Results-Oriented Government: Improvements to DHS's Planning Process Would Enhance Usefulness and Accountability
Published: 2005-03-31T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) was the largest government reorganization in over 50 years, involving 170,000 employees and a $40 billion budget. Given the magnitude of this effort, strategic planning is critical for DHS to ensure that it meets the nation's homeland security challenges. GAO was asked to assess the extent to which DHS's planning process and documents (1) address required elements of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and other good strategic planning practices and (2) reflect its homeland and non-homeland security mission responsibilities.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, releasing its first strategic plan in 2004 that details its mission and strategic goals. Nevertheless, opportunities for improvement exist. The creation of DHS brought together 22 agencies to coordinate the nation's homeland security efforts and to work with Congress and numerous other organizations, including federal agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector, to further this mission. Although DHS planning documents describe programs requiring stakeholder coordination to implement, stakeholder involvement in the planning process itself was limited. Involving stakeholders in strategic planning efforts can help create an understanding of the competing demands and limited resources, and how those demands and resources require careful and continuous balancing. As DHS updates its strategic plan, earlier and more comprehensive stakeholder consultation will help ensure that DHS's efforts and resources are targeted at the highest priorities and that the planning documents are as useful as possible to DHS and its stakeholders. While DHS's strategic plan addresses five of the six GPRA-required elements, it does not describe the relationship between annual and long-term goals. This linkage is crucial for determining whether an agency has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward achieving the intended results for its long-term goals. While DHS's strategic planning documents address most of the required elements of GPRA, not including them in the strategic plan makes it difficult for DHS and its stakeholders to identify how their roles and responsibilities contribute to DHS's mission and potentially hinders Congress's and other key stakeholders' ability to assess the feasibility of DHS's long-term goals. Additionally, several of the GPRA-required elements addressed in the strategic plan could be further developed through the adoption of additional good strategic planning practices. For example, identifying the specific budgetary, human capital, and other resources needed to achieve its goals could demonstrate the viability of the strategies and approaches presented for achieving its long-term goals. Finally, although DHS's priority is its homeland security mission--which emphasizes deterring terrorism in the United States--DHS's planning documents clearly address its responsibility for non-homeland security mission programs as well, such as its response to natural disasters. In addition, DHS planning officials said that non-homeland security responsibilities were represented in the planning process and documents due, in part, to the commitment of top leadership.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: To address the federal government’s challenge of responding to threats  against the homeland, President Bush signed the Homeland Security Act of  2002, creating the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). DHS, which  began operations in March 2003, is the largest government reorganization  in over 50 years, involving 22 federal agencies, 170,000 employees, and a  $40 billion budget. While DHS is intended to coordinate and centralize the  leadership of many homeland security activities, homeland security is a  shared responsibility of numerous partners, including other federal  agencies, state and local governments, and the private sector. Considering  the breadth of this responsibility, strategic planning is especially important  to clearly identify how stakeholders’ responsibilities and activities align to  address homeland security efforts. Without thoughtful and transparent  planning that involves key stakeholders, DHS may not be able to implement  its programs effectively.
Given the implications of such an undertaking, you asked us to assess  DHS’s planning process and the results of this process. Specifically, we  reviewed (1) the extent to which DHS’s planning process and associated  documents addressed the required elements of the Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reflected good strategic  planning practices and (2) the extent to which DHS’s planning documents  reflect both its homeland security and non-homeland security mission  responsibilities.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed numerous DHS planning documents  and planning guidance. We also reviewed the requirements contained in  GPRA and accompanying committee report language, strategic planning  practices based on prior GAO work, and guidance from the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) for developing strategic plans. In addition,  we interviewed DHS officials responsible for agencywide planning, as well  as those responsible for planning in DHS’s directorates and component  agencies. For more information on our scope and methodology, see  appendix I.
We performed our work from April 2004 through February 2005 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: The Homeland Security Act of 2002 outlines DHS’s responsibilities for  initiatives supporting both a homeland security and a non-homeland  security mission. DHS’s homeland security mission is to prevent, reduce  vulnerability to, and recover from terrorist attacks within the United  States. DHS’s non-homeland security mission—also referred to as  non-terrorism-related responsibilities—includes programs such as the  Coast Guard’s marine safety responsibilities and the Emergency  Preparedness and Response Directorate’s natural disaster response  functions.
