U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight
Published: 2004-10-08T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: The Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary asked GAO to determine (1) the extent of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' compliance with the requirements of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federal oversight is provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of the implementation of recommendations from GAO's past reviews of the Commission.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency that monitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United States--has not fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this act, agencies are required to submit strategic plans and annual performance plans that detail their long-term and annual goals as well as information on how they plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires agencies to submit annual performance reports that provide information on their progress in meeting the goals. However, the Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm basis on which to develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance. In addition, its most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report contain weaknesses that limit the agency's ability to effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance. For example, the performance plan does not discuss the Commission's strategies or resources for achieving its goals, does not provide budgetary information for its programs, and does not provide performance indicators for some annual goals. Similarly, the performance report does not account for the Commission's performance for many of the annual goals set forth in its performance plan and does not provide plans, schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission's unmet goals. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commission's budgetary and human capital operations in recent years. OMB's oversight has focused on the Commission's budget requests and GPRA plans and reports. OPM conducted two reviews of the Commission's human capital management systems in the 1990s and made recommendations for improvement, including improvements to its grievance and performance appraisal systems. Although the Commission has implemented some of OPM's earlier recommendations, it has not implemented five of six broader, systemic recommendations made in 1999 for improvement to its human capital management systems. Unlike many other executive agencies, the Commission does not have an Inspector General to provide oversight of its operations beyond OMB and OPM. GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commission's management operations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in GAO's 1994 and 1997 reports. However, the Commission has not implemented three of the four recommendations in GAO's October 2003 report for improving the agency's management and procurement practices.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established as an independent,  bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency to monitor and report on the status  of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception in 1957, the  Commission has worked on critical civil rights issues, including racial  segregation, impediments to voting rights, and the debate on federal  affirmative action programs. In recent years, the Congress has requested  that we assess the adequacy of the Commission’s management practices  and procedures. In 1994, we reported problems identified in the  Commission’s handling of travel activities and made recommendations for  specific actions. In a 1997 study of the Commission, we found numerous  management and operational issues and, in October 2003, we found that  the Commission lacked good project management and that its contracting  procedures were inadequate.
Organizations with management weaknesses can learn from the practices  of high-performing organizations, which strengthen their management  practices and focus on achieving results by setting clear goals, aligning  their management systems with these goals, and regularly evaluating their  performance. For federal agencies, the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) incorporated these practices, requiring federal  agencies to set goals and use performance measures for management and  budgetary purposes. To comply with GPRA, federal agencies—including  independent commissions—must periodically submit long-term strategic  plans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. The  Chairmen of both the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary  asked us to determine (1) the extent of the Commission’s compliance with  the planning and reporting requirements of GPRA, (2) federal oversight  that is provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of the Commission’s  implementation of recommendations from GAO’s reviews in the past  decade.
To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant  statutes and regulations; the Commission’s most recent GPRA plans and  reports; guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on  the implementation of GPRA; and guidance and reports from the Office of  Personnel Management (OPM) on human resources management (HRM)  and the Commission’s HRM practices. We also reviewed GAO reports on  the Commission’s management practices and our guidance on the  implementation of GPRA. In determining the federal oversight provided to  the Commission, we focused on executive branch oversight provided by  OMB and OPM. We also reviewed the Commission’s June 2004 response to  the recommendations we made in our October 2003 report on the  Commission. Finally, we conducted interviews with the Commission’s  Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human Resources  Director, and Budget Chief, as well as with officials from OPM and OMB.  We conducted our work from April to August 2004 in accordance with  generally accepted government auditing standards.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission is a fact- finding agency required to report on civil rights issues. It is required to  study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies with regard to  illegal discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. It must also  submit at least one report annually to the President and the Congress that  monitors federal civil rights enforcement efforts. Other reports may be  required or issued as considered appropriate by the Commission, the  President, or the Congress. The Commission serves as a national  clearinghouse for information related to its mission. In addition, it  investigates charges by individual citizens who claim to be deprived of  their voting rights. The Commission may hold hearings and, within specific  guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and have witnesses  appear at hearings. However, because it lacks enforcement powers that  would enable it to apply remedies in individual cases, the Commission  refers specific complaints to the appropriate federal, state, or local  government agency for action.
The Commission’s annual appropriation has averaged about $9 million  since fiscal year 1995. It is currently directed by eight part-time  Commissioners who serve 6-year terms on a staggered basis. Four  Commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the President   Pro Tempore of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House of  Representatives. No more than four Commissioners can be of the same  political party. With the concurrence of a majority of the Commission’s  members, the President may also designate a Chairperson or Vice  Chairperson from among the Commissioners.
A Staff Director, who is appointed by the President with the concurrence  of a majority of the Commissioners, oversees the daily operations of the  Commission and manages the staff in six regional offices and the  Washington, D.C., headquarters office. The Commission operates four  units in its headquarters whose directors and managers report directly to  the Staff Director: the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, Office of General  Counsel, Office of Management, and a Regional Programs Coordination  Unit. As of June 2004, the Commission employed approximately 70 staff  members, including the eight Commissioners and their eight assistants.
