GAO 

United States Government Accountability Office

Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight 

of Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Actions Taken Toward 

Management 

Integration, but a 

Comprehensive 

Strategy Is Still 

Needed 

November 2009 

GAO-10-131 
What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Office

Why GAO Did This Study

Highlights

Accountability Integrity Reliability

November 2009

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Actions Taken Toward Management Integration, but a 

Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed 

Highlights of GAO-10-131, a report to the 

Subcommittee on Oversight of 

Government Management, the Federal 

Workforce, and the District of Columbia, 

Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate 

Significant management challenges 

exist for the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS) as it 

continues to integrate its varied 

management processes, policies, 

and systems in areas such as 

financial management and 

information technology. These 

activities are primarily led by the 

Under Secretary for Management 

(USM), department management 

chiefs, and management chiefs in 

DHS’s seven components. GAO 

was asked to examine: (1) the 

extent to which DHS has developed 

a comprehensive strategy for 

management integration that 

includes the characteristics 

recommended in GAO’s 2005 

report; (2) how DHS is 

implementing management 

integration; and (3) the extent to 

which the USM is holding the 

department and component 

management chiefs accountable for 

implementing management 

integration through reporting 

relationships. GAO reviewed DHS 

plans and interviewed management 

officials in DHS’s headquarters and 

in all components. 

What GAO Recommends

Once DHS develops a management 

integration strategy, GAO 

recommends that it establish 

performance measures for 

assessing management integration, 

and that it fully implement its 

current performance management 

policies between the department 

and component management 

chiefs. DHS’s USM commented that 

DHS is taking certain actions to 

address our recommendations.

DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management 

integration as required by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and with the 

characteristics GAO recommended in a 2005 report. Although DHS stated in 

response to the 2005 report that it was developing an integration strategy, it 

has not yet done so, in part because it has focused on building operations 

capacity within functional management areas. In the absence of a 

comprehensive management integration strategy, DHS officials stated that 

documents such as management directives and strategic plans address 

aspects of a management integration strategy and can help the department to 

manage its integration efforts. However, they do not generally include all of 

the strategy characteristics GAO identified, such as identifying the critical 

links that must occur among management initiatives and time lines for 

monitoring the progress of these initiatives. In addition, DHS has increased 

the number of performance measures for the Management Directorate, but 

has not yet established measures for assessing management integration across 

the department, although DHS officials stated that the department intends to 

do so. Without these measures DHS cannot assess its progress in 

implementing and achieving management integration. 

In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, DHS’s Management Directorate 

has implemented management integration through certain initiatives and 

mechanisms to communicate and consolidate management policies, 

processes, and systems. The directorate uses councils to communicate 

information related to the implementation of management initiatives, among 

other things. The directorate has also established governance boards and 

processes to manage specific activities. Further, the directorate is in the 

process of consolidating certain management systems. However, without a 

documented management integration strategy, it is difficult for DHS, 

Congress, and other key stakeholders to understand and monitor the critical 

linkages and prioritization among these various efforts. 

The USM and department and component management chiefs are held 

accountable for implementing management integration through reporting 

relationships at three levels—between the Secretary and the USM, the USM 

and department chiefs, and the department and component chiefs—in which, 

among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, USM, and 

department chiefs are required to provide input into performance plans and 

evaluations. The Deputy Secretary—through delegation from the Secretary—

and the USM have provided input into the USM’s and department chiefs’ plans 

and evaluations, respectively. Although department chiefs are required by 

management directives to provide component chiefs with written objectives 

at the start of the annual performance cycle, in fiscal year 2009 only two out of 

six department chiefs provided such input to component chiefs. Without 

ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs’ 

performance plans and evaluations as required, the directorate cannot be sure 

that component chiefs are fully implementing management integration. 

View GAO-10-131 or key components.

For more information, contact Bernice 

Steinhardt at (202) 512-6543 or 

steinhardtb@gao.gov, or David Maurer at 

(202) 512-8777 or maurerd@gao.gov. 
Page i GAO-10-131 

Contents 

Letter 1

Background 5 

Departmental Documents Address Aspects of Management 

Integration, but DHS Has Not Yet Developed a Comprehensive 

Strategy 11 

DHS’s Management Directorate Has Taken Actions to 

Communicate and Consolidate Management Policies, Processes, 

and Systems 25 

Performance Management Practices Could Be More Consistently 

Applied Departmentwide to Strengthen Reporting Relationships 

between Department and Component Management Chiefs 33 

Conclusions 40 

Recommendations for Executive Action 41 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 42 

Appendix I Comments from the Department of Homeland 

Security 44 

Appendix II GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 45 

Related GAO Products 46 

Tables 

Table 1: Assessment of the Extent to Which DHS Documents 

Include GAO-Recommended Characteristics of a 

Management Integration Strategy 16 

Table 2: DHS Management Directorate Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 

Performance Measures 23 

Table 3: DHS’s Management Councils 25 

Table 4: DHS Governance Boards 27 

Figures 

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure 8 

Figure 2: DHS Management Directorate’s Organizational Structure 9 

 Department of Homeland Security 
Figure 3: Line of Sight Linking Organizational and Individual Goals 

and Objectives for DHS Data Consolidation 34 

Abbreviations 

ARB Acquisition Review Board 

CAO Chief Administrative Officer 

CBP Customs and Border Protection 

CFO Chief Financial Officer 

CHCO Chief Human Capital Officer 

CIO Chief Information Officer 

CMO Chief Management Officer 

COO Chief Operating Officer 

CPO Chief Procurement Officer 

CSO Chief Security Officer 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EAB Enterprise Architecture Board 

eMerge2

 Electronically Managing Enterprise Resources for 

 Government Effectiveness and Efficiency 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FYHSP Future Years Homeland Security Program 

HCA Head of Contract Authority 

HCLC Human Capital Leadership Council 

ICE Immigration and Customs Enforcement 

IG Inspector General 

NPPD National Protection and Programs Directorate 

PPBE Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution 

PRB Program Review Board 

QHSR Quadrennial Homeland Security Review 

SES Senior Executive Service 

SMC Senior Management Council 

TASC Transformation and Systems Consolidation 

TSA Transportation Security Administration 

USCIS United States Citizenship and Immigration Services 

USM Under Secretary for Management 

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. 

Page ii GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
Page 1 GAO-10-131 

 

United States Government Accountability Office

Washington, DC 20548 

 

November 20, 2009 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka 

Chairman 

The Honorable George V. Voinovich 

Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 

 Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

United States Senate 

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represented 

one of the largest reorganizations and consolidations of government 

agencies, personnel, programs, and operations in recent history, initially 

bringing together approximately 180,000 employees from 22 originating 

agencies.1

 DHS is now the third largest federal government agency with 

more than 200,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $40 

billion. DHS began operations in March 2003 with missions that included 

preventing terrorist attacks from occurring within the United States, 

reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing damages from attacks 

that occur, and helping the nation recover from any attacks. The 

department has initiated and continued the implementation of various 

policies and programs to address these missions as well as missions that 

are not directly related to securing the homeland, such as Coast Guard 

search and rescue. At the same time, it is critically important that DHS 

works to unify and strengthen its management functions because the 

1

These 22 agencies, offices, and programs were U.S. Customs Service; U.S. Immigration and 

Naturalization Service; Federal Protective Service; Transportation Security Administration; 

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center; Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; 

Office for Domestic Preparedness; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Strategic 

National Stockpile and the National Disaster Medical System; Nuclear Incident Response 

Team; Domestic Emergency Support Team; National Domestic Preparedness Office; 

Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Countermeasures Program; Environmental 

Measures Laboratory; National BW Defense Analysis Center; Plum Island Animal Disease 

Center; Federal Computer Incident Response Center; National Communication System; 

National Infrastructure Protection Center; Energy Security and Assurance Program; Secret 

Service; and U.S. Coast Guard. 

 Department of Homeland Security 
 

effectiveness of these functions will ultimately affect its ability to fulfill its 

various missions.2

In 2005, we assessed DHS efforts to integrate its various management 

processes, systems, and people, both within and across areas such as 

information technology, financial management, procurement, and human 

capital, as well as in its administrative services—using as criteria selected 

key practices we have reported are consistently found to be at the center 

of successful mergers and organizational transformations.3

 We noted that 

DHS had made progress in addressing its departmentwide management 

integration through the issuance of guidance and plans to assist the 

integration of each individual management function within the 

department. However, we observed that DHS had the opportunity to 

expand those efforts by implementing a more comprehensive and 

sustained approach to management integration departmentwide. In 

particular, we recommended that DHS develop an overarching strategy for 

management integration. In response to the 2005 report, DHS stated that it 

was developing an integration strategy. We also suggested that Congress 

might want to consider whether DHS’s Under Secretary for Management 

(USM)—who heads the department’s Management Directorate—has the 

authority to drive, implement, and ensure accountability for management 

integration departmentwide. 

You asked us to review the status of DHS management integration efforts 

since our 2005 report. Specifically, we assessed (1) the extent to which 

DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration 

that includes the characteristics recommended in our 2005 report; (2) how 

DHS is implementing management integration; and (3) the extent to which 

the USM is holding the department and component management chiefs 

accountable for implementing management integration through reporting 

relationships. 

To address our first objective, we considered whether DHS had developed 

a strategy for departmentwide management integration, as required by 

 

2

GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation of 

Management Functions, but More Work Remains, GAO-08-646T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 9, 

2008). 

3

GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained Approach 

Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 

2005); and GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669 (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003). 

Page 2 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

law. Specifically, we assessed whether DHS documents included the 

characteristics recommended in our 2005 report for a management 

integration strategy, which required that the strategy: 

• look across the initiatives within each of the management functional units; 

• clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these initiatives; 

• identify tradeoffs and set priorities; 

• set implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of these 

initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and 

• identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved. 

In order to assess these characteristics, we reviewed various departmental 

documents identified by DHS as comprising its management integration 

strategy, including DHS documents related to management, strategic 

planning, and departmental guidance and policy. We examined legislation, 

including the Homeland Security Act of 20024

 and the Implementing 

Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007,5

 which identifies 

requirements and authorities relating to transition, reorganization, and 

developing and implementing a management integration strategy. We also 

interviewed departmental and component management officials and chiefs 

to obtain information on the extent to which DHS has developed a strategy 

for departmentwide management integration. Additionally, we reviewed 

DHS’s performance goals and measures for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, as 

reported in DHS’s Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008 

through 2010. We assessed these goals and measures against Government 

Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requirements to determine 

the extent to which they provided a framework for assessing management 

integration across the department.6

 

4

Pub. L. No. 107-296, 116 Stat. 2135 (Nov. 25, 2002). 

5

Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). 