GAO has previously identified strategic planning as one of the critical  success factors for new organizations. As part of its transformation,  we noted that DHS should engage in strategic planning through the  involvement of stakeholders; assessment of internal and external  environments; and an alignment of activities, core processes, and  resources to support mission-related outcomes. We have reported that the  mission and strategic goals of a transforming organization like DHS must  become the focus of the transformation, define its culture, and serve as the vehicle for employees to unite and rally around. The mission and strategic  goals must be clear to employees, customers, and stakeholders to ensure  they see a direct personal connection to the transformation.
Congress enacted GPRA to focus the federal government on achieving  results and providing objective, results-oriented information to improve  congressional decision making. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the  starting point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management.  GPRA requires that an agency’s strategic plan contain six key elements, as  shown in table 1.
In addition, GPRA requires agencies to consult with Congress and solicit  the input of others as they develop these plans.
The National Strategy for Homeland Security, a foundation of DHS’s  strategic plan, set forth overall objectives to prevent terrorist attacks  within the United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and  minimize the damage and assist in the recovery from attacks that may  occur. The strategy sets forth a plan to improve homeland security through the cooperation of federal, state, local, and private sector organizations in  an array of functions, with DHS having a prominent role in coordinating  these functions. In addition, the strategy states that the United States “must  carefully weigh the benefit of each homeland security endeavor and only  allocate resources where the benefit of reducing risk is worth the amount  of additional cost.” We have advocated a risk management approach to  guide the allocation of resources and investments for improving homeland  security. Specifically, a risk management approach would provide a  decision support tool to help DHS establish and prioritize security program  requirements, planning, and resource allocations.
DHS’s own strategic planning process began in July 2003, with the creation  of the Strategic Plan Development Group. The group consisted of officials  from 15 separate DHS components and offices, including general counsel  and directors of strategic planning from across DHS. By the fall of 2003, the  group had created a draft strategic plan with goals and objectives for each  component. However, according to officials involved, the group members  were authorized to represent their component agencies but not to negotiate  priorities in order to create departmentwide goals. Such a discussion was  needed to develop a departmentwide document. Consequently, following  the work of the Strategic Plan Development Group, DHS’s Deputy  Secretary brought DHS senior leaders together in December 2003 to  develop DHS’s vision, mission, and strategic goals and achieve senior  leadership ownership of the strategic plan.
DHS issued its first departmentwide strategic plan in February 2004. The  plan includes DHS’s vision and mission, core values, and guiding principles.  In addition, the plan describes DHS’s seven strategic goals and  corresponding objectives. A summary paragraph that describes the general  approaches DHS will take to achieve each objective is also included.  According to several senior DHS officials, the strategic plan was the  primary guidance followed for DHS’s management integration. In addition  to the strategic plan, DHS officials identified four other documents as the  key planning documents for the department. These documents are as  follows.
Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget Overview. This is the  overview of DHS’s Congressional Budget Justification for fiscal year  2005 and serves as the overview of DHS’s fiscal year 2005 annual  performance plan, in compliance with GPRA. The document describes  the performance levels associated with the department’s Fiscal Year  2005 President’s Budget to Congress. For each strategic goal it includes  means and strategies, as well as performance goals, measures, and  targets. In addition, this document identifies the program and lead  organization responsible for each performance goal.
DHS’s Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Future Years Homeland Security  Program (FYHSP). Developed pursuant to Section 874 of the  Homeland Security Act, the fiscal year 2005-2009 FYHSP, dated May  2004, is a 5-year resource plan that outlines departmental priorities and  the ramifications of program and budget decisions. The FYHSP includes  a general discussion of the nation’s threats and vulnerabilities, including  a description of current and future terrorist techniques and tactics;  types of weapons and threats terrorists may use; and potential terrorist  targets and timing of an attack. In addition, the FYHSP includes a brief  discussion of the inflation factors and economic assumptions based on  underlying guidance provided by OMB. The FYHSP lays out projected  resource requirements through fiscal year 2009 for each strategic goal  and includes a table aligning programs to the strategic goals. Finally, the  FYHSP includes a description of performance priorities for each  strategic goal. DHS’s 2006-2010 FYHSP was issued to Congress on March  4, 2005. It is designated “For Official Use Only,” and is thus not publicly  available. DHS expects to update the FYHSP annually.
