NATIONAL 

TRANSPORTATION 

SAFETY BOARD

Management and 

Operational 

Improvements Found, 

but Strategy Needed 

to Utilize Cost 

Accounting System

Report to Congressional Committees

July 2013

GAO-13-611

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

Highlights of GAO-13-611, a report to 

congressional committees

July 2013

NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

Management and Operational Improvements Found, 

but Strategy Needed to Utilize Cost Accounting 

System

Why GAO Did This Study

The NTSB plays a vital role in 

transportation safety. It is charged with 

investigating all civil aviation accidents

in the United States and selected 

accidents in other transportation 

modes, determining the probable 

cause of these accidents, and making 

appropriate recommendations, as well 

as performing safety studies. 

In 2006, NTSB’s reauthorization 

legislation mandated GAO to annually 

evaluate its programs. From 2006 to 

2008, GAO made 21 recommendations 

to NTSB aimed at improving 

management and operations across 

several areas. Since that time, NTSB 

has taken action to address all 21 

recommendations. Some of these were

completed by requiring only a single 

action, whereas others required 

continuing effort to achieve operational 

improvement. For this review, GAO 

examined the extent to which desired 

outcomes are being achieved in five 

areas where continuing effort was 

necessary. GAO analyzed workforce, 

financial, and program data, and 

interviewed agency officials about 

actions NTSB has taken.

What GAO Recommends

In each of the five areas NTSB needs 

to continue its improvement efforts. 

Further, GAO recommends that NTSB 

senior managers develop a strategy for 

maximizing the utility of NTSB’s cost

accounting system. GAO provided a 

draft of this report to officials at NTSB. 

NTSB officials concurred with the 

recommendation and provided 

technical comments, which GAO 

incorporated as appropriate.

What GAO Found

GAO’s analysis found varying degrees of improvement associated with the National 

Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) actions in areas selected for review. 

• Training Center utilization. NTSB increased utilization of its Training Center—

both non-classroom and classroom space—since 2006. NTSB has also set and 

achieved its cost recovery goal at the Training Center in the last 2 fiscal years, 

allowing NTSB to recover half of its operating costs.

• Recommendation close-out process. By automating the recommendation followup process, NTSB has reduced by about 3 months the amount of time it takes to 

respond to agencies on whether planned actions to implement NTSB 

recommendations are acceptable; this allows agencies to move forward with 

approved actions sooner than under NTSB’s former paper-driven process.

• Communication. NTSB employees’ responses on federal employee surveys from 

2004 to 2012 indicated an increase from 49 to 57 percent in employees’ positive 

responses regarding managers’ communication about agency goals, and from 44 

to 49 percent regarding the amount of information received. We compared NTSB 

employees’ responses to those of employees from a group of small agencies and 

found that NTSB employees’ satisfaction level was about the same or more 

positive depending on the question. NTSB officials continue to monitor 

employees’ views about communication to address any remaining concerns. 

• Diversity management. NTSB employees’ positive responses to the federal 

employee survey questions about managers’ commitment to diversity and 

NTSB’s diversity policies and programs increased from about 54 percent to over 

70 percent from 2004 to 2012. However, employees’ positive responses to the 

question about managers’ ability to work well with employees with different 

backgrounds declined 6 percentage points over the same period. In addition, the 

proportion of minority and women employees in NTSB’s workforce, including in 

its investigator staff, showed little appreciable change over the period 2008 to 

2012. NTSB’s workforce had a smaller proportion of some minority groups than 

the civilian labor force. NTSB officials are using results from their recent diversity 

survey to identify gaps in their diversity management efforts and to benchmark 

future progress. It is too soon to tell whether NTSB’s actions will lead to 

additional changes in its workforce diversity profile.

• Financial management. To improve operational effectiveness, NTSB has 

implemented a cost accounting system that includes a time and attendance 

program to track staff hours and costs related to accident investigations. NTSB is 

currently focused on ensuring the quality of the time and attendance data, but 

has not yet developed a strategy to maximize the utility of its cost accounting 

system for making resource and operational decisions. Thus, NTSB has not yet 

fully achieved its vision of using the data to improve labor productivity and 

mission effectiveness. 

View GAO-13-611. For more information, 

contact Gerald L.Dillingham, Ph.D at (202) 

512-3834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov
Page i GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Letter 1 

Background 3

Results across NTSB Management Areas 7

Conclusion 17

Recommendation 18

Agency Comments 18

Appendix I Objective, Scope, and Methodology 19

Appendix II Comments from the National Transportation Safety Board 22

Appendix III GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 23

Related GAO Products 24

Table

Table 1: Profile of the National Transportation Safety Board 

Workforce by Race, Gender, and National Origin, 2008 

through 2012 16

Figures

Figure 1: Total Expenses, Revenue and Deficit, National 

Transportation Safety Board Training Center, Fiscal Years 

2004 through 2012. 8

Figure 2: National Transportation Safety Board’s Average Response 

Time and Number of Responses to Agencies’ 

Recommendation Correspondence, by Quarter, Fiscal 

Years 2009 through First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013 10

