing 

and Urban Development, and the Interior, and developed reports and testimonies on the efficacy 

and soundness of programs they administer.

As shown in table 10, we did not meet the goal 1 performance target we set for fiscal year 

2009 financial benefits and exceeded our testimonies target, but did not meet our nonfinancial 

benefits target.

Table 10: Strategic Goal 1’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2005 

actual

2006 

actual

2007 

actual

2008 

actual

2009 

target

2009 

actual

Met/ 

not met

2010 

targeta

Financial benefits 

(dollars in billions) $15.6 $22.0 $12.9 $19.3 $13.4 $12.1 Not met $13.4

Nonfinancial benefits 277 268 238 226 231 224 Not met 225

Testimonies 88 97 125 123b 77 85 Met 80

Source: GAO.

a

Our fiscal year 2010 target for nonfinancial benefits differs from the target we reported in our fiscal year 2010 performance budget in 

January 2009. Specifically, we decreased the number of nonfinancial benefits from 235 to 225.

b

In our testimonies calculation for fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently counted one hearing twice. We therefore recalculated the data for 

this measure. The number shown reflects the correct calculation. 

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages, which 

minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any single year. These averages are 

shown in table 11. This table indicates that goal 1 financial benefits have declined steadily since 

fiscal year 2005, while nonfinancial benefits peaked in fiscal year 2007 and have also declined 

since then. The number of hearings at which we testify has generally increased during the 

5-year period since fiscal year 2005. 

Table 11: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 1

Performance measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $22.5 $22.0 $19.3 $17.5 $16.6

Nonfinancial benefits 243 254 259 252 239

Testimonies 91 88 99 108a 108

Source: GAO.

a

In our testimonies calculation for fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently counted one additional hearing. We therefore recalculated the data 

for this measure. The number shown reflects the correct calculation. 

The following sections describe our performance under goal 1 for each of these three 

quantitative performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2010. 
GAO-10-234SP 67

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this 

goal in fiscal year 2009 totaled $12.1 

billion, which missed the target we set by 

$1.3 billion. We describe this and other goal 

1 accomplishments in the goal 1 section of 

appendix 1.

Because financial benefits often result 

from work completed in prior years, we set 

our fiscal year 2009 target on the basis of 

our assessment of the progress agencies 

are making in implementing our past 

recommendations. Our analysis indicates 

that financial benefits in the future for goal 1 

are likely to decrease from fiscal year 2009. 

However, we have set the target for fiscal 

year 2010 at $13.4 billion, based on multiyear 

financial benefits that may accrue from 

certain work in this area.

Example of Goal 1’s

Financial Benefits 

In 2008, we reported that because the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) lacked a system to verify incomes, it 

provided farm program benefits to thousands of individuals 

whose incomes exceeded eligibility caps under the 

Farm Bill. We recommended that USDA work with the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to develop a system for 

verifying the incomes of individuals and businesses before 

disbursing farm program benefits to them. As a result, in 

2009 USDA and IRS began work on a verification system 

that is to prevent payments to ineligible individuals and 

businesses and expected to save $99 million annually or 

about $472 million over the next 5 years.

Nonfinancial Benefits

Nonfinancial benefits reported for goal 1 in 

fiscal year 2009 included 200 actions taken by 

federal agencies to improve their services to 

the public in response to our work and another 

24 in which information we provided to the 

Congress resulted in statutory or regulatory 

changes. This total of 224 nonfinancial benefits 

did not meet our target of 231. We report some 

of our major nonfinancial accomplishments in 

detail in the goal 1 section of appendix 1. 

For fiscal year 2010, we have set a target of 225 

for nonfinancial benefits. This target is only 

slightly higher than what goal 1 achieved in 

fiscal year 2009, and it is consistent with our 

recognition that we are more likely to achieve 

more nonfinancial benefits under goals 2 and 

3 over the next few years. We decreased this 

target by 10 compared with the nonfinancial 

benefits target we reported in our fiscal year 

2010 performance plan.

Example of Goal 1’s 

Nonfinancial Benefits

There is ongoing concern about the safety and security 

of federal facilities and their occupants because of the 

threat of terrorism. The Interagency Security Committee, 

chaired by DHS, decided to use our key practices in facility 

protection to guide its work and issued guidance to agencies 

on performance measurement. On the basis of our work, 

the Congress provided additional staff to address shortfalls 

at DHS’s Federal Protective Service, which protects 

about 9,000 federal buildings with over 1 million federal 

employees. Also, the Smithsonian Institution improved 

internal communications about risk management and 

security staff resources.
68 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Testimonies

Our witnesses testified at 85 congressional 

hearings related to this strategic goal, which 

exceeded the fiscal year 2009 target by 8 

testimonies, about 10 percent. Among the 

testimonies given were those related to the 

quality of health care for female veterans, the 

financial challenges facing the U.S. Postal 

Service, and wildland fire management. (See 

p. 33 for a list of testimony topics by goal.) 

We set our fiscal year 2010 target at 80 

hearings at which we testify on goal 1 issues 

because we anticipate a decline in requests for 

testimony during the year on several topics, 

such as elementary and secondary education 

and juvenile justice issues. 

Examples of Goal 1’s Testimonies

The Department of Defense (DOD) reported that over 

33,000 servicemembers have been wounded in action 

since 2001. Beyond adjusting to their injuries, recovering 

servicemembers also face additional challenges, including 

managing their recovery process, navigating the military’s 

disability system, and transitioning between care provided 

by DOD and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). 

We testified that even though DOD and VA experienced 

numerous challenges to jointly developing policies to 

improve the care, management, and transition of recovering 

servicemembers, the agencies have made significant 

achievements in improving this difficult transition for 

servicemembers.

Our testimony on nonprime mortgages examined the 

evolution and condition of the nonprime market segment. 

Recent foreclosure developments have prompted greater 

scrutiny of lending practices in the nonprime market, a 

number of government efforts to modify troubled loans, 

and proposals to strengthen federal regulation of the 

mortgage industry. We found that aggressive lending 

practices contributed to the recent increases in default 

and foreclosure rates. We also found that the majority of 

nonprime loans were used to refinance existing loans rather 

than to purchase homes. This information will help inform 

the Congress’s efforts to reform mortgage lending practices.
GAO-10-234SP 69

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Goal 2 

Overview

Provide timely, quality 

service to the Congress 

and the federal government 

to respond to changing 

security threats and 

the challenges of global 

interdependence

Source: See Image Sources.

The federal government is working to 

promote foreign policy goals, sound trade 

policies, and other strategies to advance the 

interests of the United States and its allies. 

The federal government is also working to 

balance national security demands overseas 

and at home with demands related to an 

evolving national security environment. 

Given the importance of these efforts, our 

second strategic goal focuses on helping 

the Congress and the federal government 

access and improve capabilities to respond 

to various types of threats to our nation and 

the challenges of global interdependency. Our 

multiyear (fiscal years 2007-2012) strategic 

objectives under this goal are to support 

congressional and agency efforts to

■ protect and secure the homeland from 

threats and disasters,

■ ensure military capabilities and readiness,

■ advance and protect U.S. international 

interests, and

■ respond to the impact of global market 

forces on U.S. economic and security 

interests. 

These objectives, along with the performance 

goals and key efforts that support them, 

are discussed fully in our strategic plan, 

which is available on our Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. The work 

supporting these objectives is performed 

primarily by headquarters and field staff 

in the following teams: Acquisition and 

Sourcing Management, Defense Capabilities 

and Management, and International Affairs 

and Trade. In addition, the work supporting 

some performance goals and key efforts is 

performed by headquarters and field staff 

from the Information Technology, Homeland 

Security and Justice, Financial Markets 

and Community Investment, and Natural 

Resources and Environment teams.

Selected Work under Goal 2 

We found that the U.S. government lacks a coordinated 

strategy to stem the flow of firearms from the United States 

to Mexico. We also found over 20,000 firearms seized in 

Mexico were traced to the United States—about 87 percent 

of arms traced from 2004 to 2008; U.S. agencies lack 

dedicated funding to address arms trafficking; and two key 

agencies responsible for combating arms trafficking—the 

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) 

and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—have not 

coordinated efforts. Following the release of our report, ATF 

and ICE officials signed a memorandum of understanding 

clarifying their roles in combatting arms trafficking.

To accomplish our work in fiscal year 

2009 under these strategic objectives, we 

conducted engagements and audits that 

involved fieldwork related to programs that 

took us across multiple continents, including 

Europe, Africa, Asia, South America, and 

North America. As in the past, we developed 

reports, testimonies, and briefings on our 

work.
70 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

As shown in table 12, we did not meet our fiscal year 2009 performance targets for financial 

benefits, but exceeded the targets for nonfinancial benefits and testimonies. 

Table 12: Strategic Goal 2’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2005 

actual

2006 

actual

2007 

actual

2008 

actual

2009 

target

2009 

actual

Met/ 

not met

2010 

targeta

Financial benefits 

(dollars in billions)

$12.9 $12.0 $10.3 $15.4 $12.7 $12.4 Not 

met

$13.8

Nonfinancial benefits 365 449 468 468 344 457 Met 345

Testimonies 42 68 73 93b 64 67 Met 73

Source: GAO.

a

Our fiscal year 2010 targets for nonfinancial benefits and testimonies differ from the targets we reported in our fiscal year 2010 

performance budget in January 2009. Specifically, we increased the number of nonfinancial benefits by five and the number of 

hearings at which we testify by two. 

b

In our testimonies calculation for fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently counted three additional hearings for this strategic goal. We 

therefore recalculated the data for this measure. The number shown reflects the correct calculation. 

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages, 

which minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any single year and are shown 

in table 13. This table indicates that goal 2 financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, and 

testimonies have steadily increased over the last 5 years, with only a slight decline in financial 

benefits from fiscal years 2008 to 2009. 

Table 13: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 2

Performance measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $9.5 $10.4 $11.2 $12.7 $12.5

Nonfinancial benefits 306 364 413 438 461

Testimonies 50 57 63 69a 75

Source: GAO.

a

In our testimonies calculation for fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently counted three additional hearings for this strategic goal. We 

therefore recalculated the data for this measure. The number shown reflects the correct calculation.

The following sections describe our performance under goal 2 for each of our quantitative 

performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2009. 
GAO-10-234SP 71

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this goal 

in fiscal year 2009 totaled $12.4 billion which 

missed our target by about $300 million. 

Among other things, these accomplishments 

stemmed from engagements related to delays 

and large amounts of unobligated funding 

in the U.S. Coast Guard’s vessel tracking 

system procurement and our assessment 

of the reasonableness of the Department of 

Defense’s (DOD) fiscal year 2009 budget 

request. We describe these and other 

accomplishments in the goal 2 section of 

appendix 1.

Given the large portion of the U.S. budget 

that defense spending consumes, we expect 

our work under this goal to continue to 

produce economies and efficiencies that yield 

billions of dollars in financial benefits for 

the American people each year. We set our 

fiscal year 2010 target at $13.8 billion based 

on our assessment of the progress agencies 

are making in implementing our past 

recommendations that might yield financial 

benefits and our 4-year rolling average.

Example of Goal 2’s

Financial Benefits 

We reviewed U.S. Coast Guard vessel tracking efforts and 

identified efficiency and effectiveness issues. We reported 

delays and large unobligated balances in the Coast Guard’s 

procurement of one tracking system. Obligating the available 

funds in fiscal year 2008 would have required obligating 

more than three times the amount that was obligated in total 

for the previous 3 fiscal years. In addition, the Coast Guard 

did not have a detailed spending plan laying out how it 

planned to obligate the available funds. Thus, the Congress 

reduced the Coast Guard’s requested 2009 appropriation by 

$6 million.

Nonfinancial Benefits

The nonfinancial benefits reported for goal 

2 in fiscal year 2009 included 426 actions 

taken by federal agencies to improve their 

services to the public and business processes 

in response to our recommendations and 

another 31 in which information we provided 

to the Congress resulted in statutory or 

regulatory changes. This total of 457 

nonfinancial benefits greatly exceeded our 

target of 344. Our success in this area arose 

from our increased emphasis on follow-up 

efforts and increased monitoring of our 

progress toward the targets throughout the 

year. Some of our major accomplishments 

are reported in detail in the goal 2 section of 

appendix 1.

Looking ahead, our assessments of the 

executive branch’s current efforts to 

implement our recommendations made 

under this goal led us to set our fiscal year 

2010 target at 345. While we increased this 

target by 5 over the target we reported for 

goal 2 in our fiscal year 2010 performance 

plan, we recognize that this target is lower 

than our fiscal year 2009 actual performance 

and 4-year average for this measure. We 

believe that this target will best enable staff 

to document the full range of nonfinancial 

benefits resulting from our goal 2 work.

Example of Goal 2’s 

Nonfinancial Benefits

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) round is 

the fifth round undertaken by DOD since 1988 and is the 

biggest, most complex, and costliest BRAC round ever. Our 

analyses of DOD’s BRAC budget led to a recommendation 

that DOD take action to better explain its anticipated 

dollar savings after full BRAC implementation in 2011. In 

response, DOD for the first time provided a more descriptive 

explanation of these expected dollar savings in its 2009 

budget submission to the Congress.
72 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Testimonies

Our witnesses testified at 67 congressional 

hearings related to this strategic goal in 

fiscal year 2009, exceeding our target 

of presenting testimony at 64 hearings. 

Among other things, we testified on the U.S. 

military’s strategies in Iraq and the nation’s 

approach to cybersecurity as well as the 

security threat posed by the instability in our 

financial markets and institutions and the 

worldwide economic crisis. We also testified 

on the Troubled Asset Relief Program 

(TARP). (See p. 33 for a list of testimony 

topics by goal.) We have set our target at 

73 for presenting testimony at hearings in 

fiscal year 2010—6 more hearings than our 

fiscal year 2009 actual performance. We 

anticipate an increase in hearings because of 

continued congressional interest in our work 

on homeland security issues and U.S. efforts 

to stabilize and rebuild Afghanistan, Iraq, and 

Pakistan.

Examples of Goal 2’s Testimonies

Each year, billions of dollars are spent to develop and 

produce technologically advanced weaponry. When the 

United States must sell these technologies, these weapons 

are targets for theft, espionage, and illegal export. We 

testified that poor interagency coordination, inefficiencies in 

processing licensing applications, and a lack of systematic 

assessments have created significant vulnerabilities in 

the export control system. We recommended that the 

executive and legislative branches conduct a fundamental 

reexamination of the current programs and processes.

Our testimony on financial regulation identified several 

shortcomings in the oversight of large financial institutions. 

Regulating agencies failed to address institutions’ failure 

to manage risk adequately—one of the causes of the 

current financial crisis. Regulators identified, but did not 

fully address, weaknesses in risk models, due to these 

institutions’ strong financial positions and plans for change. 

We found that some aspects of the regulatory system may 

have hindered regulators’ oversight and, in fact, have raised 

serious questions about the adequacy of risk management 

oversight.
GAO-10-234SP 73

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Goal 3 

Overview

Help transform the federal 

government’s role and how 

it does business to meet 

21st century challenges

Our third strategic goal focuses on the 

collaborative and integrated elements needed 

for the federal government to achieve results. 

The work under this goal highlights the 

intergovernmental relationships that are 

necessary to achieve national goals. Our 

multiyear (fiscal years 2007-2012) strategic 

objectives under this goal are to

■ reexamine the federal government’s role in 

achieving evolving national objectives;

■ support the transformation to resultsoriented, high-performing government;

■ support congressional oversight of key 

management challenges and program risks 

to improve federal operations and ensure 

accountability; and

■ analyze the government’s fiscal position 

and strengthen approaches for addressing 

the current and projected fiscal gap. 

These objectives, along with the performance 

goals and key efforts that support them, 

are discussed fully in our strategic plan, 

which is available on our Web site at 

http://www.gao.gov/sp.html. The work 

supporting these objectives is performed 

primarily by headquarters and field staff 

from the Applied Research and Methods, 

Financial Management and Assurance, 

Information Technology, Strategic Issues, and 

Forensic Audits and Special Investigations 

teams. In addition, the work supporting 

some performance goals and key efforts 

is performed by headquarters and field 

staff from the Acquisition and Sourcing 

Management and Natural Resources and 

Environment teams. This goal also includes 

our bid protest and appropriations law work, 

which is performed by staff in General 

Counsel, and our vulnerability assessments 

and fraud investigations, which are conducted 

by staff from our Forensic Audits and Special 

Investigations team.

Selected Work under Goal 3 

Using fictitious calling scenarios, our undercover 

investigators tested the complaint intake process at the 

Department of Labor’s (Labor) Wage and Hour Division 

(WHD). WHD’s mission is to ensure that millions of workers 

are protected under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Our 

tests found that WHD frequently responded inadequately to 

complaints, leaving low-wage workers vulnerable to wage 

theft and other labor violations. We also identified at least 

1,160 real employees whose complaints were inadequately 

investigated. After reviewing our findings, Labor announced 

that it would hire 250 more investigators. The Congress is 

also considering legislation that we suggested.

To accomplish our work under these four 

objectives, we will continue to perform our 

foresight work, for example, examining the 

nation’s long-term fiscal and management 

challenges, and our insight work focusing on 

federal programs at high risk for fraud, waste, 

abuse, and mismanagement. 

Source: See Image Sources.
74 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

As shown in table 14, we significantly exceeded our fiscal year 2009 performance targets for 

financial benefits and nonfinancial benefits, but did not meet our testimonies target for this 

goal.

Table 14: Strategic Goal 3’s Annual Performance Results and Targets

Performance 

measure

2005 

actual

2006 

actual

2007 

actual

2008 

actual

2009 

target

2009 

actual

Met/ 

not met

2010 

targeta

Financial benefits 

(dollars in billions)

$11.0 $17.0 $22.8 $23.4 $15.9 $18.5 Met $14.8

Nonfinancial benefits 767 625 648 704 625 634 Met 630

Testimonies 47 73 74 76b 56 49 Not met 59

Source: GAO.

a

Our fiscal year 2010 target for nonfinancial benefits differs from the target we reported in our fiscal year 2010 performance budget in 

January 2009. Specifically, we increased our target for nonfinancial benefits from 625. 

b

In our testimonies calculation for fiscal year 2008, we inadvertently counted one additional hearing for this strategic goal. We therefore 

recalculated the data for this measure. The number shown reflects the correct calculation. 

To help us examine trends for these measures over time, we look at their 4-year averages—

shown in table 15—which minimize the effect of an unusual level of performance in any single 

year. Table 15 indicates that documentation of financial and nonfinancial benefits derived from 

our work under this goal has risen steadily during the 5-year period shown. Nonfinancial 

benefits also increased from fiscal years 2005 through 2008, but declined in fiscal year 2009 to 

about its fiscal year 2007 level. The trend in the number of hearings during which our senior 

executives testified on goal 3 issues also began the period in an upward direction but leveled off 

in fiscal years 2008 and 2009. 

Table 15: Four-Year Rolling Averages for Strategic Goal 3

Performance measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Financial benefits (dollars in billions) $7.1 $10.1 $14.6 $18.6 $20.4

Nonfinancial benefits 590 630 654 686 653

Testimonies 57 59 64 68 68

Source: GAO.

The following sections describe our performance under goal 3 for each of our quantitative 

performance measures and describe the targets for fiscal year 2009.
GAO-10-234SP 75

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Financial Benefits

The financial benefits reported for this goal in 

fiscal 2009 totaled $18.5 billion, exceeding our 

target of $15.9 billion by over $2.6 billion. These 

efforts resulted in increased tax collections 

based on our reviews of agencies’ processes 

to collect nontax and criminal debts, cost 

reductions in the 2010 Census, and a reduction 

in improper federal payments governmentwide. 

We describe these and other accomplishments 

in the goal 3 section of appendix 1.

We significantly exceeded the financial 

benefits target we set for this goal in fiscal 

year 2009 because we documented several 

unanticipated, large-dollar accomplishments. 

The federal government realized these 

financial benefits as a result of our work that 

examined, among other issues, improvements 

in the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s disaster cost estimates and budget 

reductions involving DOD’s management 

of contract services. The executive 

branch’s current efforts to implement the 

recommendations we made in our work under 

this goal indicate that financial benefits 

related to this goal are likely to be in line 

with our 4-year average. Consequently, we 

set the target for financial benefits at $14.8 

billion for fiscal 2010, which is the same as 

the target we reported in our fiscal year 2010 

performance plan.

Example of Goal 3’s

Financial Benefits 

Over the past several years, we have promoted federal 

agencies’ increased use of key debt collection processes 

and procedures to improve collections of billions of dollars 

of delinquent federal nontax civil debts, and criminal 

debts owed to the federal government, and made a 

series of related recommendations. Based largely on 

our recommendations, federal agencies, including the 

Department of Education and the Department of Justice, 

have taken actions to improve delinquent federal debt 

collections. Adding to a steady stream of recoveries, these 

improved collections added almost $1.4 billion to federal 

collections during fiscal year 2009.

Nonfinancial Benefits

Nonfinancial benefits reported for goal 3 in 

fiscal year 2009 included 620 instances in which 

agencies’ core business processes were improved 

or governmentwide management reforms were 

advanced because of our work. In addition, 

there were 14 instances in which information 

we provided to the Congress resulted in 

statutory or regulatory changes. This total of 

634 nonfinancial benefits exceeded our target of 

625. The larger number of nonfinancial benefits 

occurred mainly in our financial management 

and information technology areas where we tend 

to make multiple, specific recommendations for 

change to more than one entity. We describe 

some of our major accomplishments in the goal 3 

section of appendix 1.

Our forward-looking assessments of the 

executive branch’s current efforts to implement 

our recommendations made under this goal led 

us to set our fiscal year 2010 target at 630. While 

we recognize that this target is slightly lower 

than our fiscal year 2009 actual performance and 

4-year average for this measure, we believe that 

this target will best encourage staff to document 

the full range of nonfinancial benefits possible 

resulting from our goal 3 work.

Example of Goal 3’s 

Nonfinancial Benefits

In a series of reports and testimonies, we identified and 

recommended needed improvements in the government’s 

efforts to define and implement a national strategy for 

achieving nationwide adoption of health information 

technology (IT). Our work helped the National Coordinator 

for Health IT develop a strategy that identified milestones 

for completing important initiatives and achieving strategic 

goals. As we recommended, the strategy addressed an 

overall approach to protecting the privacy of electronic 

health information within a nationwide health information 

network and provided guidance for addressing challenges 

associated with putting privacy protections in place.
76 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Testimonies

Our witnesses testified at 49 congressional 

hearings related to this strategic goal in 

fiscal year 2009, missing the target of 56 by 

7 hearings. Among the testimonies presented 

were those related to the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act), and 

illegal exports of military technology, and 

the influenza pandemic. (See p. 33 for a list 

of testimony topics by goal.) For fiscal year 

2010, we have set a target of presenting 

testimony at 59 hearings because we expect 

the level of hearings to be higher than it was 

in fiscal year 2009.

Examples of Goal 3’s Testimonies

Our testimony on the 2010 Census described the challenges 

the U.S. Census Bureau faces in carrying out the most 

expensive decennial census to date. We found that the 

bureau has not developed the necessary technological 

tools for monitoring and gathering information for the 

census. Because of these deficiencies, the bureau faces 

the risk of not having these tools ready in time. We upheld 

previous recommendations to improve the bureau’s costestimation and address list, as well as to further develop the 

technologies necessary to complete data gathering.

Much offshore financial activity by individual U.S. taxpayers 

is not illegal, but numerous schemes have been devised 

to hide the true ownership of funds and income moving 

between the United States and offshore jurisdictions. U.S. 

taxpayers are obligated to report any income earned from 

offshore activity, but they do not always comply. We testified 

that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is not always able to 

complete the required examinations of these offshore cases, 

because the 3-year statute of limitations is not long enough 

to finish them. We reiterated a previous suggestion that the 

Congress consider extending the time for IRS to complete 

offshore cases.
GAO-10-234SP 77

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Goal 4 

Overview

Maximize the value of GAO 

by being a model federal 

agency and a world-class 

professional services 

organization

The focus of our fourth strategic goal is to 

make us a model organization. This means 

that our work is driven by our external 

clients and internal customers, our managers 

exhibit the characteristics of leadership and 

management excellence, our employees are 

devoted to ensuring quality in our work 

process and products through continuous 

improvement, and our agency is regarded 

by current and potential employees as an 

excellent place to work. Our multiyear (fiscal 

years 2007-2012) strategic objectives under 

this goal are to

■ improve client and customer satisfaction 

and stakeholder relationships, 

■ lead strategically to achieve enhanced 

results,

■ leverage our institutional knowledge and 

experience,

■ enhance our business and management 

processes, and 

■ become a professional services employer of 

choice. 

These objectives, along with the 

performance goals and key efforts that 

support them, are discussed fully in our 

strategic plan, which is available on our 

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

The work supporting these objectives is 

performed under the direction of the Chief 

Administrative Officer with assistance on 

specific key efforts provided by staff from 

the Applied Research and Methods team and 

from offices such as Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison, Congressional Relations, 

Opportunity and Inclusiveness, Quality and 

Continuous Improvement, and Public Affairs. 

To accomplish our work under these five 

objectives, we performed internal studies and 

completed projects that further the strategic 

goal. 

Selected Work under Goal 4 

We demonstrated agility and flexibility in addressing 

unprecedented new legislative responsibilities and a 

delayed budget in fiscal year 2009; employing sophisticated 

modeling of actual and projected workforce data on a 

routine basis to ensure that we were using our staff most 

effectively; and using creative, alternative hiring measures 

to obtain needed expertise and subject area knowledge to 

respond to new legislative responsibilities under TARP and 

the Recovery Act. 