DHS’s Milestones Report. The Milestones Report is an internal  DHS planning document containing performance goals linked to the  long-term strategic goals described in the strategic plan. For each  performance goal, the Milestones Report provides annual milestones for  fiscal years 2005 through 2009. In addition, the Milestones Report aligns specific programs with the strategic goals and identifies what  percentage of program funding is allocated to addressing these  strategic goals.
DHS’s themes and owners papers. The themes and owners papers  are internal planning documents that address DHS’s top seven priorities  during its second year of existence, March 2004 through March 2005, as  identified by the former Secretary of Homeland Security. DHS  directorates were identified as the “owner,” or lead group, for  addressing a “theme,” or priority, and directorate officials submitted a  proposal detailing how they would address the theme in the coming  year. The themes addressed are (1) stronger information sharing and  infrastructure protection, (2) standards for interoperable equipment,  (3) integrated border and port security systems, (4) new technologies  and tools, (5) more prepared communities, (6) improved customer  service for immigrants, and (7) 21st century department.
section_title: DHS Planning Has Made Progress, but Opportunities for Improvement Exist
paragraphs: DHS has made considerable progress in its planning efforts, but future  efforts can be improved. While DHS’s planning documents discuss the need  for stakeholder coordination during program implementation, stakeholder  involvement was limited during the strategic planning process. While the  strategic plan included five of the six GPRA-required elements, it did not  describe the relationship of annual goals to long-term goals. However,  DHS’s planning process continues to develop and mature as the  department’s transformation continues.
subsections: section_title: DHS’s Planning Documents Were Developed with Limited Stakeholder Input
paragraphs: The process of developing DHS’s strategic plan and other strategic planning  documents involved minimal consultation with key stakeholders, including  Congress, other federal agencies, state and local governments, and the  private sector. GPRA requires that agency officials solicit the input of  stakeholders as they develop their strategic plans. Further, stakeholder  involvement during the planning process is important to ensure DHS’s  efforts and resources are aligned with other federal and nonfederal  partners with shared responsibility for homeland security and that they are targeted at the highest priorities. Such involvement is also important to  ensure stakeholders help identify and agree on how their daily operations  and activities contribute to DHS’s mission. Additionally, DHS’s planning  documents describe areas where DHS needs to coordinate with  stakeholders to implement its programs, achieve its goals and objectives,  and meet its homeland security and non-homeland security  responsibilities. The importance of consultation to DHS was recently  underscored in GAO’s High-Risk Series: An Update, in which we  designated as high risk the establishment of appropriate and effective  information-sharing mechanisms to improve homeland security. While this  area has received increased attention, the federal government still faces  formidable challenges sharing information among stakeholders in an  appropriate and timely manner to minimize risk.
Though DHS officials briefed congressional stakeholders on the strategic  planning progress, they did not consult directly with Congress while  developing the department’s mission statement or strategic goals. DHS  officials said that when briefed, congressional stakeholders requested that  the strategic plan include more detail, including specific performance goals  and measures. However, according to DHS officials, these goals and  measures were not included in order to meet OMB’s time frame for issuing  the plan. To meet this time frame, DHS decided to keep the plan’s content  at a high level and focus on achieving broad consensus among agency  components on DHS’s mission and long-term strategic goals and objectives.  Nevertheless, DHS officials acknowledged that Congress should be more  involved in future planning efforts. As we previously reported, Congress  needs to be considered a partner in shaping agency goals at the outset,  since it is a key user of performance information and to ensure that  congressional priorities are addressed in the planning documents. We have  suggested that agencies consult with congressional stakeholders at least  once every new Congress in order to clarify performance expectations.
Further, DHS officials said they did not consult with other federal agencies  responsible for shared homeland security initiatives in developing the  strategic plan. We have reported that a focus on results implies that federal  programs contributing to the same or similar results should be closely  coordinated to ensure that goals are consistent. Stakeholder consultation  in strategic planning efforts can help create a basic understanding of the  competing demands that confront most agencies, the limited resources  available to them, and how those demands and resources require careful  and continuous balancing. The National Strategy for Homeland Security  identifies six federal agencies responsible for 43 homeland security  initiatives. While DHS was identified as the agency with lead responsibility  for a majority of these initiatives, there were multiple lead agencies for  12 of these initiatives. For example, DHS and the State Department share  lead responsibility for the initiative “create ‘smart borders.’” As part of this  initiative, the strategy states that DHS would improve information provided  to consular offices so that individual applicants can be checked in  databases and would require visa-issuance procedures to reflect threat  assessments. These shared initiatives require that DHS look beyond its  organizational boundaries and coordinate with other agencies to ensure  that their efforts are aligned in order to meet consistent goals. However, to  ensure that the shared initiatives have common goals, and that the goals  are appropriate, consultation during the planning stage is vital.