6

Congress enacted the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to 

address several broad purposes, including improving federal program effectiveness, 

accountability, and service delivery, and enhancing congressional decision making by 

providing more objective information on program performance. GPRA requires executive 

agencies to complete strategic plans in which they define their missions, establish resultsoriented goals, and identify the strategies that will be needed to achieve those goals. GPRA 

also requires executive agencies to prepare annual performance plans that articulate goals 

for the upcoming fiscal year that are aligned with their long-term strategic goals. Finally, 

GPRA requires executive agencies to measure performance toward the achievement of the 

goals in the annual performance plan and report annually on their progress in program 

performance reports. Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

Page 3 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

For our third objective, we met with the USM as well as department and 

component management chiefs, and reviewed DHS performance 

agreements and performance management activities against requirements 

set forth in law and in DHS policies. These requirements include the need 

for input from senior to subordinate officials for performance agreements 

and evaluations, and the alignment of goals and objectives in a “line of 

sight” that shows how individual performance contributes to 

organizational goals. 

For all three objectives, we interviewed and gathered documents from the 

USM, the USM’s Chief of Staff, the six departmental management chiefs or 

acting chiefs—the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO), the Chief Financial 

Officer (CFO), the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), the Chief 

Information Officer (CIO), the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), and the 

Chief Security Officer (CSO)—and the chiefs, acting chiefs, or deputy 

chiefs from DHS’s seven component agencies and one directorate—the 

National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD).7

 DHS’s seven 

component agencies include the Transportation Security Administration 

(TSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and 

Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 

(USCIS), U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We also spoke with officials 

from DHS’s Office of Policy. We observed meetings of DHS’s Management 

Council, Human Capital Leadership Council and CIO Council. 

In addition, we reviewed prior GAO reports on DHS management in areas 

such as information technology, financial management, procurement, 

acquisition, human capital, and mergers and organizational 

transformations to determine the status of DHS management integration. 

We also examined reports from DHS’s Office of Inspector General (IG) 

related to the status of DHS’s management initiatives. 

We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 through 

November 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the 

audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 

 

7

We selected NPPD because it (1) had the largest budget in fiscal year 2008 among all of the 

DHS directorates and offices, (2) has a structure of management chiefs similar to DHS’s 

component agencies, and (3) has a unique relationship to the Management Directorate 

because the directorate directly provides management services to NPPD that normally 

occur within component agencies, such as hiring and acquisition support. 

Page 4 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We 

believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our 

findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

Not since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947 has the 

federal government undertaken an organizational merger of the magnitude 

of DHS. In 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of 

DHS as one of the high-risk areas across the federal government because it 

represented an enormous undertaking that would require time to achieve 

in an effective and efficient manner.8

 Moreover, the components that 

became part of the department already faced a wide array of existing 

challenges, and any failure to effectively carry out their missions would 

expose the nation to potentially serious consequences. The department 

has remained on our high-risk list since 2003.9

 Most recently, in our 

January 2009 high-risk update, we reported that, although DHS had made 

progress in transforming into a fully functioning department, its 

transformation remained high risk because it had not yet developed a 

comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration, 

management, and mission challenges we identified in 2003.10 In 

designating the implementation and transformation of DHS as high risk, 

we noted that building an effective department would require consistent 

and sustained leadership from top management to ensure the needed 

transformation of disparate agencies, programs, and missions i

integrated organization. Our prior work on mergers and orga

transformations, undertaken before the creation of DHS, found that 

successful transformations of large organizations can take at least 5 to 7 

years to achieve.

Background 

nto an 

nizational 

 

11

Definition of Management 

Integration 

A definition of management integration provides a starting point for 

understanding the needs and requirements for integrating management 

functions. Based on our 2005 work, we define management integration as 

the development of consistent and / or consolidated processes, systems, 

8

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-03-119 (Washington, D.C.: January 2003). 

9

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-05-207 (Washington, D.C.: January 2005); and 

GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-07-310 (Washington, D.C.: January 2007). 

10GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO-09-271 (Washington, D.C.: January 2009). 

11GAO-03-669. 

Page 5 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

and people—in areas such as information technology, financial 

management, procurement, and human capital—as well as in its security 

and administrative services, for greater efficiency and effectiveness.12

• On one level, management integration refers to integration of the elements 

mentioned above—processes, systems, and people—within management 

functions (sometimes referred to as vertical integration), from the 

department level down through each of the corresponding management 

functions in the component agencies. An example of this is the use of 

consistent human capital management policies at the DHS CHCO level and 

for each of the corresponding component agency human capital 

management functions. 

• On another level, management integration refers to integration of the 

elements mentioned across management functions (sometimes referred to 

as horizontal integration), such as the integration of human capital 

management and financial management activities in areas related to 

payroll. 

In February 2009, DHS’s Management Directorate provided us with a 

definition of its approach and responsibilities for implementing 

management integration in the department. According to the Management 

Directorate, DHS defines management integration as including three 

different levels of activities: (1) strategic integration, (2) operational 

coordination, and (3) functional integration. The directorate further stated 

that the first level, strategic integration, consists of efforts to ensure that 

all component activities and acquisitions align with DHS mission goals 

through appropriate leadership oversight and policies and procedures. The 

second level, operational coordination, consists of the delivery of 

management services in order to increase cross-component collaboration 

and reduce costs by achieving efficiencies for managing assets such as real 

property, for procuring volume discounts of supplies and services, and 

acquiring common technology platforms through shared information 

technology infrastructure. The third level, functional integration, consists 

of, among other things, management oversight of component-level internal 

controls and standard operating policies to ensure departmentwide 

compliance with presidential directives, congressional mandates, and 

other legal requirements and DHS policies; and consistent business 

practices that support financial reporting and operational assurance 

statements. 

 

12GAO-05-139. 

Page 6 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

The Management Directorate includes the CFO, the CSO, the CHCO, the 

CAO, the CPO, and the CIO. They are referred to as the departmental 

management chiefs. In addition to the department’s Management 

Directorate, each of the seven DHS component agencies has its own 

component management chief for the procurement, financial, human 

capital, information technology, administrative, and security management 

areas.13 Figures 1 and 2 show the DHS and DHS Management Directorate’s 

organizational structures. 

DHS Management Roles 

and Responsibilities 

 

13Management chiefs in the component agencies for the acquisition and procurement 

function are referred to as Component Acquisition Executives (CAE) and Heads of 

Contracting Authority (HCA), respectively. The CAE is the senior acquisition official within 

the component, responsible for management and oversight of all component acquisition 

functions (excluding contracting). The HCA is the senior contracting official within the 

component, responsible for management and oversight of all component contracting 

functions, under the authority delegated by the CPO. 

Page 7 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Figure 1: DHS Organizational Structure 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.

Management

Under Secretary

Science &

Technology

Under Secretary

National 

Protection

& Programs

Under Secretary

Policy

Under Secretary

General

Counsel

Inspector

General

Legislative 

Affairs

Assistant 

Secretary

Public Affairs

Assistant 

Secretary

Health Affairs

Assistant Secretary 

/ Chief Medical 

Officer

Intelligence &

Analysis

Under Secretary

Operations 

Coordination

Under Secretary

Citizenship & 

Immigration 

Services 

Ombudsman

Federal Law 

Enforcement 

Training Center

Director

Domestic Nuclear

Detection Office

Director

National Cyber 

Security Center

Director

Counternarcotics

Enforcement

Director

Chief Privacy 

Officer

Civil Rights & 

Civil Liberties

Officer

Transportation

Security 

Administration

Assistant Secretary 

/ Administrator

U.S. Customs & 

Border Protection

Commissioner

U.S. Citizenship & 

Immigration 

Services

Director

U.S. Immigration

& Customs

Enforcement

Assistant Secretary

U.S. Secret

Service

Director

Federal 

Emergency 

Management 

Agency

Administrator

U.S. Coast Guard

Commandant

Secretary

Deputy Secretary

Chief of Staff

Page 8 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Figure 2: DHS Management Directorate’s Organizational Structure 

Chief Financial

Officera

Chief Security

Officer

Chief Human

Capital Officer

Chief Administrative

Officer

Chief Procurement

Officer

Chief Information

Officer

Under Secretary

for Management

Deputy Under

Secretary

Chief of Staff

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.

a

The Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (§ 3 of Pub. L. No. 108-330, 118 

Stat. 1275, 1276 (Oct. 16, 2004)) made DHS subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. 

L. No. 101-576, 104 Stat. 2838, Nov. 15, 1990), which requires the DHS CFO to also report directly to 

the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave DHS’s USM responsibility for the 

management and administration of the department, including the 

transition and reorganization process, among other things.14 The 

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 

Commission Act) enhanced the USM position by designating the USM as 

the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of DHS and principal advisor to the 

Secretary on matters related to the management of the department, 

including management integration and transformation.15 DHS also defined 

the USM responsibilities for integration in department management 

directives following the creation of the department. For example, a DHS 

management directive assigns the USM responsibility and accountability 

for designing departmentwide integrated systems to improve mission 

support. Within the Management Directorate, the management chiefs’ 

roles and responsibilities for the integration of the department are 

 

14Section 701 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 included this responsibility. Other 

responsibilities of the USM include financial management, procurement, human resources 

and personnel, information technology and communications systems, facilities and 

property management, security, performance measurements, grants and other assistance 

management programs, internal audits, and maintenance of immigration statistics. Pub. L. 

No. 107-296. 

15Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2405. See 6 U.S.C. § 341. 

Page 9 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

established in DHS management directives. For example, DHS 

management directives give the departmental management chiefs 

responsibility to ensure the integration of their management function and 

to review their programs in order to recommend program improvements 

and corrective actions where appropriate. DHS management directives 

also require the departmental management chiefs to annually establish 

milestones for the integration of their management function’s activities. 

Component management chiefs are to implement initiatives within their 

respective functional areas that relate to management integration. 

In 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a departmentwide 

memo on DHS efforts to integrate management functions. In order to 

ensure that both department and component personnel took responsibility 

for supporting performance of management functions, the memo 

describes the concept of dual accountability in which both the heads of 

component agencies, such as TSA or CBP, and the DHS management 

chiefs, such as CPO or CIO, share responsibility for implementing 

management functions. For example, the TSA Administrator and DHS’s 

CPO are both responsible to the DHS Secretary, through their respective 

chains, for procurement performance at TSA. An accompanying memo 

from the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security in 2004 noted that 

component agency heads would be responsible for accomplishing the 

mission of their component agencies, and management chiefs would be 

responsible for providing the support systems to help components 

accomplish their mission. The memos also set out the “dotted line” 

reporting relationship of the component management chiefs, such as TSA’s 

CPO or CBP’s CIO, to the department management chiefs, DHS’s CPO or 

DHS’s CIO. Resulting management directives were developed for each 

DHS management function in 2004 as principal documents for leading, 

governing, integrating, and managing the management functions 

throughout DHS. These management directives require DHS management 

chiefs to collaborate with component agency heads on the recruiting and 

selection of key component management officials, and provide input into 

component management chiefs’ performance agreement and evaluation, 

among other things. 