Figure 3: National Transportation Safety Board Employee 

Responses about Communication on Selected Office of 

Personnel Management Survey Questions, 2004 through 

2012 12

Contents 
Page ii GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Figure 4: National Transportation Safety Board Employee 

Responses about Diversity and Inclusiveness on Selected 

Office of Personnel Management Survey Questions, 2004 

through 2012 14

Abbreviations 

BLS Bureau of Labor Statistics

CNS Correspondence, Notation, and Safety Recommendation System

DOT Department of Transportation

NTSB National Transportation Safety Board

OPM Office of Personnel Management

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

United States. 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 1 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

July 24, 2013

The Honorable John D. Rockefeller IV

Chairman

The Honorable John Thune

Ranking Member

Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

United States Senate

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Nick J. Rahall, II

Ranking Member

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) plays a vital role in 

advancing transportation safety by investigating every civil aviation 

accident in the United States and selected accidents involving other 

transportation modes, determining the probable causes of these 

accidents, and making subsequent recommendations. NTSB also 

develops studies that raise awareness of emerging safety issues. Since 

2008, NTSB has investigated more than 1,100 aviation accidents and 

dozens of accidents in other transportation modes, and issued over 1,000 

recommendations to different agencies for improving safety. Most 

recently, in 2012 NTSB launched 279 accident investigations and made 

207 recommendations to improve transportation safety. NTSB is a 

relatively small agency with a staff of about 400 employees and a fiscal 

year 2013 budget of $104 million. In light of NTSB’s expansive mission to 

investigate accidents across all transportation modes, it is critical that 

NTSB manage its resources and operations as efficiently as possible.

In 2006, NTSB’s reauthorization legislation mandated GAO to annually 

evaluate its programs.1 GAO conducted a series of annual reviews 

covering NTSB’s management and operations, including examining the 

extent to which NTSB (1) followed leading practices in selected 

 

1

The National Transportation Safety Board Reauthorization Act of 2006, Pub. L. No. 109-

443, § 5, 120 Stat. 3297, 3299, codified at 49 U.S.C. § 1138.

 
 

Page 2 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

management areas, (2) addressed challenges in completing 

investigations, and (3) generated sufficient revenues to cover its Training 

Center costs.2 GAO’s reviews resulted in 21 recommendations to NTSB 

aimed at improving management and operations across 12 areas.3 In 

2012, we reported that all 21 of these recommendations had been 

implemented and closed.4 Since then, NTSB has undertaken numerous 

actions and continues to plan and implement changes in an effort to 

improve its management and operations. However, measuring the 

outcomes of NTSB’s actions is necessary to determine whether those 

actions have led to measurable improvements and whether NTSB is 

efficiently marshalling these efforts and using resources effectively. Our 

objective in this review was to assess whether there has been 

management and operational improvements associated with NTSB’s 

actions. We considered recommendations within management and 

operational areas of key importance to NTSB’s current priorities, as 

stated in its 2013-2016 Strategic Plan and areas that required continuing 

effort to achieve desired outcomes. This process yielded five 

recommendations for our review. We then identified outcome measures 

to assess changes by comparing current conditions with the initial 

conditions at the time we performed our previous work, or earlier in some 

instances, to establish a baseline. We used NTSB’s financial and 

program data, employee survey data from the Office of Personnel 

Management (OPM), and workforce data from NTSB and the Bureau of 

Labor and Statistics (BLS). To ensure the data used were of sufficient 

reliability for our analysis, we examined program reporting procedures

and quality assurance controls, and discussed various data elements with 

knowledgeable agency officials. We also spoke with NTSB officials who 

 

2

GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Preliminary Observations on the Value of 

Comprehensive Planning, and Greater Use of Leading Practices and the Training 

Academy. GAO-06-801T (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2006).

3

GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Preliminary Observations on the Value of 

Comprehensive Planning, and Greater Use of Leading Practices and the Training 

Academy. GAO-06-801T (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2006); GAO, National 

Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made, Yet Management Practices, Investigation 

Priorities, and Training Center Use Should Be Improved. GAO-07-118 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 22, 2006); and GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made in 

Management Practices, Investigation Priorities, Training Center Use, and Information 

Security, But These Areas Continue to Need Improvement. GAO-08-652T (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 23, 2008).

4

GAO, National Transportation Safety Board’s Implementation of GAO 

Recommendations. GAO-12-306R (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 6, 2012).
 

Page 3 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

were knowledgeable about management and operations related to the 5 

selected recommendations.

We conducted this performance audit from August 2012 through July 

2013 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 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. See Appendix I for a more 

detailed explanation of our scope and methodology.