We completed a comprehensive evaluation of our 

performance appraisal system and developed short- and 

long-term recommendations for strengthening the system 

and ensuring that it is fair and equitable to all staff. 

We revised 36 guidance documents on applied research 

tools and methods to help engagement teams better plan 

and implement assignments, and enhanced the design 

and implementation of Web-based surveys to facilitate 

(1) efficient data capture and analysis, which was essential 

to support the many staff conducting Recovery Act audit 

work across 16 states and the District of Columbia and 

(2) reuse for subsequent efforts given our recurrent 

reporting responsibilities under the Recovery Act. 

We enhanced our communications to our clients and the 

public by using Web technology to more effectively provide 

timely information on critical issues facing the nation, 

including short video summaries on the major issues facing 

the new Congress and the new administration and Web 

content and documentation supporting GAO’s oversight of 

the Recovery Act.

Source: See Image Sources.
78 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Data Quality and Program Evaluation

Verifying and Validating 

Performance Data

Each year, we measure our performance 

by evaluating our annual performance on 

measures that cover the outcomes and outputs 

related to our work results, client service, 

management of our people, and internal 

operations. To assess our performance, we 

used performance data that were complete 

and actual (rather than projected) for almost 

all of our performance measures. We believe 

the data to be reliable because we followed 

the verification and validation procedures 

described here to ensure the data’s quality.

The specific sources of the data for our 

annual performance measures, procedures for 

independently verifying and validating these 

data, and the limitations of these data are 

described in table 16.
GAO-10-234SP 79

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Table 16: How We Ensure Data Quality for Our Annual Performance Measures

Results measures

Financial benefits

Definition 

and 

background

Our work—including our findings and recommendations—may produce benefits to the 

federal government that can be estimated in dollar terms. These benefits can result in better 

services to the public, changes to statutes or regulations, or improved government business 

operations. A financial benefit is an estimate of the federal monetary effect of agency or 

congressional actions. These financial benefits generally result from work that we completed 

over the past several years. The funds made available as a result of the actions taken in 

response to our work may be used to reduce government expenditures, increase revenues, 

or reallocate funds to other areas. Financial benefits included in our performance measures 

are net benefits—that is, estimates of financial benefits that have been reduced by the costs 

associated with taking the action that we recommended. We convert all estimates involving 

past and future years to their net present value and use actual dollars to represent estimates 

involving only the current year. Financial benefit amounts vary depending on the nature of 

the benefit, and we can claim financial benefits over multiple years based on a single agency 

or congressional action.

Financial benefits are linked to specific recommendations or other work. To claim that 

financial benefits have been achieved, our staff must file an accomplishment report 

documenting that (1) the actions taken as a result of our work have been completed or 

substantially completed, (2) the actions generally were taken within 2 fiscal years prior to 

the filing of the accomplishment report, (3) a cause-and-effect relationship exists between 

the benefits reported and our recommendation or work performed, and (4) estimates of 

financial benefits were based on information obtained from non-GAO sources. To help 

ensure conservative estimates of net financial benefits, reductions in operating cost are 

typically limited to 2 years of accrued reductions, but up to 5 fiscal years of financial benefits 

can be claimed if the reductions are sustained over a period longer than 2 years. Multiyear 

reductions in long-term projects, changes in tax laws, program terminations, or sales of 

government assets are limited to 5 years. Financial benefits can be claimed for past or 

future years. For financial benefits involving events that occur on a regular but infrequent 

basis—such as the decennial census—we may extend the measurement period until the 

event occurs in order to compute the associated financial benefits using our present value 

calculator.

Managing directors decide when their staff can claim financial benefits. A managing director 

may choose to claim a financial benefit all in 1 year or decide to claim it over several years, 

if the benefit spans future years and the managing director wants greater precision as to the 

amount of the benefit.

Data sources Our Accomplishment Reporting System provides the data for this measure. Teams use this 

Web-based data system to prepare, review, and approve accomplishments and forward them 

to our Quality and Continuous Improvement office (QCI) for its review. Once accomplishment 

reports are approved, they are compiled by QCI, which annually tabulates total financial 

benefits agencywide and by goal. 
80 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Verification 

and 

validation

Our policies and procedures require us to use the Accomplishment Reporting System 

to record the financial benefits that result from our work. They also provide guidance on 

estimating those financial benefits. The team identifies when a financial benefit has occurred 

as a result of our work. The team develops estimates based on non-GAO sources, such 

as the agency that acted on our work, a congressional committee, or the Congressional 

Budget Office, and files accomplishment reports based on those estimates. When nonGAO estimates are not readily available, teams may use GAO estimates—developed 

in consultation with our experts, such as the Chief Economist, Chief Actuary, or Chief 

Statistician, and corroborated with a knowledgeable program official from the executive 

agency involved. The estimates are reduced by significant identifiable offsetting costs. 

The team develops workpapers to support accomplishments with evidence that meets our 

evidence standard, supervisors review the workpapers, and an independent person within 

GAO reviews the accomplishment report. For all financial accomplishment reports the 

managing director prepares a memorandum addressed to the Chief Quality Officer attesting 

that the accomplishment report meets GAO standards for accomplishment reporting. The 

memorandum specifically (1) addresses how linkage to GAO is established and (2) attests 

that the financial benefits being claimed are in accordance with GAO procedures. 

The team’s managing director is authorized to approve financial accomplishment reports 

with benefits of less than $100 million. The team forwards the report to QCI, which reviews 

all accomplishment reports and approves accomplishment reports claiming benefits of 

$100 million or more. In fiscal year 2009, QCI approved accomplishment reports covering 

95 percent of the dollar value of financial benefits we reported.

In fiscal year 2009, accomplishments from $500 million to $1 billion were also reviewed by 

independent second and third reviewers (reemployed GAO annuitants), who have significant 

experience and knowledge of GAO policies and procedures for accomplishment reporting. 

In addition, our Inspector General (IG) audited accomplishment reports of $1 billion or more 

(totaling $25 billion in all). GAO’s total fiscal year 2009 reported financial benefits reflect the 

views of the IG and the independent reviewers.

Data 

limitations

Not every financial benefit from our work can be readily estimated or documented as 

attributable to our work. As a result, the amount of financial benefits is a conservative 

estimate. Estimates are based on information from non-GAO sources and are based on both 

objective and subjective data, and as a result, professional judgment is required in reviewing 

accomplishment reports. We feel that the verification and validation steps that we take 

minimize any adverse impact from this limitation.

Nonfinancial benefits

Definition 

and 

background

Our work—including our findings and recommendations—may produce benefits to the 

federal government that cannot be estimated in dollar terms. These nonfinancial benefits 

can result in better services to the public, changes to statutes or regulations, or improved 

government business operations. Nonfinancial benefits generally result from past work that 

we completed.

Nonfinancial benefits are linked to specific recommendations or other work that we 

completed over several years. To claim that nonfinancial benefits have been achieved, staff 

must file an accomplishment report that documents that (1) the actions taken as a result of 

our work have been completed or substantially completed, (2) the actions generally were 

taken within the past 2 fiscal years of filing the accomplishment report, and (3) a cause-andeffect relationship exists between the benefits reported and our recommendation or work 

performed.

Data sources Our Accomplishment Reporting System provides the data for this measure. Teams use this 

automated system to prepare, review, and approve accomplishments and forward them to 

QCI for its review. Once accomplishment reports are approved, they are compiled by QCI, 

which annually tabulates total other (nonfinancial) benefits agencywide and by goal.
GAO-10-234SP 81

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Verification 

and 

validation

Our policies and procedures require us to use the Accomplishment Reporting System to 

record the nonfinancial benefits that result from our findings and recommendations. Staff 

in the team file accomplishment reports to claim that benefits have resulted from our work. 

The team develops workpapers to support accomplishments with evidence that meets our 

evidence standard. Supervisors review the workpapers; an independent person within GAO 

reviews the accomplishment report; and the team’s managing director or director approves 

the accomplishment report to ensure the appropriateness of the claimed accomplishment, 

including attribution to our work.

The team forwards the report to QCI, where it is reviewed for appropriateness. QCI provides 

summary data on nonfinancial benefits to team managers, who check the data on a regular 

basis to make sure that approved accomplishments from their staff have been accurately 

recorded. Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently tests compliance with our 

process for claiming nonfinancial benefits. For example, the IG tested this process in fiscal 

year 2005 and found it to be reasonable. In response to the IG’s recommendations, we 

strengthened the documentation of our nonfinancial benefits. 

Data 

limitations

The data may be underreported because we cannot always document a direct cause-andeffect relationship between our work and benefits it produced. However, we feel that this is 

not a significant limitation on the data because the data represent a conservative measure of 

our overall contribution toward improving government.

Percentage of products with recommendations

Definition 

and 

background

We measure the percentage of our written products (chapter and letter reports 

and numbered correspondence) issued in the fiscal year that included at least one 

recommendation. We make recommendations that specify actions that can be taken to 

improve federal operations or programs. We strive for recommendations that are directed 

at resolving the cause of identified problems; that are addressed to parties who have the 

authority to act; and that are specific, feasible, and cost-effective. Some products we issue 

contain no recommendations and are strictly informational in nature.

We track the percentage of our written products that are issued during the fiscal year and 

contain recommendations. This indicator recognizes that our products do not always include 

recommendations and that the Congress and agencies often find such informational reports 

just as useful as those that contain recommendations. For example, informational reports, 

which do not contain recommendations, can help to bring about significant financial and 

nonfinancial benefits. 

Data sources Our Documents Database records recommendations as they are issued. The database is 

updated daily. 

Verification 

and 

validation

Through a formal process, each team identifies the number of recommendations included 

in each product and an external contractor enters them into a database. We provide our 

managers with reports on the recommendations being tracked to help ensure that all 

recommendations have been captured and that each recommendation has been completely 

and accurately stated. Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently tests the 

teams’ compliance with our policies and procedures related to this performance measure. 

For example, during fiscal year 2006, the IG tested and determined that our process for 

determining the percentage of written products with recommendations was reasonable. 

The IG also recommended actions to improve the process for developing, compiling, and 

reporting these statistics. We have implemented the IG’s recommendations for fiscal year 

2007. Since then, we have used the same procedures to compute and report this measure.

Data 

limitations

This measure is a conservative estimate of the extent to which we assist the Congress 

and federal agencies because not all products and services we provide lead to 

recommendations. For example, the Congress may request information on federal programs 

that is purely descriptive or analytical and does not lend itself to recommendations.
82 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Past recommendations implemented

Definition 

and 

background

We make recommendations designed to improve the operations of the federal government. 

For our work to produce financial or nonfinancial benefits, the Congress or federal agencies 

must implement these recommendations. As part of our audit responsibilities under generally 

accepted government auditing standards, we follow up on recommendations we have made 

and report to the Congress on their status. Experience has shown that it takes time for some 

recommendations to be implemented. For this reason, this measure is the percentage rate 

of implementation of recommendations made 4 years prior to a given fiscal year (e.g., the 

fiscal year 2009 implementation rate is the percentage of recommendations made in fiscal 

year 2005 products that were implemented by the end of fiscal year 2009). Experience has 

shown that if a recommendation has not been implemented within 4 years, it is not likely to 

be implemented.

This measure assesses action on recommendations made 4 years previously, rather 

than the results of our activities during the fiscal year in which the data are reported. For 

example, the cumulative percentage of recommendations made in fiscal year 2005 that were 

implemented in the ensuing years is as follows: 13 percent by the end of the first year (fiscal 

year 2006), 31 percent by the end of the second year (fiscal year 2007), 45 percent by the 

end of the third year (fiscal year 2008), and 80 percent by the end of the fourth year (fiscal 

year 2009).

Data sources Our Documents Database records recommendations as they are issued. The database is 

updated daily. As our staff monitor implementation of recommendations, they submit updated 

information to the database.

Verification 

and 

validation

Through a formal process, each team identifies the number of recommendations included in 

each product, and an external contractor enters them into a database.

Policies and procedures specify that our staff must verify, with sufficient supporting 

documentation, that an agency’s reported actions are adequately being implemented. Staff 

update the status of the recommendations on a periodic basis. To accomplish this, our staff 

may interview agency officials, obtain agency documents, access agency databases, or 

obtain information from an agency’s inspector general. Recommendations that are reported 

as implemented are reviewed by a senior executive in the unit and by QCI.

Summary data are provided to the units that issued the recommendations. The units 

check the data regularly to make sure that the recommendations they have reported as 

implemented have been accurately recorded. We also provide to the Congress a database 

with the status of recommendations that have not been implemented, and we maintain a 

publicly available database of open recommendations that is updated daily.

Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently tests our process for calculating the 

percentage of recommendations implemented for a given fiscal year. For example, based 

on the IG’s last review of this measure, the IG determined that our process was reasonable 

for calculating the percentage of recommendations that had been made in our fiscal year 

2002 products and implemented by the end of fiscal year 2006. The IG also recommended 

actions to improve the process for developing, compiling, and reporting this statistic. In 

fiscal year 2007, we implemented the IG’s recommendation for calculating the percentage of 

recommendations that had been made and implemented. Since then we have continued to 

use this approved process to compute and report this measure.

Data 

limitations

The data may be underreported because sometimes a recommendation may require more 

than 4 years to implement. We also may not count cases in which a recommendation is 

partially implemented. However, we feel that this is not a significant limitation to the data 

because the data represent a conservative measure of our overall contribution toward 

improving government.
GAO-10-234SP 83

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Client measures

Testimonies

Definition 

and 

background

The Congress may ask us to testify at hearings on various issues, and these hearings are 

the basis for this measure. Participation in hearings is one of our most important forms of 

communication with the Congress, and the number of hearings at which we testify reflects 

the importance and value of our institutional knowledge in assisting congressional decision 

making. When multiple GAO witnesses with separate testimonies appear at a single hearing, 

we count this as a single testimony. We do not count statements submitted for the record 

when a GAO witness does not appear.

Data sources The data on hearings at which we testified are compiled in our Congressional Hearing 

System managed by staff in Congressional Relations.

Verification 

and 

validation

The units responding to requests for testimony are responsible for entering data in 

the Congressional Hearing System. After a GAO witness has testified at a hearing, 

Congressional Relations verifies that the data in the system are correct and records the 

hearing as one at which we testified. Congressional Relations provides weekly status 

reports to unit managers, who check to make sure that the data are complete and accurate. 

Additionally, on a periodic basis, the IG independently verifies the total number of hearings 

at which we testified. As a result of the IG’s most recent review, we adjusted the figure for the 

number of hearings we testified at in fiscal year 2008 from 304 to 298. We also are improving 

the guidance and documentation for recording hearings at which we testify.

Data 

limitations

This measure does not include statements for the record that we prepare for congressional 

hearings. Also, this measure may be influenced by factors other than the quality of our 

performance in any specific year. The number of hearings held each year depends on 

the Congress’s agenda, and the number of times we are asked to testify may reflect 

congressional interest in work in progress as well as work completed that year or the 

previous year. To mitigate this limitation, we try to adjust our target to reflect cyclical changes 

in the congressional schedule. We also outreach to our clients on a continuing basis to 

increase their awareness of our readiness to participate in hearings.

Timeliness

Definition 

and 

background

The likelihood that our products will be used is enhanced if they are delivered when needed 

to support congressional and agency decision making. To determine whether our products 

are timely, we compute the proportion of favorable responses to a question related to 

timeliness that appears on our electronic client outreach form. Because our products often 

have multiple congressional clients, we often outreach to more than one congressional 

staff person per product. We send a form to key staff working for requesters of our 

testimony statements and to clients of our more significant written products—specifically, 

engagements assigned an interest level of “high” by our senior management and those 

requiring an expected investment of 500 GAO staff days or more. One question asks the 

respondent whether the product was delivered on time. When a product that meets our 

criteria is released to the public, we electronically send relevant congressional staff an e-mail 

message containing a link to the form. When this link is accessed, the form recipient is asked 

to respond to the timeliness question using a five-point scale—strongly agree, generally 

agree, neither agree nor disagree, generally disagree, strongly disagree—or choose “not 

applicable/no answer.” For this measure, favorable responses are “strongly agree” and 

“generally agree.” 
84 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Data sources To identify the products that meet our criteria (testimonies and other products that are 

high interest or expected to reach 500 staff days or more), we run a query against GAO’s 

Documents Database maintained by a contractor. To identify appropriate recipients of the 

form for products meeting our criteria, we ask the engagement teams to provide in GAO’s 

Product Numbering Database e-mail addresses for congressional staff serving as contacts 

on a product. Relevant information from both of these databases is fed into another database 

that is managed by QCI. This database then combines product, form recipient, and data 

from our Congressional Relations staff and creates an e-mail message with a Web link to 

the form. (Congressional Relations staff serve as the GAO contacts for form recipients.) The 

e-mail message also contains an embedded client password and unique client identifier 

to ensure that a recipient is linked with the appropriate form. Our Congressional Feedback 

Database creates a record with the product title and number and captures the responses to 

every form sent back to us electronically. 

Verification 

and 

validation

QCI staff review a hard copy of a released GAO product or access its electronic version to 

check the accuracy of the addressee information in the QCI database. QCI staff also check 

the congressional staff directory to ensure that form recipients listed in the QCI database 

appear there. In addition, our Congressional Relations staff review the list of form recipients 

entered by the engagement teams and identify the most appropriate congressional staff 

person to receive a form for each client. E-mail messages that are inadvertently sent with 

incorrect e-mail addresses automatically reappear in the form approval system. When 

this happens, QCI staff correct any obvious typing errors and resend the e-mail message 

or contact the congressional staff person directly for the correct e-mail address and then 

resend the message. The IG reviewed the timeliness performance measure in fiscal year 

2009, and as a result of this work, we have clarified the description of this measure and are 

documenting our procedures.

Data 

limitations

We do not measure the timeliness of all of our external products because we do not wish 

to place too much burden on busy congressional staff. Testimonies and written products 

that met our criteria for this measure represented about 65 percent of the congressionally 

requested written products we issued during fiscal year 2009. We exclude from our 

timeliness measure low, and medium-interest reports expected to take fewer than 500 staff 

days when completed, reports addressed to agency heads or commissions, some reports 

mandated by the Congress, classified reports, and reports completed under the Comptroller 

General’s authority. Also, if a requester indicates that he or she does not want to complete 

a form, we will not send one to this person again, even though a product subsequently 

requested meets our criteria. The response rate for the form is 28 percent, and 96 percent 

of those who responded answered the timeliness question. We received responses from 

one or more people for about 53 percent of the products for which we sent a form in fiscal 

year 2009. In our timeliness calculations for fiscal years 2004 through 2007, we inadvertently 

included nonresponses to the timeliness question and therefore recalculated the results for 

these fiscal years. While the percent of favorable responses did not change significantly, the 

recalculation did result in us meeting our target (from 94 to 95 percent).

People measures

New hire rate

Definition 

and 

background

This performance measure is the ratio of the number of people hired to the number we 

planned to hire. Annually, we develop a workforce plan that takes into account our strategic 

goals; projected workload changes; and other changes such as retirements, other attrition, 

promotions, and skill gaps. The workforce plan for the upcoming year specifies the number 

of planned hires. The Acting Comptroller General, the Chief Administrative Officer, the 

Deputy Chief Administrative Officer, the Chief Human Capital Officer, and the Controller 

meet monthly to monitor progress toward achieving the workforce plan. Adjustments to the 

workforce plan are made throughout the year, if necessary, to reflect changing needs and 

conditions.
GAO-10-234SP 85

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Data sources The Executive Committee approves the workforce plan. The workforce plan is coordinated 

and maintained by the Chief Administrative Office (CAO). Data on accessions—that is, new 

hires coming on board—is taken from a database that contains employee data from the 

Department of Agriculture’s National Finance Center (NFC) database, which handles payroll 

and personnel data for GAO and other agencies.

Verification 

and 

validation

The CAO maintains a database that monitors and tracks all our hiring offers, declinations, 

and accessions. In coordination with our Human Capital Office, our Chief Administrative 

Office staff input workforce information supporting this measure into the Chief Administrative 

Office database. While the database is updated on a daily basis, CAO staff provide monthly 

reports to the Acting Comptroller General and the Chief Administrative Officer to monitor 

progress by GAO units in achieving workforce plan hiring targets. The Chief Administrative 

Office continually monitors and reviews accessions maintained in the NFC database against 

its database to ensure consistency and to resolve discrepancies. In addition, on a periodic 

basis, the IG examines our process for calculating the new hire rate. During fiscal year 

2008, the IG independently reviewed this process and recommended actions to improve 

the documentation of the process used to calculate this measure. In fiscal year 2009, we 

developed standard operating procedures to document how we calculate and ensure quality 

control over data relevant to this measure.

Data 

limitations

There is a lag of one to two pay periods (up to 4 weeks) before the NFC database reflects 

actual data. We generally allow sufficient time before requesting data for this measure to 

ensure that we get accurate results.

Retention rate

Definition 

and 

background

We continuously strive to make GAO a place where people want to work. Once we have 

made an investment in hiring and training people, we would like to retain them. This measure 

is one indicator that we are attaining that objective and is the complement of attrition. We 

calculate this measure by taking 100 percent minus the attrition rate, where attrition rate is 

defined as the number of separations divided by the average onboard strength. We calculate 

this measure with and without retirements.

Data sources Data on retention—that is, people who are on board at the beginning of the fiscal year and 

people on board at the end of the fiscal year—are taken from a Chief Administrative Office 

database that contains some data from the NFC database, which handles payroll and 

personnel data for GAO and other agencies.

Verification 

and 

validation

Chief Administrative Office staff continually monitor and review accessions and attritions 

against the contents of their database that has NFC data and they follow up on any 

discrepancies. In addition, on a periodic basis, the IG examines our process for calculating 

the retention rate. During fiscal year 2008, the IG reviewed this process and recommended 

actions to improve the documentation of the process used to calculate this measure. In fiscal 

year 2009, we developed standard operating procedures to document how we calculate and 

ensure quality control over data relevant to this measure.

Data 

limitations

See New hire rate, Data limitations.
86 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Staff development

Definition 

and 

background

One way that we measure how well we are doing and identify areas for improvement is 

through our annual employee feedback survey. This Web-based survey, which is conducted 

by an outside contractor to ensure the confidentiality of every respondent, is administered 

to all of our employees once a year. Through the survey, we encourage our staff to indicate 

what they think about GAO’s overall operations, work environment, and organizational 

culture and how they rate our managers—from the immediate supervisor to the Executive 

Committee—on key aspects of their leadership styles. The survey consists of over 100 

questions. To further ensure confidentiality, in fiscal year 2009 the contractor also analyzed 

the data. 

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to three of the six questions related to 

staff development on our annual employee survey. This subset of questions was selected on 

the basis of senior management’s judgment about the questions’ relevance to the measure 

and specialists’ knowledge about the development of indexes. Staff were asked to respond 

to three questions on a five-point scale or choose “no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no 

answer.”

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual Web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff how much positive or negative impact 

(1) external training and conferences and (2) on-the-job training had on their ability to do 

their jobs during the last 12 months. From the staff who expressed an opinion, we calculated 

the percentage of staff selecting the two categories that indicate satisfaction with or a 

favorable response to the question. For this measure, the favorable responses were either 

“very positive impact” or “generally positive impact.” In addition, the survey question asked 

how useful and relevant to your work did you find internal (Learning Center) training courses. 

From staff who expressed an opinion, we calculated the percentage of staff selecting the 

three categories that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For 

this measure, the favorable responses were “very greatly useful and relevant,” “greatly useful 

and relevant,” and “moderately useful and relevant.” Responses of “no basis to judge/not 

applicable” or “no answer” were excluded from the calculation. While including “no basis to 

judge/not applicable” or “no answer” in the calculation would result in a different percentage, 

our method of calculation is an acceptable survey practice and we believe it produces a 

better and more valid measure because it represents only those employees who have an 

opinion on the questions.

Beginning in fiscal year 2006 we changed the way that the staff development people 

measure was calculated. Specifically, we dropped one question regarding computer-based 

training because we felt such training was a significant part of (and therefore included in) the 

other questions the survey asked regarding training. We also modified a question on internal 

training and changed the scale of possible responses to that question. We show the fiscal 

year 2004 and 2005 data on a separate line to indicate that those data are not comparable to 

the data beginning in fiscal year 2006.

Verification 

and 

validation

The employee feedback survey gathers staff opinions on a variety of topics. The survey is 

password protected, and only the outside contractor has access to passwords. In addition, 

when the survey instrument was developed, extensive focus groups and pretests were 

undertaken to refine the questions and provide definitions as needed. In fiscal year 2009, our 

response rate to this survey was about 74 percent, which indicates that its results are largely 

representative of the GAO population. In addition, many teams and work units conduct 

follow-on work to gain a better understanding of the information from the survey.

In addition, on a periodic basis, the IG independently reviews the reliability and validity of the 

staff development measure. The IG’s most recent evaluation showed that for fiscal year 2007 

we accurately calculated the measure. 
GAO-10-234SP 87

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Data 

limitations

The information contained in the survey is the self-reported opinions of staff expressed 

under conditions of confidentiality. Accordingly, there is no way to further validate those 

expressions of opinion.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred 

to as nonsampling errors. These errors could result from, for example, respondents 

misinterpreting a question or data entry staff incorrectly entering data into a database used to 

analyze the survey responses. Such errors can introduce unwanted variability into the survey 

results. We took steps in the development of the survey to minimize nonsampling errors. 

Specifically, when we developed the survey instrument we held extensive focus groups 

and pretests to refine the questions and define terms used to decrease the chances that 

respondents would misunderstand the questions. We also limited the chances of introducing 

nonsampling errors by creating a Web-based survey for which respondents entered their 

answers directly into an electronic questionnaire. This approach eliminated the need to have 

the data keyed into a database by someone other than the respondent, thus removing an 

additional source of error.