Page 10 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

The 9/11 Commission Act requires DHS to develop a strategy for 

management integration as part of the department’s integration and 

transformation to create a more efficient and orderly consolidation of 

functions and personnel in the department.16 In our 2005 report, we 

recommended that DHS develop an overarching management integration 

strategy for the department that would, at a minimum, have the following 

characteristics: 

• look across the initiatives within each of the management functional units; 

• clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these initiatives; 

• identify trade-offs and set priorities; 

• set implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of these 

initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and 

• identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved.17

Departmental 

Documents Address 

Aspects of 

Management 

Integration, but DHS 

Has Not Yet 

Developed a 

Comprehensive 

Strategy 

We pointed out that a comprehensive management integration strategy 

would, among other things, help the department look across initiatives 

within each of the functional units to clearly identify the links that must 

occur among initiatives and develop specific departmentwide goals and 

milestones that would allow DHS to track critical phases and essential 

activities. By including these characteristics in DHS’s management 

integration strategy, we said that Congress, DHS employees, and other key 

stakeholders would have access to more transparent information 

regarding departmental integration goals, needed resources, critical links, 

cost savings, and status documentation, thereby providing a means by 

which DHS could be held accountable for its management integration 

efforts. In commenting on our 2005 report, DHS discussed actions it was 

taking to address our recommendation that it develop a management 

integration strategy, stating that it was establishing an integrated project 

plan / integration strategy that would define roles and responsibilities and 

identify key deliverables and milestones. 

 

16Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2405. 

17GAO-05-139 and GAO-03-669. 

Page 11 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management 

integration that is consistent with statute and that contains all of the 

characteristics we identified in 2005. According to DHS’s USM, the 

department has not yet developed a comprehensive management 

integration strategy because, in part, the Management Directorate has 

focused on building the management operations capacity within the 

functional areas, such as financial management and information 

technology. As a result, the Management Directorate has not yet focused 

on integration across the functional areas and has not clearly or 

systematically identified trade-offs and linkages among initiatives in 

different functional areas. 

Although DHS Identified 

Various Documents That 

Support Management 

Integration, These 

Documents Do Not 

Contain All the 

Characteristics of a 

Comprehensive Strategy 

In the absence of a comprehensive management integration strategy, 

DHS’s USM, Chief of Staff, and department and component management 

chiefs stated that various departmental documents collectively contribute 

to the department’s strategy for implementing and achieving management 

integration. In particular, DHS officials identified (1) departmentwide 

documents that provide guidance that relate to management integration 

across the department; and (2) documents for management of functional 

areas. 

With regard to the departmentwide documents, DHS officials included the 

following as particularly relevant to aspects of management integration: 

• DHS Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management. This document 

is intended to be a corrective action plan outlining the department’s 

framework for its transformation efforts and methods by which the 

department will seek to improve performance in high-risk areas we have 

identified since 2003.18 For the high-risk area of DHS implementation and 

transformation, the document discusses five areas of focus for the 

department—utilizing a management framework to unify 22 disparate 

organizations, creating joint requirements planning and risk assessment 

processes, instituting an Investment Review Board, implementing a 

corrective action plan, and consolidating and integrating a financial 

management system. 

 

18The high-risk areas we have identified include (1) implementing and transforming DHS; 

(2) the National Flood Insurance Program; (3) managing federal real property; (4) strategic 

human capital management; (5) information sharing mechanisms to improve homeland 

security; and (6) protecting the federal government’s information systems and critical 

infrastructure. 

Page 12 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

• Management Directorate Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009 through 

2014. This plan sets out the Management Directorate’s vision, core values, 

guiding principles, goals and objectives, as well as the organizational 

structure and responsibilities of the Management Directorate and 

department management chiefs. The plan provides the following four 

objectives for the Management Directorate: (1) provide structure 

(strengthen unified organizational governance to enhance departmentwide 

communication, decision making, and oversight); (2) optimize processes 

and systems (integrate functional operations to facilitate cross-component 

synergies and streamline coordination ensuring reliable and efficient 

support of mission objectives); (3) foster leadership (adhere to core values 

and guiding principles of DHS in performing duties, effecting progress, and 

leading with commitment for the mission); and (4) leverage culture 

(leverage the benefits of commonalities and differences across 

components to promote cooperative intra- and inter-agency networks and 

implement best practices). The plan also discusses four methods that the 

Management Directorate will use to achieve the plan’s objectives—provide 

guidance, offer representation, deliver tools, and manage services. 

• Integrated Planning Guidance Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015. This 

document describes the DHS Secretary’s policy and planning priorities for 

the 5-year budget time frames, such as for fiscal years 2011 through 2015. 

The Integrated Planning Guidance is part of the DHS strategic planning 

process and, among other things, provides general risk management 

guidance for prioritizing programming and budget proposals within the 

department. 

• Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) Fiscal Years 

2009 through 2013. This document provides a summary and breakdown 

of DHS program resources over a 5-year period; including resource 

alignment by goals, component appropriations, and component programs, 

as well as program descriptions, milestones, performance measures, and 

targets. In the fiscal year 2009 through 2013 FYHSP, DHS projected 

funding for 65 priority programs within 13 components in support of the 

five goals of the DHS Strategic Plan. 

Internal Control Playbook Fiscal Year 2009. This document 

comprises DHS’s plan to design and implement departmentwide internal 

controls with respect to three areas: (1) internal controls over financial 

reporting (which provides an overview of efforts to establish reliable 

financial reporting); (2) internal controls over operations (which outlines 

plans to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of operations); and (3) 

conformity with financial management system requirements (which 

summarizes efforts to strengthen the internal controls over the 

Page 13 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

department’s financial systems). Specific examples of these internal 

control areas include: integrating internal control assessments across 

component lines of business, integrating financial system security 

assessments through tests of operating effectiveness, and incorporating 

results into plans of action and milestones. 

With regard to functional area documents, DHS officials indicated that 

both management directives and functional area strategic plans contain 

elements of the department’s strategy for achieving management 

integration. DHS issued management directives for each of the six 

department management chiefs—the CAO, CFO, CHCO, CIO, and CPO 

management directives were issued in 2004 (with updates for the CIO and 

CPO in 2007 and 2008, respectively); the management directive for CSO 

was issued in 2006. These directives communicate standard definitions of 

the management chiefs’ respective roles and responsibilities; define the 

concept of dual accountability for both mission accomplishment and 

functional integration as the shared responsibility of the heads of DHS’s 

individual agencies or components and the department management 

chiefs; and establish the need for the department management chiefs, 

along with the heads of agencies, to annually recommend and establish 

integration milestones for the consolidation of the chiefs’ functions. 

Functional area strategic plans generally discuss, among other things, the 

missions and goals of the department management chiefs and the link 

between the goals and objectives in each functional area strategic plan and 

the goals and objectives in DHS’s Strategic Plan. Among the six 

department chiefs, four have issued strategic plans for their functional 

areas—the CAO, CIO, CHCO, and CSO.19

While some of the documents DHS officials identified as contributing to 

the department’s strategy for implementing and achieving management 

integration address some of the characteristics we have previously 

identified for such a strategy, these documents, either individually or 

taken together, do not include all of the characteristics we have identified. 

These documents described by DHS officials as contributing to the 

department’s strategy for achieving management integration can provide 

high-level guidance for integration efforts and can help the department to 

manage those efforts. For example, two of the functional area strategic 

 

19The CAO strategic plan is for fiscal years 2008 through 2012, the CIO strategic plan is for 

fiscal years 2009-2013, and the CHCO strategic plan is for fiscal years 2009 through 2013. 

The CSO strategic plan does not include any dates. 

Page 14 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

plans set goals, objectives, and milestones for implementing certain 

initiatives within functional areas. Moreover, the Management Directorate 

Strategic Plan and other departmentwide documents, for example, set 

performance goals, measures, and targets for achieving certain 

management initiatives. Such elements as goals, objectives, milestones, 

performance targets, and priorities documented in these plans and 

strategies can help the department to manage, implement, and monitor the 

specific initiatives to which these elements apply. They can also help to 

guide efforts to consolidate policies, processes, and systems within each 

management functional area. However, among the documents cited by 

DHS officials as being part of the department’s management integration 

strategy, DHS has not yet looked across the management initiatives within 

management functional areas to identify the critical links that must occur 

among these initiatives to integrate the department’s management 

functions both within and across functional areas. Furthermore, the 

documents generally do not identify the priorities, trade-offs, and potential 

efficiencies among management initiatives, nor do they set 

implementation goals and a time line for monitoring the progress of 

initiatives to ensure the critical links occur when needed. Thus, when 

considered either individually or together these documents do not 

constitute a management integration strategy containing all of the 

characteristics we have identified. See table 1 for more detailed 

information on the plans. 

Page 15 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Table 1: Assessment of the Extent to Which DHS Documents Include GAO-Recommended Characteristics of a Management 

Integration Strategy 

GAO-recommended characteristics of a management integration strategy 

DHS documents

Look across

initiatives within 

each of the 

management 

functional units

Clearly identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

these initiatives

Identify trade-offs

and set priorities

Set implementation 

goals and a time 

line to monitor the 

progress of these 

initiatives to 

ensure the 

necessary links

occur when needed 

Identify potential 

efficiencies and 

ensure that they 

are achieved 

Departmentwide documents

DHS Integrated 

Strategy for High 

Risk Management 

The strategy 

identifies various 

management 

initiatives, such as 

the Investment 

Review Board and 

consolidation of the 

department’s various 

financial 

management 

systems. However, 

the strategy does not 

look across 

initiatives within all of 

the management 

functional areas. 

The strategy does 

not identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

initiatives. 

The strategy 

identifies the five 

areas of focus, or 

priorities, for the 

department to 

address the GAO 

high-risk area, 

implementing and 

transforming DHS: 

(1) a management 

framework, (2) joint 

requirements 

planning and risk 

assessment 

processes, (3) the 

Investment Review 

Board, (4) corrective 

action plans, and (5) 

financial 

management 

systems. However, 

the strategy does not 

discuss trade-offs 

among management 

initiatives. 

Under each of the 

five areas of focus, 

the strategy 

identifies expected 

outcomes, 

accomplishments 

and actions to be 

completed, and highlevel milestones for 

completing those 

actions. However, 

the strategy does not 

identify a time line 

for monitoring the 

progress of the 

initiatives that would 

allow the department 

to ensure necessary 

links occur when 

needed. 