The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees—the minimum  required by statute—one for each state and the District of Columbia. The  State Advisory Committees are composed of citizens familiar with local  and state civil rights issues. Their members serve without compensation  and assist the Commission with its fact-finding, investigative, and  information dissemination functions.
subsections: section_title: Planning and Reporting Requirements under GPRA
paragraphs: To encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in  federal programs, the Congress passed the Government Performance and  Results Act of 1993, which requires agencies to develop and issue certain  documents to be made available to the public and used by congressional  decision-makers. OMB provides guidance to federal agencies on  complying with GPRA requirements through its Circular A-11, which is  updated annually. In addition, we have published guidance and reports to  federal agencies on best practices for complying with GPRA.
Under GPRA or OMB guidance, agencies must submit the following three  documents to the President, Congress, and OMB:    Strategic plan. This document, which must cover a period of no less  than 5 years from the fiscal year in which it is submitted, should be  updated every 3 years and include the agency’s mission statement and  long-term strategic goals. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting  point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management.  Strategic goals are long-term, outcome-oriented goals aimed at  accomplishing the agency’s mission. In developing goals for their  strategic plans, agencies are required to consult with the Congress and  other stakeholders.
Annual performance plan. This document sets forth the agency’s  annual performance goals, which should be linked to its strategic goals.  An agency’s annual goals provide the intermediary steps needed to  reach its long-term strategic goals. Annual goals should be objective,  quantifiable, and measurable. OMB guidance now directs agencies to  include budget information in their performance plans and encourages  agencies to align resources with annual goals. Prior to their  submissions for fiscal year 2005, agencies were not directed to  associate program costs in this way.
Annual performance report. This document provides information on  an agency’s actual performance for the previous fiscal year. This report  should provide information on the results of its progress in meeting  annual goals. If agencies have not met their goals, they are required to  explain what issues are keeping them from meeting the goals and  describe their plans for addressing these issues.
section_title: Executive Branch Oversight Responsibilities
paragraphs: Several federal agencies have oversight responsibilities in relation to the  Commission, including OMB for financial management and OPM for  personnel management. OMB, located within the Executive Office of the  President, is responsible for preparing and implementing the President’s  annual budget and for providing guidance to agencies on how to comply  with GPRA. OPM is the central personnel management agency of the  federal government charged with administering and enforcing federal civil  service laws, regulations, and rules. OPM is also required to establish and  maintain an oversight program to ensure that agencies comply with  pertinent laws, regulations, and policies.
Oversight can also be provided by an Inspector General. The Inspector  General Act of 1978 provides for Offices of Inspector General to serve as  independent, objective offices within certain federal departments or  agencies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as well as  prevent and detect fraud and abuse. Agencies that do not have their own  Office of Inspector General can obtain Inspector General services from  other federal agencies.
section_title: The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements
paragraphs: The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since   1997, as required under GPRA, and its most recent annual performance  plan and report contain weaknesses that limit the Commission’s ability to  effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance.
subsections: section_title: The Commission Has Not Updated Its Strategic Plan Since 1997
paragraphs: The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since fiscal  year 1997 and has missed two scheduled submissions required under  GPRA. According to GPRA and OMB guidance, the Commission should  have submitted, updated, and revised its strategic plan in fiscal years 2000  and 2003. The 2003 revision should have covered the period through at  least fiscal year 2008. Commission officials told us that the agency is  working on developing an updated strategic plan and intends to submit it  to OMB by Fall 2004. However, while they were in the process of revising  their strategic plan as of June 2004, critical actions, such as consulting  with the Congress as required by the act, have not yet occurred, according  to Commission officials.
Because it has not updated or revised its strategic plan, the Commission  has not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to affirm their ongoing  significance to the agency’s overall mission. The Commission has not  determined if changes to its strategic goals are warranted due to factors  such as external circumstances or not meeting its annual goals. In  addition, because the Commission has not updated its strategic plan, its  strategic goals also are not informed by a current analysis of the  Commission’s purpose and work. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the  Commission does not have a firm basis on which to develop its annual  goals. The Commission continues to rely on strategic goals from 1997 to  formulate its current annual goals.
Without a current strategic plan the Commission also lacks a key tool for  communicating with the Congress, the public, and its own staff, including  informing them of the significance of its work. In addition to serving as a  document for external use, the strategic plan can be used as a  management tool and, according to OMB guidance, should outline the  process for communicating goals and strategies throughout the agency  and for assigning accountability to managers and staff for achievement of  the agency’s goals.
section_title: The Commission’s Annual Performance Plan Falls Short of Meeting GPRA Requirements and OMB Guidance
paragraphs: The Commission’s most recent performance plan, for fiscal year 2005,  includes several program activities that are referred to as goals; however,  it is unclear how these activities will help the agency achieve its strategic  goals or accomplish its mission. For example, the plan lists 14 fact-finding  projects, each of which has as many as 5 annual goals. Many of these  goals, however, are activities, such as holding a public hearing or  publishing a report. Similarly, one of the goals in the plan is for each of the  Commission’s State Advisory Committees to focus on regular meetings in  fiscal year 2005 and on completing their projects. However, this goal is not  linked to achieving the agency’s strategic goal to enhance the Committees’  ability to monitor civil rights in the United States.