Finally, DHS had limited consultation with nonfederal stakeholders, such  as state and local governments and the private sector, in its strategic  planning process. Nonfederal stakeholder involvement in DHS’s strategic  planning process is vital considering that state and local governments have  primary responsibility as first responders for homeland security and  approximately 85 percent of the nation’s critical infrastructure is privately  owned. DHS officials explained that expanded involvement of nonfederal  stakeholders was not practical within OMB’s time frame for completing the  strategic plan. Instead, DHS provided a draft of the strategic plan to a  departmental advisory group, the Homeland Security Advisory Council, for  its review and comment. Further, DHS component agency planning  officials said that instead of consulting directly with nonfederal  stakeholders, officials from DHS components were expected to represent  stakeholder views when providing their input to the strategic plan. For  example, officials in DHS’s Private Sector Office were expected to  represent the opinions of private sector officials based on the office’s work  with private sector representatives.
section_title: Relationship between Annual and Long-term Goals Not Addressed in DHS’s Strategic Plan
paragraphs: DHS’s strategic plan addressed five of the six GPRA-required elements, but  did not include a description of the relationship between annual and long- term goals. We have reported that this linkage is critical for determining  whether an agency has a clear sense of how it will assess progress toward  achieving the intended results for its long-term goals. DHS and OMB  officials said the decision to keep the content of the strategic plan at a high  level, and not include a discussion of annual performance goals, was  necessary to achieve broad consensus among agency components on  DHS’s mission and long-term strategic goals. Although the Performance  Budget Overview linked specific annual goals and performance measures  to the long-term strategic goals, not including a description of how the  annual goals relate to the long-term goals in the strategic plan makes it  difficult for DHS and its stakeholders to identify how their roles and  responsibilities contribute to DHS’s mission and potentially limits  Congress’s and other key stakeholders’ ability to assess the feasibility of  DHS’s long-term goals. OMB continues to work with DHS to develop  performance measures and goals that are critical to DHS’s integrated  mission and reinforce the crosscutting responsibilities of component  agencies.
Several of the GPRA-required elements addressed in DHS’s strategic plan  could be further developed through the implementation of additional good  strategic planning practices. Specifically, DHS’s plan describes long-term  agencywide goals and objectives but does not include a timeline for  achieving these goals. For example, the first strategic goal in DHS’s  strategic plan is “Awareness: Identify and understand threats, assess  vulnerabilities, determine potential impacts, and disseminate timely  information to our homeland security partners and the American public.”  There are four objectives related to this goal, but there is no description of  when to expect results or when a goal assessment would be completed.  However, the Milestones Report includes a timeline for expected results of  programs that address the long-term goals, with performance measures  and targets for each long-term goal through fiscal year 2009. Adding this  information to the strategic plan would therefore require little additional  effort and would make the plan itself a more useful document.
In addition, the strategic plan generally describes strategies and  approaches to achieve the long-term strategic goals but does not include  the specific budgetary, human capital, or other resources needed. For  example, the first objective under the second strategic goal, “Prevention,”  states that DHS plans to “secure our borders against terrorists, means of  terrorism, illegal drugs, and other illegal activity.” The approach to achieve  this objective requires “the appropriate balance of personnel, equipment  and technology.” However, the description does not include details on the  specific personnel, equipment, and technology that would be needed.  Although the sensitive nature of some homeland security information may  limit the level of detail, including such resource-related information in the  strategic plan is critical for understanding the viability of the strategies  presented to achieve the long-term goals.
Further, the impact of program evaluations on the development of strategic  goals could be discussed in greater detail in the strategic plan. Inclusion of  these components is necessary to ensure the validity and reasonableness of  DHS’s goals and strategies as well as for identifying factors likely to affect  performance. Evaluation can be a critical source of information for  Congress and others in assessing (1) the appropriateness and  reasonableness of goals; (2) the effectiveness of strategies by  supplementing performance management data with impact evaluation  studies; and (3) the implementation of programs, such as identifying the  need for corrective action. Rather than identifying specific program  evaluations and providing a schedule of evaluations, the strategic plan  states only that DHS planned to (1) integrate strategy and execution;  (2) assess performance, evaluate results, and report progress;  (3) collaborate; and (4) refine. The plan did not include a description of the  evaluations used to develop DHS’s strategic goals, nor did DHS address  how future evaluations would be used to revise the goals and objectives.