Staff utilization

Definition 

and 

background

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to three of the six questions related 

to staff utilization on our annual employee survey. This subset of questions was selected on 

the basis of senior management’s judgment about the questions’ relevance to the measure 

and specialists’ knowledge about the development of indexes. Staff were asked to respond 

to these three questions on a five-point scale or choose “no basis to judge/not applicable” or 

“no answer.” (For background information about our entire employee feedback survey, see 

Staff development.)

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual Web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff how often the following occurred in the last 

12 months: (1) my job made good use of my skills; (2) GAO provided me with opportunities 

to do challenging work; and (3) in general, I was utilized effectively. From the staff who 

expressed an opinion, we calculated the percentage of staff selecting the two categories 

that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For this measure, 

the favorable responses were either “very positive impact” or “generally positive impact.” 

Responses of “no basis to judge” or “no answer” were excluded from the calculation. 

Including “no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” in the calculation (in those few 

instances where it occurred) would not result in a different percentage. Our method of 

calculation is an acceptable survey practice, and we believe it produces a better and more 

valid measure because it represents only those employees who have an opinion on the 

questions.

Verification 

and 

validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation. The IG’s most recent evaluation showed 

that for fiscal year 2007 we accurately calculated the measure.

Data 

limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.
88 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Effective leadership by supervisors

Definition 

and 

background

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to 10 of 20 questions related to six 

areas of supervisory leadership on our annual employee survey. This subset of questions 

was selected on the basis of senior management’s judgment about the questions’ relevance 

to the measure and specialists’ knowledge about the development of indexes. Specifically, 

our calculation included responses to 1 of 4 questions related to empowerment, 2 of 4 

questions related to trust, all 3 questions related to recognition, 1 of 3 questions related to 

decisiveness, 2 of 3 questions related to leading by example, and 1 of 3 questions related to 

work life. Staff were asked to respond to these 10 questions on a five-point scale or choose 

“no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer.” In fiscal year 2009 we changed the name 

of this measure from “Leadership” to its current nomenclature to clarify that the measure 

reflects employee satisfaction with the immediate supervisor’s leadership. (For background 

information about our entire employee feedback survey, see Staff development, Definition 

and background.)

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual Web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff about empowerment, trust, recognition, 

decisiveness, leading by example, and work life as they pertain to the respondent’s 

immediate supervisor. Specifically, the survey asked staff the following questions about their 

immediate supervisor during the last 12 months: (1) gave me the opportunity to do what I 

do best; (2) treated me fairly; (3) acted with honesty and integrity toward me; (4) ensured 

that there was a clear link between my performance and recognition of it; (5) gave me the 

sense that my work is valued; (6) provided me meaningful incentives for high performance; 

(7) made decisions in a timely manner; (8) demonstrated GAO’s core values of accountability, 

integrity, and reliability; (9) implemented change effectively; and (10) dealt effectively with 

equal employment opportunity and discrimination issues. (Beginning with the 2010 survey, 

question 10 will be not be used for this measure and we will substitute a question on 

respecting and valuing differences among individuals. We are making this change because 

there is a large number of respondents who answer “no basis/not applicable” to the Equal 

Employment Opportunity/discrimination question. We believe this is due to GAO having so 

few discrimination cases and the safeguarding of private information, thus many employees 

do not have direct knowledge about how supervisors deal with such issues.) From the staff 

who expressed an opinion, we calculated the percentage of staff selecting the two categories 

that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response to the question. For this measure, the 

favorable responses were either “always or almost always” or “most of the time.” Responses 

of “no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” were excluded from the calculation. 

While including “no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” in the calculation would 

result in a different percentage, our method of calculation is an acceptable survey practice 

and we believe it produces a better and more valid measure because it represents only those 

employees who have an opinion on the questions.

Verification 

and 

validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation. The IG’s most recent evaluation showed 

that for fiscal year 2007 we accurately calculated the measure.

Data 

limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Organizational climate

Definition 

and 

background

This measure is based on staff’s favorable responses to 5 of the 13 questions related 

to organizational climate on our annual employee survey. This subset of questions was 

selected on the basis of senior management’s judgment about the questions’ relevance to 

the measure and specialists’ knowledge about the development of indexes. Staff were asked 

to respond to these 5 questions on a five-point scale or choose “no basis to judge” or “no 

answer.” (For background information about our entire employee feedback survey, see Staff 

development.)
GAO-10-234SP 89

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual Web-based survey. The survey 

questions we used for this measure ask staff to think back over the last 12 months and 

indicate how strongly they agree or disagree with each of the following statements: (1) a 

spirit of cooperation and teamwork exists in my work unit; (2) I am treated fairly and with 

respect in my work unit; (3) my morale is good; (4) sufficient effort is made in my work unit 

to get the opinions and thinking of people who work here; and (5) overall, I am satisfied with 

my job at GAO. From the staff who expressed an opinion, we calculated the percentage 

of staff selecting the two categories that indicate satisfaction with or a favorable response 

to the question. For this measure, the favorable responses were either “strongly agree” or 

“generally agree.” Responses of “no basis to judge” or “no answer” were excluded from the 

calculation. Including the “no basis to judge/not applicable” or “no answer” in the calculation 

(in those few instances where it occurred) would not result in a different percentage. Our 

method of calculation is an acceptable survey practice, and we believe it produces a better 

and more valid measure because it represents only those employees who have an opinion 

on the questions.

Verification 

and 

validation

See Staff development, Verification and validation. The IG’s most recent evaluation showed 

that for fiscal year 2007 we accurately calculated the measure.

Data 

limitations

See Staff development, Data limitations.

Internal operations measures

Help get job done and quality of work life

Definition 

and 

background

To measure how well we are doing at delivering internal administrative services to our 

employees and identify areas for improvement, we conduct an annual Web-based survey in 

November. The customer satisfaction survey on administrative services, conducted by an 

outside contractor to ensure the confidentiality of every respondent, is administered to all 

of our employees once a year. Through the survey we encourage our staff to indicate how 

satisfied they are with 19 services that help them get their jobs done and another 12 services 

that affect their quality of work life. 

As part of the survey, employees are asked to rate, on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high), those 

services that are important to them and that they have experience with or used recently. 

Then, for each selected service, employees are asked to indicate their level of satisfaction 

from 1 (low) to 5 (high), and provide a written reason for their rating and recommendations 

for improvement if desired. Based on employees’ responses to these questions, we calculate 

a composite score. 

Data sources These data come from our staff’s responses to an annual Web-based survey. To determine 

how satisfied GAO employees are with internal administrative services, we calculate 

composite scores for two measures. One measure reflects the satisfaction with the 18 

services that help employees get their jobs done. These services include Internet and 

intranet services, information technology customer support, mail services, and voice 

communication services. The second measure reflects satisfaction with another 11 services 

that affect quality of work life. These services include assistance related to pay and benefits, 

building maintenance and security, and workplace safety and health. The composite score 

represents how employees rated their satisfaction with services in each of these areas 

relative to how they rated the importance of those services to them. The importance scores 

and satisfaction levels are both rated on a scale of 1 (low) to 5 (high).
90 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information 

Verification 

and 

validation

The satisfaction survey on administrative services is housed on a Web site maintained by 

an outside contractor, and only the contractor has the ability to link the survey results with 

individual staff. Our survey response rate was 56 percent in 2008. To ensure that the results 

are largely representative of the GAO population, we analyze the results by demographic 

representation (unit, tenure, location, band level, and job type). Each GAO unit responsible 

for administrative services conducts follow-on work, including analyzing written comments 

to gain a better understanding of the information from the survey. In addition, on a periodic 

basis, the IG independently assesses the internal operations performance measures. The IG 

examined the measures during fiscal year 2007 and found the measures reasonable. The IG 

also recommended actions to improve the measures’ reliability and objectivity. We are in the 

process of implementing the IG’s recommendations. 

Data 

limitations

The information contained in the survey is the self-reported opinion of staff expressed 

under conditions of confidentiality. Accordingly, there is no way to further validate those 

expressions of opinion. We do not plan any actions to remedy this limitation because we feel 

it would violate the pledge of confidentiality that we make to our staff regarding the survey 

responses.

The practical difficulties of conducting any survey may introduce errors, commonly referred 

to as nonsampling errors. These errors could result, for example, from respondents 

misinterpreting a question or entering their data incorrectly. Such errors can introduce 

unwanted variability into the survey results. We limit the chances of introducing nonsampling 

errors by using a Web-based survey for which respondents enter their answers directly into 

an electronic questionnaire. This eliminates the need to have the data keyed into a database 

by someone other than the respondent. 

Source: GAO.

Program Evaluation

To assess our progress toward our first 

three strategic goals and their objectives 

and to update them for our strategic 

plan, we evaluate actions taken by federal 

agencies and the Congress in response to 

our recommendations. The results of these 

evaluations are conveyed in this performance 

and accountability report as financial benefits 

and nonfinancial benefits that reflect the 

value of our work.

In addition, we actively monitor the status 

of our open recommendations—those 

that remain valid but have not yet been 

implemented—and report our findings 

annually to the Congress and the public (see 

http://www.gao.gov/openrecs.html). We use 

the results of that analysis to determine the 

need for further work in particular areas. For 

example, if an agency has not implemented a 

recommended action that we consider to be 

worthwhile, we may decide to pursue further 

action with agency officials or congressional 

committees, or we may decide to undertake 

additional work on the matter.

We also use our biennial high-risk update 

report to provide a status report on those 

major government operations considered high 

risk because of their vulnerabilities to fraud, 

waste, abuse, and mismanagement or the need 

for broad-based transformation. The report is 

a valuable evaluation and planning tool because 

it helps us to identify those areas where our 

continued efforts are needed to maintain the 

focus on important policy and management 

issues that the nation faces. (See www.gao.gov/

docsearch/featured/highrisk.html.)

In fiscal year 2009, various task teams 

worked under the umbrella of a large, 

multifocused effort called GAO’s Management 

Improvement Initiative. A coordinating 

committee reporting directly to the Executive 

Committee was chartered to oversee the 

coordination and implementation of each 

project within the following five priority 
GAO-10-234SP 91

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

areas: Recognizing and Valuing Diversity; 

Reassessing the Performance Appraisal 

System; Managing Workload, Quality, and 

Streamlining Processes; Enhancing Staffing 

Practices and Developing the Workforce; and 

Strengthening Recruitment and Retention 

Initiatives. The task teams examined a 

number of internal issues, operations, and 

processes spanning all four of our strategic 

goals. The following studies helped to inform 

the work being done in several of these 

priority areas:

■ Performance appraisal system study. 

An internal task team performed 

a comprehensive evaluation of our 

performance appraisal system used for 

all staff assessed during annual reviews 

as well as for staff in GAO’s development 

programs who are assessed every 6 

months. The evaluation included analyzing 

past feedback on the system; obtaining 

employee and manager perspectives 

through 53 interviews and 28 focus 

groups; implementing an agencywide 

survey, which had a 67 percent response 

rate and solicited over 5,000 comments; 

and assessing findings from the 

2008 African American Performance 

Assessment—a contractor-conducted 

study of the differences in average 

performance appraisals between GAO’s 

African American and Caucasian analysts. 

While we found through our survey that 

a majority of employees reported that 

their contributions to GAO are accurately 

appraised and the feedback they receive is 

useful and relevant, their satisfaction with 

the overall system and its transparency is 

low.

■ Recruiting practices study. An internal 

task team conducted a comprehensive 

study of our recruiting and hiring 

programs that established baseline data 

on the results of our recruiting efforts. 

We found that while we are extremely 

successful in attracting highly qualified 

candidates to our job announcements, 

our recruiting program was in need of 

additional structure and oversight to 

deliver the best return on investment.

■ Staff development assessment. An 

internal task team implemented a survey 

for staff completing our entry-level 

development programs to assess the 

quality of the development and support 

they were provided. The results from 

the first iteration of this survey show 

that almost all developmental staff have 

developed a good understanding of GAO’s 

performance standards and almost all staff 

were satisfied with the mission teams they 

were assigned to after the program, but 

that we need to provide greater clarity on 

program goals, improve the usefulness 

of professional development tools, and 

increase interaction between Professional 

Development Program management and 

program participants. 

■ Rotational program assessment. 

An internal task team conducted an 

assessment of the rotational program 

for developmental analysts (i.e., where 

staff work in three to four mission 

teams on different engagements during 

their first 24 months on the job) to 

determine the impact, if any, of rotations 

on engagements. Managers identified a 

number of positive benefits of rotating 

development staff among mission teams 

and generally did not believe that rotations 

negatively affected engagements unless 

the developmental staff member was the 

only member on the engagement team in 

addition to the engagement leader. 

We also completed two additional evaluations 

related to goal 4’s strategic objectives. 
92 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Performance Information

■ Financial management practices and 

processes. We have a comprehensive 

management control program to meet 

the objectives of the Federal Managers’ 

Financial Integrity Act, even though, 

as part of the legislative branch of 

the federal government, we are not 

legally required to do so. The program 

includes an integration of management 

controls into our financial processes21

and financial management systems, 

review of management controls and 

financial management systems controls 

on a recurring basis, and development 

of corrective action plans for any control 

issues found and monitoring of those 

plans until the issues are resolved or 

corrected. Our Senior Assessment Team 

(SAT), consisting of senior managers 

and chaired by the Chief Financial 

Officer, ensures our commitment to an 

appropriate system of internal control, 

actively oversees the process of assessing 

internal controls, and provides input for 

the level and priority of resource needs 

to correct any control issue identified. 

In addition to the SAT, our Internal 

Control Working Group (ICWG) planned, 

conducted, and managed the assessment 

in accordance with Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) Circular A-123 

guidelines. The ICWG was composed of 

individuals designated as business unit 

managers, the project management team, 

technical consultants, and field office 

representatives. We monitor management 

controls through internal control reviews 

that included identification of key controls 

over financial reporting; performance 

of interviews, walk-throughs, and 

observations to determine whether those 

controls were in operation; documentation 

21In fiscal year 2009, GAO operations were segmented into 10 

business cycles: Entity-Wide Controls, IT Controls, Facilities and 

Property Management, Travel, Procurement, Disbursements, Budget, 

Fund Balance with Treasury, Financial Reporting, and Payroll.

of key controls; testing and evaluation 

of the operating effectiveness of the 

key controls; and reporting the results 

to our ICWG and SAT. The review of 

our financial management systems was 

performed consistent with OMB Circular 

A-127, and included analyzing the 

Statement on Auditing Standard 70 audit 

reports of our shared service providers. 

Our review of financial management 

systems to determine that they were in 

substantial compliance with the Federal 

Financial Management Improvement Act 

included consideration of all information 

available, including the results of financial 

management systems reviews and the 

auditor’s opinions on GAO’s financial 

statements and on internal controls over 

financial reporting and the auditor’s report 

on compliance with laws and regulations.

■ Knowledge-sharing survey. The Office 

of Public Affairs implemented its first 

reader survey of both internal and external 

readers of the GAO Management News to 

identify suggestions for enhancing the 

content and format.

The studies above resulted in internal 

products or briefings in fiscal year 2009 that 

are not available publicly.
Serving The Congress And The Nation

Part III

Financial Information
94 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Chief Financial Officer 

Chief Financial Officer, Sallyanne Harper

November 13, 2009 

I am pleased to report that during fiscal year 2009 the U.S. Government 

Accountability Office continued to honor its commitment to lead by 

example in government financial management. For the 23rd consecutive 

year, independent auditors gave us an unqualified opinion on our financial 

statements citing no material weaknesses and no major compliance 

problems. The financial statements that follow were prepared, audited, 

and made publicly available as an integral part of this performance and 

accountability report (PAR) 45 days after the end of the fiscal year. Our 

fiscal year 2008 PAR received a certificate of excellence in accountability 

reporting from the Association of Government Accountants (AGA). Our 

annual reports have received this AGA honor each year since we first 

applied with our fiscal year 2001 PAR. 

Consistent with our role as the “congressional watchdog,” we played a 

significant role in helping ensure government accountability during this 

year of fiscal stress. In addition to our statutory oversight role for the 

$700 billion Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP), we received new 

legislative mandates to perform bimonthly reviews of state and local 

government spending under the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (Recovery Act). Our responsibilities under TARP included reporting 

at least every 60 days on findings resulting from GAO’s oversight of the 

program’s performance and auditing the financial statements of TARP 

on an annual basis. For our work on the Recovery Act, we received a 

$25 million appropriation available through fiscal year 2010 to meet our 

new responsibilities. To ensure that we held ourselves to the same level 

of accountability for the spending and recording of special appropriations 

as we hold the rest of the federal government, we instituted an oversight 

committee to review tracking, reporting, and spending controls; integrated 

Recovery Act funds control into our internal Office of Management and 

Budget Circular A-123 reviews; and consulted timely with our external 

auditors. 

Source: See Image Sources.

From the

Chief Financial Officer
GAO-10-234SP 95

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Chief Financial Officer

Fiscal year 2009 marked our second year of operations with the Delphi 

financial system and contracted services provided by the Department of 

Transportation’s (DOT) Enterprise Services Center (ESC). We continue 

to be pleased with the services provided by both, and this year expanded 

those services with the ESC to include budgetary transaction processing. 

As a result, the majority of our accounting data entry is now handled by our 

service provider. We further expanded the use of the integrated capabilities 

of the system by migrating to a purchase card system and a procurement 

system, which are both fully compatible with Delphi. The technology of 

our new financial system also allowed us to prepare comparative quarterly 

financial statements for the first time in fiscal year 2009, taking advantage 

of fluctuation analyses to improve our insights into our operations. Finally, 

we engaged in a rigorous procurement for a new e-Gov automated travel 

transaction processing system with the contract being awarded for the 

GovTrip system. This new system, which will be fully integrated with the 

Delphi accounting system, will be tested and implemented during fiscal year 

2010. 

As we continue to expand our use of federal shared service providers, 

we recognize the accompanying challenges in terms of monitoring and 

maintaining sound internal controls. To address these challenges, we have 

adopted a more comprehensive approach in reviewing the effectiveness of 

controls throughout the processes regardless of the physical location where 

systems are operated and data entry services are performed. For example, we 

now test all business cycles and key areas, such as financial reporting, payroll 

expenses, and entitywide controls, with a focus on processing integration 

points and process changes. We also review independent auditors’ reports 

on our service providers to ensure that we are able to proactively address 

any issues with appropriate compensating controls. All of these efforts 

contributed to our independent auditors providing a positive opinion on the 

effectiveness of our internal controls again this year. 

During fiscal year 2009, our Human Capital Office planned and initiated 

the migration to a new Web-based human resources management system, 

HR Connect. The first phase of the implementation, which automated many 

of the personnel processing activities associated with payroll, was rolled 

out on schedule and under budget. In subsequent phases, HR Connect will 

consolidate and streamline a patchwork of existing stand-alone human 

capital systems. The full implementation of HR Connect will move us toward 

achieving our vision of having modern, integrated, and user-friendly human 

capital practices, processes, and tools that are both efficient and effective.

Looking ahead to fiscal year 2010, we will continue our progress in 

achieving more efficient and effective financial operations and overall 

agency operations. A few of the challenges we face include upgrading to 

a new version of our integrated procurement system, Prism; maintaining 
96 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Chief Financial Officer 

financial operations during new releases of the Delphi system; completing 

the implementation of a payment document flow system; transitioning to 

our new eTravel system, GovTrip; and obtaining an automated solution to 

better integrate and manage budget and staff resource planning activities. 

Each of these efforts is a key component in extending our use of fully 

automated and integrated financial systems. Furthermore, we continue to 

serve as a member of the DOT Financial Management Business Council, 

participating in a project to transform GAO’s financial coding structure to 

align with the executive branch’s migration to the Common Government 

Accounting Classification Structure.

Our continued focus on these “behind the scenes” improvements to our 

business processes is consistent with our efforts to achieve our strategic 

goal of being a model federal agency, while striving to support the 

Congress in meeting its constitutional responsibilities to help improve 

government performance and ensure its accountability for the benefit of the 

American people.

Sallyanne Harper

Chief Financial Officer
GAO-10-234SP 97

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

The Audit Advisory Committee (the Committee) assists the Comptroller 

General in overseeing the U.S. Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) 

financial operations. As part of that responsibility, the Committee meets 

with agency management and its internal and external auditors to review 

and discuss GAO’s external financial audit coverage, the effectiveness of 

GAO’s internal controls over its financial operations, and its compliance 

with certain laws and regulations that could materially impact GAO’s 

financial statements. GAO’s external auditors are responsible for expressing 

an opinion on the conformity of GAO’s audited financial statements with 

the U.S. generally accepted accounting principles. The Committee reviews 

the findings of the internal and external auditors, and GAO’s responses 

to those findings, to ensure that GAO’s plan for corrective action includes 

appropriate and timely follow-up measures. In addition, the Committee 

reviews the draft Performance and Accountability Report, including its 

financial statements, and provides comments to management who have 

primary responsibility for the Performance and Accountability Report. 

The Committee met three times with respect to its responsibilities as 

described above. During two of these sessions, the Committee met with the 

internal and external auditors without GAO management being present 

and discussed with the external auditors the matters that are required to be 

discussed by generally accepted auditing standards. Based on procedures 

performed as outlined above, we recommend that GAO’s audited statements 

and footnotes be included in the 2009 Performance and Accountability 

Report.

Sheldon S. Cohen

Chairman

Audit Advisory Committee

Audit Advisory Committee’s Report
98 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Independent Auditor’s Report



1 









  

Independent Auditor’s Report 

Acting Comptroller General of the United States 

In our audits of the Government Accountability Office (GAO) for fiscal years 2009 and 2008, we 

found: 

 The financial statements are presented fairly, in all material respects, in conformity with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. 

 GAO maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial reporting. 

 GAO’s financial management systems substantially complied with the applicable 

requirements of the Federal Financial Management Improvement Act of 1996 (FFMIA). 

 No reportable noncompliance with laws and regulations we tested. 

The following sections discuss in more detail (1) these conclusions, (2) our conclusions on 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) and other supplementary information, and (3) 

our objectives, scope and methodology. 

Opinion on Financial Statements 

In our opinion, the financial statements including the accompanying notes present fairly, in all 

material respects, in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United 

States of America, GAO’s assets, liabilities and net position as of September 30, 2009 and 

2008, and net costs; changes in net position; and budgetary resources for the years then ended. 

Opinion on Internal Control 

In our opinion, GAO maintained, in all material respects, effective internal control over financial 

reporting as of September 30, 2009 that provided reasonable assurance that misstatements, 

losses, or noncompliance material in relation to the financial statements would be prevented or 

detected and corrected on a timely basis. Our opinion is based on criteria established under 31 

U.S.C. 3512 (c), (d), the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act (FMFIA). 

We noted other nonreportable matters involving internal control and its operation that we will 

communicate in a separate management letter. 
GAO-10-234SP 99

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

2 

Opinion on FFMIA Compliance 

In our opinion, GAO’s financial management systems, as of September 30, 2009, substantially 

complied with the following requirements of FFMIA: (1) federal financial management systems 

requirements, (2) federal accounting standards, and (3) the United States Government Standard 

General Ledger (SGL) at the transaction level. Our opinion is based on criteria established 

under FFMIA for federal financial management systems, accounting principles generally 

accepted in the United States of America, and the SGL. 

Compliance with Laws and Regulations 

Our tests for compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations disclosed no instances 

of noncompliance that would be reportable under Government Auditing Standards. The 

objective of our audit was not to provide an opinion on overall compliance with laws and 

regulations. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

This conclusion on laws and regulations is intended solely for the use of the management of 

GAO, OMB, and Congress and is not intended to be, and should not be, used by anyone other 

that these specified parties. 

Consistency of Other Information 

The MD&A included as Part I is not a required part of the financial statements but is 

supplementary information required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United 

States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of 

inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the 

required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no 

opinion on it. 

The introductory information, performance information and appendixes listed in the table of 

contents are presented for additional analysis and are not a required part of the financial 

statements. Such information has not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the 

audit of the financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on them. 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Management is responsible for (1) preparing the financial statements in conformity with 

accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America, (2) establishing and 

maintaining effective internal control over financial reporting, and evaluating its effectiveness, 

(3) ensuring that GAO’s financial management systems substantially comply with FFMIA 

requirements, and (4) complying with applicable laws and regulations. GAO management 

evaluated the effectiveness of GAO’s internal control over financial reporting as of September 

30, 2009, based on criteria established under FMFIA. GAO management’s assertion is included 

in the Overview of Financial Management and Controls. 

We are responsible for planning and performing our audits to obtain reasonable assurance 

about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes 

examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial 

statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant 

estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement 

presentation. 

We are responsible for planning and performing our examination to obtain reasonable 

assurance about whether management maintained, in all material respects, effective internal 
100 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

3 

control over financial reporting as of September 30, 2009. Our examination included obtaining 

an understanding of the entity and its operations, including its internal control over financial 

reporting; considering GAO’s process for evaluating and reporting on internal control over 

financial reporting the GAO is required to perform by FMFIA; assessing the risk that a material 

misstatement exists in the financial statements and the risk that a material weakness exists in 

internal control over financial reporting; evaluating the design and operating effectiveness of 

internal control and assessing risk; testing relevant internal controls over financial reporting; and 

performing such other procedures as we considered necessary in the circumstances. We did 

not test all internal controls relevant to operating objectives as broadly defined by the Federal 

Managers’ Financial Integrity Act. 

An entity’s internal control over financial reporting is a process effected by those charged with 

governance, management, and other personnel, the objectives of which are to provide 

reasonable assurance that (1) transactions are properly recorded, processed, and summarized 

to permit the preparation of financial statements in accordance with accounting principles 

generally accepted in the United States, and assets are safeguarded against loss from 

unauthorized acquisition, use, or disposition; and (2) transactions are executed in accordance 

with the laws governing the use of budget authority and other laws and regulations that could 

have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. 