In addition, the annual performance plan does not contain all elements  required under GPRA. The plan does not provide information on how the  Commission will pursue and accomplish the annual performance goals  laid out in its plan. Performance plans must include descriptions of how an  agency’s annual goals are to be achieved, including the resources and  strategies required to meet the goals. However, the Commission’s fiscal  year 2005 plan does not discuss the strategies or resources needed to  achieve its goals. For example, according to the performance plan, the  Commission will update its Civil Rights Directory, but the plan does not  indicate which offices will be responsible or describe the strategies and  resources needed to carry out this task.
The Commission’s performance plan for fiscal year 2005 also does not  include budgetary information in accordance with OMB guidance. Instead  of associating the cost of its programs with specific annual goals, the plan  includes a single amount for its total operations. The potential problems  stemming from the Commission’s failure to associate costs with specific  annual goals or break down its budget request by goal may be exacerbated  by the large gap between the Commission’s budget requests and its actual  appropriations. Since 1999, the Commission’s appropriations have  averaged approximately 26 percent less than the amount requested. For  fiscal year 2004, the Commission based its annual performance plan on a  budget request of $15.2 million, but its appropriation for that year totaled  only $9.1 million.
In addition, the Commission has consistently not revised its annual  performance plans to reflect its actual appropriations and illustrate the  impact on its annual goals. Although agencies are not required to revise  their plans to reflect actual appropriations under GPRA, the fact that the  Commission’s plans are based upon a budget that is so much larger than  its actual appropriations limits the plans’ usefulness in detailing how the  agency will achieve its annual goals and in assessing the impact of  appropriations decisions on its planned performance.
Furthermore, the Commission’s annual performance plan for fiscal year  2005 does not provide the performance indicators to be used in measuring  achievement of each annual goal. According to GPRA, an agency’s  performance plan shall include performance indicators to be used in  measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomes  of each program activity, and provide a basis for comparing actual  program results with annual goals. For some annual goals—particularly  those related to promoting greater public awareness, assisting individuals  in protecting their civil rights, and enhancing the capacity of the State  Advisory Committees—the performance plan does not have any  performance indicators. For example, the performance plan states that, in  fiscal year 2005, the Commission will develop and implement a  coordinated multimedia public service announcement campaign designed  to educate the public about important civil rights matters and discourage  discrimination while promoting tolerance. However, the plan does not  describe measures that can be used to evaluate the attainment of this goal  in terms of outputs, such as the number of public service announcements,  or outcomes, such as increased awareness of civil rights matters.
In the annual performance plan, the Commission does not adequately  describe how it will verify and validate the performance measures used to  assess the accomplishment of its annual goals. GPRA requires agencies to  submit information on how they plan to verify and validate the  performance measures used to assess the accomplishment of their annual  goals. This requirement helps to ensure that their assessments are valid,  reliable, and credible. The Commission’s fiscal year 2005 plan includes a  general description of its verification and validation processes, but it does  not specify the evaluation methods to be used or identify the limitations or  constraints of these methods. For example, the plan states that, in  assessing the outcomes achieved through issuance of its reports, the  Commission may conduct follow-up meetings with affected agencies,  congressional committees, and other interested organizations. However,  the plan does not describe how these groups will be selected, the data to  be collected, how the data will be assessed, or who will be responsible for  conducting these meetings or collecting and assessing the data.
section_title: The Commission’s Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2003 Does Not Fulfill Several GPRA Requirements and Overall Does Not Communicate the Commission’s Performance
paragraphs: Although the Commission’s most recent annual performance report, for  fiscal year 2003, describes the agency’s achievements as well as reasons  for not meeting certain goals, the report does not include several elements  required under GPRA and provides little evidence and context for  evaluating the agency’s performance. Furthermore, many of the results are  descriptive narratives that do not characterize the Commission’s  performance. Overall, these problems diminish the report’s usefulness as a  tool for managing the Commission’s operations and holding the agency  accountable for achieving its goals.
The performance report for fiscal year 2003 is incomplete because it does  not account for all of the annual goals in the Commission’s fiscal year 2003  performance plan—a fundamental GPRA requirement. The report  provides no account of the Commission’s performance for many of the  annual goals set forth in its fiscal year 2003 performance plan. In  particular, the report does not account for the Commission’s performance  for 6 fact-finding projects—a core activity of the agency. For example, the  fiscal year 2003 plan stated that the Commission’s fact-finding project,  “Media Role in Civil Rights,” would accomplish four goals, including  having a public event, yet the performance report provides no account of  this project or any description of the agency’s progress in meeting these  goals.
Furthermore, while the report includes results for other annual goals, the  information provided for many of these goals is incomplete or ambiguous.  For example, the Commission’s environmental justice project has three  goals: publication of a report, report dissemination, and formal  consideration of the recommendations of the report by affected agencies.  However, although the performance report describes the purpose of the  environmental justice report as well as its publication and dissemination,  the performance report does not indicate whether the Commission  obtained any formal response to its recommendations from affected  agencies. Similarly, the performance plan stated that each State Advisory  Committee Chairperson or Representative would participate in at least  one civil rights activity per year. Although the performance report includes  extensive narrative describing the work of the State Advisory Committees,  it does not indicate whether this goal had been achieved.