The strategy does 

not identify potential 

efficiencies. 

Page 16 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

 GAO-recommended characteristics of a management integration strategy 

DHS documents

Look across

initiatives within 

each of the 

management 

functional units

Clearly identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

these initiatives

Identify trade-offs

and set priorities

Set implementation 

goals and a time 

line to monitor the 

progress of these 

initiatives to 

ensure the 

necessary links

occur when needed 

Identify potential 

efficiencies and 

ensure that they 

are achieved 

Management 

Directorate Strategic 

Plan 2009 through 

2014 

This strategic plan 

identifies initiatives 

for each 

management 

objective. However, 

the strategic plan 

does not look across 

initiatives within all of 

the management 

functional areas. 

This strategic plan 

does not identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

initiatives. 

This strategic plan 

identifies four overall 

objectives for the 

Management 

Directorate—provide 

structure, optimize 

processes and 

systems, foster 

leadership, and 

leverage culture—

and sets priorities 

such as aligning 

investments to the 

department’s 

enterprise 

architecture under 

the objectives. The 

strategic plan does 

not identify tradeoffs. 

Under each 

objective, the 

strategic plan 

includes 

performance 

measures and 

targets for specific 

management 

initiatives for fiscal 

years 2009 through 

2014. The strategic 

plan does not 

include a time line 

for monitoring the 

progress of the 

initiatives that would 

allow the department 

to ensure necessary 

links occur when 

needed. 

The strategic plan 

does not discuss 

potential efficiencies. 

Integrated Planning 

Guidance, Fiscal 

Years 2011 through 

2015 

The Integrated 

Planning Guidance 

provides a 

description of 

departmentwide 

initiatives, such as 

asset management 

and mail operations. 

However, the 

guidance does not 

look across the 

initiatives that occur 

within each 

management 

functional area. 

The guidance does 

not identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

initiatives. 

The guidance does 

not identify priorities 

or trade-offs for 

management 

initiatives. 

The guidance does 

not set 

implementation 

goals or a time line 

for monitoring the 

progress of 

management 

initiatives to ensure 

necessary links 

occur when needed. 

The guidance does 

not discuss potential 

efficiencies. 

Page 17 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

 GAO-recommended characteristics of a management integration strategy 

DHS documents

Look across

initiatives within 

each of the 

management 

functional units

Clearly identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

these initiatives

Identify trade-offs

and set priorities

Set implementation 

goals and a time 

line to monitor the 

progress of these 

initiatives to 

ensure the 

necessary links

occur when needed 

Identify potential 

efficiencies and 

ensure that they 

are achieved 

FYHSP, Fiscal 

Years 2009 through 

2013 

The FYHSP 

identifies initiatives 

such as 

establishment of a 

DHS consolidated 

headquarters facility 

and the 

consolidation of 

component 

agencies’ financial 

management 

systems, but does 

not look across 

initiatives within 

each management 

functional area. 

The FYHSP does 

not identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

initiatives. 

The FYHSP 

discusses actions 

and priorities for the 

department 

management chiefs 

to implement for 

fiscal years 2009 

through 2013, such 

as for the CFO to 

maintain and update 

a comprehensive 

financial 

management policy 

manual and for the 

CAO to design and 

complete various 

phases of the St. 

Elizabeths’ 

construction for the 

consolidation of DHS 

headquarters 

facilities. The 

FYHSP does not 

identify trade-offs. 

The FYHSP 

identifies the 

performance goals 

and measures for 

the Management 

Directorate and sets 

performance targets 

for fiscal years 2009 

through 2013. The 

FYHSP also 

identifies actions to 

be completed in 

each fiscal year by 

the Management 

Directorate. The 

FYHSP does not set 

implementation 

goals or a time line 

for monitoring the 

progress of 

management 

initiatives to ensure 

necessary links 

occur between 

initiatives when 

needed. 

The FYHSP does 

not discuss potential 

efficiencies. 

Page 18 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

 GAO-recommended characteristics of a management integration strategy 

DHS documents

Look across

initiatives within 

each of the 

management 

functional units

Clearly identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

these initiatives

Identify trade-offs

and set priorities

Set implementation 

goals and a time 

line to monitor the 

progress of these 

initiatives to 

ensure the 

necessary links

occur when needed 

Identify potential 

efficiencies and 

ensure that they 

are achieved 

Internal Control 

Playbook, Fiscal 

Year 2009 

The playbook 

identifies initiatives 

and actions for 

management 

improvement, with 

an emphasis on 

strengthening 

component 

management 

functions. Corrective 

action plans are 

included for areas 

such as, human 

capital management, 

acquisition 

management, and 

administrative 

management, but 

does not look across 

initiatives in each 

functional area. 

The playbook does 

not identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

initiatives. 

Within corrective 

action plans for each 

area, the playbook 

addresses corrective 

actions to be 

implemented and 

identifies strategies 

to mitigate risk to 

those corrective 

actions. However, 

the playbook does 

not identify priorities 

and trade-offs 

among the 

initiatives. 

Within corrective 

actions for each 

area, the playbook 

identifies key 

strategies and 

milestones for 

implementing 

corrective actions. 

However, these 

goals and 

milestones do not 

allow the department 

to ensure that the 

necessary links 

occur when needed 

among the 

initiatives. 

Some corrective 

action plans identify 

potential efficiencies 

that relate to the 

DHS mission, but 

none of the 

corrective action 

plans identify 

potential efficiencies 

across functional 

areas. 

Functional area documents 

Management 

directives 

The management 

directives are 

focused on 

management 

functions, but do not 

look across 

initiatives within 

each functional area. 

The management 

directives do not 

identify the critical 

links that must occur 

among initiatives. 

The management 

directives do not 

identify trade-offs 

and priorities for or 

across management 

initiatives. 

The management 

directives do not 

identify 

implementation 

goals and a time line 

for monitoring the 

progress of specific 

initiatives to ensure 

necessary links 

occur when needed. 

The management 

directives indicate 

that management 

chiefs are to 

establish integration 

milestones for the 

consolidation of the 

chiefs’ functions and 

develop 

performance metrics 

for the respective 

functions. 

The management 

directives do not 

identify potential 

efficiencies. 

Page 19 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

 GAO-recommended characteristics of a management integration strategy 

DHS documents

Look across

initiatives within 

each of the 

management 

functional units

Clearly identify the 

critical links that 

must occur among 

these initiatives

Identify trade-offs

and set priorities

Set implementation 

goals and a time 

line to monitor the 

progress of these 

initiatives to 

ensure the 

necessary links

occur when needed 

Identify potential 

efficiencies and 

ensure that they 

are achieved 

Functional area 

strategic plans 

The plans cite 

functional areas’ 

management 

initiatives, but do not 

look across the 

initiatives that occur 

within each of the 

functional areas. 

The plans do not 

identify the critical 

links that must occur 

among initiatives. 

Two functional area 

strategic plans—CIO 

and CHCO, for 

example—provide 

priorities within each 

functional area. A 

third strategic plan, 

for the CAO, does 

not specify particular 

priority areas, 

although it speaks to 

the importance of 

developing such 

priorities. The CSO 

strategic plan does 

not identify priorities, 

and none of the 

functional area 

strategic plans 

discusses trade-offs.

Three functional 

area strategic 

plans—CIO, CHCO, 

and CAO—provide 

strategic / 

implementation 

goals. Two of these 

plans also provide 

time lines for 

completing individual 

initiatives. None of 

the plans identify 

time lines for 

monitoring the 

progress of the 

initiatives to ensure 

necessary links 

occur when needed. 

Two functional area 

strategic plans—CIO 

and CHCO—identify 

potential efficiencies 

within each 

functional area, but 

do not identify 

potential efficiencies 

across functional 

areas. The CAO 

strategic plan 

provides a more 

generic statement 

that DHS is seeking 

to analyze and 

optimize existing 

structures to 

generate 

efficiencies. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents. 

In addition to these functional area and departmentwide documents, DHS 

officials identified three other documents that are related to management 

integration: (1) the DHS Strategic Plan; (2) the Quadrennial Homeland 

Security Review (QHSR); and (3) the Business Operations Manual. The 

DHS Strategic Plan includes, among other things, the department’s vision, 

mission, core values, and guiding principles, as well as the goals and 

objectives by which the department will continually assess performance.20

The department’s latest strategic plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013 

includes five strategic-level goals related to the department’s mission and 

management functions. Goal 5 of this plan—“Strengthen and Unify DHS 

Operations and Management”—sets out the department’s goal for its 

management functions; information and intelligence sharing; and policy, 

 

20DHS, One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2008 – 2013 (Washington, D.C.: 2008) 

Page 20 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

planning, and coordination functions.21 Under this goal, the first objective 

describes what the department plans to achieve for its management 

functions, through the Management Directorate, and includes a reference 

to achieving management integration.22 Specifically, Objective 5.1—

“Improve Department Governance and Performance”—states that the 

department will lead efforts that provide structure to enhance 

departmentwide governance, decision making, and oversight, including 

internal controls and performance management tracking, and optimize 

processes and systems to facilitate integration and coordination. DHS’s 

Strategic Plan sets out strategic-level goals and objectives for the 

department’s overall mission and management functions but is not 

intended to constitute a management integration strategy. As we have 

previously reported, a management integration strategy goes beyond what 

is contained in an agency strategic plan, as it provides the more specific 

operational and tactical information to manage the integration effort.23 A 

strategic plan contains the high-level goals and mission for an agency, 

while a management integration strategy would provide the activities and 

time lines needed for accomplishing the goals of the integration effort. 

As required by the 9/11 Commission Act, DHS is developing its first QHSR 

to conduct a comprehensive examination of the homeland security 

strategy for the nation, including recommendations regarding the longterm strategy, priorities for homeland security, and guidance on the 

programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the 

department.24 The QHSR includes five principal study areas, based on the 

 

21The other strategic-level goals included in the plan are: (1) protect our nation from 

dangerous people; (2) protect our nation from dangerous goods; (3) protect critical 

infrastructure; and (4) strengthen our nation’s preparedness and emergency response 

capabilities. 

22The second objective focuses more specifically on intelligence and information-sharing 

operations, including: the timely attainment of intelligence and incident-related information 

for threat / risk mitigation; the creation of broad structures to collect, communicate, 

analyze, disseminate, and integrate security and law enforcement information; and the 

further development of private-public information sharing partnerships. The third objective 

focuses more specifically on strengthening and unifying the department’s strategic and 

policy direction, through use of improved strategic planning and assessment; and 

advancing the department’s operations coordination capacity for planning and coordinating 

cross-cutting operations that require multi-component activities. 