Because of inherent limitations in any internal control, misstatements due to error or fraud may 

occur and not be detected. Also, projections of any evaluation of the internal control to future 

periods are subject to the risk that the internal control may become inadequate because of 

changes in conditions, or that the degree of compliance with the policies or procedures may 

deteriorate. 

We are responsible for planning and performing our examination to obtain reasonable 

assurance about whether GAO’s financial management systems substantially complied with the 

three FFMIA requirements. We examined, on a test basis, evidence about GAO’s substantial 

compliance with those requirements, and performed such other procedures as we considered 

necessary in the circumstances. 

We are also responsible for testing compliance with selected provisions of laws and regulations 

that have a direct and material effect on the financial statements. We did not test compliance 

with all laws and regulations applicable to GAO. We limited our tests of compliance to selected 

provisions of those laws and regulations that have a direct and material effect on the financial 

statements and those required by OMB audit guidance that we deemed applicable to the 

financial statements for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009. We caution that 

noncompliance may occur and not be detected by these tests and that such testing may not be 

sufficient for other purposes. 

We conducted our audits and examinations in accordance with auditing standards generally 

accepted in the United States of America; Government Auditing Standards, issued by the 

Comptroller General of the United States; attestation standards established by the American 

Institute of Certified Public Accountants; and OMB audit guidance. We believe that our audits 

and examinations provide a reasonable basis for our



 opinions. 

Calverton, Maryland 

November 10, 2009 
GAO-10-234SP 101

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Purpose of Each Financial Statement

The financial statements on the next four 

pages present the following information:

■ The balance sheet presents the combined 

amounts we had available to use (assets) 

versus the amounts we owed (liabilities) 

and the residual amounts after liabilities 

were subtracted from assets (net position).

■ The statement of net cost presents the 

annual cost of our operations. The gross 

cost less any offsetting revenue earned 

from our activities is used to arrive at the 

net cost of work performed under our four 

strategic goals.

■ The statement of changes in net position 

presents the accounting items that caused 

the net position section of the balance 

sheet to change from the beginning to the 

end of the fiscal year.

■ The statement of budgetary resources 

presents how budgetary resources were 

made available to us during the fiscal year 

and the status of those resources at the 

end of the fiscal year.
102 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Balance Sheets

As of September 30, 2009 and 2008

(Dollars in thousands)

2009 2008

Assets

Intragovernmental

 Funds with the U.S. Treasury (Note 3) $101,710 $70,472 

 Accounts receivable 983 602 

Total Intragovernmental 102,693 71,074 

Property and equipment, net (Note 4) 32,684 39,964 

Other 307 284 

Total Assets $135,684 $111,322 

Liabilities

Intragovernmental 

 Accounts payable $14,857 $11,252 

	 	 Employee benefits (Note 6) 3,662 2,965 

 Workers' compensation (Note 7) 2,764 2,514 

Total Intragovernmental 21,283 16,731 

Accounts payable and other 12,500 15,711 

	 Salaries and benefits (Note 6) 23,069 21,304 

Accrued annual leave (Note 5) 33,351 30,953 

Workers' compensation (Note 7) 16,332 16,687 

Capital leases (Note 9) 4,814 7,018 

Total Liabilities 111,349 108,404 

Net Position

Unexpended appropriations 48,330 24,064 

Cumulative results of operations (23,995) (21,146)

Total Net Position (Note 13) 24,335 2,918 

Total Liabilities and Net Position $135,684 $111,322 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
GAO-10-234SP 103

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Net Cost

For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

(Dollars in thousands)

2009 2008

Net Costs by Goal (Note 2)

Goal 1: Well-Being/Financial Security of American People $191,316 $201,159 

 Less: reimbursable services – –

 Net goal costs 191,316 201,159 

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/Challenges of Global Interdependence 173,645 161,144 

 Less: reimbursable services (5,283) –

 Net goal costs 168,362 161,144 

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government’s Role 182,384 153,719 

 Less: reimbursable services (5,255) (3,145)

 Net goal costs 177,129 150,574 

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO 27,658 22,706 

 Less: reimbursable services – (91)

 Net goal costs 27,658 22,615 

Less: reimbursable services not attributable to goals (5,672) (5,890)

Net Cost of Operations (Note 10) $558,793 $529,602 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
104 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Changes in Net Position

For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

(Dollars in thousands)

2009 2008

Cumulative Results of Operations, Beginning of fiscal year ($21,146) ($17,953)

Budgetary Financing Sources - Appropriations used 530,184 503,368 

Other Financing Sources

Intragovernmental transfer of property and equipment (1) (3)

	 Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM 	 	

 and imputed to GAO (Note 6) 25,761 23,044 

Total Financing Sources 555,944 526,409 

Net Cost of Operations (558,793) (529,602)

Net Change (2,849) (3,193)

Cumulative Results of Operations, End of fiscal year (23,995) (21,146)

Unexpended Appropriations, Beginning of fiscal year 24,064 30,562 

Budgetary Financing Sources and Uses

Current year appropriations 556,000 501,000 

Appropriations transferred in – 250 

Permanently not available (1,550) (4,380)

Appropriations used (530,184) (503,368)

Total Unexpended Appropriations, End of fiscal year 48,330 24,064 

Net Position $24,335 $2,918 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
GAO-10-234SP 105

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Financial Statements

U.S. Government Accountability Office

Statements of Budgetary Resources

For Fiscal Years Ended September 30, 2009 and 2008

(Dollars in thousands)

2009 2008

Budgetary Resources (Note 11)

Unobligated balance, brought forward October 1 $6,756 $10,010 

Recoveries of prior year unpaid obligations 2,370 2,014 

Budget authority

 Appropriations 556,000 501,000 

 Spending authority from offsetting collections

 Earned and collected 16,299 10,462 

 Change in receivable from Federal sources 373 (385)

	 	 Change in unfilled customer orders - advance received 433 (91)

	 	 Change in unfilled customer orders - without advance (125) 125 

 Subtotal 572,980 511,111 

Nonexpenditure transfers, net and actual – 250 

Permanently not available (1,550) (4,380)

Total Budgetary Resources $580,556 $519,005 

Status of Budgetary Resources

Obligations incurred

 Direct $536,692 $500,362 

 Reimbursable 13,491 11,887 

 Subtotal 550,183 512,249 

	 Unobligated balance - Apportioned 26,463 2,588 

Unobligated balance not available 3,910 4,168 

Total Status of Budgetary Resources $580,556 $519,005 

Change in Obligated Balances

Obligated balance, net: 

Unpaid Obligated balance, brought forward October 1 $64,448 $54,606 

Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources, 

 brought forward October 1 (730) (990)

 Total, Unpaid Obligation, net, brought forward October 1 63,718 53,616 

Obligations incurred 550,183 512,249 

Less: Gross Outlays (539,944) (500,393)

Recoveries of prior-year unpaid obligations, actual (2,370) (2,014)

Change in uncollected customer payments from Federal sources (248) 260 

Obligated balance, net, end of period:

Unpaid Obligations 72,317 64,448 

Uncollected customer payments from Federal sources (978) (730)

 Total, Unpaid obligations, net, end of period $71,339 $63,718 

Net Outlays

Gross outlays $539,944 $500,393 

Less: Offsetting collections (16,733) (10,372)

Net Outlays $523,211 $490,021 

The accompanying notes are an integral part of these statements.
106 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Notes to Financial Statements

Note 1. Summary of Significant Accounting Policies

Reporting Entity

The accompanying financial statements present the financial position, net cost of operations, 

changes in net position, and budgetary resources of the United States Government 

Accountability Office (GAO). GAO, an agency in the legislative branch of the federal 

government, supports the Congress in carrying out its constitutional responsibilities. GAO 

carries out its mission primarily by conducting audits, evaluations, analyses, research, and 

investigations and providing the information from that work to the Congress and the public in 

a variety of forms. The financial activity presented relates primarily to the execution of GAO’s 

congressionally approved budget. GAO’s budget consists of an annual appropriation covering 

salaries and expenses and revenue from reimbursable audit work and rental income. The revenue 

from audit services and rental income is included on the Statement of Budgetary Resources as 

“reimbursable services.” The financial statements, except for federal employee benefit costs paid 

by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and imputed to GAO, do not include the effects 

of centrally administered assets and liabilities related to the federal government as a whole, such 

as interest on the federal debt, which may in part be attributable to GAO. The Davis-Bacon 

trust’s assets, related liabilities, revenues, and costs related to beneficiary payments are not those 

of GAO and therefore are not included in the accompanying financial statements. See Note 14, 

Davis-Bacon Act Trust Function. 

Basis of Accounting 

GAO’s financial statements have been prepared on the accrual basis and the budgetary basis 

of accounting in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles for the federal 

government. Accordingly, revenues are recognized when earned and expenses are recognized 

when incurred, without regard to the receipt or payment of cash. These principles differ from 

budgetary reporting principles. The differences relate primarily to the capitalization and 

depreciation of property and equipment, as well as the recognition of other long-term assets and 

liabilities. The statements were also prepared in conformity with the most current version of 

OMB Circular A-136, Financial Reporting Requirements. 

Assets

Intragovernmental assets are those assets that arise from transactions with other federal 

entities. Funds with the U.S. Treasury comprise the majority of intragovernmental assets on 

GAO’s Balance Sheet.
GAO-10-234SP 107

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Funds with the U.S. Treasury

The U.S. Treasury processes GAO’s receipts and disbursements. Funds with the U.S. Treasury 

represent appropriated funds Treasury will provide to pay liabilities and to finance authorized 

purchase commitments.

Accounts Receivable

GAO’s accounts receivable are due principally from federal agencies for reimbursable services; 

therefore, GAO has not established an allowance for doubtful accounts. 

Property and Equipment

The GAO headquarters building qualifies as a multiuse heritage asset, is GAO’s only heritage 

asset, and is reported with property and equipment on the balance sheet. The designation of 

multiuse heritage asset is a result of both being listed in the National Register of Historic Places 

and being used in general government operations. Statement of Federal Financial Accounting 

Standards No. 29 requires accounting for multiuse heritage assets as general property, plant, 

and equipment to be included in the balance sheet and depreciated. Maintenance of the building 

has been kept on a current basis. The building is depreciated on a straight-line basis over 25 

years. 

Generally, property and equipment individually costing more than $15,000 are capitalized 

at cost. Building improvements and leasehold improvements are capitalized when the cost is 

$25,000 or greater. Bulk purchases of lesser-value items that aggregate more than $150,000 are 

also capitalized at cost. Assets are depreciated on a straight-line basis over the estimated useful 

life of the property as follows: building improvements, 10 years; computer equipment, software, 

and capital lease assets, ranging from 3 to 6 years; leasehold improvements, 5 years; and other 

equipment, ranging from 5 to 20 years. GAO’s property and equipment have no restrictions as 

to use or convertibility except for the restrictions related to the GAO building’s classification as 

a multiuse heritage asset. 

Liabilities

Liabilities represent amounts that are likely to be paid by GAO as a result of transactions that 

have already occurred. 

Accounts Payable

Accounts payable consists of amounts owed to federal agencies and commercial vendors for 

goods and services received. 
108 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Federal Employee Benefits

GAO recognizes its share of the cost of providing future pension benefits to eligible employees 

over the period of time that they render services to GAO. The pension expense recognized in 

the financial statements equals the current service cost for GAO’s employees for the accounting 

period less the amount contributed by the employees. OPM, the administrator of the plan, 

supplies GAO with factors to apply in the calculation of the service cost. These factors are 

derived through actuarial cost methods and assumptions. The excess of the recognized pension 

expense over the amount contributed by GAO and employees represents the amount being 

financed directly through the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund administered by 

OPM. This amount is considered imputed financing to GAO (see Note 6).

The Federal Employees’ Compensation Act (FECA) provides income and medical cost protection 

to covered federal civilian employees injured on the job, employees who have incurred a workrelated occupational disease, and beneficiaries of employees whose deaths are attributable to 

a job-related injury or occupational disease. Claims incurred for benefits for GAO employees 

under FECA are administered by the Department of Labor (Labor) and are paid, ultimately, by 

GAO (see Note 7).

GAO recognizes a current-period expense for the future cost of postretirement health benefits and 

life insurance for its employees while they are still working. GAO accounts for and reports this 

expense in its financial statements in a manner similar to that used for pensions, with the exception 

that employees and GAO do not make current contributions to fund these future benefits.

Federal employee benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO are reported on the 

Statements of Changes in Net Position and are also included as a component of net cost by goal 

on the Statement of Net Cost.

Annual, Sick, and Other Leave

Annual leave is recognized as an expense and a liability as it is earned; the liability is reduced as 

leave is taken. The accrued leave liability is principally long term in nature. Sick leave and other 

types of leave are expensed as leave is taken. All leave is funded when expensed. 

Contingencies

GAO has certain claims and lawsuits pending against it. GAO’s policy is to include provision in 

the financial statements for any losses considered probable and estimable. Management believes 

that losses from certain other claims and lawsuits are reasonably possible but are not material to 

the fair presentation of GAO’s financial statements and provision for these losses is not included 

in the financial statements. 

Estimates

Management has made certain estimates and assumptions when reporting assets, liabilities, 

revenue, expenses, and in the note disclosures. Actual results could differ from these estimates. 
GAO-10-234SP 109

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Note 2. Intragovernmental Costs and Exchange Revenue

Intragovernmental costs arise from exchange transactions made between two reporting 

entities within the federal government in contrast with public costs, which arise from exchange 

transactions made with a nonfederal entity. Intragovernmental costs and exchange revenue for 

the periods ended September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

 2009 2008

Goal 1: Well-being/Financial Security of American People

Intragovernmental costs $49,421 $52,132

Public costs 141,895 149,027

 Net goal 1 costs 191,316 201,159

Goal 2: Changing Security Threats/ Challenges of Global Interdependence

Intragovernmental costs 44,368 41,409

Public costs 129,277 119,735

 Net goal 2 costs 173,645 161,144

Goal 2 intragovernmental earned revenue (5,283) –

 Net goal 2 costs 168,362 161,144

Goal 3: Transforming the Federal Government’s Role

Intragovernmental costs 45,260 39,680

Public costs 137,124 114,039

 Total goal 3 costs 182,384 153,719

Goal 3 intragovernmental earned revenue (5,255) (3,145)

 Net goal 3 costs 177,129 150,574

Goal 4: Maximize the Value of GAO

Intragovernmental costs 10,084 12,160

Public costs 17,574 10,546

 Total goal 4 costs 27,658 22,706

Goal 4 intragovernmental earned revenue – (91)

 Net goal 4 costs 27,658 22,615

Earned revenue not attributable to goals

Intragovernmental (5,534) (5,757)

Public (138) (133)

 Total earned revenue not attributable to goals ($5,672) ($5,890)

Goal 1 has no associated year to date intragovernmental revenue. The increase in 

intergovernmental earned revenue for both goals 2 and 3 is a result of reimbursements for 

GAO’s new statutory oversight role in 2009 over the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). 
110 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Note 3. Funds with the U.S. Treasury

GAO’s funds with the U.S. Treasury consist of only appropriated funds. The status of these 

funds as of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

2009 2008

Unobligated balance

Available $26,461 $2,586

Unavailable 3,910 4,168

Obligated balances not yet disbursed 71,339 63,718

Total funds with U.S. Treasury $101,710 $70,472

A significant portion of the unobligated balance available in fiscal year 2009 is due to the 

remaining unobligated balance of GAO’s supplemental multiyear appropriation (approximately 

$20,800,000) for efforts that include reviewing states’ uses of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (Recovery Act) funds.

Note 4. Property and Equipment, Net

The composition of property and equipment as of September 30, 2009, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Classes of property and equipment Acquisition value Accumulated depreciation Book value

Building $15,664 $13,158 $2,506

Land 1,191 – 1,191

Building improvements 109,841 96,780 13,061

Computer and other equipment and 

software 40,258 30,360 9,898

Leasehold improvements 6,238 6,037 201

Assets under capital lease 20,954 15,127 5,827

Total property and equipment $194,146 $161,462 $32,684
GAO-10-234SP 111

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

The composition of property and equipment as of September 30, 2008, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Classes of property and equipment Acquisition value Accumulated depreciation Book value

Building $15,664 $12,531 $3,133

Land 1,191 – 1,191

Building improvements 108,652 93,367 15,285

Computer and other equipment and 

software 38,579 27,689 10,890

Leasehold improvements 6,242 5,803 439

Assets under capital lease 27,237 18,211 9,026

Total property and equipment $197,565 $157,601 $39,964

Note 5. Liabilities Not Covered by Budgetary Resources

The liabilities on GAO’s Balance Sheets as of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 

2008, include liabilities not covered by budgetary resources, which are liabilities for which 

congressional action is needed before budgetary resources can be provided. Although 

future appropriations to fund these liabilities are likely and anticipated, it is not certain that 

appropriations will be enacted to fund these liabilities. The composition of liabilities not covered 

by budgetary resources as of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, is as follows:

Dollars in thousands

2009 2008

Intragovernmental liabilities—Workers’ compensation $2,764 $2,514

Salaries and benefits—Comptrollers’ General retirement plan* 1,961 1,975

Accrued annual leave 33,351 30,953

Workers’ compensation** 16,332 16,687

Capital leases 4,814 7,018

Total liabilities not covered by budgetary resources $59,222 $59,147

* See Note 6 for further discussion of the Comptrollers’ General retirement plan.

** See Note 7 for further discussion of workers’ compensation.

Note 6. Federal Employee Benefits

All permanent employees participate in the contributory Civil Service Retirement System 

(CSRS) or the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS). Temporary employees and 

employees participating in FERS are covered under the Federal Insurance Contributions 

Act (FICA). To the extent that employees are covered by FICA, the taxes they pay to the 

program and the benefits they will eventually receive are not recognized in GAO’s financial 
112 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

statements. GAO makes contributions to CSRS, FERS, and FICA and matches certain employee 

contributions to the thrift savings component of FERS. All of these payments are recognized as 

operating expenses. 

In addition, all permanent employees are eligible to participate in the contributory Federal 

Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance 

(FEGLI) Program and may continue to participate after retirement. GAO makes contributions 

through OPM to FEHBP and the FEGLI Program for active employees to pay for their current 

benefits. GAO’s contributions for active employees are recognized as operating expenses. 

Using the cost factors supplied by OPM, GAO has also recognized an expense in its financial 

statements for the estimated future cost of postretirement health benefits and life insurance for 

its employees. These costs are financed by OPM and imputed to GAO.

Amounts owed to OPM and Treasury as of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, are 

$3,662,000 and $2,965,000, respectively, for FEHBP, the FEGLI Program, FICA, FERS, and 

CSRS contributions and are shown on the Balance Sheet as an employee benefits liability.

Details of the major components of GAO’s federal employee benefit costs for the periods ended 

September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, are as follows:

Dollars in thousands

Federal Employee Benefits Costs 2009 2008

Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO:

Estimated future pension costs (CSRS/FERS) $9,372 $8,584

Estimated future postretirement health and life insurance (FEHBP/FEGLI) 16,389 14,460

 Total $25,761 $23,044

Pension expenses (CSRS/FERS) $33,895 $31,070

Health and life insurance expenses (FEHBP/FEGLI) $17,377 $16,098

FICA payment made by GAO $19,436 $17,578

Thrift Savings Plan – matching contribution by GAO $11,436 $10,391 

Comptrollers General and their surviving beneficiaries who qualify and so elect to participate 

are paid retirement benefits by GAO under a separate retirement plan. These benefits are paid 

from current year appropriations. Because GAO is responsible for future payments under this 

plan, the estimated present value of accumulated plan benefits of $1,961,000 as of September 30, 

2009, and $1,975,000 as of September 30, 2008, is included as a component of salary and benefit 

liabilities on GAO’s Balance Sheet. 

Note 7. Workers’ Compensation

GAO utilizes the services of an independent actuarial firm to calculate its FECA liability. GAO 

recorded an estimated liability for claims incurred but not reported as of September 30, 2009, 

and September 30, 2008, which is expected to be paid in future periods. This estimated liability 
GAO-10-234SP 113

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

of $16,332,000 and $16,687,000 as of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, respectively, 

is reported on GAO’s Balance Sheet. GAO also recorded a liability for amounts paid to claimants 

by Labor as of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, of $2,764,000 and $2,514,000, 

respectively, but not yet reimbursed to Labor by GAO. The amount owed to Labor is reported 

on GAO’s Balance Sheet as an intragovernmental liability.

Note 8. Building Lease Revenue

In fiscal year 2000 the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) entered into an agreement with 

GAO to lease the entire third floor of the GAO building. USACE provided all funding for the 

third floor renovation. Occupancy began August 3, 2000, for an initial period of 3 years, with 

options to renew on an annual basis for 7 additional years. Total rental revenue to GAO includes 

a base rent, which remains constant for the entire 10-year period, plus operating expense 

reimbursements at a fixed amount for the first 3 years, with escalation clauses from year 4 

through year 10 if the option years are exercised. Beginning in fiscal year 2002, USACE leased 

additional space on the sixth floor with occupancy lasting through the original lease term. 

Rent received by GAO for fiscal year 2009 and 2008 was $5,264,000 and $5,194,000, 

respectively. These amounts are included in reimbursable services shown on the Statement of 

Net Costs. Total rental revenue for the remaining period of the 10-year lease, fiscal year 2010, is 

$5,179,000. Negotiations for an additional 10-year extension of this lease are in process between 

GAO and USACE. Once signed, this agreement would cover fiscal years 2011 through 2020.

Note 9. Leases

Capital Leases

GAO has entered into capital leases for office equipment and computer equipment under 

which the ownership of the equipment covered under the leases transfers to GAO when 

the leases expire. When GAO enters into these leases, the present value of the future lease 

payments is capitalized, net of imputed interest, and recorded as a liability. The acquisition 

value and accumulated depreciation of GAO’s capital leases are shown in Note 4, Property and 

Equipment, Net. As of September 30, 2009, and September 30, 2008, the capital lease liability 

was $4,814,000 and $7,018,000, respectively. This decrease is due to the lease payments made 

throughout fiscal year 2009 with no significant additional capital leases entered into during the 

year.

These lease agreements are written as contracts with a base year and option years. The option 

years are subject to the availability of funds. Early termination of the leases for reasons other 

than default is subject to a negotiation between the parties. These leases are lease-to-ownership 

agreements. GAO’s leases are short term in nature and no liability exists beyond the years 

shown in the table below. GAO’s estimated future minimum lease payments under the terms of 

the leases are as follows:
114 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 Total

2010 $2,663

2011 2,332

2012 162

2013 2

Total estimated future lease payments 5,159

Less: imputed interest (345)

Net capital lease liability $4,814

Operating Leases

GAO leases office space, predominately for field offices, from the General Services 

Administration and has entered into various other operating leases for office communication 

and computer equipment. Lease costs for office space and equipment for fiscal year 2009 and 

fiscal year 2008 amounted to approximately $11,780,000 and $12,040,000, respectively. Leases 

for equipment under operating leases are generally less than 1 year; therefore there are no 

associated future minimum lease payments. Estimated future minimum lease payments for field 

office space under the terms of the leases are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 Total

2010 $8,231

2011 6,641

2012 6,368

2013 5,441

2014 4,722

2015 and thereafter 10,639

Total estimated future lease payments $42,042

Leased property and equipment must be capitalized if certain criteria are met (see Capital Leases

description). Because property and equipment covered under GAO’s operating leases do not 

satisfy these criteria, GAO’s operating leases are not reflected on the Balance Sheets. However, 

annual lease costs under the operating leases are included as components of net cost by goal in 

the Statements of Net Cost.
GAO-10-234SP 115

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Note 10. Net Cost of Operations

Expenses for salaries and related benefits for fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2008 amounted 

to $441,438,000 and $414,406,000, respectively, which were about 79 percent of GAO’s annual 

net cost of operations in fiscal year 2009 and 78 percent in fiscal year 2008. Included in the 

net cost of operations are federal employee benefit costs paid by OPM and imputed to GAO of 

$25,761,000 in fiscal year 2009 and $23,044,000 in fiscal year 2008. 

Revenues from reimbursable services are shown as an offset against the full cost of the goal 

to arrive at its net cost. Earned revenues that are insignificant or cannot be associated with a 

major goal are shown in total, the largest component of which is rental revenue from the lease 

of space in the GAO building. Revenues from reimbursable services for fiscal year 2009 and 

fiscal year 2008 amounted to $16,210,000 and $9,126,000, respectively. Further details of the 

intragovernmental components are provided in Note 2.

The net cost of operations represents GAO’s operating costs that must be funded by financing 

sources other than revenues earned from reimbursable services. These financing sources are 

presented in the Statement of Changes in Net Position. 

Note 11. Budgetary Resources

Budgetary resources made available to GAO include current year appropriations, spending 

authority from budget transfers, prior years’ unobligated balances, and reimbursements arising 

from both revenues earned by GAO from providing goods and services to other federal entities 

for a price (reimbursable services) and cost-sharing and pass-through contract arrangements 

with other federal entities. In fiscal year 2009, in addition to appropriations made available for 

salaries and expenses, GAO received supplemental appropriations of $25,000,000, available 

through fiscal year 2010, to cover program reviews required by the Recovery Act. 