The Commission’s performance report also does not provide the relevant  data needed to assess the achievement of its annual goals. Under GPRA,  performance reports must include 3 years of actual performance data in  describing the agency’s progress in achieving its goals. While the  performance report includes 3 years of performance data for one goal  from its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, for the remaining goals, the  report does not include 3 years of data, or the data are not relevant for  assessment. For example, the performance report includes data describing  the type and number of complaints received in fiscal year 2003 and for the  3 prior years. However, the report does not include data—such as the  amount of time it took to respond to complaints—that could be used to  assess whether the Commission met its goal of responding in a timely  manner.
Moreover, the fiscal year 2003 performance report provides no plans,  schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission’s  unmet goals. GPRA states that, when an annual goal is not achieved, the  agency must describe why, outline plans or schedules for achieving the  goal, and if the goal was determined to be impractical, describe why that  was the case and what action is recommended. While the report explains  why some goals were not met, it does not provide plans, schedules, or  recommendations for addressing these unmet goals. For example, the  performance report states that, due to limited resources, the Commission  was unable to track its referrals to federal enforcement agencies to ensure  that civil rights complaints were received and appropriately processed.  However, the report does not provide any detail on whether it would  continue to pursue this goal, how the Commission plans to meet this goal  in the future, or what actions could be taken to help the Commission meet  this goal, such as obtaining assistance from other federal agencies in  maintaining accessible and relevant records.
section_title: OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has Made Limited Changes in Response to OPM’s Recommendations
paragraphs: In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human  capital management oversight for the Commission. OMB’s oversight of the  Commission focuses primarily on the budgetary process. In providing  oversight of its human capital management, OPM conducted reviews and  made recommendations to the Commission in the 1990s to improve the  Commission’s human capital management and overall management. In  response, although the Commission implemented some of the  recommended changes, many issues that OPM raised in 1996 continued to  be of concern in 1999. Although an Inspector General can provide an  additional means of oversight for agencies and independent commissions,  the Commission does not have an Inspector General and is not required to  have one.
subsections: section_title: OMB Provides Oversight for the Commission’s Budgetary Process, but Has Not Focused on Management Issues
paragraphs: OMB’s oversight of the Commission is primarily budgetary, according to  OMB officials. In the fall of each fiscal year, OMB is responsible for  reviewing the Commission’s annual performance plan, budget request,  apportionment request, and annual performance report. Before the  Commission’s budget request is due, OMB provides the Commission with  guidance and updated information on the submission of GPRA documents.  With regard to the annual performance plan, OMB generally reviews the  long-term goals and performance measures used to determine the  Commission’s performance in meeting its goals. OMB also reviews the  Commission’s budget request as part of its role in developing the  President’s budget. While OMB reviews the Commission’s annual  performance plans and budget requests, according to OMB officials, it  does not approve or reject these documents, but acknowledges their  receipt and sends comments back to the agency as appropriate. However,  Commission officials said that OMB has not provided feedback on its  annual performance plans in recent years. Each fall, OMB also receives the  Commission’s apportionment request, which describes how the  Commission would like its appropriations distributed. According to OMB  officials, once an apportionment agreement has been reached between the  Commission and OMB, the Commission sends this agreement to the  Treasury, which issues a warrant to release funds to the agency. Finally,  OMB reviews the Commission’s annual performance report to ensure that  its funds are spent according to its performance plans and that its goals  were met.
In addition to reviewing the Commission’s annual budget submissions,  OMB reviewed and approved the Commission’s February 2004 request to  reduce its personnel costs by offering voluntary separation incentive  payments, or “buyouts,” to encourage staff in certain job classifications to  voluntarily leave their jobs. The Commission requested authority to offer  buyouts to six employees. OMB officials discussed this request with  Commission officials and approved the request in April. The Commission  offered buyouts to all employees who had 3 or more years of government  service in several job classifications. The Commission granted buyouts to  three staff members, who accepted.
OMB also is responsible for providing oversight of agencies’ management,  including the Commission, but this oversight has been limited because of  the small size of the agency and its budget, according to OMB officials.   OMB officials told us that the agency does not provide the same level of  oversight for organizations with small budgets and staff, such as the  Commission, as that provided for larger organizations, such as the  Securities and Exchange Commission. For example, even though the  Commission does not have a current strategic plan, OMB has not  requested an updated plan from the Commission, according to  Commission officials. In addition, OMB officials told us that they have  taken no actions in response to our October 2003 findings that the  Commission violated federal procurement regulations and lacked key  management practices because the volume of purchasing by the  Commission is far below the levels that concern OMB. For example, the  Commission’s largest contract is for less than $160,000.
section_title: OPM Provides Oversight for the Commission’s Human Capital Management Systems, and the Commission Has Made Limited Improvements in Response to OPM’s Recommendations
paragraphs: According to OPM officials, OPM provides the Commission with human  capital oversight through its audits of agencies’ human capital  management systems, which can be conducted on a cyclical basis every   4 to 5 years or on request, as needed. In 1996 and 1999, OPM conducted  two reviews of the Commission’s human capital management systems and  made recommendations in each report for improvements.