NTSB was initially established within the newly formed Department of 

Transportation (DOT) in 1966,5 but was made independent from DOT in 

1974.6 NTSB is charged by Congress with investigating every civil 

aviation accident in the United States and significant accidents in other 

modes of transportation—railroad, highway, marine and pipeline. NTSB 

determines the probable cause of the accidents and issues safety 

recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents. In addition, 

NTSB carries out special studies concerning transportation safety and 

coordinates the resources of the federal government and other 

organizations to provide assistance to victims and their family members 

impacted by major transportation disasters.7 Unlike regulatory 

transportation agencies, such as the Federal Aviation Administration, 

NTSB does not have the authority to promulgate regulations to promote 

safety, but instead makes recommendations in its accident reports and 

safety studies to agencies that have such regulatory authority. 

NTSB is comprised of a five-person board—a chairman, vice chairman, 

and three members—appointed by the President with the advice and 

consent of the Senate. The chairman is the NTSB’s chief executive and 

administrative officer. The agency is headquartered in Washington, D.C., 

and maintains 7 regional offices and a training center located in Ashburn, 

 

5

Department of Transportation Act, Pub.L.No. 89-670, § 5, 80 Stat. 931 (1966).

6

Independent Safety Board Act of 1974, Pub.L.No. 93-633, Title III, 88 Stat. 2156 (1974).

7 49 U.S.C. § 1131(a)(1).

Background 
 

Page 4 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Virginia.8 In fiscal year 2013, the board was supported by a staff of about 

400, which includes nearly 140 investigators assigned to its modal 

offices—aviation; highway; marine; and rail, pipeline, and hazardous 

materials—as well as 73 investigation-related employees, such as 

engineers and meteorologists. NTSB’s modal offices vary in size in 

relation to the number of investigators, with the Aviation Safety office 

being the largest. In addition, the Office of Research and Engineering 

provides technical, laboratory, analytical, and engineering support for the 

modal offices. Staff from this office interpret information from flight data 

recorders, create accident computer simulations, and publish general 

safety studies.

This review focuses on the extent to which NTSB has achieved 

measurable improvements from actions the agency has taken in five 

management and operational areas based on prior GAO 

recommendations.

• Training Center utilization. Making efficient and effective use of 

resources provided by Congress is a key responsibility of federal 

agencies. NTSB’s Training Center, which opened in August 2003 in 

Ashburn, Virginia, consists of classrooms, offices, and laboratory 

facilities used for instructional purposes and active investigations.9

NTSB uses this center to train its own staff and others from the 

transportation community to improve accident investigation 

techniques. NTSB charges tuition for those outside NTSB to take its 

courses, and generates additional revenue from space rentals to other 

organizations for events such as conferences on a cost reimbursable 

basis. Although there is no statutory requirement that NTSB cover the 

cost of its Training Center through the revenues generated from the 

facility, a 2007 review we conducted found that NTSB was not

capitalizing on its lease flexibility to generate additional revenues and 

classrooms were significantly underutilized.10 For example, we found 

 

8

Since 2008, NTSB has consolidated its regional offices from 9 offices to 7 offices and 

plans to close 3 more offices by the end of fiscal year 2013.

9

A regional office for aviation safety is also located at the Training Center.

10Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 1113(b)(1)(I), NTSB has statutory authority to enter into 

agreements for the provision of facilities, accident-related and technical services, or 

training in accident investigation theory and techniques, and require such entities to 

provide appropriate consideration for the reasonable costs of any facilities, goods, 

services, or training provided by the NTSB.
 

Page 5 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

that less than 10 percent of the available classroom capacity was 

used in fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Furthermore, NTSB was 

encouraged in a Senate report accompanying the 2006 appropriations 

bill for DOT to be more aggressive in imposing and collecting fees to 

cover the costs of the Training Center.11 Since then, NTSB leased a 

large portion of the Training Center’s non-classroom space to the 

Federal Air Marshall Service and provided short-term leases of 

classroom space to other organizations. In addition, NTSB increased 

the amount of training it delivered at the Training Center.

• Recommendation close-out process. Efficiently managing the 

recommendation tracking process is a key function, according to 

NTSB officials. The recommendation close-out process is managed 

by the Safety Recommendations and Quality Assurance Division, 

which has responsibility for tracking the status of its 

recommendations. When NTSB receives correspondence from an 

agency about an NTSB recommendation, this division ensures it is 

properly routed and reviewed and contacts the agency about whether 

the response is acceptable. If NTSB is delayed in communicating with 

agencies about whether NTSB considers actions to address 

recommendations acceptable, that agency could delay implementing 

a course of action pending approval. In fiscal year 2010, NTSB 

replaced a lengthy, paper-based process with an automated system—

the Correspondence, Notation, and Safety Recommendation system 

(CNS)—intended to facilitate the recommendation close out process 

by electronically storing and automatically routing agencies’ proposals 

to the appropriate NTSB reviewers, allowing for concurrent reviews by 

multiple parties within NTSB, and more accurately tracking responses. 

It is important to note that an agency is not necessarily restricted from 

implementing action prior to formal NTSB approval of that action. 

Depending on the complexity of the issue, agencies may begin to 

address issues prior to NTSB’s providing formal approval. In other 

circumstances, NTSB addresses safety deficiencies immediately 

before the completion of an investigation. For example, during the 

course of the TWA flight 800 investigation, NTSB issued an urgent 

safety recommendation once it was determined that an explosion in a 

fuel tank caused the breakup of the aircraft.