Earned revenue consists primarily of rent collected from USACE for lease of space and related 

services in the GAO building and program and financial audits of federal entities, such as 

TARP, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Deposit Insurance Program, 

and the Federal Housing Finance Agency. Earned revenue from rent is available indefinitely, 

subject to available obligation ceilings, and must be used to offset the cost of operating and 

maintaining the GAO headquarters building. Reimbursement from financial audits is available 

indefinitely, without limitations on its use, subject to annual obligation ceilings. GAO’s pricing 

policy for reimbursable services is to seek reimbursement for actual costs incurred, including 

overhead costs where allowed by law. Reimbursements from cost-sharing and pass-through 

contract arrangements consisted primarily of collections from other federal entities (1) for the 

support of the Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board and (2) to utilize GAO contracts 

to obtain services. The costs and reimbursements for cost-sharing and pass-through contract 

arrangements are not included in the Statement of Net Cost.

Fiscal year 2008 included budget authority transferred for the assessment of programs and 

activities funded under the heading “Millennium Challenge Corporation” to include a review of 

financial controls and procurement practices. Fiscal year 2009 does not include any transfers of 

budget authority. 
116 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information 

Comparison of GAO’s fiscal year 2008 Statement of Budgetary Resources with the 

corresponding information presented in the 2010 President’s Budget is as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Budgetary Resources Obligations Incurred

Fiscal year 2008 Statement of Budgetary Resources $519,005 $512,249

Unobligated balances, beginning of year – 

 (prior year funds activity) (7,010) –

Permanently not available –(prior year funds activity) 4,380 –

Spending Authority from offsetting collections – 

 (prior year funds activity) (2,111) (1,249)

Non-expenditure transfer (250) –

Other – rounding in President’s Budget (14) –

2010 President’s Budget – fiscal year 2008, actual $514,000 $511,000

As the fiscal year 2011 President’s Budget will not be published until February 2010, a 

comparison between the fiscal year 2009 data reflected on the Statement of Budgetary 

Resources and fiscal year 2009 data in the President’s Budget cannot be performed, though we 

expect similar differences will exist. The fiscal year 2011 President’s Budget will be available on 

the OMB’s Web site and directly from the Government Printing Office.

Budgetary resources obligated for undelivered orders at the end of fiscal year 2009 and the end 

of fiscal year 2008 totaled $20,670,000 and $15,237,000, respectively. GAO’s apportionments fall 

under Category A, quarterly apportionment. Apportionment categories of obligations incurred 

for fiscal years 2009 and 2008 are as follows: 

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 2009 2008

Direct – Category A $536,692 $500,362

Reimbursable – Category A 13,491 11,887

Total obligations incurred $550,183 $512,249

Note 12. Reconciliation of Net Costs of Operations to Budget

Details of the relationship between budgetary resources obligated and the net costs of operations 

for the fiscal years ending September 30 are as follows: 
GAO-10-234SP 117

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Dollars in thousands

Fiscal year ending September 30 2009 2008

Resources used to finance activities

Budgetary resources obligated

Obligations incurred $550,183 $512,249

Less: spending authority from offsetting collections and recoveries (19,351) (12,126)

Obligations net of offsetting collections and recoveries 530,832 500,123

Other resources

Intragovernmental transfer of property and equipment (1) (3)

	 Federal employee retirement benefit costs paid by OPM imputed to GAO 25,761 23,044

	 Net other resources used to finance activities 25,760 23,041

	 Total resources used to finance activities	 556,592 523,164

Resources used to finance items not part of the net cost of operations

Change in unliquidated obligations (5,127) 5,338

Reduction in lease liability and other (2,203) (1,303)

Assets capitalized (3,784) (9,514)

Net (increase)/ decrease in receivables not generating resources until 

 collected and other adjustments (17) 17

Total resources used to fund items not part of the net cost of operations (11,131) (5,462)

	 Total resources used to finance Net Cost of Operations 545,461 517,702

Components of net costs that will not require or generate resources in 

the current period

Decrease in workers’ compensation (118) (670)

Increase in accrued annual leave 2,398 1,381

Total components of net costs that will not require or generate resources 

 in the current period 2,280 711

Costs that do not require resources

Depreciation and other 11,052 11,189

Net cost of operations $558,793 $529,602

Note 13. Net Position

Net position on the Balance Sheets comprises unexpended appropriations and cumulative results 

of operations. Unexpended appropriations is the sum of the total unobligated appropriations 

and undelivered goods and services. Cumulative results of operations represent the excess of 

financing sources over expenses since inception. Details of the components of GAO’s cumulative 

results of operations for the fiscal years ended September 30, 2009 and 2008, are as follows:
118 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Financial Information

Dollars in thousands

2009 2008

Investment in property and equipment, net $32,684 $39,964

Net reimbursable funds activity 2,378 (2,116)

Other – supplies inventory 165 153

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources (59,222) (59,147)

Cumulative results of operations ($23,995) ($21,146)

Liabilities not covered by budgetary resources are liabilities for which congressional action is 

needed before budgetary resources can be provided. See Note 5 for components.

Note 14. Davis-Bacon Act Trust Function

GAO is responsible for administering for the federal government the trust function of the DavisBacon Act revenue and costs related to beneficiary payments and prepares separate, audited 

financial schedules for this fund. GAO maintains this fund to pay claims relating to violations 

of the Davis-Bacon Act and Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act. Under these acts, 

Labor investigates violation allegations to determine if federal contractors owe additional wages 

to covered employees. If Labor concludes that a violation has occurred, GAO collects the amount 

owed from the contracting federal agency, deposits the funds into an account with the U.S. 

Treasury, and remits payment to the employee. GAO is accountable to the Congress and to the 

public for the proper administration of the assets held in the trust. Trust assets and liabilities 

under GAO’s administration as of September 30, 2009, totaled approximately $4,781,000. 

These assets are not the assets of GAO or the federal government and are held for distribution 

to appropriate claimants. During fiscal year 2009, revenues and costs related to beneficiary 

payments in the trust amounted to $528,000. 
Serving The Congress And The Nation

Part IV

From the Inspector General
120 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

From the Inspector General

From the Inspector General

Memorandum

Date: November 5, 2009

To: Acting Comptroller General – Gene L. Dodaro 

From: Inspector General – Frances Garcia

Subject: GAO Management Challenges and Performance Measures

We have considered management’s assessment of the agency’s management 

challenges. Based on our work and institutional knowledge, we agree that physical 

security, information security, and human capital continue to be management 

challenges that may affect GAO’s performance. We also examined, and agree with, 

management’s assessment of progress made in addressing these challenges.

During fiscal year 2009, GAO claimed $43 billion in financial benefits in its 

accomplishment reports. Based on our audit of accomplishment reports of $1 billion 

or more—$25 billion in total or 58 percent of the benefits reported for the fiscal 

year—we believe that GAO had a reasonable basis for claiming the financial benefits 

we audited. In addition, we assessed four of GAO’s people performance measures—

staff development, staff utilization, leadership, and organizational climate—and made 

recommendations to enhance disclosure and understanding about the measures. We

also initiated a review of the agency’s timeliness measure, and based on 

methodological and other issues raised during our review, GAO has agreed that the 

issues are worthy of further examination and will be fully analyzed. As a result, we 

will monitor the changes made and reassess the measure when those changes are 

completed. Finally, we are completing a review of the agency’s testimony 

performance measure for fiscal year 2008.

Office of the Inspector General

United States Government Accountability Office

OIG
Serving The Congress And The Nation

Part V

Appendixes
122 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

In pursuing our strategic goals during 

fiscal year 2009, we recorded hundreds 

of accomplishments and numerous other 

contributions. This appendix provides details 

on the most significant of these. In reporting 

financial benefits, nonfinancial benefits, and 

contributions (designated by an F, N, or C 

in the item number below), we are holding 

ourselves accountable for the resources we 

received to implement our strategic plan.

Typically, the accomplishments describe 

work we completed in prior fiscal years 

because it takes time to implement 

recommendations, realize benefits, and record 

them. Contributions, which often refer to 

work completed in fiscal year 2009, describe 

instances in which we provided information 

or recommendations that aided congressional 

decision making or informed the public 

debate to a significant degree. At the end 

of each accomplishment and contribution 

summary, we list the reference number of 

products associated with the work discussed. 

In the online PDF version of this document, 

readers can link directly to these products if 

they want additional information.

1. Accomplishments and Other Contributions
GAO-10-234SP 123

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Provide timely, quality 

service to the Congress 

and the federal government 

to address current and 

emerging challenges to the 

well-being and financial 

security of the American 

people

Strategic

Goal 1

The health needs of an aging 

and diverse population

1.01.N. Improving Oversight of 

Clinical Laboratories: The Centers for 

Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) 

oversees organizations that survey clinical 

laboratories for quality of services. In 

response to our recommendations for 

improving oversight, CMS collected data 

from survey organizations in 2007 and 

2008 that permit comparison of their 

results, took steps to ensure that changes 

to inspection requirements are approved 

before implementation, enhanced a database 

that allows the identification of labs that 

lose accreditation, and established a process 

and closer communication with survey 

organizations, and conducts regular internal 

calls to discuss enforcement activities. (GAO06-416)

1.02.N. Encouraging Efficiency by 

Profiling Medicare Physicians’ Practice 

Patterns: Because physicians prescribe health 

care services for Medicare beneficiaries, those 

with inefficient practice patterns can lead to 

excessive costs. In 2007, we recommended 

that the CMS develop a system that identifies 

individual physicians with inefficient 

practice patterns and use the results to 

improve program efficiency, and in 2008 the 

Congress mandated that the agency develop 

a physician feedback program. The agency 

has begun sending out reports to selected 

physicians in several localities to profile their 

resource use compared to that of their peers, 

which includes elements that address our 

recommendations. (GAO-07-307) 

1.03.N. Improving Oversight of Medicare 

Part D Grievances: During our work related 

to the Medicare Part D program, we found 

weaknesses in CMS oversight of beneficiary 

grievances. We recommended that CMS 

undertake efforts to improve the consistency, 

reliability, and usefulness of grievances data 

reported by plan sponsors and undertake 

systematic oversight of these data. In 

response, CMS has clarified requirements 

in order to improve the reliability and 

consistency of grievance data, hired a 

contractor to routinely monitor the data, 

and developed a plan to target its audits to 

monitor plan sponsor compliance with CMS 

grievance reporting requirements. (GAO-08-

719)

1.04.N. Highlighting Weaknesses in 

the Food and Drug Administration’s 

Oversight of Medical Devices: In January 

2009, we reported on weaknesses in the 

Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) 

premarket oversight of medical devices 

that led it to approve marketing some of 

the highest-risk medical devices through 

a less-rigorous approval process designed 

for lower-risk items that does not require 

submission of clinical data. We recommended 

that FDA expeditiously classify the devices 

Source: See Image Sources.
124 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

needing more rigorous review and, in 

April 2009, FDA announced its decision 

that manufacturers of 25 types of devices 

marketed prior to 1976 must submit 

information on their safety and effectiveness. 

(GAO-09-190, GAO-09-370T) 

1.05.N. Improving Oversight of Care in 

Nursing Homes: Since July 1998, GAO has 

made numerous recommendations to improve 

oversight of care in nursing homes, which 

is conducted through on-site surveys. CMS 

has taken multiple steps in the last 2 years to 

improve care oversight, including improving 

survey methodology, guidance on care 

quality standards, quality controls on survey 

information, and its management information 

systems. CMS also took steps to better track 

survey results. (GAO-08-517, GAO-03-561,

GAO/HEHS-99-46) 

1.06.C. Improving Care for Returning 

Servicemembers: In March 2007, we 

testified about the challenges facing 

recovering servicemembers and in May 

2007, the Departments of Defense (DOD) 

and Veterans Affairs (VA) established the 

Wounded, Ill, and Injured Senior Oversight 

Committee (SOC) to address identified 

problems. This year we testified that DOD 

and VA made substantial progress in jointly 

developing policies for servicemembers’ care 

and management, return to active duty, and 

transition from care provided by DOD to 

VA and for an improved disability evaluation 

system. In addition, the SOC reported on the 

feasibility of consolidating the DOD and VA 

disability evaluation systems. (GAO-09-540T,

GAO-07-606T, GAO-07-589T)

1.07.C. Undercover Operation Shows the 

Institutional Review Board System Is 

Vulnerable to Unethical Manipulation: 

Using fictitious companies, counterfeit 

documents, and a fictitious medical device, 

undercover investigators found that the 

Institutional Review Board (IRB) system is 

vulnerable to unethical manipulation. IRBs 

review and monitor human subjects research, 

with the intended purpose of protecting 

research subjects. However, we found that one 

company approved our bogus test protocol 

for a fake medical device after only minor 

edits. Two other companies rejected the fake 

protocol. As a result of our investigation, 

the deficient IRB was forced out of business 

after FDA issued it a warning letter; the 

Department of Health and Human Services 

(HHS) also indicated that it would take 

several actions. (GAO-09-448T)

1.08.C. Investigating Fraud, Waste, and 

Abuse in Medicaid: For five states, we 

found that approximately 65,000 Medicaid 

beneficiaries acquired the same type of 

controlled substances from six or more 

medical practitioners during fiscal years 

2006 and 2007. Such activities, known as 

“doctor shopping,” resulted in about $63 

million in Medicaid payments. In the most 

egregious case, one beneficiary received 

prescriptions of the painkiller Vicodin from 

112 different practitioners. The Administrator 

of CMS generally agreed with our four 

recommendations to help establish an 

effective fraud prevention system for the 

Medicare program. (GAO-09-957)

Lifelong learning to enhance 

U.S. competitiveness

1.09.F. Changing Federal Student Loan 

Program Yields Savings: The Federal 

Family Education Loan Program reimburses 

private lenders if a borrower defaults. 

Designated lenders that meet certain 

requirements as “exceptional performers” 

can qualify for a 99 percent reimbursement 

rate rather than the standard 97 percent 

rate. The Congress authorized the Secretary 

of Education to terminate the exceptional 
GAO-10-234SP 125

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

performer program after a GAO study. GAO 

found that the program had not achieved its 

goals and recommended that it be eliminated. 

The Congress eliminated the program 

by enacting the College Cost Reduction 

and Access Act (Pub. L. No. 110-84). The 

Congressional Budget Office estimates 

savings of $1.7 billion over 10 years. (GAO07-1087) 

Benefits and protections for 

workers, families, and children

1.10.N. Improving Access to Trade 

Adjustment Assistance Benefits: Our work 

on the Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) 

Program found that workers were not getting 

needed assistance to make training decisions, 

training enrollment was sometimes hampered 

by enrollment deadlines, qualification 

rules limited worker participation in wage 

insurance benefits, training fund allocation 

had weaknesses, and high costs limited 

participation in the Health Care Tax Credit 

(HCTC). The Congress amended the 

TAA Program to provide more funds for 

employment and case management services, 

simplify the training enrollment deadline, 

ease access to wage insurance benefits, 

improve the allocation of training funds, and 

make HCTC more affordable. (GAO-07-701,

GAO-07-702, GAO-07-995T, GAO-07-919,

GAO-08-165)

1.11.N. Improving Disability Benefit 

Program: We reported that the Social 

Security Administration’s (SSA) Ticket to 

Work and Self-Sufficiency Program, which 

helps SSA beneficiaries return to work and 

stop receiving disability payments, lacked 

participation by SSA beneficiaries and service 

providers. We identified solutions that SSA 

incorporated into new regulations it issued 

in 2008, including allowing beneficiaries 

who are expected to improve medically 

to participate in the program, increasing 

payments to service providers, and allowing 

state vocational rehabilitation agencies and 

other service providers to receive payments 

to provide needed services to the same 

beneficiaries. (GAO-05-248) 

1.12.C. Performing Undercover Tests of 

the Department of Labor’s Wage and 

Hour Division: Using fictitious calling 

scenarios, our undercover investigators tested 

the complaint intake process at Labor’s Wage 

and Hour Division (WHD). WHD’s mission 

is to ensure that millions of workers are 

protected under the Fair Labor Standards 

Act. Our tests found that WHD frequently 

responded inadequately to complaints, 

leaving low-wage workers vulnerable to 

wage theft and other labor violations. We 

also identified at least 1,160 real employees 

whose complaints were inadequately 

investigated. After reviewing our findings, 

Labor announced that it would hire 250 

more investigators. The Congress is also 

considering legislation that we suggested. 

(GAO-09-458T, GAO-09-629) 

1.13.C. Improving Evaluation of Voluntary 

Protection Programs Regarding 

Workplace Safety: GAO found that 

limitations in internal controls and oversight 

of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA) voluntary protection 

programs (VPP) affected its ability to ensure 

that participating companies maintain 

effective workplace safety and health 

management systems. In response to GAO 

recommendations for additional oversight 

and additional controls, OSHA will evaluate 

VPPs, including conducting a comprehensive 

evaluation of its VPP and Alliance Program, 

to determine how the agency should best 

allocate its resources among cooperative 

programs, enforcement, and other agency 

activities. (GAO-09-395) 
126 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

1.14.C. Investigating the Death and Abuse 

of Children at Public and Private Schools: 

No federal regulations govern the use of 

restraint and seclusion in public and private 

schools. After finding hundreds of allegations 

that children across the nation were harmed 

or killed by these techniques, we examined 

the facts surrounding 10 case studies of 

abuse or death and found common themes, 

such as no evidence of physical aggression by 

the victim, lack of parental consent for the 

use of the techniques, and lack of training 

for staff. This investigation contributed to 

congressional and national public awareness 

of the issue, and we received an extraordinary 

number of inquiries from parents, teachers, 

and other concerned citizens. (GAO-09-719T) 

1.15.C. Improving Food Nutrition and 

Safety in Schools: To help the Congress 

better understand federal school meals 

programs before reauthorizing the Child 

Nutrition Act, GAO provided information 

on efforts to improve nutrition and reduce 

hunger by serving more children, ways to 

better ensure the safety of food served in 

schools, and strategies for reducing improper 

payments because of errors in counting school 

meals or claiming federal reimbursements. In 

response to GAO recommendations, federal 

agencies agreed to improve their notification 

procedures and instructions when recalling 

foods served in schools and to revise federal 

guidance and improve the review process to 

reduce improper payments. (GAO-09-156R,

GAO-09-584) 

Financial security for an aging 

population

1.16.C. Enhancing Governance and 

Management at the Pension Benefit 

Guaranty Corporation: GAO testified 

that poor economic conditions brought 

the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation 

(PBGC) new underfunded pension plan 

terminations, exacerbating its administrative 

and financial challenges. These developments 

highlight the continued need for improved 

governance and management at PBGC, yet 

its board continues with only three members, 

precluding sufficient oversight. GAO called 

for a restructured Board of Directors and 

various management and policy changes at 

PBGC. The Senate introduced a bill with 

such a change. GAO also reported that 

PBGC understated risk in its development 

of a new investment policy, which has now 

been suspended. (GAO-09-207, GAO-09-291,

GAO-09-503T, GAO-09-702T) 

A responsive, fair, and 

effective system of justice

1.17.N. Improving Enforcement of Federal 

Crime Victims’ Rights: In the Crime 

Victims’ Rights Act of 2004 (CVRA), the 

Congress reaffirmed a number of rights 

for victims of federal crimes. As part of 

our review of the Department of Justice’s 

(DOJ) efforts to implement CVRA, we 

found that federal crime victims were 

generally not aware of mechanisms the law 

provided to ensure that their rights were 

enforced. In addition, we reported that DOJ’s 

process for reviewing victims’ complaints 

that their rights had been denied lacked 

independence and impartiality. We made 

several recommendations to DOJ to address 

these issues, and the agency agreed and 

has established a working group to pursue 

implementation. (GAO-09-54)

 1.18.N. Enhancing Federal Efforts to 

Combat Drug Trafficking: Because most of 

the nation’s illegal drug supply is smuggled 

from abroad, the Drug Enforcement 

Administration’s (DEA) partnerships 

with agencies that have border-related 

missions—especially Immigration and 
GAO-10-234SP 127

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Customs Enforcement (ICE), the largest 

investigative agency of the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS)—are important. 

In response to our recommendations, DEA 

and ICE reached an agreement in June 

2009 to share intelligence and leverage 

investigative resources. The interagency 

agreement resolves a long-standing and 

counterproductive rivalry that for years 

has generated concerns about duplicative 

investigations and officer safety. (GAO-09-

63) 

Promoting viable communities

1.19.C. Greening the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s 

Affordable Housing Programs: We 

identified areas where the Department of 

Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) 

could be more proactive in promoting energy 

efficiency and green building. We reported 

that HUD had not completed regulations to 

require energy-efficient appliances in public 

housing or collected data to understand its 

multifamily housing portfolio utility costs. 

We reported that HUD should consider 

providing additional incentive points for 

energy efficiency and green building in 

competitive grant programs. Since our report 

was issued, HUD has made progress in these 

areas, including adding strong incentives 

for energy efficiency and green building in 

competitive grant programs funded through 

the American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (Recovery Act). (GAO-09-46) 

1.20.C. Improving Oversight of 

HUBZone Firms by Addressing Program 

Deficiencies: Through the Small Business 

Administration’s (SBA) HUBZone program, 

small firms located in distressed areas 

received about $8 billion in federal contracts 

in fiscal year 2007. As a result of GAO’s work 

identifying multiple deficiencies in SBA’s 

management of the program, the agency 

updated its inaccurate map, took steps to 

improve its application review process by 

issuing a staff guide and obtaining and 

verifying applicant information, reviewed the 

continued eligibility of existing firms, and 

formalized the time frame for decertifying 

ineligible firms. These actions help to ensure 

that SBA has initiated steps to improve its 

oversight of HUBZone firms. (GAO-09-532T,

GAO-08-643, GAO-08-975T) 

Responsible stewardship of 

natural resources and the 

environment

1.21.F. Strengthening Integrity of 

Federal Farm Programs: In 2008, we 

reported that because the Department of 

Agriculture (USDA) lacked a system to 

verify incomes, it provided farm program 

benefits to thousands of individuals whose 

incomes exceeded eligibility caps under the 

Farm Bill. We recommended that USDA 

work with the Internal Revenue Service 

(IRS) to develop a system for verifying the 

incomes of individuals and businesses before 

disbursing farm program benefits to them. 

As a result, in 2009 USDA and IRS began 

work on a verification system that is to 

prevent payments to ineligible individuals and 

businesses and is expected to save $99 million 

annually or about $472 million over the next 

5 years. (GAO-09-67)

1.22.N. Improving Contract Management 

at the Department of Energy: For nearly 

20 years, we have identified significant 

problems with Department of Energy (DOE) 

management of its contracts, which account 

for about 90 percent of DOE’s more than 

$20 billion budget. Solving these problems is 

even more critical because of the additional 

billions of Recovery Act dollars DOE received 

in 2009. Our work led to DOE identifying 
128 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

causes of its contract management problems 

and developing a corrective action plan. 

The House committee report for the fiscal 

year 2010 energy and water development 

appropriations also cited our work in its 

direction to DOE to report within 60 days 

on specific activities undertaken to improve 

DOE cost estimating practices. (GAO-09-

406T, GAO-09-271)

1.23.N. Transforming a Key 

Environmental Protection Agency Toxic 

Chemical Assessment Process: The 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

does not have sufficient chemical assessment 

data to determine whether it should 

establish controls to limit public exposure to 

many chemicals that may pose substantial 

health risks. To address this significant 

deficiency, we recommended that EPA 

streamline and increase the transparency 

of its Integrated Risk Information System 

(IRIS) chemical assessment process to 

support the development of timely and 

credible chemical risk information. In May 

2009, EPA announced comprehensive IRIS 

assessment reforms that are responsive to our 

recommendations. (GAO-09-773T, GAO-09-

774T, GAO-08-440, GAO-08-743T, GAO08-1168T)

1.24.C. Informing the Debate on 

Hardrock Mining Reform: We reported 

and testified on several issues central to the 

debate on reforming the General Mining Act 

of 1872—which for 137 years has allowed 

individuals to stake claims and obtain 

exclusive rights to the gold, silver, copper, and 

other valuable hardrock minerals on federal 

lands without having to pay a royalty. The 

House and Senate have undertaken reform of 

the General Mining Act, and although some 

provisions of the proposed legislation are 

still being worked out, key concerns in our 

work have been addressed in the legislative 

proposals, and our work has informed the 

public debate to a significant degree. (GAO09-854T, GAO-09-429T, GAO-08-849R,

GAO-08-574T)

1.25.C. Improving Federal Oil and Gas 

Management: In 2009, we reported on 

the Department of the Interior’s (Interior) 

management of federal oil and gas resources. 