In analyzing the Commission’s response to OPM reviews, we focused on  six recommendations from OPM’s 1999 report that involved systemic  changes to the Commission’s human capital management systems. As of  August 2004, the Commission had not implemented five of these six  recommendations. Findings from these reviews included the following:  In its November 1996 report, OPM’s main finding was that the  Commission was an agency “badly in need of managerial attention,”  citing the Commission’s poor documentation practices, lack of credible  grievance and performance management systems, and employees’  highly negative perceptions of the Commission’s organizational  climate.
In its October 1999 report, OPM found that, although the Commission’s  human capital management systems complied with Merit System  Principles, its human resource practices continued to have weaknesses  associated with accountability, delegation, recruitment, performance  appraisals, and incentive awards. The report noted that these concerns  were similar to the concerns OPM had identified in the earlier report.  For example, as of 1999, the Commission had not established an  internal self-assessment program as OPM recommended in 1996. OPM  made 16 recommendations in 1999 to help the Commission improve its  management of human resources. As of August 2004, we found that the  Commission had not implemented five of six broader, systemic  recommendations made by OPM. (See appendix II for descriptions of  these six OPM recommendations and the Commission’s responses.)
section_title: The Commission Lacks the Oversight of an Inspector General
paragraphs: Although in the course of their reviews OMB, OPM, and GAO have  identified continuing management and accountability problems at the  Commission, it may not be sufficient to resolve such longstanding  concerns through annual budgetary reviews and management reviews  based on congressional requests or periodic audit cycles. An Inspector  General can provide an additional means of oversight for federal agencies,  including independent commissions and boards, but the Commission  currently has no such oversight. Several small agencies have obtained  such services for audits and investigations through memorandums of  understanding with the General Services Administration. However, the  Commission does not have an Inspector General of its own, nor does it  obtain these services from another agency. The Staff Director told us that,  although he has thought about the possibility of obtaining these services,  he does not believe the Commission has the funds needed to obtain the  services of an Inspector General.
section_title: Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist
paragraphs: Over the past decade, we reviewed the Commission’s travel, management,  and financial practices and made recommendations for improvement. The  Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in  our 1994 and 1997 reports. In addition, the Commission has not  implemented three of the four recommendations in our October 2003  report. This most recent report included several recommendations to  improve the Commission’s management and procurement practices. The  Staff Director issued a letter in June 2004 in response to this report  disagreeing with most of the recommendations and describing the actions  taken by the agency. We also interviewed Commission officials to clarify  their responses to the recommendations in our October 2003 report.
subsections: section_title: The Commission Took Actions in Response to the Recommendations in Our 1994 and 1997 Reports, but Related Problems Continue
paragraphs: Although the Commission took various actions to address the  recommendations in our 1994 and 1997 reports, many similar problems  persist. In 1994, we reported on problems identified in the Commission’s  handling of travel activities for specific individuals and made  recommendations for improvement. For example, in response to our  finding that Commissioners had not submitted travel vouchers in a timely  manner, we recommended that the Commission direct the Commissioners  to do so, as required by federal travel regulations. In 1995, the Commission  issued revised travelg procedures that incorporated our recommendation  for timely filing of travel vouchers by the Commissioners. (As part of a  separate assignment, we are currently reviewing the Commission’s fiscal  year 2003 financial transactions that include a review of travel-related  transactions.) In 1997, we found numerous operational issues, reporting  that the management of the Commission’s operations lacked control and  coordination; its projects lacked sufficient documentation; senior officials  were unaware of how Commission funds were used and lacked control  over key management functions; and records had been lost, misplaced, or  were nonexistent. In the report, we made recommendations for specific  changes to the Commission’s administrative procedures and project  management systems, and the agency took some actions in response.  However, in 2003, we found that the actions taken did not fully address the  problems identified in our 1997 report.
section_title: The Commission Has Not Implemented Most Recommendations from Our 2003 Report
paragraphs: In October 2003, we reported that, although the Commission had made  some improvements in its project management procedures for  Commissioners and staff, the procedures lacked certain key elements of  good project management, such as providing Commissioners with project  cost information and opportunities to contribute to Commission reports  before they are issued. We also reported that the Commission lacked  sufficient management control over its contracting procedures and that  little, if any, external oversight of the Commission’s financial activities had  taken place, since no independent accounting firm had audited the  Commission’s financial statements in at least 12 years. To address these  issues, we recommended that the Commission  1.  monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information  2.  adopt procedures that provide for increased Commissioner  involvement in project implementation and report preparation,  3.  establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order to be  in compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and  4.  take immediate steps to meet the financial statement preparation and  audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for  fiscal year 2004.
The Staff Director generally disagreed with these recommendations, and  the Commission has not adopted three of them. In their June 2004 letter  responding to our report recommendations, Commission officials asserted  that the first two recommendations were a matter of internal policy to be  decided by the Commissioners. In addition, they disagreed with the need  for the third recommendation and asserted that they were taking steps to  address the last recommendation. Although they disagreed with the third  recommendation, the Commission hired a contracting and procurement  specialist starting in December 2003 to provide supplemental services, and  the Staff Director acknowledged that the Commission could improve in  this area. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had yet to contract  with an independent auditor to prepare for meeting the requirements of  the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002. (See appendix III for  further details on the Commission’s responses to these recommendations.)
section_title: Conclusion
paragraphs: With its history of management problems, the Commission faces  significant challenges. Strategic planning is not a static or occasional  event. Instead, it is a dynamic and inclusive process that, if done well, is  integral to an organization’s entire operations. By not devoting the time  and resources required to update its strategic plan, the Commission has no  assurance that it is pursuing long-term goals that reflect the needs of its  key stakeholders and that address the many management challenges  presented by the shifting external and internal environments in which it  operates. Furthermore, the Commission lacks a foundation to use in  aligning its daily activities, operations, and resources to support its  mission and achieve its goals. Without using the GPRA planning process to  periodically reexamine its long-term goals and set its course, the  Commission is not in a strong position to set relevant annual goals or  develop measures for assessing whether it has achieved them. Given the  consistent shortfall between the Commission’s annual budget requests and  its appropriations over the past decade, it is even more important for the  Commission to chart a strategic course that is realistic.