Finally, DHS identified some key factors that may affect its ability to  achieve its strategic goals and objectives, an element required by GPRA.  However, based on our prior review of agency strategic plans, this element  could be further developed with an explanation of the actions DHS intends to take to mitigate these factors. For example, DHS identified the need for  “international cooperation” as a key factor that can significantly affect the  achievement of its goals. To make its plan more useful, DHS could include  in its next update a discussion of how the department might work together  with other federal agencies to help obtain international cooperation in  achieving shared goals.
section_title: DHS’s Homeland Security Mission Is a Priority, but Plans Also Address Other Responsibilities
paragraphs: DHS planning documents specify that DHS’s homeland security mission— which emphasizes counterterrorism efforts—is the key driver of planning  and budgeting decisions. For example, the fiscal year 2005 FYHSP, DHS’s  long-term resource allocation plan, states, “the Department’s overriding  priority is to defend and protect the homeland from terrorism.” In addition,  the DHS strategic plan states that the DHS strategic goals and objectives  are directly linked to accomplishing the three objectives of the National  Strategy for Homeland Security: (1) prevent terrorist attacks within the  United States, (2) reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and  (3) minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.
However, these planning documents also address DHS’s non-homeland  security mission in areas such as immigration services and disaster relief.  For example, see the following.
DHS’s strategic plan includes the following strategic goal: “Service:  Serve the public effectively by facilitating lawful trade, travel, and  immigration.” The focus of this goal is to improve service to those  individuals immigrating to and visiting the United States.
The Milestones Report includes the following performance goal:  “Eliminate the application backlog by the end of FY 2006. Achieve  6 month cycle time for all applications.” This goal focuses specifically on  improving the efficiency of DHS’s processing of citizenship and  immigration applications.
The Fiscal Year 2005 Performance Budget Overview includes the  following performance measure: “international air passengers in  compliance with agricultural quarantine regulations (percent  compliant).” The focus of this measure is to safeguard against  potentially dangerous nonnative species entering the United States.
In addition, planning officials in DHS’s component agencies that address  the non-homeland security mission said these responsibilities were fairly  represented in the planning process and documents. They attributed this, in  part, to the efforts of senior leadership. For example, prior to a strategic  planning meeting in December 2003 for senior officials, senior leadership  developed “straw man” mission statements that included both homeland  security and non-homeland security missions. According to DHS officials  responsible for planning, this was done to ensure that one role was not  neglected for the sake of another and both were represented in the final  mission statement.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: Given the enormity and importance of DHS’s transformation, having a  strategic plan that outlines and defines DHS’s mission and goals is vital.  While DHS has made progress in its efforts to date, improvements to its  strategic planning process would help to ensure DHS’s efforts and  resources are aligned with other federal and nonfederal partners with  shared responsibility for homeland security.
Earlier and more comprehensive stakeholder involvement in DHS’s  planning process is perhaps the most important area for improvement.  Consultation with stakeholders during the planning process creates a  shared understanding of what needs to be achieved, resulting in more  useful and transparent planning documents and helping ensure the success  of stakeholder partnerships. Just as important, stakeholder consultation in  strategic planning efforts can help create a basic understanding of the  competing demands that confront most agencies, the limited resources  available to them, and how those demands and resources require careful  and continuous balancing.
Congress enacted GPRA to focus the federal government on achieving  results and providing objective, results-oriented information to improve  congressional decision making. While the body of DHS’s strategic planning  documents address most of the required elements of GPRA, not having all  of the required elements in its strategic plan limits Congress’s and other key  stakeholders’ ability to assess the feasibility of DHS’s long-term goals.  While DHS followed a number of good planning practices, by adopting  others it could improve the strategic plan’s usefulness with little extra  effort.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To make DHS a more results-oriented agency and allow for public oversight  and accountability, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland  Security take the following three actions. First, ensure that DHS’s next  strategic planning process includes direct consultation with external  stakeholders, including Congress, federal agencies, state and local  governments, and the private sector.
Second, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure  that DHS’s next strategic plan—the agency’s primary public planning  document—includes a description of the relationship between annual  performance goals and long-term goals, as required by GPRA.