23GAO-05-139. 

24According to the act, beginning in fiscal year 2009 and every 4 years after that, DHS must 

“conduct a review of the homeland security of the Nation.” DHS plans to complete and 

report on the first QHSR no later than December 31, 2009, as required under the act. Pub. L. 

No. 110-53, § 2401. See 6 U.S.C. § 347. 

Page 21 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Secretary’s priorities for homeland security, one of which is maturing and 

unifying DHS and the homeland security enterprise.25 DHS is also 

developing a Business Operations Manual that, according to DHS officials, 

will provide an overview of the key DHS processes including strategic 

requirements planning, risk assessment, programming, budgeting, 

acquisition, and performance assessment, and will also show how these 

processes link together to ensure coordinated decision making. As the 

QHSR and Business Operations Manual are still under development, it is 

too soon to tell whether or how these documents will contribute to DHS’s 

management integration efforts. 

DHS Has Expanded Its 

Performance Measures for 

Individual Management 

Functions, but Has Not Yet 

Established Measures for 

Departmentwide 

Management Integration 

DHS has developed some performance goals and measures to measure 

management activities, but has not yet established measures for assessing 

management integration across the department. For example, DHS has 

increased the number of departmentwide performance measures for the 

Management Directorate in support of Goal 5 of its strategic plan. 

Specifically, since fiscal year 2008, DHS has added 13 new measures and 

retired 3 others for the Management Directorate in support of Objective 

5.1 of the strategic plan, going from 5 performance measures for the 

Management Directorate in fiscal year 2008 to 15 measures in fiscal year 

2009, as shown in table 2.26 These measures relate to activities in 

functional areas but do not help to measure management integration. 

 

25The other four study areas include (1) counterterrorism and domestic security 

management; (2) securing our borders; (3) enforcement of immigration laws; and (4) 

preparing for, responding to, and recovering from disasters. 

26DHS has established performance measures in support of Objectives 5.2 and 5.3, but these 

measures are tracked by components other than the Management Directorate. The 

Management Directorate also has four other measures that support Goal 2 of DHS’s 

Strategic Plan to “Protect Our Nation from Dangerous Goods.” These performance 

measures are number of kilograms of cocaine seized by DHS components, number of 

kilograms of heroin seized by DHS components, number of kilograms of methamphetamine 

seized by DHS components, and number of pounds of marijuana seized by DHS 

components. 

Page 22 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Table 2: DHS Management Directorate Fiscal Years 2008 and 2009 Performance Measures

DHS Strategic Plan 

goal 

DHS Strategic Plan 

objective 

Fiscal year 2008 performance 

measure Fiscal year 2009 performance measure 

Strategic Goal 5: 

Strengthen and unify 

DHS operations and 

management 

Objective 5.1: Improve 

department 

governance and 

performance 

Number of internal control processes 

tested for design and operational 

effectiveness 

Percentage of major information 

technology projects that are within 10 

per cent of cost / schedule / performance 

objectives 

Percentage of President’s Management 

Agenda (PMA) initiatives that receive a 

green progress score from the Office of 

Management and Budgeta

 

Percentage of favorable responses by 

DHS employees on the annual 

employee survey 

Percentage of favorable responses by DHS 

employees on the annual employee survey 

Total instances of material weakness 

conditions identified by the independent 

auditor in its report on the DHS financial 

statements 

Total instances of material weakness 

conditions identified by the independent 

auditor in its report on the DHS financial 

statements 

Percentage of major investments currently 

aligned to Agency Enterprise Architecture 

Percentage of DHS workforce (employees 

and contractors) with advanced 

identification cards 

Percentage of major acquisition projects 

that do not exceed 10 per cent of cost / 

schedule / performance objectives 

Interest penalties paid on all invoices (in 

millions) 

Percentage of vendors paid electronically 

Percentage of non-credit card invoices paid 

on-time 

Percentage of accounts receivable from 

the public delinquent over 180 days 

Percentage of improper payments 

collected 

Number of civilian employees serving in 

the DHS interagency and intradepartmental 

Rotation Training Program 

Percentage of civilian employees in 

designated positions that are qualified as 

National Security Professionals 

Page 23 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

DHS Strategic Plan 

goal 

DHS Strategic Plan 

objective 

Fiscal year 2008 performance 

measure Fiscal year 2009 performance measure 

Attrition rate for career senior executive 

service personnel 

Percentage annual reduction in petroleumbased fuel consumption by DHS owned or 

leased vehicles 

Percentage of major information 

technology systems with full Federal 

Information Security Management Act 

compliance 

Source: GAO analysis of information in DHS Annual Performance Report. 

a

The prior administration’s Office of Management and Budget developed a President’s Management 

Agenda scorecard that gave a “green,” “yellow,” or “red” score by agency. Green indicates success, 

yellow indicates mixed results, and red indicates unsatisfactory results. 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) provides a 

framework for strategic planning and reporting intended to improve 

federal agencies’ performance and hold them accountable for achieving 

results.27 Effective implementation of this framework requires agencies to, 

among other things, clearly establish performance goals for which they 

will be held accountable and measure progress toward those 

goals. Although DHS has added measures for the Management Directorate 

since fiscal year 2008, DHS has not yet clearly communicated what the 

linkages, if any, are between these measures and the management 

integration of the department. DHS officials told us that the department’s 

current measures do not allow the department to gauge the status of 

management integration and that the department has focused on the 

development of measures for departmental components, offices, and 

directorates—such as a measure for the attrition rate for career Senior 

Executive Service (SES) personnel and a measure for the percentage of 

improper payments collected. However, these performance measures do 

not allow the department to assess its progress in achieving departmental 

goals for management integration within and across functional areas. DHS 

officials stated that the department’s goal is to develop a set of measures 

that will help the department assess its management integration. Without 

such a set of measures, DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing 

and achieving management integration both within and across its 

functional areas. A comprehensive strategy for management integration 

that clearly sets implementation goals and time lines could help the 

department establish measures for assessing its management integration. 

 

27Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285. 

Page 24 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Through various management councils, the Management Directorate 

shares information related to the implementation of management 

initiatives, solicits feedback from the components, and provides a forum 

for coordination between component management offices. The 

Management Directorate has several councils that it uses to communicate 

through the department, as shown in table 3. Each management chief 

chairs a functional council to address issues pertaining to that 

management function. For example, the DHS CFO leads a council that 

includes component or agency CFOs across DHS and addresses and 

coordinates departmentwide financial management issues, such as 

financial management internal controls. Likewise, the USM chairs a 

Management Council made up of the DHS management chiefs and a 

representative from each component that discusses issues of 

departmentwide importance, such as training and development programs. 

DHS management directives give five of six functional councils 

responsibility for developing and executing formal communications 

programs for internal and external stakeholders. The functional councils 

also have charters that generally define the role of the councils to 

communicate information and provide input on goals or priorities within 

their management function. The Management Council does not have a 

formal charter. 

DHS’s Management 

Directorate Has 

Taken Actions to 

Communicate and 

Consolidate 

Management Policies, 

Processes, and 

Systems 

Table 3: DHS’s Management Councils

Council Chair Membership 

Management Council USM Cross-functional 

Chief Administrative Officer Council CAO Functional 

Chief Financial Officer Council CFO Functional 

Chief Information Officer Council CIO Functional 

Chief Security Officer Council CSO Functional 

Head of Contracting Authority (HCA) CouncilaCPO Functional 

Human Capital Leadership Council CHCO Functional 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents and interviews. 

a

The HCA Council is the functional council for the procurement management function. 

We found the Management Directorate uses the councils to share 

information related to management initiatives with their counterparts from 

the components and solicit their input on departmentwide issues. For 

example, when we observed the Human Capital Leadership Council 

(HCLC) in May 2009, the DHS CHCO updated the council members on his 

office’s efforts to establish an automated performance management tool. 

Page 25 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Members of the HCLC’s Human Capital Subcommittee on Performance 

Management also solicited feedback from the HCLC on whether changing 

the dates of the department’s performance management cycle could be 

explored by the subcommittee because it currently falls at a challenging 

time during the fiscal year. The HCLC discussed the issue and raised 

points, such as the relationship with the SES performance cycle and the 

impact of potential continuing resolutions. Ultimately, the HCLC agreed 

the subcommittee should pursue the issue. Similarly, when we observed a 

Management Council meeting in April 2009, the council members shared 

information on issues that affect multiple management functions, such as 

the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) initiative to 

consolidate and integrate its financial management, acquisition, and asset 

management systems. The council meetings also provide a forum for the 

component chiefs to provide input into departmentwide plans, such as the 

functional area strategic plans. For example, component officials from the 

information technology and human capital management functions 

collaborated with their corresponding DHS management chief on the 

development of their functions’ strategic plans at council meetings or 

council-sponsored off-site meetings. 

The councils also provide a forum for component management chiefs to 

raise concerns and suggestions about departmentwide management 

initiatives. For example, when we observed the CIO Council meeting in 

April 2009, a component official expressed concern about the component’s 

outdated financial management system, which they have not replaced 

because they are waiting for the departmentwide TASC solution. The 

official said that the component is repeatedly receiving negative results on 

their financial systems audit while they wait. The DHS CIO responded that 

if the TASC initiative experiences further delays, she will work with the 

DHS CFO’s office to jointly determine a solution to allow the components 

to make progress and identify areas of possible audit mitigation while 

waiting for TASC to be implemented. Finally, we found that the six 

functional councils provide the component management chiefs with an 

opportunity to collaborate with their peers in other components and share 

best practices. The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Management 

explained that FEMA is in a better position today because of its 

management chiefs’ participation in the councils. He said the management 

chiefs have been able to better handle issues because they are able to 

learn best practices from their counterparts in other components who are 

dealing with the same issues and would not have the same access to the 

other components without the functional councils. 

Page 26 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

DHS’s Management 

Directorate Has Taken 

Actions to Consolidate 

Management Policies, 

Processes, and Systems 

While DHS does not have a comprehensive management strategy, its 

Management Directorate is working to consolidate management policies, 

processes with associated governance boards, and systems. The 

Management Directorate has developed and implemented departmentwide 

policies to replace policies from each of the legacy agencies that make up 

DHS in all six management functions. For example, the DHS CAO’s office 

completed a comprehensive review of directives that govern 

departmentwide activities. According to the DHS Internal Control 

Bluebook for fiscal year 2008, results of this review reduced the number of 

directives by over 56 percent. The DHS CAO’s office also implemented a 

new initiative to develop uniform policies and programs for radiation 

safety across the department. The DHS CFO’s office launched an online 

Financial Management Policy Manual tool, which serves as the single 

authoritative guide on financial management and the foundation for 

departmentwide financial management knowledge sharing and 

standardization. According to officials from the DHS CFO’s office, the 

Financial Management Policy Manual is part of its approach to integrate 

within the financial management function and is critical to enable financial 

management employees to carry out their duties and responsibilities 

effectively and efficiently. 