We found gaps in oversight, which could 

lead to $100 million in uncollected royalties 

and other problems, raising further doubts 

about Interior’s ability to identify and collect 

royalties. We recommended a comprehensive 

reevaluation of Interior’s oil and gas 

programs to better ensure that the agency is 

collecting an appropriate amount for federal 

oil and gas leases. The Congress is using our 

findings and recommendations as it drafts 

legislation to address these issues. (GAO-09-

549, GAO-09-506T, GAO-09-556T, GAO09-744, GAO-09-1014T) 

A safe, secure, and effective 

national physical infrastructure

1.26.N. Improving Transparency at 

Federal Agencies: Transparency in 

federal activities is important to ensuring 

fairness and accountability. In response 

to GAO recommendations, the Federal 

Communications Commission, which is 

routinely lobbied by stakeholders, has 

improved the transparency of its rule-making 

process by making its rulemaking docket 

publicly available to all stakeholders at 

the same time. Similarly, the Department 

of Transportation (DOT) has improved 

transparency related to the Highway Account 

within the Highway Trust Fund by more 

closely monitoring the account balance and 

proactively communicating with stakeholders 

about an anticipated shortfall for fiscal year 

2009. (GAO-09-316, GAO-09-845T, GAO07-1046) 
GAO-10-234SP 129

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

1.27.N. Improving the Safety and Security 

of Federal Facilities: There is ongoing 

concern about the safety and security of 

federal facilities and their occupants because 

of the threat of terrorism. The Interagency 

Security Committee, chaired by DHS, decided 

to use our key practices in facility protection 

to guide its work and issued guidance to 

agencies on performance measurement. On 

the basis of our work, the Congress provided 

additional staff to address shortfalls at 

DHS’s Federal Protective Service, which 

protects about 9,000 federal buildings with 

over 1 million federal employees. Also, the 

Smithsonian Institution improved internal 

communications about risk management and 

security staff resources. (GAO-08-683, GAO07-1127, GAO-06-612, GAO-05-49)

1.28.C. Restructuring the U.S. Postal 

Service to Achieve Sustainable Financial 

Viability: We have testified frequently before 

the Congress about the U.S. Postal Service’s 

(USPS) deteriorating financial situation 

caused by unprecedented volume decline and 

its inability to increase revenue or reduce 

costs enough to cover its expenses. We added 

USPS’s financial condition to our highrisk list in July 2009 and called for USPS 

to develop and implement a restructuring 

plan detailing how it plans to address the 

changing use of mail and better align its costs 

and revenues to achieve long-term financial 

viability. The Congress has often referred 

to our work as it considers legislative relief 

for USPS. (GAO-09-332T, GAO-09-475T,

GAO-09-674T, GAO-09-790T, GAO-09-

958T)

1.29.C. Improving Transportation Safety 

and Mobility: We continued to highlight 

improvements needed in DOT’s efforts to 

reduce transportation accidents and address 

growing congestion. For example, we called 

for (1) better targeting of highway safety 

funding and greater efforts to address 

safety issues related to small air cargo 

carriers and (2) enhancements in funding of 

surface transportation infrastructure and 

the resolution of management issues that 

have arisen in transforming the nation’s air 

transportation system. Our work has assisted 

the Congress in overseeing these and other 

transportation programs. For example, we 

highlighted safety and mobility issues in 

recent congressional hearings. (GAO-09-219,

GAO-09-479T, GAO-09-35, GAO-09-614,

GAO-09-435T) 

1.30.C. Advising Policymakers and 

Consumers on the Digital Television 

Transition: In 2009, television broadcasters 

transitioned to digital-only broadcasts. We 

identified the digital television transition 

as an urgent issue for attention by the new 

Congress and administration. In a series of 

reports and testimonies, we found that despite 

high awareness of the transition, many people 

were not prepared. We reported that the 

government’s converter box subsidy program 

would likely face an increase in requests 

as the transition date approached, and as a 

result, required plans to cover higher demand 

and costs. The government developed such 

plans, providing more money for the subsidy 

program, ensuring consumers were prepared, 

and leading to a successful transition. (GAO08-43, GAO-08-510, GAO-08-881T, GAO08-1040, GAO-08-1161T) 

1.31.C. Informing Congressional 

Decision Making on Surface and Aviation 

Reauthorization: GAO has called for a 

reexamination of surface transportation 

programs—which provide funding for 

surface infrastructure and safety—during the 

upcoming reauthorization of these programs. 

Recent proposals for reauthorization 

incorporate GAO’s findings on a host of 

surface transportation programs and embody 

the principles that we have articulated for 

restructuring these programs. GAO has 
130 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

also called for a timely reauthorization of 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), 

noting that continued short-term extensions 

could delay key capital projects, including 

progress toward implementation of the Next 

Generation Air Transportation System. 

(GAO-09-845T, GAO-09-377T, GAO-09-

219, GAO-08-400, GAO-08-843R) 
GAO-10-234SP 131

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Protect and secure the 

homeland from threats and 

disasters

2.01.F. Realizing Financial Benefits in 

Vessel Tracking System Procurement: 

We reviewed U.S. Coast Guard vessel 

tracking efforts and identified efficiency 

and effectiveness issues. We reported delays 

and large unobligated balances in the Coast 

Guard’s procurement of one tracking system. 

Obligating the available funds in fiscal 

year 2008 would have required obligating 

more than three times the amount that was 

obligated in total for the previous 3 fiscal 

years. In addition, the Coast Guard did not 

have a detailed spending plan laying out how 

it planned to obligate the available funds. 

Therefore, the Congress reduced the Coast 

Guard’s requested 2009 appropriation by $6 

million. (GAO-09-337)

2.02.N. Strengthening Aviation Security 

through Improved Passenger WatchList Matching: In a series of reports 

and testimonies over the past 5 years, we 

reported on the Transportation Security 

Administration’s (TSA) efforts to develop 

and implement the Secure Flight program 

to assume from air carriers the function of 

matching passenger information against 

terrorist watch-list records. We recommended 

numerous actions to improve—among other 

things—systems testing, information security 

controls, privacy protections, and cost and 

schedule estimates. TSA’s actions to address 

these recommendations have reduced the 

risks associated with implementing Secure 

Flight and allowed the program to begin 

initial operations in January 2009. (GAO-09-

292, GAO-08-456T, GAO-08-992, GAO-06-

374T, GAO-05-356)

2.03.N. Strengthening Methods to Assess 

National Emergency Preparedness: 

We reported that as of April 2009, the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) has no reliable means of assessing 

improvements in emergency preparedness. As 

a result, the House and Senate Committees 

on Appropriations have inserted requirements 

in the fiscal year 2010 appropriation bills to 

address this issue. The Senate committee has 

required that FEMA brief the committee 

monthly on its progress in developing 

plans to measure the nation’s preparedness. 

The House committee has directed GAO 

to monitor the development of any DHS 

system to measure the effectiveness of grant 

programs and to report regularly to the 

committee on FEMA’s efforts. (GAO-09-369) 

2.04.N. Strengthening the Employment 

Verification Process: We found that the 

large number and variety of documents 

acceptable for proving employees’ work 

eligibility complicated the employment 

verification process used by millions of 

employers. DHS had not yet completed its 

Strategic

Goal 2

Provide timely, quality 

service to the Congress 

and the federal government 

to respond to changing 

security threats and 

the challenges of global 

interdependence

Source: See Image Sources.
132 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

review of the process, including revising 

the form used to certify employees’ work 

authorization. We recommended that DHS 

set a time frame for completing its review and 

issue regulations on changes to the process 

and form. In December 2008, DHS amended 

its regulations on the type of acceptable 

work eligibility documents to strengthen 

the integrity of the employment verification 

process. (GAO-05-813) 

2.05.C. Exposing Significant Fraud 

Vulnerabilities in State’s PassportIssuance Process: We found that terrorists 

or criminals could steal an American citizen’s 

identity, use basic counterfeiting skills to 

create fraudulent documentation, and obtain a 

genuine passport from the State Department 

(State). Undercover investigators obtained 

four genuine passports from State using these 

methods in a simulation of identity theft. 

In the most egregious case, an investigator 

obtained a passport using the Social Security 

number of a man who died in 1965. In 

response to our work, State officials said 

that they took several immediate actions, 

including the elimination of production 

targets for 2009. Officials told us that more 

actions are under way. (GAO-09-447, GAO09-583R)

2.06.C. Bolstering Information Security 

at Federal Agencies: We informed the 

Congress on the threats/vulnerabilities 

confronting federal systems and identified 

needed improvements to sufficiently 

safeguard sensitive information. We made 

about 160 recommendations to better 

protect the confidentiality, integrity, and 

availability of federal systems and some of 

the most sensitive information possessed 

by the federal government. Based on our 

prior recommendations, numerous agencies, 

including FAA, IRS, the Securities and 

Exchange Commission (SEC), the Federal 

Deposit Insurance Corporation, and DHS, 

bolstered their security programs and 

strengthened controls to prevent, limit, and 

detect unauthorized access to information 

resources. (GAO-09-136, GAO-09-195,

GAO-09-203, GAO-09-661T, GAO-09-546) 

Ensure military capabilities 

and readiness

2.07.F. Contributing to Properly 

Funding the Military’s Needs: In a 

number of reviews, we analyzed DOD’s 

base budget request for fiscal year 2009 

and DOD’s approach for requesting the 

funds and reporting obligations for overseas 

contingency operations. Our analysis of 

unobligated balances (i.e., funding that 

has been approved or is available but not 

yet committed for a particular purpose); 

operations and maintenance execution trends; 

and active, reserve, and civilian personnel 

expenditures resulted in financial benefits of 

$2.3 billion. In response to our contingency 

operations work, DOD has taken steps to 

improve transparency in its funding requests 

and the reliability of its cost reporting. (GAO09-302)

2.08.N. Improving DOD’s Sexual Assault 

Prevention and Response Program: In 

our report on DOD’s program to prevent 

and respond to incidents of sexual assault, 

we made a number of recommendations to 

improve implementation of the program, 

for example, by analyzing installation-level 

assault data to better target resources and 

evaluating factors that may discourage 

servicemembers from accessing mental health 

services following an assault. As a result of 

this work, DOD is currently developing a 

centralized database of assault incidents and 

has completed an assessment of the military 

health system’s support of the program, and 
GAO-10-234SP 133

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Army Central Command and individual bases 

have taken actions in response to our site 

visits. (GAO-08-924)

2.09.N. Assessing the U.S. Military 

Drawdown in Iraq: In our report, we 

recommended that the Secretary of Defense, 

in consultation with U.S. Central Command 

and the military departments, take steps to 

clarify the chain of command over logistical 

operations in support of the retrograde 

effort—movement of materiel from Iraq 

to Kuwait. Recently, DOD officials told 

us that this report formed the basis for 

a restructuring of the logistical chain of 

command in support of the retrograde effort. 

Specifically the 1st Theater Sustainment 

Command was put in charge of the 

retrograde effort, while several supporting 

organizations were also emplaced to assist the 

command in this mission. (GAO-08-930) 

2.10.N. Assessing DOD’s Ability to 

Provide Trained and Ready Forces for 

Military Operations: In numerous reports 

and testimonies on military operations in 

Iraq and Afghanistan, we identified actions 

to improve DOD’s ability to provide trained 

and ready forces, supply and reset equipment, 

strengthen force protection for deployed 

troops, and plan for troop drawdown. Our 

work has helped frame significant issues 

for congressional and public debate, and 

prompted DOD and the Congress to take 

action. For example, the Congress has 

required DOD to report on plans to improve 

supply distribution in support of operational 

commanders. (GAO-09-380T, GAO-09-

220R, GAO-09-720, GAO-07-807) 

2.11.N. Providing the Impetus for 

Weapon System Acquisition Reform: 

Over the years, GAO has recommended 

changes in DOD’s requirements, funding, and 

acquisition processes to help prevent poor 

program outcomes, such as cost growth in 

major weapon programs, which cumulatively 

amounted to almost $300 billion (fiscal 

year 2009 dollars) for DOD’s 2008 portfolio 

of major defense programs. The President 

and congressional defense committees 

have cited our work as an impetus for the 

Weapon System Acquisition Reform Act of 

2009. The act emphasizes improving cost 

estimates, assessing technological maturity, 

and conducting early disciplined systems 

engineering, as recommended in GAO’s body 

of work on weapons programs. (GAO-09-

295R, GAO-08-619, GAO-08-1060, GAO-01-

288, GAO/NSIAD-99-162) 

2.12.N. Reducing Spending on and 

Terminating Poor-Performing Defense 

Programs: In 2009, GAO reported on the 

performance and risks in many of DOD’s 

major defense acquisitions programs. We 

found that DOD’s portfolio has grown from 

77 to 96 programs and its investment has 

grown from $1.2 trillion to $1.6 trillion 

(fiscal year 2009 dollars). The administration 

used our work to identify over $7 billion in 

potential budget reductions for fiscal year 

2010 and to terminate some poor performing 

programs. Also, subsequent to our report on 

the technical and financial risks in the $159 

billion Future Combat System program, a 

major portion of the program was terminated. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) estimates that this will result in net 

savings of $22.9 billion. (GAO-09-326SP,

GAO-09-288, GAO-09-338, GAO-07-866) 

2.13.C. Reducing Risks Facing the 

Global Positioning System: In 2009, GAO 

identified risks in acquisition programs 

supporting the Global Positioning System 

(GPS) that could lead to degradation in 

capability that supports vital military 

operations, the transportation sector, 

search and rescue operations, and computer 

networks and other infrastructures that rely 

on GPS for synchronizing purposes. GAO’s 
134 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

work focused worldwide attention on the 

need for better coordination and oversight 

for GPS. As a result, officials from DOD and 

other federal agencies, other countries, and 

the commercial sector are fully aware of the 

concerns with the GPS program and the need 

to address acquisition delays and plan for 

potential impacts. (GAO-09-325) 

2.14.C. Improving Management of DOD’s 

Contractors Supporting Contingency 

Operations: GAO’s examination of 

DOD’s reliance on contractor support for 

contingency operations has resulted in 

numerous recommendations and DOD 

actions. For example, in response to our 

recommendations DOD has taken the 

following actions: (1) issued new DOD-wide 

guidance that establishes DOD’s doctrine 

for managing and overseeing contractors 

in contingency operations, (2) developed 

training programs on contractor management 

for forces deploying to Iraq and Afghanistan, 

and (3) undertaken a review of its use of 

contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan intended 

to determine if DOD relies too heavily on 

contractors in contingency operations. (GAO09-362T, GAO-09-615, GAO-09-114R,

GAO-08-1087) 

2.15.C. Enhancing Defense Base 

Realignment and Closure Accountability: 

The 2005 Base Realignment and Closure 

(BRAC) round is the fifth round undertaken 

by DOD since 1988 and is the biggest, most 

complex, and costliest BRAC round ever. 

Our analyses of DOD’s BRAC budget led to 

a recommendation that DOD take action to 

better explain its anticipated dollar savings 

after full BRAC implementation in 2011. In 

response, DOD for the first time provided 

a more descriptive explanation of these 

expected dollar savings in its 2009 budget 

submission to the Congress. (GAO-09-217,

GAO-08-159)

Advance and protect U.S. 

international Interests

2.16.N. Accounting for Weapons Provided 

to Afghan National Security Forces: 

We found that DOD did not establish clear 

guidance for U.S. personnel to follow when 

obtaining, transporting, and storing weapons 

for Afghan national security forces. This 

led to significant lapses in accountability, 

including failure to maintain complete 

records for over half of the 375,000 weapons 

reported to have been shipped to Afghanistan. 

Moreover, despite U.S. training efforts, 

Afghan forces could not fully safeguard 

and account for weapons and sensitive 

equipment. As a result of our review and 

recommendations, DOD revised its weapons 

accountability procedures to include serial 

number tracking and more systematic 

inventory checks. (GAO-09-267, GAO-09-

366T) 

2.17.C. Combating Firearms Trafficking 

to Mexico: We found that the U.S. 

government lacks a coordinated strategy to 

stem the flow of firearms from the United 

States to Mexico. We also found that over 

20,000 firearms seized in Mexico were traced 

to the United States—about 87 percent of 

arms traced from 2004 to 2008; U.S. agencies 

lack dedicated funding to address arms 

trafficking; and two key agencies responsible 

for combating arms trafficking—the Bureau 

of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives 

(ATF) and ICE—have not coordinated 

efforts. Following the release of our report, 

ATF and ICE officials signed a memorandum 

of understanding clarifying arms-trafficking 

roles. (GAO-09-781T, GAO-07-709) 

2.18.C. Building Capacity in Iraq: 

Building a sustainable and accountable Iraqi 

government is essential to U.S. efforts in 

Iraq. In a June 2009 report, we found that the 

Department of State (State) could not ensure 
GAO-10-234SP 135

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

that its capacity-building program in Iraq 

was achieving its objective to build provincial 

government capacity. We recommended 

that State fix critical management control 

weaknesses. In response, State assigned an 

overall manager for its program, accepted 

our recommendation to develop outcome 

measures of program effectiveness, and 

agreed to report to the Congress on Iraqi 

government matching contributions to the 

program. (GAO-09-526) 

2.19.C. Enhancing Food Aid through 

Local and Regional Procurement: We 

found local and regional procurement (LRP) 

food aid generally costs less than U.S. inkind food aid. LRP has a shorter delivery 

time to sub-Saharan Africa than food 

procured internationally. Better market data 

can mitigate LRP’s potential for adverse 

market impacts. U.S. legal requirements to 

procure U.S.-grown agricultural commodities 

and transport up to 75 percent of them 

on U.S. flag vessels may constrain use of 

LRP. Properly implemented, LRP offers 

opportunities for delivery of food aid to 

hungry people. Our work has informed the 

Congress’s deliberations on proposed global 

food security legislation, which includes 

provisions for LRP. (GAO-09-570, GAO-09-

757T)

2.20.C. Improving Management of Cuba 

Program Democracy Grant Funds: In 

2008 we reported steps the U.S. Agency for 

International Development (USAID) had 

taken to improve award and oversight of 

Cuba Program democracy grant funds, which 

address problems we reported in 2006. Our 

2008 report noted several USAID actions 

responding to misuses of grant funds at 

two organizations with the largest program 

grants. However, as of October 2008, the 

Cuba Program was not staffed as needed 

for appropriate oversight, and the impact of 

USAID’s recently started efforts to improve 

oversight and reduce risk of further misuse 

of grant funds was not evident. Following 

our 2008 report, USAID stated that it would 

provide sufficient staff for oversight and 

continue monitoring grantee risk. (GAO-07-

147, GAO-09-165) 

Respond to the impact of 

global market forces on 

U.S. economic and security 

interests

2.21.N. Improving DOD Efforts to 

Identify Critical Technologies: The U.S. 

government spends billions on weapons and 

defense-related technologies to maintain 

military superiority. To help safeguard 

these items when they are exported, DOD’s 

Militarily Critical Technologies Program is 

to identify and assess technologies that are 

critical to U.S. military dominance. Based 

on our finding that the military critical 

technologies list was out-dated and rarely 

used and recommendations to address this, 

DOD updated the list and implemented 

procedures to ensure that it is regularly 

reviewed and meets user needs. As a result, 

DOD has a better framework to guide critical 

decisions on what to control and protect. 

(GAO-06-793)

2.22.C. Informing the Congress about 

Federal Oversight and Enforcement 

of the Fair Lending Laws: We reported 

that limitations in data that lenders report 

pursuant to the Home Mortgage Disclosure 

Act undermine the ability of federal agencies 

to identify institutions at heightened risk of 

lending discrimination. Moreover, because 

of the fragmented financial regulatory 

system, lenders that may represent 

higher risks are generally subject to less 

comprehensive oversight than other lenders. 

We recommended that the Congress assess 

options to improve available data and reform 
136 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

the regulatory structure to enhance fair 

lending. The report will be constructive 

to the Congress as it considers legislation 

to revamp the financial regulatory system. 

(GAO-09-704)

2.23.C. Improving Federal Financial 

Literacy Efforts: We testified that the 

federal government’s Financial Literacy and 

Education Commission still did not have a 

true functional strategy for improving the 

nation’s financial literacy that incorporates 

specific plans for roles, funding, and activities. 

However, we reported that as a result of 

previous recommendations we had made, the 

commission had made progress in fostering 

sustainable partnerships among the federal, 

state, local, private, and nonprofit sectors for 

improving the financial literacy of American 

consumers. (GAO-09-638T)

2.24.C. Highlighting the Need for 

Financial Regulatory Reform: The current 

financial crisis illustrated that the fragmented 

regulatory system created over the past 150 

years was not adequate to oversee a 21st 

century financial marketplace. Given the 

failure of the existing system to adequately 

address recent developments, our January 

2009 report provided a framework that 

can be used to help reform the regulatory 

system and to evaluate regulatory proposals 

that have emerged to ensure that any 

new regulatory system is sufficiently 

comprehensive, addresses systemwide risks, 

and adequately protects consumers. Moreover, 

we testified numerous times and presented 

this framework at a variety of conferences. 

(GAO-09-216)

2.25.C. Encouraging SEC to More 

Effectively Protect Investors: Our work 

showed that resource challenges have affected 

the ability of SEC Enforcement Division 

staff to bring enforcement actions effectively 

and efficiently. We recommended that SEC 

enhance communication and utilization of 

resources in the division. Our work helped 

lead to several broad reforms that SEC 

is planning, including reducing a layer of 

management and expediting the enforcement 

process, improving staff training, fostering 

communication among Enforcement Division 

personnel, streamlining internal processes, 

and harnessing technology for operational 

efficiency. (GAO-09-358) 

2.26.C. Considering Trade Measures 

Related to Climate Change: A challenge 

faced by the Congress in addressing global 

climate change is how to encourage firms 

to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without 

harming their international competitiveness 

or causing production and emissions to 

shift abroad. To assist and facilitate Senate 

deliberation on legislative climate proposals, 

we explained key issues regarding estimating 

the effects of emissions pricing, potentially 

vulnerable industries, design trade-offs of 

proposed trade measures, and international 

trade implications. Our report and testimony 

clarified issues for Senate Finance Committee 

members as they addressed trade-related 

measures of a climate bill. (GAO-09-724R) 
GAO-10-234SP 137

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Reexamine the federal 

government’s role in achieving 

evolving national objectives

3.01.N. Strengthening Planning and 

Preparedness for an Influenza Pandemic: 

In the aftermath of the H1N1 influenza 

outbreak, our work helped inform the 

Congress and the new administration about 

significant gaps in federal government 

pandemic influenza planning and 

preparedness efforts. In the summer of 2009, 

our testimony alerted the Congress to the 

need for the federal government to test shared 

federal pandemic leadership roles, update the 

National Pandemic Implementation Plan, 

improve coordination with state and local 

governments and the private sector, and 

monitor agencies’ readiness to protect federal 

workers in a pandemic. The House Homeland 

Security Committee directed DHS and HHS) 

to report on progress by fall 2009. (GAO-09-

909T, GAO-09-783T, GAO-09-404, GAO09-760T, GAO-09-334) 

3.02.C. Evaluating How DOT Exercises 

Foresight: To update the Congress on 

21st century trends and agency efforts 

to keep pace, we designed a “grounded 

foresight” reporting strategy that—while 

acknowledging uncertainty about the 

future—combines discussion of key trends 

and possible directions in the years ahead 

with evaluation of agency decisions, research, 

and communication about these trends. We 

applied this strategy to DOT and highway 

safety trends, including fast-changing 

electronic driver distractions. DOT recently 

announced a “Distraction Summit” aimed at 

moving ahead on distraction issues, such as 

texting while driving. (GAO-09-56) 

Support the transformation 

to results-oriented, highperforming government

3.03.F. Improving Collections of Federal 

Nontax and Criminal Debts: Over the 

past several years, we have promoted federal 

agencies’ increased use of key debt collection 

processes and procedures to improve 

collections of billions of dollars of delinquent 

federal nontax civil debts and criminal 

debts owed to the federal government, and 

made a series of related recommendations. 

Based largely on our recommendations, 

federal agencies, including the Department 

of Education and DOJ, have taken actions to 

improve delinquent federal debt collections. 

Adding to a steady stream of recoveries, these 

improved collections added almost $1.4 billion 

to federal collections during fiscal year 2009. 

(GAO-04-338, GAO-02-313, GAO-01-664) 

3.04.F. Improving IRS’s Methodology 

for Pursuing Delinquent Taxes: For 

many years, we have reported that IRS did 

not have systems or procedures in place to 

Help transform the federal 

government’s role and how 

it does business to meet 

21st century challenges

Strategic

Goal 3

Source: See Image Sources.
138 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

effectively identify and pursue delinquent 

federal tax debts with collection potential. We 

recommended that IRS focus its collection 

resources on tax debts with the greatest 

potential for collection. In response, IRS has 

taken action to implement more sophisticated 

modeling technology to more effectively 

identify delinquent tax debt cases more 

likely to be productive. During fiscal year 

2009, IRS’s records showed that it increased 

collections of delinquent taxes by about $5.7 

billion using approximately the same level of 

resources. (GAO-01-42) 

3.05.F. Monitoring the 2010 Census: In 

March 2008, we placed the 2010 Census on 

our high-risk list, in part because of risks 

associated with the use of the handheld 

computers (HHC) to collect data and 

uncertainty over the cost of the census. 

Our recommendations have helped the U.S. 