Although the Commission has improved some policies and practices in  response to recommendations from OPM and GAO, the problems that  remain are still cause for concern, particularly given the lingering nature  of the Commission’s management difficulties. Unless the Commission  systematically monitors its implementation of OPM’s and GAO’s  recommendations, it is not likely that it will significantly improve its  management and human capital management systems. Finally, annual  budgetary and other reviews based on periodic cycles or specific requests  may not be sufficient to address longstanding concerns about the  Commission’s management and accountability. Because the Commission  does not have an Inspector General, it does not appear likely that it will  have the additional independent oversight needed to address management  problems that others have identified and to hold itself accountable for  resolving them.
section_title: Matter for Congressional Consideration
paragraphs: To strengthen the Commission’s accountability, the Congress should  consider legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of an  existing Inspector General at another agency.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen the Commission’s management practices, we recommend  that the Commission    update its 5-year strategic plan according to GPRA’s required schedule  and include all elements required under GPRA and OMB guidance;    ensure that future annual performance plans include all elements  required under GPRA and OMB guidance, reflect funding levels  requested in the President’s Budget, and are revised if necessary to  reflect actual appropriations;    ensure that annual performance reports include all elements required  implement all of the recommendations in OPM’s and GAO’s previous  reports;   include the status of the Commission’s efforts to implement OPM’s and  GAO’s recommendations in its GPRA plans and reports; and    seek the services of an existing Inspector General from another agency  to help keep the Commission and the Congress informed of problems  and deficiencies and to conduct and supervise necessary audits and  investigations.
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Commission for comment. The  Commission’s formal comments and our responses are contained in  appendix I.
In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on our  recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and  conclusions. We have carefully reviewed the Commission’s concerns and  overall do not agree with its comments on our findings and conclusions.  For example, the Commission disagreed with our GPRA findings, asserting  that its GPRA processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its  size. The Commission also asserted that, as a small agency, it was not cost- effective or efficient for it to institute its own accountability system for  managing its human resources, as OPM had recommended. The  Commission similarly cited its small size in asserting that it would be an  “extreme” challenge to institute our October 2003 report  recommendations. We disagree with these assertions. The Commission’s  size is not relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the  Commission to address longstanding management and human capital  problems identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore,  instead of implying that it is acceptable for the Commission as a small  agency to operate under diminished expectations for GPRA compliance,  the Commission could make use of GPRA’s planning and reporting  framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the Commission  could use GPRA's planning framework to update and sharpen its goals,  clearly identify the strategies and resources needed to achieve those goals,  and improve its management and human capital practices. The  Commission could then also use GPRA’s reporting framework to  demonstrate the progress it has made towards achieving those goals.
In addition to providing these comments, the Commission criticized our  approach to our work, asserting that the draft report contained inaccurate  and incomplete analyses and that we rushed to complete the report within  an artificially constrained timeline. We strongly disagree. At all times, we  scoped, designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with  applicable professional standards and our quality assurance requirements.  Furthermore, many of the Commission’s comments about how we  conducted our work were themselves misleading and inaccurate. For  example, we did not suddenly and drastically change our focus, as the  Commission asserted. In our May 2004 entrance conference with the  agency, we noted our specific focus on certain areas, including the  Commission’s GPRA products and the agency’s actions in response to  OPM and GAO recommendations. Our focus on oversight of the  Commission and GPRA requirements remained consistent throughout the  assignment. As we designed our work, we formulated our objectives and  methodologies more specifically, and we shared our refocused objectives  with the Commission when we completed the design phase of our work in  July. We therefore continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and  recommendations are sound. The Commission’s detailed comments and  our responses to them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated  clarifications in the report as appropriate.
Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further  distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we will  send copies of this report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and other  interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon  request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAO’s  Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
Please contact me or Revae Moran on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staffs  have any questions about this report. Other contacts and staff  acknowledgments are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights
subsections: section_title: GAO’s Response to Comments
paragraphs: In general, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights’ comments on our  findings make four broad assertions in addition to having numerous  specific points of disagreement with our findings. We address both in the  following sections.
subsections: section_title: Response to Broad Assertions in Commission’s Comments
paragraphs: The four broad assertions in the Commission’s comments on our draft  report, as well as our responses to these assertions, are summarized  below.