The Management Directorate has also taken steps toward consolidating 

some management processes and established governance boards to 

manage the processes in the areas of acquisition, information technology, 

financial management, and resource allocation, as shown in table 4. 

Table 4: DHS Governance Boards

Governance board and 

date established Chair Membership 

Acquisition Review Board 

(formerly the Investment 

Review Board) 

November 2008 

Deputy 

Secretary, 

USM, Deputy 

USM, 

Component 

Head or 

Component 

Acquisition 

Executivea

• USM 

• CFO 

• CIO 

• CAO 

• CPO 

• CSO 

• Assistant Secretary for Policy 

• General Council 

• Director of Operational Test and 

Evaluation 

Page 27 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Governance board and 

date established Chair Membership 

Enterprise Architecture 

Board 

April 2004 

CIO • CPO 

• Office of Applied Technology 

• Chief Information Security Officer 

• Office of Accessible Systems and 

Technology 

• Information Technology Services 

Office 

• Enterprise Business Management 

Office 

• Enterprise System Development 

Office 

Senior Management 

Council for Internal Controls

June 2008 

USM • CAO 

• CFO 

• CIO 

• CHCO 

• Chief Information Security Officer 

• CSO 

• CPO 

Program Review Board 

March 2008 

Deputy 

Secretary 

• USM 

• CFO 

• Deputy General Counsel 

• Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of 

Policy 

• Heads CBP, ICE, FEMA, TSA, U.S. 

Coast Guard, USCIS, U.S. Secret 

Service, Domestic Nuclear Detection 

Office, Federal Law Enforcement 

Training Center, Office of Health 

Affairs, Office of Intelligence and 

Analysis, NPPD, Operations 

Coordination, and Science and 

Technology 

Source: GAO Analysis of DHS documents. 

Note: DHS also has a Working Capital Fund Governance Board, which provides policy oversight and 

direction for the activities to be included in the Working Capital Fund. 

a

The chair of the Acquisition Review Board (ARB) differs based on which DHS official is designated 

as the Acquisition Decision Authority for a given acquisition program, according to the amount of the 

program’s total life cycle costs. 

As we previously reported, the Management Directorate recognized 

historical shortcomings in its acquisition review process and released an 

Page 28 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

interim acquisition management directive in November 2008.28 The interim 

directive established a revised acquisition review process, including roles 

and responsibilities of DHS approving authorities, threshold levels for 

acquisitions, and acquisition decision events and the corresponding 

documentation required. Specifically, it established the Acquisition Review 

Board (ARB) as the department’s highest review body and charged it with 

reviewing and approving all programs at key milestone decision points 

that are above $300 million in life cycle costs. In September 2009, we 

testified that DHS has also reinstated regular ARB meetings and 

acquisition decision memorandums.29 Specifically, as of September 15, 

2009, DHS’s ARB reports that it completed 14 acquisition reviews in 2008, 

and has thus far completed 18 reviews in 2009, including reviews of major 

acquisitions, such as SBInet, US-VISIT, and Secure Flight. DHS also 

reports that 7 additional reviews are scheduled to occur by the end of the 

fiscal year. We previously reported that while recent actions establishing 

the ARB and an acquisition process represent progress, the department’s 

previous acquisition review process was not able to effectively carry out 

its oversight responsibilities and keep pace with investments since 2004.30

It is too soon to tell whether DHS’s latest efforts will be sustained to 

ensure investments are consistently reviewed as needed. The DHS IG has 

also reported that DHS faces challenges in implementing corrective 

actions for acquisition oversight.31

In addition, DHS established an Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB) to 

guide and approve new information technology investments. Enterprise 

architecture provides systematic structural descriptions of how a given 

organization operates today and how it plans to operate in the future, and 

it includes a plan to transition from the current state to the future state. 

The EAB reviews and approves information technology investments to 

ensure they align with DHS’s enterprise architecture and transition plan. 

Based on these reviews, the EAB makes recommendations to the ARB, 

mentioned above, which the ARB includes in its review of information 

 

28GAO, DHS: Billions Invested in Major Programs Lack Appropriate Oversight, 

GAO-09-29 (Washington, D.C.: November 18, 2009). 

29GAO, Homeland Security: Despite Progress, DHS Continues to Be Challenged in 

Managing Its Multi-Billion Dollar Annual Investment in Large-Scale Systems, 

GAO-09-1002T (Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2009). 

30GAO-09-29. 

31DHS Office of the Inspector General, Major Management Challenges Facing the 

Department of Homeland Security, OIG-09-08 (Washington, D.C.: November 12, 2008). 

Page 29 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

technology acquisitions. In September 2009, we testified that since 2003, 

DHS has issued annual updates to its enterprise architecture that have 

improved prior versions by adding previously missing content.32 However, 

DHS has yet to adequately address how it determines and ensures that an 

investment is aligned with its enterprise architecture. Specifically, while 

the Management Directorate has recently chartered its EAB and assigned 

it responsibility for ensuring that each investment is architecturally 

aligned throughout its life cycle, it has yet to define a methodology, 

including explicit criteria, for making a risk-based alignment 

determination. 

The Management Directorate established a mission action plan process 

and Senior Management Council (SMC) for Internal Controls to assist the 

department in identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and monitoring the 

progress of efforts to remediate material weaknesses.33 A mission action 

plan presents an overall plan for correcting a control deficiency that 

includes milestones with specific dates and remediation actions and is 

published annually in the department’s Internal Control Playbook. In 

November 2008, the Management Directorate created its first Internal 

Control Bluebook, which provides the status of the department’s efforts to 

design and implement departmentwide internal controls. The SMC 

oversees the mission action plan process and determines when sufficient 

action has been taken to correct material weakness. The Management 

Directorate has faced challenges in implementing the mission action plan 

process at the components. For example, the DHS IG reported that while 

FEMA prepared mission action plans for the fiscal year 2009 Internal 

Control Playbook that address known deficiencies, its financial reporting 

mission action plan did not adequately emphasize the primary root cause 

of control weaknesses.34 Similarly, the DHS IG reported that the TSA’s 

financial reporting mission action plan in the fiscal year 2009 Internal 

Control Playbook lacked specific milestones related to some root causes 

 

32GAO-09-1002T. 

33A material weakness is a significant deficiency, or a combination of significant 

deficiencies, that result in more than a remote likelihood that a material misstatement of 

the financial statements will not be prevented or detected. 

34DHS Office of the Inspector General, Independent Auditor’s Report on FEMA’s FY 2008 

Mission Action Plans included in DHS FY 2009 Internal Control Playbook, OIG-09-76 

(Washington, D.C.: June 5, 2009). 

Page 30 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

and lacked clear linkage from the root cause to actions and milestones to 

address the deficiencies.35

The Management Directorate also participates in the Program Review 

Board (PRB), which governs the department’s programming efforts as part 

of the broader Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution process. 

This process is the department’s effort to ensure goals and priorities are 

translated into actionable requirements, programmed and budgeted for 

appropriately, and realized through execution. Specifically, the USM is a 

member of the PRB. The PRB considers major multi year programmatic 

issues across the department and recommends resource allocation 

decisions to the deputy secretary based on priorities. These decisions 

provide department approved 5-year resource profiles by component, and 

provide the foundation for the next DHS budget sent to the Office of 

Management and Budget. The DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation 

Director told us that the USM has been instrumental in helping 

components prioritize activities. The PRB gives the USM a forum for 

providing input into the resource decisions from a management 

perspective. However, without a management integration strategy for the 

department with clear priorities, it is unclear how the management 

initiatives related to integration that are considered are being prioritized, 

and whether resources are being used in the most efficient and effective 

manner. 

Additionally, the Management Directorate has taken steps in an effort to 

consolidate the department’s systems. For example, the TASC initiative is 

the department’s current effort to consolidate its financial management, 

acquisition, and asset management systems. DHS has been working to 

consolidate its financial management systems since the department was 

first created. A prior effort focused on financial management systems 

integration began in January 2004, known as the Electronically Managing 

Enterprise Resources for Government Effectiveness and Efficiency 

(eMerge2

) project. This project was expected to integrate financial 

management systems departmentwide and address existing financial 

management weaknesses. However, DHS officially ended the eMerge2

project in December 2005, acknowledging that this project had not been 

successful. Litigation has slowed the Management Directorate’s selection 

 

35DHS Office of the Inspector General, Independent Auditor’s Report on TSA’s FY 2008 

Mission Action Plans included in the DHS FY 2009 Internal Control Playbook, OIG-09-68 

(Washington, D.C.: May 21, 2009). 

Page 31 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

process for a contractor to implement TASC, but DHS expects to award 

the contract in early 2010. While DHS officials told us they believe 

communications between the department’s CFO and the component CFOs 

for TASC seem to be working well, in October 2009, we testified that the 

department has not yet completely defined its financial management 

strategy and plan to move forward with financial management integration 

efforts.36

The Management Directorate also has an initiative under way to 

consolidate its information technology data centers, which are facilities 

that contain electronic equipment used for data processing, data storage, 

and communications networking. The Data Center consolidation initiative 

is an effort to move from DHS’s 17 legacy data centers to two large-scale 

enterprise data centers. According to DHS’s fiscal year 2010 Budget in 

Brief report, DHS expects the reduced number of data centers to help 

streamline the department’s maintenance and support contracts as well as 

enhance security and improve information sharing with stakeholders.37

While the Management Directorate intends to complete the relocation of 

legacy data centers to the new data centers by fiscal year 2011, it is facing 

challenges in the implementation of the Data Center consolidation. For 

example, the DHS IG reported that the department has not established 

necessary connectivity between the two data centers so they are able to 

provide backup capabilities for each other because necessary 

telecommunications equipment and circuits are not in place to transmit 

data between the two centers.38

 

36GAO, Financial Management Systems: DHS Faces Challenges to Successfully 

Consolidate its Existing Disparate Systems, GAO-10-210T (Washington, D.C.: October 29, 

2009). 

37DHS, DHS Budget in Brief Fiscal Year 2010 (Washington, D.C.: 2009). 

38DHS Office of the Inspector General, DHS’s Progress in Disaster Recovery Planning for 

Information Systems, OIG-09-60 (Washington, D.C.: April 16, 2009). 