 

11S. Rpt. 109-109, at 235 (2005), accompanying the Senate Transportation, Treasury, 

Housing and Urban Development, and Agencies Appropriations bill for fiscal year 2006.
 

Page 6 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

• Communication. Useful management practices include seeking and 

monitoring employee attitudes, encouraging two-way communication 

between employees and management, and incorporating employee 

feedback into new policies and procedures. This type of 

communication and collaboration across offices at all levels can 

improve an agency’s ability to carry out its mission by providing 

opportunities to share best practices and helping to ensure that any 

needed input is provided in a timely manner. To this end, NTSB 

managers and board members began holding periodic meetings with 

staff, conducting outreach to regional offices, and surveying staff 

about the effectiveness of communication techniques.

• Diversity management. Implementing a diversity management

strategy and a more diverse workforce helps foster a work 

environment that not only empowers and motivates people to 

contribute to mission but also provides accountability and fairness for 

all employees. Diversity management helps an organization create 

and maintain a positive work environment where the similarities and 

differences of individuals are valued, so that all can reach their 

potential and maximize their contributions to the organization’s 

strategic goals. NTSB has developed diversity training courses and 

held events to educate staff on diversity and inclusiveness issues, 

created career development and mentoring programs to create 

upward mobility, targeted its recruitment program to reach a more 

diverse pool of applicants, and surveyed staff to assess the 

effectiveness of its efforts.

• Financial management. Sound financial management is crucial for 

responsible stewardship of federal resources.12 Traditionally, 

government financial systems and government managers have 

focused on tracking how agencies spend their budgets but did not 

focus on assessing the costs of activities to achieve efficiencies. More 

recently however, some government agencies have adopted cost 

accounting systems that track the cost of providing a service—in 

NTSB’s case, an accident investigation. In 2006, GAO recommended 

that NTSB develop a cost accounting system to track the amount of 

time employees spend on each investigation and other activities. This 

approach allows management to link the cost of providing a service 

 

12GAO, Executive Guide: Creating Value through World-Class Financial Management, 

GAO/AIMD-00-134 (Washington, D.C.: April 2000).
 

Page 7 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

directly with the budget and allocate resources based on those costs. 

To determine the costs associated with conducting accident 

investigations, NTSB launched a time and attendance program tied to 

its cost accounting platform that allows the agency to collect and 

analyze labor and certain other costs associated with individual 

investigations. Investigators account for their time on investigations 

through the time and attendance system using specific codes that 

identify different investigations.

Our analysis found varying degrees of improvement associated with 

NTSB’s actions in each of the management and operational areas we 

selected for review.

Our analysis showed that NTSB improved the utilization of the Training 

Center, which allowed it to recover a larger portion of its operating costs. 

NTSB increased utilization of both classroom and non-classroom space 

at the Training Center since we conducted our work in 2006. NTSB 

subleased all available office space at the Training Center to the Federal 

Air Marshal Service in 2007, and utilization of non-classroom spaces has 

been at 95 percent since then. At the same time, NTSB increased 

utilization of the classroom space, increasing its own use of classrooms, 

subleasing approximately one-third of the classroom space to the 

Department of Homeland Security in 2008, and providing short term 

leases to other outside parties for classroom use. Subsequently, NTSB 

reported classroom utilization rose from less than 10 percent in 2005 to 

18 percent in fiscal year 2007. By fiscal year 2009, it had increased to 

over 60 percent—the target we identified in our 2008 report as the 

appropriate minimum level.13 Classroom utilization has remained above 

60 percent through fiscal year 2012.

We also found that improved Training Center utilization generated 

additional revenue over time, which allowed NTSB to recover a larger 

portion of the facility’s operating costs. When the Training Center first 

opened in fiscal year 2004, NTSB recovered about 4 percent of its 

operating costs, resulting in a deficit of nearly $6.3 million. Portions of the 

 

13GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made in Management Practices, 

Investigation Priorities, Training Center Use, and Information Security, But These Areas 

Continue to Need Improvement, GAO-08-652T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 23, 2008).

Results across NTSB 

Management Areas

Training Center Utilization
 

Page 8 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Training Center’s costs that are not covered by revenues from tuition and 

other sources such as facility rentals are offset by general appropriations 

to the agency; therefore, generating additional revenue makes those 

appropriated funds available for other uses. In 2011, NTSB indicated that 

it was committed to improving cost recovery at the Training Center. That 

year the agency set a goal to recover costs of the Training Center within 

10 percent of the previous fiscal year. For example, in fiscal year 2010, 

NTSB recovered $2 million in operating costs, making the fiscal year 

2011 goal to recover at least $1.8 million of the Training Center’s costs. 

NTSB achieved its goal in fiscal years 2011 and 2012 by which time the 

agency was recovering about half of the Training Center’s operating 

costs, reducing the operating deficit at the Training Center to $2.1 million, 

one-third of what it was in 2004. (See fig. 1 for changes in the Training 

Center’s expenses and revenues.)