The Commission asserted that we rushed to complete the report within  an artificially constrained timeline and did not take the time to conduct  thorough fact-finding or analyses to ensure a quality report. We  disagree strongly with this assertion. To the contrary, we scoped,  designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with  applicable professional standards and our quality assurance  requirements. To further ensure the quality of our work, we included  an initial design period, in which we built upon our considerable  knowledge of the Commission from previous GAO reports and  obtained further information as needed. In designing and conducting  our work, we also consulted with our internal experts on GPRA and  other issues. Far from rushing through the engagement, we in fact  extended our design period so that we could perform high-quality work  within a timeframe useful to our congressional requesters. At the end  of this design period in July, we narrowed our scope, deferring a  potential objective on the organizational structure of the Commission.  Refining the scope of an engagement following a design phase is not an  unusual audit practice. By agreement with our requesters, we did not  include work on the Commission’s organizational structure not  because of any arbitrary decision, as the Commission alleges, but  rather to enable us to complete our work on time and in accordance  with our quality standards. Our focus on GPRA, oversight, and the  Commission’s response to our October 2003 report recommendations  remained consistent throughout the assignment, from initial  notification to report drafting. Furthermore, in our May 2004 entrance  conference with the agency, we noted our focus on these areas, and in  July 2004, at the end of our design phase, we shared these objectives  and our approach with Commission staff in an interview.
The Commission asserted that we did not follow up with its staff as  needed to obtain answers to questions and that they expected us to  interview more people, both staff and Commissioners, in the course of  our work. We disagree. Our methodology called for analyzing  Commission documents, pertinent legislation and guidance, and  various reports by OPM and GAO. Although at the beginning of our  project, we envisioned interviewing key managers and all of the  Commissioners as part of possible work on the Commission’s  organizational structure, these interviews became unnecessary when  we decided to focus on the Commission’s GPRA plans and reports,  oversight of the Commission, and the agency’s response to our  previous report recommendations. As noted in our report, to obtain  information for these objectives, we conducted interviews with the  Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human  Resources Director, and Budget Chief. We also followed up with e- mails and telephone calls as needed. Finally, in our exit conference, we  presented all of our findings and provided an opportunity for  Commission staff to comment on our findings and provide technical  corrections. At that meeting, Commission officials provided a few  comments, but no technical corrections; with few exceptions, they did  not disagree with the facts or conclusions we presented.
The Commission asserted that it cooperated with us fully, at all times.
However, while our working relationships were professional and  Commission officials were usually responsive in providing documents  as requested, we do not agree that Commission staff cooperated fully  with us throughout our work. Obtaining interviews with the  Commission and key staff was frequently difficult, with each one  requiring a minimum of 3 weeks to schedule. For example, although we  notified the Commission on April 19, 2004, about our planned work and  called shortly thereafter to schedule an initial meeting, it took  numerous calls to set up our entrance conference on May 20, 2004. This  delay in scheduling the initial meeting occurred despite our reference  to the need for a rapid response. In addition, since it was difficult for  Commission officials to find the time to meet with us, we combined our  entrance conference with that of another GAO team that was  examining the Commission’s financial transactions so that they would  not also experience a delay in starting their work. We had similar  difficulties scheduling other meetings as well.
The Commission has repeatedly asserted that it is a small agency, with  a budget of approximately $9 million and fewer than 70 staff— information that we noted in the draft report. In commenting on the  draft report, the Commission asserted that its GPRA and personnel  processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. The  Commission also cited its size in asserting that it would be an  “extreme” challenge to institute our October 2003 recommendations.  We disagree with these assertions. The Commission’s size is not  relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the Commission to  address longstanding management and human capital problems  identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, the  Commission could make use of GPRA’s planning and reporting  framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the  Commission could use GPRA's planning framework to update and  sharpen its goals, clearly identify the strategies and resources needed  to achieve those goals, and improve its management and human capital  practices, as recommended. The Commission could then also use  GPRA’s reporting framework to demonstrate the progress it has made  towards achieving those goals.