Census Bureau to reduce cost and mitigate 

risk. The bureau updated its cost assumption, 

reducing the cost to fingerprint employees by 

approximately $293 million, and improved 

the performance of the HHC. In 2009 during 

the address canvassing operation, while 

there were some technical difficulties with 

the HHCs, those problems were promptly 

resolved and the bureau finished address 

updates ahead of schedule. (GAO-08-554,

GAO-08-550T, GAO-08-886T, GAO-08-

936) 

3.06.N. Improving OMB Oversight and 

Transparency—Federal IT Dashboard: 

Since 2005, we have issued a series of reports 

and testimonies with recommendations 

to OMB for improving its oversight 

and transparency of federal information 

technology (IT) investments. As a result, 

OMB recently used this body of work to 

develop and implement improved processes 

to oversee and increase transparency of 

IT investments. Specifically, in June 2009, 

OMB publicly deployed a “dashboard,” which 

is a Web site clearinghouse of information 

that provides details on all major federal IT 

investments and provides OMB and others 

with the ability to track the progress of 

these investments over time. (GAO-09-624T,

GAO-08-1174T, GAO-08-1051T, GAO-08-

925) 

3.07.N. Improving Governmentwide 

Sharing on Contractor Past Performance 

Information: In 2009, GAO identified 

shortfalls in the governmentwide system 

established to facilitate use of contractor 

past performance information. Given that in 

fiscal year 2007, federal agencies worked with 

over 160,000 contractors, obligating over 

$456 billion, this information is necessary 

to properly evaluate a contractor’s prior 

performance and better inform agencies’ 

contract award decisions. In response to 

our recommendations, the Office of Federal 

Procurement Policy revised the Federal 

Acquisition Regulation to improve past 

performance reporting across government, 

which will help agencies make better contract 

award decisions. (GAO-09-374) 

3.08.N. Improving DHS Acquisition 

Management: DHS obligates billions 

of dollars annually to meet its expansive 

mission—$14 billion in fiscal year 2008 

alone. Over the past several years, GAO 

has identified shortcomings in DHS’s 

management of major acquisitions, including 

insufficient acquisition planning, oversight, 

and workforce, and made recommendations 

to improve acquisition outcomes. In the 

past year, DHS has made efforts to address 

these areas by issuing a revised acquisition 

management directive, establishing 

supporting processes, creating an executive 

position to oversee acquisitions at each 

component agency, and expanding an 

acquisition workforce hiring initiative. (GAO09-30, GAO-09-29, GAO-07-900, GAO-06-

996, GAO-05-179) 
GAO-10-234SP 139

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

3.09.N. Improving DOD’s Business 

Systems Modernization Management: 

Since 2001, our work on DOD’s approach 

to modernizing its business systems, a 

designated high-risk area, has produced 

recommendations to provide a comprehensive 

framework for instituting a successful 

modernization program. In response to our 

work and congressional mandates, DOD has 

made progress implementing key institutional 

modernization management controls. More 

recently, our recommendations were aimed at 

helping DOD better address the formidable 

challenge of ensuring that its thousands of 

business system programs and IT services 

employ acquisition management rigor and 

discipline. (GAO-09-586, GAO-08-462T,

GAO-08-705, GAO-07-733, GAO-07-538) 

3.10.N. Advancing the Implementation 

of Health IT: In a series of reports and 

testimonies, we identified and recommended 

needed improvements in the government’s 

efforts to define and implement a national 

strategy for achieving nationwide adoption 

of health IT. Our work helped the National 

Coordinator for Health IT develop a strategy 

that identified milestones for completing 

important initiatives and achieving strategic 

goals. As we recommended, the strategy 

addressed an overall approach to protecting 

the privacy of electronic health information 

within a nationwide health information 

network and provided guidance for 

addressing challenges associated with putting 

privacy protections in place. (GAO-08-1138,

GAO-07-238, GAO-05-628) 

3.11.C. Improving DOD and VA 

Electronic Health Record Sharing Efforts: 

Through our reports and testimonies, we 

supported increased congressional oversight 

of DOD and VA efforts to develop and 

implement interoperable electronic health 

record systems. This mandated initiative 

is focused on expediting the electronic 

sharing of patient health information 

for military personnel and veterans. By 

raising management issues at congressional 

hearings and recommending resultsfocused improvements in our reports, we 

helped the Congress press DOD and VA to 

continue making progress toward achieving 

interoperable sharing of health information to 

improve the quality and efficiency of health 

care. (GAO-09-775, GAO-09-895T, GAO09-427T, GAO-09-268, GAO-08-1158T) 

3.12.C. Improving Oversight of Two 

Costly but Critical Environmental 

Satellite Programs: We continued to assist 

the Congress with oversight of two satellite 

program acquisitions: the National Polarorbiting Operational Environmental Satellite 

System since 2002 and the Geostationary 

Operational Environmental Satellites-R 

program since 2006. Both will be critical for 

weather forecasting and climate monitoring 

for the next two decades. Our multiple reports 

and testimonies (four in 2009) identifying 

status and risks and recommending 

program improvements have helped focus 

congressional, administration, agency, and 

public attention on these important programs 

and have led to management change and 

more active oversight. (GAO-09-772T, GAO09-546, GAO-09-596T, GAO-09-323, GAO08-518) 

3.13.C. Identifying the Makeup of the 

Senior Executive Service: Having a diverse 

workforce is an organizational strength. We 

enhanced congressional oversight of diversity 

within the Senior Executive Service (SES) by 

reporting for the first time on the average age 

and disability status among SES employees. 

We found that the representation of both 

women and minorities in the SES increased 

governmentwide from October 2000 through 

September 2007 but continued to vary 

significantly among agencies. Average age at 

appointment to the SES and retirement from 
140 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

the SES, at ages 50 and 60, respectively, did 

not vary much by race, ethnicity, or gender. 

Less than 1 percent of SES employees selfreported targeted disabilities. (GAO-09-110) 

Support congressional 

oversight of key management 

challenges and program 

risks to improving federal 

operations and ensuring 

accountability

3.14.F. Reducing Governmentwide 

Improper Payments: Since fiscal year 2000, 

our work has served to increase visibility 

over the extent of federal improper payments 

and contributed to the Congress passing 

the Improper Payments Information Act of 

2002. The provisions of the act responded 

to our recommendations to better estimate, 

publicly report, and reduce federal improper 

payments. For 2008, 22 federal agencies 

reported estimated improper payments 

totaling about $72 billion. With the increased 

scrutiny of improper payments, agencies took 

actions to reduce such payments. We estimate 

reduced federal improper payments of over $1 

billion (present value) during fiscal year 2008. 

(GAO-09-628T, GAO-07-92, GAO-06-347,

GAO-04-99, GAO-02-749) 

3.15.N. Improving Federal Financial 

Reporting: We continued to effect a number 

of significant improvements in federal 

financial reporting disclosures. In the past 

year, the Department of the Treasury took a 

number of actions in response to our findings 

aimed at improving information presented 

in the U.S. government’s consolidated 

financial statements, including more complete 

and accurate disclosure of federal actions 

taken to address the current fiscal crisis 

and disclosures on the extent of federal 

commitments related to potential future 

losses. These additional disclosures improved 

transparency over the federal government’s 

operations, financial condition, and fiscal 

outlook. (GAO-09-387) 

3.16.N. Holding Federal Employees 

Accountable for Transit Benefit Fraud: 

Our investigators identified dozens of federal 

employees who fraudulently sold their transit 

benefits over the Internet. Many of the 

employees admitted to intentionally falsifying 

their benefit applications to receive excess 

benefits. For seven agencies, we determined 

that the amount of potentially fraudulent 

transit benefits claimed during 2006 in 

the National Capital Region was at least 

$17 million and likely more. Agencies took 

action to hold federal employees accountable 

based on our work. For example, one DOT 

employee repaid $1,440 and resigned in 

lieu of removal, while a Department of 

Commerce employee was fired and criminally 

prosecuted. (GAO-07-724T) 

3.17.C. Strengthening DOD Financial 

Management Strategic Planning: We have 

long reported on pervasive weaknesses in 

DOD’s financial management operations and 

related strategic plans necessary to provide 

a foundation for effective transformation. 

We have recommended numerous actions 

to help guide DOD’s strategic financial and 

business transformation plans. In response, 

DOD leadership has begun taking steps to 

align planned actions with strategic goals 

and to incorporate strategic planning best 

practices. Our recommendations strengthen 

DOD’s ability to make steady progress 

toward transforming its financial and related 

business operations to effectively support 

achieving critical mission goals. (GAO-09-

373, GAO-08-866, GAO-09-460T, GAO-08-

462T) 
GAO-10-234SP 141

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

3.18.C. Assessing Technologies to 

Understand the Effects of Technological 

Applications: From 2002 to 2006, in 

response to the appropriations committees’ 

direction to establish a technology assessment 

pilot program at GAO, we completed four 

technology assessment reports. Based on the 

positive response to the pilot program, the 

appropriations committees asked GAO to 

continue conducting technology assessments 

on a permanent basis. GAO’s conduct of 

technology assessments will provide the 

Congress with information regarding 

the effects of scientific and technical 

developments on its legislative process. 

(GAO-05-380, GAO-04-321, GAO-03-174) 

3.19.C. Enhancing Federal Inspector 

General Oversight: Over the past few years, 

we reported on opportunities to improve 

federal inspectors general (IG) oversight, 

including concerns over whether IGs had 

sufficient independence to fully exercise 

their authorities, for example, insulation 

from arbitrary removal. Consistent with our 

findings, the Congress passed the IG Reform 

Act of 2008 to strengthen IGs’ independence 

and provide statutory authority for an 

independent council to oversee IGs’ integrity. 

This legislation should help strengthen 

federal agency IGs’ role in helping ensure 

that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and 

effectively. (GAO-09-88, GAO-09-524T,

GAO-09-660R, GAO-09-270) 

Analyze the government’s 

fiscal position and strengthen 

approaches for addressing the 

current and projected fiscal 

gap

3.20.F. Improving Disaster Cost 

Estimates Reduced Unneeded FEMA 

Appropriations: In 2008, we examined the 

$1.9 billion request for FEMA’s fiscal year 

2009 disaster relief budget. We reported 

that FEMA had underestimated the funds 

it might recover from prior year obligations 

and identified a potential reduction of $850 

million that it would not need. Fiscal year 

2009 appropriations for DHS provided 

only $1.4 billion for disaster relief—a $500 

million reduction of unneeded funds—and 

transferred an additional $121.6 million from 

disaster relief to other DHS accounts. In total, 

$621.6 million in financial benefits resulted 

from this GAO work. (Based on a budget 

justification review) 

3.21.C. Improving the Design of Federal 

User Fees and the Operations They 

Fund: Agencies improved their fee-based 

operations and their cost information based 

on recommendations we made to improve 

forecasting assumptions, better audit fee 

collections, and jointly review and report on 

certain inspection fees for commercial vessels. 

Our work also informed congressional 

deliberations on immigration user fees and 

helped improve fee-based immigration 

operations by ensuring that contractor 

invoices reflect services actually received. 

Our User Fee Design Guide is used by federal, 

international, and local governments to 

inform the design and review of user fees. 

(GAO-09-70, GAO-09-180, GAO-08-386SP,

GAO-08-321, GAO-07-1131) 

3.22.C. Reducing the Tax Gap: In 2009, 

IRS agreed to implement recommendations 

we made to reduce noncompliance in 

reporting rental real estate income, 

miscellaneous income, and deductions for 

home mortgage interest and real estate taxes. 

Other work showed that requiring federal 

tax compliance to qualify for states’ business 

licenses and increasing sole proprietors’ 

compliance by improving information 

reporting could improve tax compliance. 

Legislation has been introduced consistent 

with our recommendations to require 
142 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

payees to report payments to corporations 

and to grant IRS more time to investigate 

the compliance of individuals with offshore 

transactions. (GAO-09-478T, GAO-09-238,

GAO-09-769, GAO-09-521, GAO-08-956) 
GAO-10-234SP 143

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Maximize the value of GAO 

by being a model federal 

agency and a world-class 

professional services 

organization

Strategic

Goal 4

Improve client and customer 

satisfaction and stakeholder 

relationships

4.01.C. Strengthening Communication 

with Our Congressional Clients and 

Our Stakeholders: We strengthened 

communications with our clients and agency 

stakeholders by reaching out to numerous 

members of the Congress and senior 

agency officials during the transition to the 

new administration and new Congress to 

highlight a number of pressing issues that 

demand urgent attention and continuing 

oversight to ensure the nation’s security and 

well-being. We also discussed persistent 

management challenges facing the federal 

government and opportunities for reducing 

federal expenditures with these officials. 

In addition, we improved our communications 

to our clients and the public by enhancing 

and expanding our use of Web technology to 

more effectively provide timely information 

on critical issues facing the nation, for 

example by

■ implementing the 2009 Congressional 

and Presidential Transition section on our 

external Web site, which provided short 

video summaries and references to GAO 

products on the major issues facing the 

new Congress and the new administration 

and contributed to increased hits to GAO’s 

Web site by over 65 percent within 2 

weeks after its launch; 

■ implementing the Following the Money: 

GAO’s Oversight of the Recovery Act

section on our Web site, enabling the 

public to review Web content and link 

to documentation supporting GAO’s 

oversight of the Recovery Act and 

demonstrating the agency’s commitment 

to ensuring the transparency of 

the actions we are taking to ensure 

effective implementation of the act—our 

legislatively mandated bimonthly reports 

and related testimonies are consistently 

among the most downloaded products 

from our Web site; 

■ improving our external Web site in 

response to continuous monitoring of user 

feedback by, for example, adding topical 

collections that bring together products in 

areas of current interest; and

■ implementing a GAO channel on YouTube 

and an information feed to Twitter 

to increase public awareness of GAO 

products and mission.

4.02.C. Assessing Internal Customer 

Satisfaction with Our Services and 

Processes and Implementing and 

Measuring Improvement Efforts: We 

conducted GAO’s sixth annual customer 

satisfaction survey in November 2008. Fiscal 

Source: See Image Sources.
144 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

year 2009 is the fourth year in which we 

reported how well we performed against the 

targets we set for our internal operations 

measures on services in two categories—how 

well our internal operations (1) help employees 

get their jobs done and (2) improve employees’ 

quality of work life. Fifty-six percent of our 

staff provided input. On a scale of 1 to 5, we 

met our target of “4” for both categories of 

services. Survey data provide us information 

on our administrative services that we use to 

proactively identify areas to address customer 

issues and recommendations. In addition, we 

implemented an individualized automated 

e-mail reminder to encourage nonrespondents 

to reply, which helped to significantly 

increase our response rate 13 points over 

last year. We also implemented multiple 

improvements in response to customer 

feedback that are discussed in other sections 

of this report. 

4.03.C. Strengthening Relationships 

with External National and International 

Audit Organizations: We contributed 

to implementing strong standards in the 

accountability profession and capacity 

building through our relationships with both 

domestic and international accountability 

organizations by 

■ assuming chairmanship of the new 

International Organization of Supreme 

Audit Institutions (INTOSAI) Task 

Force on the Global Financial Crisis and 

engaging speakers from accountability 

organizations, private foundations, the 

World Bank, and the International 

Monetary Fund, which enhanced our 

knowledge of the financial crisis, helped us 

identify emerging issues, and strengthened 

our relationships with auditors general 

around the world;

■ organizing meetings with the National 

Intergovernmental Audit Forum (NIAF), 

which focused on the presidential and 

congressional transitions and financial 

crisis, and a meeting of the new Council 

of Inspectors General on Integrity and 

Efficiency;

■ sponsoring 16 fellows from 13 countries 

through our International Auditor 

Fellowship program to contribute to 

increasing the capacity of supreme audit 

institutions around the globe to fulfill 

their missions and enhance accountability 

and governance worldwide; 

■ organizing a number of meetings with 

the domestic audit community to enhance 

the capability of audit agencies at all 

levels of government to prevent fraud, 

waste, and abuse of federal funds, which 

is particularly important now given the 

substantial increase in federal funding to 

state and local governments under the 

Recovery Act; 

■ facilitating the refinement of legislation 

to reform the Single Audit Act, an 

important step in enhancing compliance 

with professional standards by states 

and localities and their contractors when 

auditing federal funds; and 

■ chairing the INTOSAI task force on the 

donor funding initiative and playing a 

key role in developing a memorandum 

of understanding that brought together 

INTOSAI and donor organizations to 

support the supreme audit institutions 

in developing countries—work that 

will contribute to providing important 

oversight of U.S. funds provided to these 

countries. 
GAO-10-234SP 145

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

Lead strategically to achieve 

enhanced results 

4.04.C. Enhancing our Integrated 

Workforce Planning and Budgeting 

Process: We seamlessly implemented 

unprecedented new legislative responsibilities 

and a delayed budget in fiscal year 2009 

through enhanced techniques and processes 

in our integrated workforce planning and 

budgeting process. We

■ employed sophisticated modeling 

techniques using actual and projected 

workforce data to continuously ensure 

effective staff utilization;

■ used creative, alternative hiring measures 

to obtain needed expertise and subject area 

knowledge to respond to new legislative 

responsibilities under the Troubled Asset 

Relief Program; 

■ further expanded our portfolio of hiring 

approaches to quickly hire needed 

expertise and resources in response to the 

challenge of expeditiously staffing up to 

meet new mandated requirements under 

the Recovery Act to “follow the money”; 

■ responded to new legislative 

responsibilities by swiftly developing 

workforce assessment tools and shifting 

resources across units; and

■ developed and issued a workforce planning 

guide to facilitate internal and external 

understanding of the process we use to 

manage resources needed to meet the 

agency’s strategic goals and objectives. 

4.05.C Enhancing Strategic Planning 

Processes: We helped enhance governance 

in the domestic and global audit and 

accountability community by sharing our 

knowledge and experience in strategic 

planning with INTOSAI and NIAF by (1) 

leading the INTOSAI strategic plan task 

force that is charged with updating the 

plan for 2011 through 2016 and providing 

critical support to the plan’s development 

and dissemination and (2) working with the 

NIAF Executive Committee on revising 

and implementing the forum’s charter and 

membership. 

4.06C. Achieving External Recognition: 

We received the following external 

recognition during fiscal year 2009:

■ Certificate of Excellence in Accountability 

Reporting from the Association of 

Government Accountants for the eighth 

year in a row;

■ American Inhouse Design awards for 

three of our products—the Fiscal Year 

2008 Performance and Accountability Report, 

the Fiscal Year 2008 Citizen’s Report, and 

GAO’s 2009 diversity poster;

■ American Graphic Design Award from 

Graphic Design USA for the GAO Cost 

Estimating and Assessment Guide, Best 

Practices for Developing and Managing 

Capital Program Costs (GAO-09-3SP);

■ Silver Communicator Award in Excellence 

and Distinction from the International 

Academy of Arts and a MarCom Gold 

Award for Excellence in Creative 

Communication by the Association 

of Marketing and Communication 

Professionals for the GAO Overview video;

■ Excellence in Enterprise Architecture 

award for leadership in enterprise-driven 

results; and

■ Government Energy Leader award from 

the World Energy Engineering Congress. 
146 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

4.07.C. Strengthening Our Strategic 

Human Capital Management to Achieve 

Enhanced Results: We issued an interim 

human capital strategic plan that establishes 

several areas for short-term concentration, 

which will be our blueprint for human capital 

projects over the next 12 to 18 months, and 

includes taking steps to recruit a diverse 

workforce, enhance employee engagement, 

and leverage data and technology solutions to 

improve our human capital service delivery.

We honored our commitment to bargain in 

good faith and maintain a positive working 

relationship with the union, which resulted 

in successfully negotiating our 2009 

pay agreement and an interim collective 

bargaining agreement.

We conducted a comprehensive study of 

our recruiting and hiring programs that 

established baseline data on the results of our 

recruiting and hiring efforts and resulted in 

our establishing an overarching recruiting 

goal and several objectives, such as enhancing 

representation of certain demographic groups. 

We redesigned and expanded our learning 

programs to leverage technology solutions 

and enhance leadership and career 

progression programs, while taking into 

account increasing constraints on staff time 

and fiscal resources. We 

■ piloted a “virtual classroom” using the 

Internet and a teleconferencing bridge to 

connect staff from their homes and offices 

in headquarters and the field;

■ introduced a bundled delivery approach to 

transition workshops and leadership skills 

programs, resulting in more efficient use 

of travel dollars and adjunct faculty time 

and improvement in the ability of staff to 

complete required training programs in a 

timely manner;

■ developed and implemented a certification 

workshop to expand the number of staff 

qualified to serve as facilitators for GAO 

training;

■ designed and implemented eight new 

leadership courses for Band IIs and 

Administrative Professional and Support 

Staff (APSS) staff and six new classes 

for Band IIIs, including courses to help 

supervisors provide feedback to their staff 

and receive feedback on themselves via a 

360-degree feedback tool; and 

■ launched 25 courses that constitute the 

first unified learning track for APSS staff. 

We also took a number of steps to ensure 

that our performance management system 

provides for a fair and equitable assessment of 

all staff performance by

■ implementing a standardized appraisal 

review process for all staff assessed during 

annual reviews as well as for staff in 

GAO’s development programs who are 

assessed every 6 months;

■ conducting GAO-wide reviews of appraisal 

data;

■ monitoring appraisal data on Professional 

Development Program entry-level staff 

and Band IIA staff, between entry-level 

and journeymen level;

■ tracking data on midpoint and end-of-year 

feedback processes to ensure that staff 

received feedback; and 

■ performing a comprehensive evaluation 

of our performance appraisal system, 

including content analysis of past feedback 

on the system, 53 interviews and 28 focus 

groups with managers and employees, 

implementing an agencywide survey 

that had a 67 percent response rate and 
GAO-10-234SP 147

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

solicited over 5,000 comments, and 

assessing findings from the 2008 African 

American Performance Assessment Study. 

We installed, on time and slightly under 

budget, an integrated Web-based human 

capital management system that will provide 

transaction processing and a broad range 

of improved applications, services, and 

information to human capital staff, managers, 

and employees, and will be fully implemented 

in fiscal year 2010.

4.08.C. Ensuring Sound Financial 

Practices and Robust Systems in Our 

Fiscal Operations:

We took several steps to refine processes 

and controls and add new capabilities in our 

financial operations in fiscal year 2009. We

■ successfully completed our first financial 

audit under our new financial management 

system, receiving an unqualified, or 

“clean,” opinion in November 2008; 

■ created an internal Recovery Act oversight 

task force with representatives from all 

mission support areas to ensure proper 

accounting and oversight of our new 

appropriation under the act;

■ implemented additional internal controls 

in the GAO Purchase Card Program by 

reducing the number of cardholders and 

performing audits on all transactions;

■ achieved savings in the GAO Purchase 

Card Program by automating the bill 

payment process and paying charges on 

a daily basis, which resulted in rebates of 

more than $29,000; 

■ selected a new, fully integrated online 

reservation booking and document 

processing travel system, which will 

move GAO from a manual travel booking 

process to an online automated process, 

that will be implemented in fiscal year 

2010;

■ began quarterly reporting on our 

statement of net costs and conducted 

fluctuation analyses using the capabilities 

provided in our new financial management 

system; and

■ fully implemented the interface between 

our automated procurement system and 

our financial management system.

4.09.C. Enhancing IT Governance by 

Applying Best Practices in IT Processes 

and Management: In order to deliver and 

manage measurably efficient and effective IT 

services that align with the current and future 

needs of GAO, we began implementation of 

the Information Technology Infrastructure 

Library framework (ITIL). We developed an 

implementation plan, trained over 80 percent 

of technology staff, and obtained a suite 

of tools that will be implemented in fiscal 

year 2010 to provide automated support for 

implementation of ITIL processes. 

We developed and implemented a centralized, 

Web-based repository of GAO’s architectural 

information that will be utilized by GAO 

executives for investment decisions, midlevel 

management for infrastructure improvements 

and efficiencies of scale, and operational staff 

for logistics support. 

Leverage our institutional 

knowledge and experience 

4.10.C. Increasing Our KnowledgeSharing Capability: We supported formal 

and informal initiatives that significantly 

improve our knowledge-sharing capability 

internally and externally. We
148 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

■ developed an agencywide communication 

strategy that outlines how GAO provides 

authoritative information to staff on a wide 

range of issues and that uses the newly 

redesigned intranet as the central tool for 

the agency’s primary communications, 

■ supported informal information sharing 

through creation of a GAO Wiki—with 

approximately one-third of our staff 

trained to enter and edit content—that 

allows staff to share lessons learned 

and institutional knowledge and discuss 

emerging issues, and 

■ implemented our first reader survey of 

both internal and external readers of 

the GAO Management News to identify 

suggestions for enhancing the content and 

format. 

We leveraged the National Association 

of State Auditors, Controllers, and 

Treasurers teleconferencing infrastructure, 

which enabled us to engage in regular 

teleconferences with principals in the 

accountability community on our Recovery 

Act work, including the IGs, 50 state auditors, 

and several hundred of local auditors, and 

saved us the cost of the teleconferences. 

We took steps to support technology 

solutions for information sharing among the 

domestic and international accountability 

community by

■ hosting the FedEval.net Web site in 

support of domestic federal, state, and 

local auditing agencies;

■ operating and maintaining the 

International Journal of Government 

Auditing Web site for the international 

community and developing a plan for 

short-, medium-, and long-term activities 

to improve the form, function, and utility 

of the Journal with a special emphasis on 

enhancing the journal’s Web presence 

to promote knowledge-sharing and 

advancing capacity building; and 

■ taping NIAF meetings to provide access 

to the discussions and no-cost training to 

GAO staff and the NIAF community. 

We continued to participate in a number 

of efforts under legislative branch councils, 

including

■ identifying technology solutions related 

to improving fiscal operations for the 

legislative branch;

■ coordinating an effort to promote a 

cross-council information-sharing 

program that will cover topics such as 

financial management, acquisitions, human 

resources, and IT; and 

■ contributing to savings of more than 

$2.7 million through implementation 

of common contracts and acquisition 

activities in 2007 and 2008. 

Enhance our business and 

management processes

4.11.C. Streamlining the Engagement 

Process and Improving Engagement 

Services: We took a number of steps in fiscal 

year 2009 to assist in engagement design 

and support and to simplify and clarify our 

product development and issuance processes. 

We

■ revised 36 guidance documents on 

applied research tools and methods to 

help engagement teams better plan and 

implement assignments;

■ enhanced and standardized the design 

and implementation of Web-based surveys 

to facilitate (1) efficient data capture and 

analysis, which was essential to support 
GAO-10-234SP 149

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

the many staff conducting Recovery Act 

audit work across 16 states, and (2) reuse 

for subsequent efforts given our recurrent 

reporting responsibilities under the act; 

■ upgraded our automated time and 

attendance system to provide an automated 

process for GAO staff to regularly affirm 

their independence, which is required by 

government auditing standards for all staff 

working on engagements;

■ developed a target architecture and 

multiyear program plan for an overhaul of 

GAO’s engagement and work management 

systems; 

■ developed and implemented publishing 

process improvements designed to both 

simplify and standardize operations among 

product assistance groups and teams and 

maximize use of available resources;

■ developed and implemented a 

production calendar template to enhance 

understanding of the production 

process for engagements and facilitate 

communications between publications staff 

and customers; 

■ developed and implemented standard 

operating procedures for GAO’s product 

tracking system to ensure consistent use 

of the system, and enhanced the system to 

provide product status;

■ developed and piloted a color palette 

to enhance the appearance of our audit 

products using colors that translate well 

to grayscale and support accessibility 

standards for the visually impaired, while 

not adding costs; and

■ expanded e-dissemination to other 

products, such as special publications, 

which continues to reduce the costs of 

printing.