Page 32 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

During a transformation, strategic goals must be clear and enable 

stakeholders and employees to understand what they need to do 

differently to help the organization achieve success.39 The organization’s 

performance management system can help to show how individual 

performance can contribute to overall organizational results, and can help 

manage and direct the transformation process. Specifically, we have 

reported that several practices are critical to ensuring that the 

performance management system supports change.40 To be successful, 

transformation efforts must align individual performance expectations 

with organizational goals. These practices support efforts to create a “line 

of sight” showing how unit and individual performance can contribute to 

overall organizational results, and in the case of transforming DHS and 

integrating the department, can enable the USM and department 

management chiefs to align activities of subordinate management officials 

in support of the management integration strategy. A line of sight that 

connects management integration goals should show how the USM, 

department management chiefs, and management chiefs of DHS 

components all contribute to and support DHS management integration 

goals. Figure 3 provides an example of how individual goals for the USM 

and department and component management chiefs support the 

Management Directorate and department goals and objectives for 

management integration activities related to a particular management 

integration initiative—in this case, DHS Data Center consolidation. The 

figure also depicts how management officials at each level provide 

performance input to align the activities of subordinate levels. 

Performance 

Management 

Practices Could Be 

More Consistently 

Applied 

Departmentwide to 

Strengthen Reporting 

Relationships 

between Department 

and Component 

Management Chiefs 

 

39GAO-03-669. 

40GAO-03-669. The two practices noted here were selected from nine total performance 

management practices because they directly related to linkages between organizational 

and individual goals and objectives, and to cross-cutting goals and objectives. Other 

practices that did not relate directly to linkages include providing and routinely using 

performance information to track organizational priorities, requiring follow-up actions to 

address organizational priorities, using competencies to provide a fuller assessment of 

performance, linking pay to individual and organizational performance, making meaningful 

distinctions in performance, involving employees and stakeholders to gain ownership of 

performance management systems, and maintaining continuity during transitions. 

Page 33 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

Figure 3: Line of Sight Linking Organizational and Individual Goals and Objectives

for DHS Data Consolidation 

We will optimize processes and 

systems to facilitate integration and 

coordination

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents.

Organizational objectives

Individual objectives

Detailed statement

Detailed statement

Detailed statement

Detailed statement

Detailed statement

Integrate functional operations to facilitate 

cross-component synergies and streamline 

coordination ensuring reliable and efficient

support of mission objectives

Optimize processes and

systems

DHS data center consolidation:

10% x quantity of certification and accreditation 

tracking systems shut down in non-DHS data

centers; 10% x quantity of certification and 

accreditation tracking systems stood up in DHS

data centers

Consolidate 17 component data

centers into 2 enterprise data centers

Improve management program & initiatives for DHS

HQ that improve the quality of life of employees, 

enhance operations, improve security, and provide 

efficiencies in operations by 30 Sept. 08

Management Directorate

Strategic Plan

DHS Strategic Plan

Goal/objective

Goal/objective

Strengthen and unify DHS

operations and management

DHS CIO Performance

Agreement

Goal/objective

Goal/objective

DHS CIO Performance

Agreementa

Goal/objective

Under Secretary for Management Performance Agreement

Improve management programs

& initiatives for DHS HQ

Consolidate component 

data centers

Advance DHS headquarters IT 

collaborative efforts

a

The USCIS CIO performance agreement objective cited in figure 3 was linked to DHS’s Strategic 

Plan Goal 5 Strengthen and Unify DHS Operations and Management, but not to the Management 

Directorate Strategic Plan. 

Page 34 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

As the designated CMO of the department, the USM is specifically tasked 

with leading management integration at DHS, and is the first link in the 

line of sight that connects organizational and individual goals and 

objectives, necessary to ensure that once a management integration 

strategy is developed, management leaders at each level support its 

implementation.41 The 9/11 Commission Act requires that the USM enter 

into an annual performance agreement with the Secretary, including 

measurable individual and organizational goals, and be subject to an 

annual performance evaluation by the Secretary, with a determination of 

progress made toward achieving those goals and measures.42 Similarly, we 

have reported that top leadership should drive the transformation, and 

have previously stated that the organization’s CMO should have a clearly 

defined, realistic performance agreement.43 To support departmentwide 

goals, the USM’s performance plan should reflect the DHS Strategic Plan 

and Management Directorate Strategic Plan, and when developed, the 

management integration strategy. In reviewing performance management 

linkages at the USM’s level, we found that the Deputy Secretary provided 

input into the USM’s performance plan in October 2007, and conducted a 

performance evaluation in 2008 based on this agreement. According to 

DHS officials, the Deputy Secretary conducted the performance agreement 

and evaluation—rather than the Secretary—based on delegated 

responsibilities for the performance of management reform as the 

department’s chief operating officer. 

The USM’s Performance 

Agreement and Evaluation 

Indicate That the USM Was 

Held Accountable for 

Management Directorate 

and DHS Strategic 

Objectives 

Performance objectives in the USM’s agreement and evaluation show 

linkages to strategic plans, and include references to several efforts 

related to management integration. Specifically, the USM’s performance 

objectives included clear linkages to the fiscal year 2009 through 2014 

Management Directorate Strategic Plan, and to the fiscal year 2008 

through 2013 DHS Strategic Plan Goal 5—“Strengthen and Unify DHS 

Operations and Management.” In terms of the content of individual 

objectives, three of the performance objectives refer to projects or 

initiatives specifically: (1) Designing a new acquisition review system, (2) 

finalizing and implementing a plan to improve management controls, and 

(3) establishing a certified SES performance system. One objective refers 

generally to improving management programs and initiatives for DHS’s 

 

416 U.S.C. § 341 (a). 

42Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2405. See 6 U.S.C. § 341(c). 

43GAO-03-669. 

Page 35 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

headquarters.44 The efforts to implement a new acquisition review system 

and management controls and centralize management of SES positions 

involves increasing integration of management functions. The Integrated 

Strategy for High Risk Management referenced in the performance plan 

was mentioned by DHS as providing guidance for management integration 

efforts. Other initiatives that contribute to integration, including the 

consolidation of DHS data centers, are described as accomplishments in 

the USM’s evaluation related to the implementing programs and initiatives 

for DHS’s headquarters objective. 

Department Management 

Chiefs’ Performance 

Agreements Show 

Linkages to Higher Level 

Strategies and Include 

Management Integration 

Goals and Objectives 

The second link in the line of sight involves the USM’s relationship with 

the department management chiefs. Five department chiefs report directly 

to the USM, and the CFO has a dual reporting relationship to the Secretary 

and the USM.45 Based on performance management practices mentioned 

above, department management chiefs’ performance plans should support 

organizational goals included in the Management Directorate Strategic 

Plan. We would expect these performance plans should also support a 

department management integration strategy, when one is developed. 

In reviewing department management chiefs’ performance agreements, we 

found that they supported higher level Management Directorate goals and 

objectives, and included references to management integration-related 

activities. For example, performance agreements for the six department 

management chiefs consistently include a reference to the Management 

Directorate’s Strategic Plan. We also learned from DHS officials that fiscal 

year 2009 was the first year that the USM provided a common objective to 

department management chiefs. Specifically, the fiscal year 2009 

management chiefs’ performance plans included a joint performance 

 

44The Management Directorate provides management services to DHS headquarters 

directorates and offices, which include the following organizations: Office of the DHS 

Secretary, Management Directorate, Science and Technology Directorate, NPPD, Office of 

Policy, Office of General Counsel, Office of Legislative Affairs, Office of Public Affairs, 

Office of the Inspector General, Office of Health Affairs, Intelligence and Analysis 

Directorate, Office of Operations Coordination, Citizenship and Immigration Services 

Ombudsman, Office of the Chief Privacy Officer, Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, 

Office of Counternarcotics Enforcement, Domestic Nuclear Detection Office, and National 

Cyber Security Center. 

45Although the USM conducts the DHS CFO’s performance evaluation, the CFO reports to 

both the Secretary of Homeland Security and the USM, as established by the Homeland 

Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. § 342) and the Department of Homeland Security Financial 

Accountability Act (31 U.S.C. § 901 (b)(1)(G)). 

Page 36 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

objective related to management support for the expansion of NPPD. In 

addition, the agreements consistently include objectives related to 

management integration. The following are examples of management 

integration-related objectives in performance agreements: 

• The CSO’s agreement included an objective to “Integrate security services 

department wide through development and implementation of security 

policies and practices for the department.” 

• The Acting CIO’s agreement included objectives for consolidating legacy 

networks and consolidating component data centers (as depicted in figure 

3). 

• The CHCO’s agreement included an objective for providing DHS-wide 

policy and guidance on all major human resources matters. 

• The CAO’s agreement included an objective to establish a consolidated 

headquarters for DHS. 

Performance agreements also showed evidence of common goals. For 

example, as discussed previously, each chief’s agreement includes support 

for the expansion of NPPD. The performance agreements also refer to 

specific actions for support from that management function, such as 

providing space for the new employees, in the CAO’s case, and providing 

information technology hardware and software to support the new 

employees, in the CIO’s case. 

Department Management 

Chiefs Have Not 

Consistently Implemented 

“Dotted Line” Reporting 

Relationships in 

Accordance with 

Management Directives 

The third link in the line of sight involves the department management 

chiefs’ relationships with the management chiefs in DHS’s component 

agencies. The component management chiefs directly report to their 

component agency heads, while also having a “dotted line,” or indirect, 

reporting relationship to their respective department management chief.46

The arrangement of component heads and department chiefs both 

supporting integration of management functions is referred to as “dual 

accountability.” When we reviewed DHS’s management integration 

progress in 2005, the department had recently established the dual 

accountability structure of reporting relationships.47 Management 

 

46Responsibilities of the component management chiefs may not correspond directly with 

responsibilities of the department chiefs in all management functions. 

47GAO-05-139. 

Page 37 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

directives define department and component management chiefs’ 

responsibilities, including specific ways that department management 

chiefs should provide direction to component management chiefs. For 

example, management directives require the department chief to establish 

annual milestones for integrating the management function. The directives 

also require the management chiefs to provide written performance 

objectives to the component management chief at the start of each 

performance cycle, feedback to the component rating official on the 

component chief’s accomplishment of objectives, and input on bonus or 

award recommendations, pay, and other forms of commendation. Also, in 

accordance with performance management practices mentioned 

previously, to ensure accountability for change, component management 

chiefs’ performance agreements should reflect the department 

management chiefs’ specific performance objectives for the component 

chiefs’ management functions, and should also reflect the Management 

Directorate and departmentwide strategic plans. 

All department management chiefs except for the CSO said that they 

specifically established annual priorities of some sort—either goals, 

objectives, milestones, and / or expected results—for their function. In 

addition, we reviewed documentation of goals, objectives, milestones, or 

expected results for each of these management functions. Four 

management chiefs—the CFO, CPO, CHCO, and CAO—said that the 

priorities were determined through annual planning processes for the 

function, either at an offsite meeting or through the management 

function’s council. The CSO indicated that the management function’s 

strategic plan served in place of annual milestones, although the plan 

provided did not identify its applicability to any given year or distinguish 

any priorities or target for implementation within a particular year. 