Figure 1: Total Expenses, Revenue and Deficit, National Transportation Safety 

Board Training Center, Fiscal Years 2004 through 2012.
 

Page 9 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

The automation of NTSB’s recommendation follow-up process has 

reduced the amount of time it takes to formally respond to agencies about 

whether planned actions to implement an NTSB recommendation are 

acceptable.14 In fiscal year 2010, NTSB deployed the previously 

described CNS to manage the Board’s correspondence, including 

accident reports, safety studies, recommendation transmittals, and public 

notice responses. CNS allows for the relevant modal offices and the 

Research and Engineering Office to simultaneously review and assess 

planned actions to address NTSB recommendations. According to NTSB 

officials, prior to the implementation of CNS, the average time NTSB took 

to respond to an agency’s proposals to address an NTSB 

recommendation was 216 days. After CNS was implemented, that figure 

dropped to 115 days—a reduction of 47 percent. At the same time, the 

number of responses the agency put out each quarter also increased. 

(See fig. 2.) NTSB officials have indicated that they have an internal goal 

to further reduce the response time to 90 days on average.

 

14As noted above, NTSB also issues recommendations to immediately address safety 

deficiencies found during an investigation before a report is issued. 

Recommendation CloseOut Process
 

Page 10 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Figure 2: National Transportation Safety Board’s Average Response Time and 

Number of Responses to Agencies’ Recommendation Correspondence, by Quarter, 

Fiscal Years 2009 through First Quarter, Fiscal Year 2013

Note: According to NTSB officials, the rise in response times in the first quarter of 2011 is associated 

with a significant increase in the number of letters prepared, most of which were part of an existing 

backlog. In addition, in fiscal year 2012, a temporary 20 percent decrease in staff in the Safety 

Recommendation and Quality Assurance Division contributed to longer response times, which 

improved in the first quarter of fiscal year 2013 with a full complement of staff.

Our analysis of improvements in NTSB’s employee and management 

communication related to NTSB’s efforts indicated uneven results; 

specifically we observed improvements in some but not all measures. We 

reviewed NTSB employees’ responses to the three federal survey 

questions we determined related to employees’ perceptions about 

managers’ communication, as described below:

• Managers communicate the goals and priorities of the organization. 

NTSB respondents increased their positive responses to this 

Communication 
 

Page 11 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

question, from about 49 percent in 2004 to 57 percent in 2012. (See 

fig. 3.) We compared NTSB employees’ responses with employees in 

a group of small federal and independent agencies15 and found that 

NTSB employees’ satisfaction level increased while the proportion of 

employees from small agencies responding positively to this question 

during the same period was relatively unchanged from 57 percent in 

2004 to 59 percent in 2012.

• How satisfied are you with the information you receive from 

management on what’s going on in your organization? Responses to 

this question indicated an increase in the level of satisfaction, from 44 

percent in 2004 to 49 percent in 2012. NTSB employees’ responses 

were similar to the positive responses by employees from small 

agencies that showed an increase from 44 percent to 50 percent.

• Managers promote communication among different work units (for 

example, about projects, goals, needed resources). The proportion of 

respondents reporting positive responses on this survey question from 

2004 to 2012 was relatively unchanged from 48 percent to 50 percent. 

Similarly, there was little change in the proportion of positive 

responses reported by federal employees from small agencies from 

50 percent in 2004 and 49 percent in 2012.

 

15As part of its federal employee survey report, OPM reports the results of 45 small and 

independent agencies. This group would be comparable to NTSB in terms of size since 

the agencies that fall within this group have less than 800 employees.
 

Page 12 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Figure 3: National Transportation Safety Board Employee Responses about 

Communication on Selected Office of Personnel Management Survey Questions, 

2004 through 2012

a Positive responses are aggregates of the top two most positive responses, such as strongly agree 

and agree, and negative responses are aggregates of the bottom two most negative responses, such 

as strongly disagree and disagree.

b

OPM administered an annual employee survey in 2007 and 2009 that excluded this communication 

question. This survey was similar to its federal employee survey, but included fewer questions.

NTSB officials stated that their internal communication surveys, which the 

agency administered 2009 through 2011, provided information that 

helped them identify continuing barriers to employee and management 

communication. In 2012, NTSB developed an action plan in this area that 

included detailed activities, target dates, and regular status reports. 

Furthermore, because of lingering concerns, NTSB continues to monitor 

employees’ views about employee and management communication to 

address any remaining weaknesses.
 

Page 13 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Our analysis of outcomes associated with NTSB’s efforts to improve its 

diversity management program indicated uneven results, with indications 

of improvements in some measures but not all. We reviewed NTSB 

employees’ responses to the three federal survey questions that we 

determined related to employees’ perceptions about managers’ diversity 

and inclusiveness efforts, as described below:

• My supervisor/team leader is committed to a workforce representative 

of all segments of society. The federal survey of NTSB employees 

indicated an increase in the positive responses, from 54 percent to 

about 71 percent. (See fig. 4.) We compared NTSB employees’ 

responses to those of employees in a group of small federal and 

independent agencies and found that NTSB employees were more 

positive in 2012 than the employees from small agencies, whose 

positive responses rose from 57 percent in 2004 to 69 percent in 

2012.