4.12.C. Improving our Administrative 

and Management Processes and Using 

Enabling Technology to Improve 

Crosscutting Processes: We made system 

improvements to aid in performance 

management and travel support. Specifically, 

we

■ created a more current and user-friendly 

interface for all performance management–

related data in our competency based 

performance system by improving 

formatting capabilities and providing 

GAO-wide reviewers access to both 

individual appraisals and unit-level 

statistical data; 

■ enhanced our performance system to 

facilitate the capture and review of 

individual development plans for specific 

performance appraisal periods and provide 

the capability for unit-level reporting 

on development plan participation and 

the nature of requested developmental 

activities; and

■ implemented a new procedure for 

obtaining feedback from staff on our travel 

agent. 

We also made several contracting 

improvements for IT support services. We

■ consolidated firewall support, remote 

access connectivity, Internet Protocol 

service, and wide area network service 

into a single contract to obtain improved 

service and reduced costs and 

■ began using performance-based 

contracting for information systems 

operations and engineering labor support, 

including for delivery of help desk and 

logistics support, and enterprise network 

services.
150 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

Become a professional 

services employer of choice 

4.13.C. Promoting an Environment That 

Is Fair and Unbiased and That Values 

Opportunity and Inclusiveness: We 

demonstrated our commitment to ensuring 

a fair and inclusive work environment by 

continuing implementation of initiatives under 

our framework for management improvement 

and actions in our Workforce Diversity Plan, 

including

■ fostering and enhancing relationships 

with our employee advisory groups by 

providing multiple opportunities for staff 

to engage agency leadership in enhancing 

human capital programs;

■ establishing and staffing a new 

executive-level position of Special 

Assistant to the Acting Comptroller 

General for Diversity Issues;

■ conducting workshops on preventing 

sexual harassment and briefing managers 

on the Americans with Disabilities Act and 

our reasonable accommodation process; 

■ re-issuing an equal employment 

opportunity policy statement;

■ updating our Workforce Diversity Plan, 

which includes recommendations for 

ensuring that GAO fosters inclusive 

workplace practices and identifies areas 

that need continued attention; 

■ developing and conducting approximately 

130 facilitated conversations on race and 

ethnicity from October 2008 to January 

2009 with approximately 80 percent of 

GAO staff attending; 

■ monitoring implementation of our intern 

program guidelines to ensure that all 

interns are provided with a core group of 

experiences that will help them make good 

decisions about working at GAO; 

■ implementing a survey for staff completing 

our entry-level development programs to 

assess the quality of the development and 

support they were provided; and 

■ completing an analysis of the rotational 

program for developmental analysts to 

determine the impact, if any, of rotations 

on engagements. 

4.14.C. Providing Tools, Technology, and 

a World-class Working Environment: We 

implemented several initiatives to provide 

staff with modern technology and easy access 

to GAO systems. We

■ replaced all staff-assigned laptops and 

selected workstations with laptops with 

larger storage capacity, faster processing 

power, wireless capability, and added 

security features;

■ upgraded the cellular antennae system 

to provide expanded coverage in the 

headquarters building, enabling better 

connectivity; and

■ improved remote access capability to 

accommodate 2,000 concurrent user 

connections to ensure adequate access 

during inclement weather or pandemic flu.

We also negotiated new lease agreements for 

our offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Norfolk, 

and San Francisco. Work space designs have 

been developed and construction has begun 

in Chicago; construction in other offices will 

occur in fiscal year 2010.
GAO-10-234SP 151

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

4.15.C. Providing a Safe and Secure 

Workplace: We took several steps to ensure 

that we provide a safe and secure work 

environment for our employees. 

■ We upgraded electronic security systems 

in two field offices and conducted an 

assessment for integrating field office 

systems into headquarters’ system. 

■ We enhanced our emergency preparedness 

program by implementing a Web-based 

emergency operations center—WebEOC—

to support fast and effective decision 

making about incident response through 

real-time information sharing; improving 

identification of shelter-in-place locations; 

and implementing emergency e-mail and 

automated phone notification capabilities. 

■ We opened for competitive bids a 

new security guard force contract at 

headquarters to strengthen the contract 

requirements, address areas of concern, 

and gain efficiencies by merging two 

separate contracts into one. 

■ We initiated security reviews on employees 

whose investigations are over 15 years old 

to meet Homeland Security Presidential 

Directive 12 requirements. 

■ We completed phase 1 of an alternate 

computing facility upgrade that enhances 

access and communications capabilities 

in the event of a disaster that shuts down 

IT systems in headquarters. The facility 

is able to support 500 concurrent remote 

users with Web-based e-mail capability, 

Internet access, and remote desktop 

functionality similar to the services 

available via systems at headquarters. 

Implementation of the facility upgrade 

resulted in a cost avoidance of over 

$200,000 a year through use of Houseowned fiber technology.

■ We implemented Tripwire—a network 

security feature that facilitates 

standardization of system configurations, 

supports a more refined configuration 

management process, detects authorized 

and unauthorized changes to network 

systems, and streamlines the validation of 

security compliance. 

■ We completed implementation of desktop 

security upgrades that meet OMB 

memorandum M-06-16 requirements for 

encrypting all sensitive data on mobile 

computers and devices. We combined this 

effort with our laptop replacement project 

so all employees have this capability, 

regardless of the security level of their 

work. The capability encrypts all data on 

a user’s laptop and provides authentication 

to the desktop. 

■ We continued to implement our 

information security program that includes 

security awareness training to staff, 

contractors, and other users of agency 

systems on the agency’s security policies 

and procedures, the information security 

risks associated with user activities, and 

individuals’ responsibilities for complying 

with agency policies and procedures. 

Additional training is provided to users 

who have been identified as having 

significant security-related responsibilities. 

The security awareness video used in this 

training was updated to reflect current 

technologies, such as antivirus software 

and encryption, in use to protect GAO 

assets.
152 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

As required by section 11 of the GAO Human 

Capital Reform Act of 2004 (Pub. L. No. 

108-271), GAO is reporting actions that have 

taken place in fiscal year 2009 under sections 

2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, and 10. 

Section 2 of the GAO Human Capital Reform 

Act of 2004 made permanent GAO’s authority 

to offer voluntary early retirements and 

separation incentive payments. GAO did not 

offer its employees an agencywide voluntary 

early retirement opportunity in fiscal year 

2009, but did permit employees to apply 

for voluntary early retirement outside of 

an open season. The use of this authority 

supported efforts to ensure that GAO had 

the appropriate numbers and skill mix of 

employees to respond to the requests of 

congressional clients. Five employees applied 

for voluntary early retirement under this 

authority; two applicants were approved, two 

applicants were denied, and one applicant 

withdrew the application. Because of high 

costs, GAO did not authorize any voluntary 

incentive payments, for the reasons indicated 

in prior performance and accountability 

reports.

Section 3 of the act, codified at 31 U.S.C. 

§ 732(c)(3), authorizes the Comptroller 

General to determine the amount of the 

annual pay adjustments provided to GAO 

employees and prescribes the factors to be 

considered in making this determination. In 

September 2008, section 2 of the Government 

Accountability Act of 2008 (Pub. L. No. 

110-323) added subsection (j) to 31 U.S.C. 

§ 732 that set a minimum adjusted amount 

that employees must receive if they were 

performing satisfactorily. Subsection (j) 

requires that if an employee’s total increase 

from both the annual adjustment and 

performance-based compensation (PBC) 

results in an increase to the employee that 

is less than the increase the employee would 

have received under the General Schedule 

(GS) increase for the employee’s locality, 

then the employee is entitled to an increase 

equal to the GS increase. Such increase is 

made effective on the same date that the GS 

increase is effective. Subsection (j) applies 

to all GAO employees except wage grade 

employees, Senior Level (SL) and Senior 

Executive Service (SES) members, and 

employees in a developmental program. 

In determining the amount of the annual 

adjustment for 2009 and consistent with 

subsection 732 (c)(3), the Acting Comptroller 

General considered various data, including 

salary planning data reported by professional 

services, public administration, and general 

industry organizations; the GS adjustment; 

various purchasing power indexes; overall 

budgetary resources; and the possible 

distributions of available funds between 

the annual adjustment and individual PBC. 

For 2009, GAO’s compensation system 

provided that all employees performing at a 

satisfactory level were entitled to receive an 

annual adjustment and to be eligible for PBC 

based on their individual performance. 

Absent a final fiscal year 2009 budget at the 

beginning of the fiscal year, GAO and the 

GAO Employees Association, International 

Federation of Professional and Technical 

Engineers (IFPTE), Local 1921, agreed to 

bifurcate pay negotiations. Initial negotiations 

would cover just the annual adjustment 

component of pay with PBC negotiations 

deferred until the agency’s appropriation was 

finalized. 

2. GAO’s Report on Personnel Flexibilities
GAO-10-234SP 153

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

As a result of the first set of negotiations, 

GAO and IFPTE agreed in April 2009 to an 

annual adjustment equal to the GS increase, 

including locality in each area in which GAO 

has offices. The agreement also provided for 

adjusting salary range minimum, maximum, 

and competitive rates for each of GAO’s five 

geographic zones. Salary range minimum 

rates were increased by the average of the 

GS adjustment(s) (i.e., base plus locality) for 

the locations in each geographic zone. The 

competitive and maximum rates for each 

range in all geographic zones were increased 

by 4.78 percent not to exceed the GS-15, 

step 10-rate applicable to each location. The 

Acting Comptroller General authorized the 

same increases for nonbargaining unit staff. 

The annual adjustment was to be effective 

on January 4, 2009, for all banded 

employees, including developmental staff 

who were performing at a satisfactory level. 

Adjustments were provided without regard to 

salary range maximum rates other than the 

GS-15, step 10 rate. This “annual adjustment” 

satisfied the minimum percentage increase 

required by subsection (j) of title 31. 

After GAO received its final fiscal year 2009 

appropriation in March 2009, subsequent pay 

negotiations were concluded in May 2009 

with an agreement to use a 2.65 percent 

“budget factor” for PBC calculations. In 

addition to establishing this percentage, 

the agreement provided for a new method 

for calculating bargaining unit employees’ 

PBC payout. Rather than the “standardized 

rating score” (SRS), which has been used 

since 2005, the bargaining unit agreed to an 

alternative. The alternative method calculates 

the difference between the employee’s 

appraisal average and the appraisal average 

for a comparison group of staff in the same 

band and organization. To determine the 

percentage of PBC, this difference is added 

to the budget factor (2.65), and the resulting 

percentage is multiplied by the employee’s 

competitive rate. After ratification by 86.2 

percent of union voters, the agreement was 

implemented and PBC was processed in July 

2009 retroactive to January 4, 2009. 

PBC for Administrative Professional and 

Support Staff, Attorneys, and Band III 

Analysts (i.e., nonbargaining unit staff) 

was provided using the same 2.65 percent 

budget factor. However, these groups retained 

the SRS as the method for calculating 

PBC. Rather than the difference between 

the employee’s appraisal average and the 

comparison group average, the SRS measures 

the number of standard deviations between 

these two averages. This number is added 

to the budget factor, and the resulting 

percentage is multiplied by the competitive 

rate.

For all staff, 100 percent of the PBC amount 

was provided as a base pay adjustment not to 

exceed the maximum rate of the employee’s 

pay range. Any PBC amount that could not be 

paid because of the salary cap was provided 

as a lump sum performance bonus (cash 

payment). 

GAO’s SES and SL employees rated “Fully 

Successful” were provided a 2.8 percent pay 

adjustment pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 733(a)(3)

(B) effective January 4, 2009. SES and SL 

members were also eligible for PBC using 

a budget factor of 2.65 percent. PBC was 

provided to the SES and SL staff as a base 

pay increase not to exceed $174,000. At the 

Acting Comptroller General’s discretion, 

remaining amounts were provided as bonuses 

to staff rated “Outstanding” or “Exceeds.” 

Employees of GAO’s Personnel Appeals Board 

and student employees are paid according to 

GS rates, and GAO’s wage grade employees 

are paid according to the Federal Wage 

System (FWS) salary rates. These employees 
154 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

received the same percentage across-theboard adjustment on the same effective date 

as the increases authorized for GS and FWS 

employees in the executive branch. The pay 

ranges for these employees incorporated the 

changes made to the comparable executive 

branch pay ranges. Lastly, in regard to the 

annual pay adjustment for employees, there 

were no extraordinary economic conditions or 

budgetary constraints that had a significant 

impact on the determination of the annual pay 

adjustment.

Section 4 of the act authorizes the 

Comptroller General to place employees 

on pay retention; however, there were no 

employees on pay retention at GAO during 

fiscal year 2009.

Section 6 of the act authorizes the 

Comptroller General to increase the annual 

leave accrual rate for officers and employees 

in high-grade managerial or supervisory 

positions who have less than 3 years of federal 

service. In fiscal year 2009, GAO increased 

the annual leave accrual rate of seven 

employees as an incentive to retain them.

Section 7 of the act authorized GAO to 

establish an Executive Exchange Program, 

to bring executives from private industry 

to work on special projects at GAO and to 

permit GAO officers and employees to be 

assigned to private sector organizations. This 

authority was not used in fiscal year 2009. 

The authority expired on July 7, 2009. 

Section 9 of the act establishes requirements 

for GAO’s performance appraisal system. 

GAO’s performance appraisal system meets 

these requirements; however, the agency 

continues to pursue actions designed to 

ensure that the system meets its objectives 

and is fair and equitable for all employees. A 

study conducted by the Ivy Planning Group 

in 2008 made over 25 major recommendations 

that GAO could take to help ensure fair, 

consistent, and nondiscriminatory application 

of the appraisal system. GAO has committed 

to implementing the Ivy Planning Group’s 

recommendations and has initiated a 

Management Improvement Priorities Action 

Plan that includes five areas of concentration: 

recognizing and valuing diversity; 

reassessing the performance appraisal system; 

managing workload, sustaining quality, and 

streamlining processes; enhancing staffing 

practices and developing the workforce; 

and, finally, strengthening recruitment and 

retention incentives. 

GAO completed a full, systematic, and 

inclusive review of the performance appraisal 

system identifying what is working well 

and not working well with the system, 

including addressing concerns raised by 

the Ivy Planning Group. Data collected 

included a comprehensive content analysis 

of existing data, the results of 28 focus 

groups of employees, and 53 semistructured 

interviews with managing directors and a 

random sample of SES/SL, Band III, and 

field office managers. In addition, GAO 

conducted an agencywide, Web-based survey 

of employees, with an overall survey response 

rate of 67 percent. Data from all of these 

sources were synthesized into a draft report 

with extensive findings and short- and longterm recommendations for improving GAO’s 

performance appraisal system. 

GAO continues to provide training on the 

performance appraisal system and the roles 

and responsibilities of staff, supervisors, and 

managers. To ensure that all new designated 

performance managers are knowledgeable 

about appraisal policies, procedures, and 

practices, GAO is requiring new raters to 

take online training prior to preparing fiscal 

year 2009 appraisals. GAO also developed 
GAO-10-234SP 155

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

additional training regarding giving and 

receiving performance feedback that will be 

available for all staff.

Section 10 requires the Comptroller General 

to consult with any interested groups or 

associations representing officers and 

employees of GAO before implementing any 

changes under the act. During this reporting 

period, changes to GAO’s compensation 

regulations were issued for notice and 

comment. However, even prior to the passage 

of the act, the Comptroller General and 

other relevant agency officials were meeting 

periodically with the Employee Advisory 

Council (EAC) and IFPTE to discuss current 

and emerging issues of mutual interest and 

concern, especially those in the human capital 

area. GAO also uses employee forums, focus 

groups, and other mechanisms to obtain 

employee input on major proposals. GAO 

provides all employees with advance copies 

of draft orders concerning proposed policies 

and regulations for comment prior to their 

publication in final form. These steps were 

taken in the promulgation of all policies and 

regulations implementing the provisions 

of the GAO Human Capital Reform Act of 

2004, as amended. The Executive Committee 

considered all input from EAC members, 

IFPTE, and other GAO employees before 

implementing any changes. GAO consults, 

and negotiates where appropriate, with 

IFPTE with respect to Band I, II, IIA, and 

IIB analyst employees in the bargaining 

unit. EAC now represents Band III analysts, 

Attorneys, and Administrative Professional 

and Support Staff employees who are not 

included in the bargaining unit. 

In summary, GAO human capital 

management continues to use the value-added 

flexibilities provided under sections 2, 3, 4, 6, 

9, and 10 to acquire and maintain the talent 

necessary to carry out and meet its strategic 

mission and goals.22 These and other human 

capital tools and flexibilities support the 

achievement of GAO’s strategic objective 

to be a world-class professional services 

organization and model federal agency. 

Without these provisions, GAO would have 

difficulty attracting and retaining top-flight 

talent in adequate numbers to properly 

support the Congress and serve the American 

people within current and expected resource 

levels.

22In fiscal year 2009, GAO operations were segmented into 10 

business cycles: Entity-Wide Controls, IT Controls, Facilities and 

Property Management, Travel, Procurement, Disbursements, Budget, 

Fund Balance with Treasury, Financial Reporting, and Payroll.
156 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes 

3. GAO’s FISMA Efforts

GAO has established a strong Information 

Security Program that relies on a “defensein-depth” technical approach to protection 

and detection, while the compliance 

component of our program is based upon 

the implementation of federal and industry 

security standards. Even though we are not 

obligated by law to comply with the Federal 

Information Security Management Act 

(FISMA) under the EGovernment Act of 

2002, we have adopted FISMA requirements 

to strengthen our information security 

program and demonstrate our ongoing 

commitment to lead by example. FISMA 

and related federal guidance from the Office 

of Management and Budget constitute 

the cornerstone of our security program, 

establishing the procedures and practices 

that strengthen our protections through the 

implementation of security “best practices.” 

Our security standards are based on the 

federal guidance found in the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) 800 series and Federal Information 

Processing Standards publications. As 

existing NIST guidance has been updated 

and new guidance disseminated, we have 

adjusted our internal information technology 

(IT) security policies and procedures and 

expanded our efforts to effectively integrate 

these governmentwide policies and practices 

into our security program. 

GAO’s Information Security Program 

seeks to continually improve the protection 

of data, strengthen access controls, and 

streamline security processes. GAO has 

implemented systemwide security controls 

that meet or exceed key requirements set 

forth in NIST Special Publication 800-53, 

Revision 2, Recommended Security Controls 

for Federal Information Systems. We monitor 

these requirements and work to ensure that 

our protections evolve as our environment 

changes. We also support recurring 

assessments of our information security 

program, including internal reviews by GAO 

program offices, GAO’s Inspector General 

(IG), and security staff, as well as external 

audit reviews, to strengthen and streamline 

our security practices. For example, our IG 

independently evaluates our information 

security program annually, consistent with 

FISMA requirements, to identify weaknesses 

in our implementation of FISMA and offers 

recommendations to further strengthen 

our IT security program. In addition, we 

follow the standard practice of using a public 

accounting firm, as well as other external 

sources, to provide independent external 

evaluations and testing of IT controls on 

our major applications. We have leveraged 

third-party audits to successfully validate 

our security controls through a rigorous 

certification and accreditation process. 

During this past year, we conducted a 

full certification and accreditation of our 

Mainframe System using a third party to 

conduct the system test and evaluation. 

We maintain excellent information 

systems security practices at GAO through 

implementation of FISMA requirements, 

including efforts to 

■ implement and refine an enterprisewide, 

risk-based security program; 

■ develop and update essential policies, 

procedures, and reporting mechanisms 

to ensure that our security program is 

integrated into every aspect of IT system 

life cycle planning and maintenance; 
GAO-10-234SP 157

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

■ provide recurring security training and 

awareness to all of our staff through 

annual awareness training, security fairs, 

and focused security briefings; 

■ integrate security into our Capital 

Planning and Investment Control and 

project management processes; and

■ implement and refine an enterprise 

disaster recovery solution. 

The dynamic nature of security threats 

requires that our Information Systems 

Security Group constantly monitor activities 

and adjust our strategy to address these 

challenges and meet the needs of GAO. 

As we continue to evolve and improve our 

Information Security Program, our strategies 

have also evolved to reduce the risk to 

GAO, streamline processes through the use 

of technologies, and reduce costs through 

standardization.

Activities undertaken to improve our 

Information Security Program during fiscal 

year 2009 are listed below. 

■ Information systems inventory. We 

increased the security oversight of 

information systems from 12 to 32 

systems. This now covers all systems 

identified as mission-essential functions 

that support GAO normal and contingency 

operations. We completed initial security 

assessments and implemented annual 

continuous monitoring reviews of security 

controls for all systems within the 

inventory.

■ Security assessments of outsourced 

systems. All outsourced systems have a 

completed security risk assessment. The 

security program has updated our existing 

risk assessments to include the evaluation 

of security controls for systems operated 

by third parties. We have established 

and implemented a process for visiting 

third-party vendors or federal program 

managers to validate security processes, 

practices, and system controls, to provide 

assurance to GAO management that the 

risk to GAO information is minimized and 

vendor operations are within acceptable 

federal security guidance. 

■ Certification and accreditation of 

information systems. We continue to 

implement security practices to cover the 

entire life cycle of our information systems. 

Our process starts with an initial security 

assessment, establishes requirements 

for a system security plan, provides an 

independent system test and evaluation, 

provides remediation of security risks, 

and implements a continuous monitoring 

process, until the system is retired. 

■ Integrating security with other programs. 

We use our initial security assessment 

and our integrated program assessment 

to identify systems that process privacy 

information. During these processes, a 

privacy information assessment is initiated 

and coordinated through the privacy 

program office.

■ Automating security processes. We 

identified the requirements and procured a 

tool to assist in the automation of security 

control validation. This tool will support 

our continuous monitoring requirements 

for all information systems. In addition, 

this tool will improve our change and 

configuration management procedures, 

validate the deployment and maintenance 

of our security standards, and provide 

real-time alerting of unauthorized changes 

to our information systems.

■ Enterprise workstation security. We 

completed the implementation of our 

security standard for workstations that 
158 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Appendixes

includes full-disk encryption; mobile 

computers and Blackberry encryption; 

an integrated antivirus, antispyware, 

and personal firewall application; and 

two-factor authentication. To enhance 

our enterprise workstation security 

solution, we continued implementation of 

workstation configurations based upon 

the Center for Internet Security hardening 

standards and the Federal Desktop Core 

Configuration using a “least privilege” 

access for staff, limiting staff’s ability to 

change the workstation configuration by 

installing software and preventing the 

unintentional downloading of malware 

and viruses. The enterprise end point 

security application continues to provide 

centralized policy management and control 

and automatic monitoring and remediation 

of security threats to the workstation, and 

events identified by the application flow to 

the event correlation engine.

■ Business partner connections. We 

implemented virtual private networks to 

secure our connections to our financial 

and human capital applications operated by 

third parties. These secure tunnels control 

direct access from GAO to these remote 

sites in a secure and encrypted manner. 

In support of continuity operations, 

we implemented these private network 

connections at both the GAO primary and 

alternate computing facilities.
GAO-10-234SP 159

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Image Sources

This section contains credit and copyright information for images and 

graphics in this product, as appropriate, when that information was not 

listed adjacent to the image or graphic.

Front cover: Ron Reznick www.digital-images.net (Capitol), Brand X (flag)

Inside front cover: Photodisc (Lincoln Monument), Brand X (flag and Capitol)

Page i: Brand X (flag and Capitol)

Page 2: GAO (Jefferson Memorial), Brand X (flag)

Page 7: GAO (GAO building), Brand X (flag)

Page 1, 21, 63, 93, 119, and 121: Ron Reznick www.digital-images.net

(Capitol), Brand X (flag)

Page 13: Ron Reznick www.digital-images.net (Capitol)

Page 15: Map Resources (map)

Page 27: GAO (flag), PhotoDisc (bills)

Page 29: GAO (flag), FEMA News Photo (sculptural pediment over the east 

central entrance of the U.S. Capitol), Comstock (Lincoln Memorial) 

Page 65 and 123: ArtExplosion (Mount Rushmore National Memorial), 

Brand X (flag)

Page 69 and 131: Dynamic Graphics (satellite dish), Brand X (flag)

Page 73 and 137: PhotoDisc (cogs), Brand X (flag)

Page 77 and 143: GAO (GAO building entrance), Brand X (flag)

Inside back cover: Ron Reznick www.digital-images.net (Capitol)
160 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

Providing Comments on This Report

To provide comments for improving this report, please contact our Chief 

Quality Officer, who can be reached at (202) 512-6100, at qci@gao.gov, or 

at the following address:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room 6K17Q 

Washington, D.C. 20548

Obtaining Copies of GAO Documents

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

cost is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, 

GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and 

correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, 

go to www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

However, you can also order GAO documents by phone. The price of each 

GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and distribution 

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

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

information is posted on GAO’s Web site, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm.

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

(202) 512-2537.

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

MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.
GAO-10-234SP 161

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

This page intentionally left blank
162 GAO-10-234SP

GAO Performance and Accountability Report 2009

This page intentionally left blank
Source: See Image Sources.

Other Web pages of possible interest

This report and a summary version of it will be available through our Web site at 

www.gao.gov/sp.html. Also linked to that page are our strategic plan and our past 

performance and accountability publications.

Legal products

Download legal decisions and opinions 

about appropriations, bid protests, and 

major federal agency rules 

www.gao.gov/legal.htm

E-mail alerts

Get automatic updates on new GAO 

products 

www.gao.gov/subscribe/index.php

Careers at GAO

Review current job openings, apply 

online, and learn about GAO’s teams 

and offices at 

www.gao.gov/jobopp.htm

FraudNet

Report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, 

or mismanagement of federal funds 

www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Accountability Integrity Reliability
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-234SP