At an individual level, however, the department chiefs did not consistently 

provide individual input at the beginning of the component management 

chiefs’ performance cycle—either through written goals and objectives or 

via direct input into the performance agreement. Management directives 

for each management function include a requirement that department 

management chiefs provide the component management chief with 

written objectives at the start of the annual performance cycle. In our 

review we found that only two department chiefs—the CAO and CPO—

said that they provided individual input with regard to component chiefs’ 

performance. The CAO said that he provided written objectives attached 

to a memo that was sent to each component CAO, and the CPO said that 

individual input and goals were provided annually in the form of a letter. 

We also reviewed these objectives and goals provided to the components. 

Page 38 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

The other four management chiefs said that they did not provide individual 

input, and instead pointed to collective goals or objectives developed 

through planning processes and contained in strategic or operational 

plans. While these collective processes and overall plans provide general 

guidance for the management function, they do not meet the standard 

established by the management directives of annual, individualized 

performance input. 

The USM told us that the functional councils have improved in their 

development of common management goals for their functions, but she 

agreed that they have not yet consistently followed through by putting 

those goals into individual performance plans. She added that the 

department’s management chiefs would be including this information in 

component chiefs’ performance plans for 2010. Despite the lack of 

department input in the four component management chiefs’ performance 

agreements mentioned above, in reviewing the agreements we found that 

some of them included a link to the Management Directorate Strategic 

Plan, a management function strategy or plan, or the DHS Strategic Plan 

Goal 5 for management. Some performance agreements also referred to 

supporting department-level efforts, with references to activities such as 

supporting department-level strategic plans and council activities and 

implementing departmentwide management initiatives. 

In addition to input into component chief performance agreements, 

management directives require department chief feedback to the 

component rating official regarding the component chiefs’ 

accomplishment of annual objectives. The CFO, CSO, and CAO told us 

that they provided input into component chiefs’ performance appraisals, 

while the CIO and CPO did not provide input. The CPO stated that he 

would be providing input beginning with the fiscal year 2010 performance 

appraisals. The CHCO said that, due to his limited tenure in the position, 

he could not state whether input had occurred. In addition to individual 

input, department chiefs have the opportunity to review the component 

chiefs’ performance ratings and bonuses and / or pay adjustments at the 

conclusion of the department Performance Review Boards prior to their 

approval by the deputy secretary. While this assessment provides an 

additional opportunity for department oversight, it does not satisfy the 

management directives’ requirement for input by the department chief to 

the component rating official. The USM said that departmental chiefs’ 

input into component chiefs’ performance appraisals would be a priority 

in the future. 

Page 39 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

In summary, performance management practices to help ensure 

accountability for management integration between the department and 

component management chiefs are not consistently in place. While 

linkages are being most clearly defined at the department chief level 

within their individual management functions, department chiefs are not 

consistently providing the guidance and input required by department 

management directives and in accordance with performance management 

leading practices. The inconsistent application of such guidance and 

practices presents challenges to institutionalizing individual accountability 

and enabling the effective exercise of authority at the department. Without 

ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs’ 

performance plans and evaluations as required, the Management 

Directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully implementing 

management integration. 

In the more than 6 years since its establishment, DHS has taken actions 

that could help it transform organizationally and integrate its management 

functions to establish a unified department. In particular, the department 

has taken actions to vertically integrate the component agencies by 

developing common policies, procedures, and systems within individual 

management functions, such as human capital and information technology 

However, DHS has placed less emphasis on integrating horizontally, and 

bringing together these multiple management functions across the 

department. 

Conclusions 

In addition, key characteristics that are necessary to guide and ensure 

successful management integration are not yet in place, such as 

identification of trade-offs, priorities, and implementation goals, and the 

implementation and transformation of the department remains on our 

high-risk list. Current plans are a step in the right direction, but in the 

absence of a comprehensive strategy for management integration as 

required by the 9/11 Commission Act and meeting all of the previously 

identified characteristics for such a strategy, it is unclear how 

management integration will be more fully achieved across the 

department. We therefore reiterate our prior recommendation, not yet 

fully implemented, that DHS develop a comprehensive management 

integration strategy. We continue to believe that a comprehensive strategy 

for management integration is warranted, and would help the department 

to ensure that its management initiatives are implemented in a coherent 

way. It would also help DHS to communicate its approach for management 

integration and measures for evaluating progress made. Moreover, while 

DHS has been implementing management initiatives and processes across 

Page 40 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

the department, in the absence of a comprehensive management 

integration strategy, it is unclear how these efforts are being prioritized 

and sequenced, and trade-offs between them are being recognized. In 

addition, a comprehensive strategy for management integration would 

help the department establish performance measures to better gauge its 

progress in integrating its various management policies, processes, and 

systems across DHS. Although the department has developed certain 

management measures, these measures do not allow the department to 

assess the extent to which it is making progress in implementing and 

achieving management integration both within and across functional 

areas. 

The “dotted line” reporting relationships between the department chiefs 

will be particularly important once DHS develops a management 

integration strategy that would involve decisions and trade-offs that are 

dependent on component compliance to succeed. Implementation of 

existing performance management mechanisms—such as the 

departmental management chiefs’ input into component chiefs’ 

performance plans and evaluations, and linkages between department 

goals and objectives and individual performance plans for component 

management chiefs—is necessary to ensure that the Management 

Directorate can exercise its authority and leadership to implement a 

management integration strategy. 

To strengthen its management integration efforts, we recommend that the 

Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for 

Management, working with others, to take the following four actions: 

Recommendations for 

Executive Action 

• Once a comprehensive management integration strategy is developed, 

consistent with statute and as we previously recommended, establish 

performance measures to assess progress made in achieving 

departmentwide management integration; 

• Ensure that department management chiefs provide written objectives for 

component management chiefs’ performance plans at the beginning of 

each performance cycle, and that the objectives are representative of 

determined priorities and milestones for the management functions during 

that period; 

• Ensure that department management chiefs provide input into component 

management chiefs’ annual performance evaluations; and 

Page 41 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

• Ensure that component management chiefs’ individual performance plans 

are reflective of and include linkages to the goals and objectives for the 

Management Directorate and relevant department management function. 

We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of 

Homeland Security for comment. In written comments on a draft of this 

report, the DHS Under Secretary for Management provided information on 

steps the department was taking or planning to take to develop a strategy 

for management integration, as we had recommended in our 2005 report, 

and to link this strategy to SES performance appraisals for the 

management chiefs. Specifically, the Under Secretary for Management said 

that she is leading the process for developing a detailed, measurable plan 

that will include the actions and milestones necessary to accomplish 

management integration at the department. Additionally, the Under 

Secretary for Management stated that the integration plan will be tied to 

the SES performance appraisals for each management chief for the fiscal 

year 2010 performance cycle, and that the plan will also serve as the 

required annual performance agreement between the Secretary and the 

Under Secretary for Management. 

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation 

While DHS’s letter did not directly comment on our recommendations in 

this report related to the need for performance measures for management 

integration and additional steps needed to strengthen accountability for 

the management chiefs, the Director of DHS’s Internal Control Program 

Management Office noted in a subsequent e-mail that DHS concurred with 

our report and its written comments were intended to discuss steps to 

implement the recommendations in our report. 

DHS’s written comments are contained in appendix I. We incorporated 

technical comments provided by DHS as appropriate. 

As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of 

this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the 

report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Department of 

Homeland Security and other interested parties. In addition, the report will 

be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. 

If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please 

contact me at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov, or David Maurer, 

Director, at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Points of contact for our 

Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the 

Page 42 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
 

last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in 

Bernice Stein

appendix II. 

hardt, Director 

Strategic Issues 

David C. Maurer, Director 

Homeland Security and Justice 

Page 43 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
Appendix I: Comments from the Department Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security 

of Homeland Security 

Page 44 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security 
Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 

Acknowledgments 

Bernice Steinhardt, (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov. 

David Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov 

In addition to the contact named above Sarah Veale, Assistant Director; 

Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director; S. Mike Davis; Barbara Lancaster; 

Jared Hermalin; Bion Bliss; Jyoti Gupta; Tom Beall; and Karin Fangman 

made significant contributions to this report. 

GAO Contacts 

Staff 

Acknowledgments 

Page 45 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
Related GAO Products Related GAO Products 

Financial Management Systems: DHS Faces Challenges to Successfully 

Consolidate its Existing Disparate Systems. GAO-10-210T. Washington, 

D.C.: October 29, 2009. 

Homeland Security: Despite Progress, DHS Continues to Be Challenged 

in Managing Multi-Billion Dollar Annual Investment in Large-Scale 

Systems. GAO-09-1002T. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2009. 

High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January 

2009. 

Department of Homeland Security: A Strategic Approach Is Needed to 

Better Ensure the Acquisition Workforce Can Meet Mission Needs. 

GAO-09-30. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2008. 

Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs 

Lack Appropriate Oversight. GAO-09-29. Washington, D.C.: November 18, 

2008. 

Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation of 

Management Functions, but More Work Remains. GAO-08-646T. 

Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2008. 

Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer 

/ Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies. GAO-08-322TT. 

Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2007. 

Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment 

Needed to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions. 

GAO-08-263. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2008. 

Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer 

/ Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies. GAO-08-34. 

Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2007. 

Homeland Security: DHS Enterprise Architecture Continues to Evolve 

but Improvements Needed. GAO-07-564. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2007. 

Federal Real Property: DHS Has Made Progress, but Additional Actions 

Are Needed to Address Real Property Management and Security 

Challenges. GAO-07-658. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2007. 

Page 46 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
Related GAO Products 

Homeland Security: Departmentwide Integrated Financial Management 

Systems Remain a Challenge. GAO-07-536. Washington, D.C.: June 21, 

2007. 

Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on Implementation 

of Mission and Management Functions. GAO-07-454. Washington, D.C.: 

August 17, 2007. 

Information Technology: DHS Needs to Fully Define and Implement 

Policies and Procedures for Effectively Managing Investments. 

GAO-07-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2007. 

Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained 

Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration. GAO-05-139. 

Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2005. 

Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and 

Organizational Transformations. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: July 2, 

2003. 

(450665) Page 47 GAO-10-131 Department of Homeland Security
GAO’s Mission The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and 

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

constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and 

accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO 

examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; 

and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 

Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s 

commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 

accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

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

is through GAO’s Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday 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.” 

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order 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. 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400 

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

Washington, DC 20548 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs 

Congressional 

Relations 

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

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

Washington, DC 20548 

Public Affairs 

Please Print on Recycled Paper