• Policies and programs promote diversity in the workplace. Again, 

NTSB employees’ responses to this question indicated an increase 

from 2004 to 2012, from 55 percent to 73 percent. NTSB employees’ 

satisfaction level exceeded that of employees from small agencies, 

whose positive responses to this question stayed about the same, 

from 56 percent in 2004 to 57 percent in 2012.

• Managers/supervisors/team leaders work well with employees of 

different backgrounds. The proportion of NTSB employees reporting 

positive responses on this survey question from 2004 to 2012 

declined from 66 percent to 60 percent. The decline in NTSB 

employees’ level of satisfaction was greater than that shown by 

employees from small agencies, whose positive responses also 

declined from 66 percent in 2004 to 63 percent in 2012.

Diversity Management
 

Page 14 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Figure 4: National Transportation Safety Board Employee Responses about 

Diversity and Inclusiveness on Selected Office of Personnel Management Survey 

Questions, 2004 through 2012

a

Positive responses are aggregates of the top two most positive responses, such as strongly agree 

and agree, and negative responses are aggregates of the bottom two most negative responses, such 

as strongly disagree and disagree.

b OPM administered an annual employee survey in 2007 and 2009 that excluded two of the three 

diversity questions. The annual employee survey is similar to OPM’s federal employee survey, but 

included fewer questions.

One of the potential outcomes of a robust diversity management program 

is an increase in the diversity of the workforce. Based on our analysis of 

NTSB’s workforce diversity data, we found that the proportion of white 

employees in NTSB’s workforce declined from 77 percent in 2008 (289 

employees) to 73 percent (293 employees) in 2012. (See table 1.) 

NTSB’s total workforce increased 6 percent over the same period, from 

378 in 2008 to 402 in fiscal year 2012. The proportion of women 

remained roughly the same at about 40 percent, as did the proportion of 

African American employees at 17 percent, and Hispanic employees at 2 

percent of the total NTSB workforce. Conversely, NTSB increased the 
 

Page 15 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

number of employees who are Native American although these 

employees represent only 2 percent of the overall workforce. We 

compared these figures to those representing comparative groups in the 

civilian labor force and found that NTSB’s labor force had a larger 

proportion of some minority groups (e.g., African American) and smaller 

proportion of other groups (e.g., Hispanic) than the civilian labor force.

Roughly half of NTSB’s workforce performs investigations and 

investigation-related work—work directly related to NTSB’s core mission. 

In 2008 there were 190 investigators and related staff; in 2010, there 

were 198, and in 2012 there were 206. Based on our analysis, we found 

that the proportion of investigator and investigation-related staff that were 

white was about 90 percent over the period of 2008 to 2012 and the 

proportion of women was about 19 percent. We compared these figures 

to those representing comparative groups in the civilian labor force and 

found that NTSB’s investigator and investigation-related workforce had a 

smaller proportion of minority and other groups, including African 

American, Asian, Hispanic, and women than the civilian labor force. In 

addition, NTSB reported that from fiscal years 2008 to 2012, it had no 

minority group members among its 15 senior executives although the 

number of women increased from 3 to 4.16

 

16NTSB’s senior executives went from 16 to 15 from fiscal years 2008 to 2012. NTSB 

board members are not included in this group since, as political appointees, they are part 

of another pay plan.
 

Page 16 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Table 1: Profile of the National Transportation Safety Board Workforce by Race, Gender, and National Origin, 2008 through 

2012

African 

American

Native 

Americana Asian Hispanic White Women Men

2008

All NTSBb 17% 1% 4% 2% 77% 39% 61%

Investigator and related staff 3% 1% 3% 3% 90% 17% 83%

Civilian labor forcec 12% NA 5% 14% 81% 47% 53%

2010

All NTSB 17% 1% 4% 2% 75% 41% 59%

Investigator and related staff 3% 1% 3% 3% 90% 19% 81%

Civilian labor forcec 12% NA 5% 15% 81% 47% 53%

2012

All NTSB 17% 2% 5% 2% 73% 40% 60%

Investigator and related staff 2% 3% 3% <1% 89% 18% 82%

Civilian labor forcec 12% NA 5% 16% 80% 47% 53%

Source: NTSB and BLS data.

a

Beginning in 2003, BLS stopped reporting separately on persons in selected race categories, such 

as Native Americans or those describing themselves as 2 or more races, because the number was 

too small to develop sufficient reporting estimates.

b In 2010, NTSB began reporting the proportion of its workforce identifying themselves as 2 or more 

races. However, to be consistent with the BLS data, we did not include this information in this table.

c

These data represent the civilian labor force as reported by BLS in its annual survey. According to 

OPM, the relevant civilian labor force is the benchmark used to measure federal agencies’ progress 

toward eliminating underrepresentation of minority groups and women.