Finally, we recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security ensure  that DHS’s next strategic plan further develop the GPRA-required elements  addressed by adopting additional good strategic planning practices.  Specifically, the Secretary should ensure that the strategic plan includes a  timeline for achieving long-term goals; a description of the specific  budgetary, human capital, and other resources needed to achieve those  goals; a schedule of program evaluations planned; and a discussion of  strategies to ameliorate the effect of any key external factors.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: On February 25, 2005, we provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of  Homeland Security. On March 14, 2005, we received written comments  from DHS that are reprinted in appendix II. In addition, we received  technical comments, which we incorporated where appropriate. DHS  generally agreed with our recommendations, and provided additional  comments for our consideration.
While DHS officials acknowledged that expanded involvement of  nonfederal stakeholders was not practical within OMB’s time frame, they  pointed out that they sought to consult with nonfederal stakeholders by  providing a draft to the Homeland Security Advisory Council for its review  and comment. We revised the draft to acknowledge this consultation. DHS  officials stated that they plan to seek more interaction with nonfederal  stakeholders during the next plan revision.
Further, in response to our recommendation, DHS implied that its FYHSP  includes information on annual performance goals and long-term goals,  suggesting that this information need not be included in the strategic plan.  However, the FYHSP contains information regarding the programs that  support its strategic goals rather than a description of how the annual  performance goals relate to the long-term goals. Moreover, we continue to  believe that this information should be contained in the strategic plan—as  required by GPRA—rather than in separate documents to provide a readily  accessible and clear linkage of the department’s annual goals to its overall  strategic goals. As we noted earlier, the FYHSP is not a public document,  available only for official use, making it of limited value for accountability  purposes.
Additionally, DHS was concerned that our recommendation to adopt a  number of good planning practices implied that it had not used good  strategic planning practices. We have added language to make clear that we  recognize that DHS employed a number of good planning practices and that  it should adopt additional ones in the future.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days after its  issuance date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Homeland Security and other interested parties. Copies will  also be available at no charge on GAO’s Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report, please contact me at  (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov or Kimberly Gianopoulos at  gianopoulosk@gao.gov. Major contributors to this report included  Benjamin Crawford, Chelsa Gurkin, and Amy W. Rosewarne.
section_title: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: The objectives of this report were to assess (1) the extent to which the  Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) planning process and  documents address required elements of the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) and reflect good strategic planning practices  and (2) whether DHS’s planning process and documents reflect attention to  homeland security and non-homeland security mission responsibilities.
To meet these objectives, we reviewed numerous DHS planning documents  and related material and interviewed numerous DHS officials. Our review  of planning materials included the Strategic Plan, Fiscal Year 2005  Performance Budget Overview, Fiscal Year 2005-2009 Future Years  Homeland Security Program, Milestones Report, and themes and owners  papers. In addition, we reviewed the National Strategy for Homeland  Security.
To meet our first objective, we relied on requirements contained in GPRA  and accompanying committee report language and planning practices  based on prior GAO work, guidance to agencies from the Office of  Management and Budget (OMB) for developing strategic plans, and DHS  internal planning guidance. We then reviewed DHS’s planning documents  to identify where the GPRA-required elements could be found. To meet our  second objective, we reviewed these planning documents to determine if  they addressed both DHS’s homeland security and non-homeland security  mission responsibilities.
In addition, we interviewed officials at OMB, as well as DHS officials  responsible for agencywide planning in its Office of the Deputy Secretary  and Office of Program, Analysis and Evaluation. We also interviewed  officials responsible for planning in DHS’s directorates and component  agencies. Specifically, we met with officials in the Border and  Transportation Security Directorate, the Science and Technology  Directorate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (part of the  Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate), the Coast Guard, the  Secret Service, the Transportation Security Administration, the U.S.  Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Private Sector Office, and the  Office of State and Local Government Coordination. To meet our first  objective, we interviewed officials about the process used to create the  planning documents. To meet our second objective, we interviewed  officials about the process for ensuring accountability for DHS’s homeland  security and nonhomeland security mission responsibilities.
Written comments from DHS are included in appendix II. We conducted  our work from April 2004 through February 2005 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
section_title: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Mission
paragraphs: 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.
section_title: Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
paragraphs: 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, GAO posts  newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To  have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to  www.gao.gov and select “Subscribe to Updates.”
subsections: section_title: Order by Mail or Phone
section_title: To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
section_title: Congressional Relations
section_title: Public Affairs