Despite its efforts, NTSB has not been able to appreciably change its 

diversity profile for minority group members and women. However, as 

mentioned previously, NTSB has taken steps to implement initiatives as a 

result of its diversity management strategy, including its recently 

completed diversity and inclusiveness survey, which the agency plans to 

use to identify gaps in its diversity and inclusiveness efforts and to 

benchmark future progress. It is too soon to tell whether initiatives, such 

as its recruitment strategies, will lead to additional changes in its 

workforce diversity profile.

We were unable to determine if NTSB’s cost accounting system had 

improved the agency’s ability to make operational decisions because it 

has not yet fully utilized the system for its intended purposes. For the 

implementation of a cost accounting system to be effective, it must be 

tailored to the needs of the organization, be a tool managers can use to 

Financial Management
 

Page 17 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

make everyday decisions, and be based on sound data that captures time 

spent on all activities, such as investigations and training. In 2011, NTSB 

implemented a cost accounting system that includes a time and 

attendance program in response to a GAO recommendation. This 

program allows an investigator to assign his or her time to specific 

investigations through a series of codes, allowing NTSB to assess the 

cost of conducting investigations rather than simply tracking and 

managing a budget. NTSB officials stated that the time and attendance 

system has allowed it to obtain information about the cost of 

investigations more efficiently than its prior method.

In a May 2011 advisory, NTSB management envisioned that the cost 

accounting system would enable NTSB to measure and compare 

performance with other organizations, and the data from the system 

would help the agency monitor and improve productivity and mission 

effectiveness by better utilizing personnel resources. However, officials 

provided no time frame for when the data might be used by management 

for making resource and operational decisions. NTSB officials stated that 

they are currently focused on ensuring the quality of the time and 

attendance data before developing goals, targets, and management tools 

or using such information to make resource or operational decisions. 

While ensuring the quality of data is a necessary step in fully 

implementing a cost accounting system, it has been over 2 years since 

NTSB first began collecting time and attendance data to establish the 

cost of conducting investigations. As a result, NTSB is not using the 

system’s full capabilities. Thus, NTSB has not yet fully achieved its vision 

of using the data to improve labor productivity and mission effectiveness.

NTSB has implemented a cost accounting system, but effective utilization 

is required to achieve the long-term rewards of those efforts. Although 

NTSB has been collecting data from this system to account for costs of 

investigations, it has not yet developed a management strategy that 

would allow the agency to maximize the utility of the cost accounting 

system. This has prevented NTSB from using that information to make 

the decisions necessary to better manage its labor resources. Without 

fully utilizing the cost accounting system, NTSB will not achieve the 

intended benefits of improving labor productivity and mission 

effectiveness.

Conclusion 
 

Page 18 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

NTSB needs to continue its improvement efforts in each of the five areas 

discussed in this report. Further, to improve financial management and 

provide information to managers for operational decisions, we 

recommend that the Chairman of the NTSB direct senior management to 

develop a strategy for maximizing the utility of NTSB’s cost accounting 

system. 

We provided a draft of this report to NTSB for its review and comment. 

The agency provided written comments (see app. II). NTSB agreed with 

our recommendation and provided technical clarifications that we 

incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and to the Chairman of the National Transportation Safety 

Board. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO 

website at http://www.gao.gov. 

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

me at (202) 512-2834. Contact points for Offices of Congressional 

Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. 

GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix 

III.

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D.

Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues 

Recommendation 

Agency Comments
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 19 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Our objective in this review was to assess whether there have been 

management and operational improvements associated with the National 

Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) actions in areas where GAO had 

conducted previous work and made recommendations. In that previous 

work, GAO made 21 recommendations within 12 management and 

operational areas.1 Some areas have more than one recommendation. 

For example, the communication area has two related recommendations; 

the first called for NTSB to develop mechanisms to facilitate 

communication from staff to management and the other called for NTSB 

to report to Congress on the status of the GAO recommendations.

To determine whether there were any associated improvements based on 

NTSB’s actions, we first identified a subset of the 12 original management 

and operational areas that were included in NTSB’s 2013-2016 Strategic 

Plan. Being highlighted in NTSB’s current strategic plan indicates that 

these areas were relevant and important areas for the agency. We 

identified 7 of the 12 original management and operational areas in 

NTSB’s current strategic plan. These 7 areas contained 13 of the 21 

original recommendations. Many of the 13 recommendations within these 

areas required only a single action by NTSB to implement (e.g. develop a 

strategic plan that follows performance based practices, articulate riskbased criteria for selecting which accidents to investigate, or obtain 

authority to use appropriations to make lease payments in order to correct 

its violation of the Anti-Deficiency Act) while other of those 

recommendations included strategies involving continual action and 

monitoring overtime in order to achieve desired improvements (e.g., 

increased utilization of the training center and improve the 

recommendation close out process). It is these latter types of 

recommendations that we focused on in this review, and based on these 

criteria, we identified 5 for review:

• increase the utilization of the Training Center,

 

1

GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Preliminary Observations on the Value of 

Comprehensive Planning, and Greater Use of Leading Practices and the Training 

Academy. GAO-06-801T (Washington, D.C.: May 24, 2006); GAO, National 

Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made, Yet Management Practices, Investigation 

Priorities, and Training Center Use Should Be Improved. GAO-07-118 (Washington, D.C.: 

Nov. 22, 2006); and GAO, National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made in 

Management Practices, Investigation Priorities, Training Center Use, and Information 

Security, But These Areas Continue to Need Improvement. GAO-08-652T (Washington, 

D.C.: Apr. 23, 2008). 

Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology 
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 20 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

• improve the process for changing the status of recommendations 

through computerization and concurrent review,

• develop mechanisms to facilitate communication from staff to 

management,

• develop strategies for diversity management as part of the human 

capital program, and

• develop a full cost accounting system to track time employees spend 

on each investigation in training.

We identified a sixth recommendation—maximize the delivery of core 

curriculum for each mode at the Training Center—based on our selection 

criteria. However, we did not include this recommendation in our review 

because NTSB lacked information about employee training and we could 

not identify an outcome measure without such data.

To identify the outcome measures to assess changes associated with 

NTSB’s actions, we used information from prior GAO reports, information 

from NTSB including strategic plans, workforce reports, and financial 

reports as well as information gathered from interviews with NTSB 

officials. The measures we identified for each recommendation are: (1) 

Training Center utilization—utilization of classroom and non-classroom 

space and operating deficit; (2) recommendation close-out process—

average time to respond to agency proposals; (3) employee and 

management communication—employee responses to Office of 

Personnel Management’s (OPM) federal employee surveys;2 (4) diversity 

management—employee responses to OPM’s federal employee surveys 

and NTSB employment levels of women and members of racial and 

ethnic groups; and (5) financial management—cost accounting reports 

used to measure performance.

To measure whether there was improvement in the outcomes and results 

associated with NTSB’s actions, we compared current conditions with the 

initial conditions at the time we performed our previous work or earlier in 

some instances in order to establish a baseline before actions occurred. 

We used NTSB’s financial and program data, employee survey data from 

 

2

OPM weights the data it collects from the federal employee viewpoint survey 

respondents to produce survey estimates that accurately represent the survey population. 

For the period 2004 to 2012, NTSB employees’ response rate varied year to year from 70 

percent in 2004 to 66 percent in 2012. In comparison, the government-wide response rate 

to OPM’s federal survey was 46.1 percent in 2012.
Appendix I: Objective, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 21 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

OPM, and workforce data from NTSB and the Bureau of Labor and 

Statistics (BLS). To ensure the data used were of sufficient reliability for 

our analysis, we examined program reporting procedures and quality 

assurance controls, and discussed various data elements with 

knowledgeable agency officials. We also spoke with NTSB officials who 

were knowledgeable about operations and management in these five 

selected areas.
Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Transportation Safety Board

Page 22 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Appendix II: Comments from the National 

Transportation Safety Board
Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 23 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

Gerald L. Dillingham, Ph.D. (202) 512-2834 or dillinghamg@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, H. Brandon Haller (Assistant 

Director), Christopher Jones, Gail Marnik, Josh Ormond, Amy 

Rosewarne, and Jack Warner made key contributions to this report.

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments 

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgments 
Related GAO Products

Page 24 GAO-13-611 National Transportation Safety Board

National Transportation Safety Board: Implementation of GAO 

Recommendations. GAO-12-306R. Washington, D.C.: January 6, 2012

National Transportation Safety Board: Issues related to the 2010 

Reauthorization. GAO-10-366T. Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2010

National Transportation Safety Board: Reauthorization Provides an 

Opportunity to Focus on Implementing Leading Management Practices 

and Addressing Human Capital and Training Center Issues. 

GAO-10-183T. Washington, D.C.: October 29, 2009

National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made in Management 

Practices, Investigation Priorities, Training Center Use, and Information 

Security, But These Areas Continue to Need Improvement.

GAO-08-652T. Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2008

National Transportation Safety Board: Observations on the Draft 

Business Plan for NTSB’s Training Center. GAO-07-886R. Washington, 

D.C.: June 14, 2007

National Transportation Safety Board: Progress Made, Yet Management 

Practices, Investigation Priorities, and Training Center Use Should Be 

Improved. GAO-07-118. Washington D.C.: November 22, 2006.

National Transportation Safety Board: Preliminary Observations on the 

Value of Comprehensive Planning, and Greater Use of Leading Practices 

and the Training Academy. GAO-06-801T. Washington, D.C.: May 24, 

2006

Related GAO Products

(540250)
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 website (http://www.gao.gov). Each weekday 

afternoon, GAO posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, 

and correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted 

products, go to http://www.gao.gov and select “E-mail Updates.”

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 website, 

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.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at www.gao.gov. 

Contact:

Website: http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

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

Katherine Siggerud, Managing Director, siggerudk@gao.gov, (202) 512-

4400, U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 

7125, Washington, DC 20548

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

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

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony 

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations 

Public Affairs

Please Print on Recycled Paper.