section_title: Response to Specific Comments from the Commission
paragraphs: In addition to making these broad comments, the Commission disagreed  with our findings more specifically. Our detailed responses to the  Commission’s comments follow.   1.  We disagree that the Commission has implemented or was  “engaged in implementing” all of the recommendations in our  October 2003 report. See responses 2 through 6.   2.  Although the Commission reported that it has taken various steps  to meet the financial statement preparation and audit requirements  of the act, we disagree that it is in a position to meet the act’s  requirements for financial statement preparation and audit this  year. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had not hired an  independent auditor to conduct this work. The agency’s ability to  meet the act’s requirements in the less than 2 remaining months is  highly doubtful, since the agency has not had its fiscal activities  independently audited in more than 12 years, and no audit work  has begun.   3.  The Commission’s assertion is not accurate: The Commission has  not implemented our recommendation to provide for increased  commissioner involvement in project implementation and report  preparation. In fact, as the Commission noted in its comments, the  Commission has “continued to follow longstanding Commission  policy on Commissioner-staff interaction.” As we reported in  October 2003, this policy does not provide for systematic  Commissioner input throughout projects. Nothing precludes the  Staff Director from providing additional information about projects  and report status to Commissioners as a matter of good project  management and quality assurance. Furthermore, the Staff  Director could respond in various ways to Commissioners’  concerns for increased input without obtaining a formal vote to  change the Commission’s procedures. For example,  Commissioners could receive a summary of preliminary facts and  findings or an outline of a planned report.   4.  The Commission asserted that there is no requirement that the  Commissioners’ judgment must be substituted with our judgment  on policy decision matters. While our recommendations are not  requirements, we provide recommendations in our reports in  accordance with our statutory responsibilities to investigate the  use of public money, analyze agency expenditures, and evaluate  the results of federal programs and activities. Our reports and  recommendations provide agencies with the information necessary  to improve their mission performance and Congress with the  information necessary for oversight, including the development of  legislation that will help agencies in their efforts. As the  administrative head of the Commission, the Staff Director is  authorized to make administrative changes that are consistent with  the law and Commission policies. While it may be difficult at times  to distinguish between an administrative and policy matter, we are  not aware of any Commission policies that would prevent the Staff  Director from implementing our recommendations nor would it be  contrary to the law.  5.  The Commission asserted that it has provided the Commissioners  with project cost information and made efforts to monitor the  adequacy and timeliness of the information given, as recommended  in our October 2003 report. According to Commission staff, the  agency provides cost information on a quarterly basis to  Commissioners and has done so since the last quarter of fiscal year  2003.  However, we continue to believe that having regular project  cost reports, such as monthly reports, would enhance the  Commissioners’ ability to plan for and monitor projects during  their monthly meetings. Monthly reports would allow greater  accountability for the projects by integrating cost information in a  timely manner into project management. Since the Commission’s  Budget Chief told us that he prepares monthly project cost reports  for the Staff Director, preparing reports for the Commissioners’  monthly meetings should not be unduly burdensome. To ensure  that cost reports can be best used to strengthen project monitoring  and management, these reports should also be provided to  Commissioners shortly after the month ends.   6.  We believe that it is a deficiency for the Commission to provide  quarterly cost reports to Commissioners 3 months after a quarter  has ended. Our October 2003 recommendation called for the  Commission to monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project  cost information provided to Commissioners. In our view,  information provided in 3-month-old project cost reports cannot be  considered timely.  7.  We believe that it is a deficiency for project cost reports to omit  mention of the status of planned projects. The Commission’s  second quarter 2004 cost report for the Commissioners did not  indicate the status of 4 of the 12 projects. To be useful for decision  making and monitoring, the project cost report should have noted  that some planned projects had already been completed and that  some work had not yet begun, so that the Commissioners  monitoring the projects would have also been aware of the status  of these projects.   8.  We disagree that our conclusions on the Commission’s response to  OPM’s 1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. See  responses 9 through 16 as well as our response to broad assertions  in the Commission’s comments.  9.  The Commission asserted that we did not indicate concerns about  its implementation of OPM’s 1999 recommendations until officials  received the draft report. However, it is not clear to us why  Commission officials should have been unaware of the direction of  our findings. Four Commission officials, including the Human  Resources Director, participated in two major meetings, one of  which focused extensively on the Commission’s actions in  response to six of OPM’s human resources recommendations.  The  Human Resources Director also participated in our exit conference  in which we summarized our findings, including our finding on the  Commission’s responses to oversight by OPM. We noted explicitly  during this meeting that we had focused on certain  recommendations and had found that the actions taken by the  Commission were limited. The Human Resources Director did not  provide any corrections or technical comments on the agency’s  human resources practices during this meeting, nor did any other  Commission official. In addition to these meetings, we obtained  additional documents, comments, and answers to questions by       e-mail from the Commission during the course of our work and  incorporated this information into our draft report as appropriate.   10.  The Commission asserts that we did not dispute that it complied  with 11 of OPM’s 1999 recommendations. This statement is  incorrect. We selected 6 of OPM’s 16 recommendations for  analysis; we did not analyze the Commission’s response to the  remaining recommendations. We noted in our report that the  Commission had implemented 1 of the 6 recommendations that we  analyzed. We have clarified our methodology in the final report.  See comment 11 for more information on our methodology.   11.  The Commission asserted that we arbitrarily decided to focus on 6  of the 16 recommendations OPM made in 1999. We strongly  disagree. To follow up on the Commission’s response to OPM’s  recommendations, we judgmentally selected six recommendations  that had broader, more systemic implications for the agency. At no  point, however, did we pre-select these recommendations in order  to emphasize a particular outcome or “cast the agency in a bad  light.” We have clarified the basis for our selection of these  recommendations in the final report.   12.  We do not agree that the Commission has implemented OPM’s  recommendation to delegate HRM authority to managers. OPM’s  report stated that “the Staff Director retains final approving  authority for most  decisions, including  appointments, promotions, and performance ratings.” Policies  described in OPM’s 1999 report remain in place at the Commission  today. For example, in our interviews this year, Commission  officials told us that the Staff Director must approve all hiring and  promotion decisions as well as managers’ evaluations of  employees. As of February 2004, according to the Commission’s  administrative manual, “the staff director retains approval  authority” as well for quality step increases, accomplishment  awards, performance awards for its employees, and  recommendations to OPM for other awards. While the Commission  has taken certain actions to improve its human resources  management practices, such as developing an employee handbook  on human resources matters and providing managers with OPM’s  HRM Accountability System Development Guide, the Commission  has not delegated human resource authorities to managers in all  program areas, as OPM had recommended.   13.  The Commission’s assertion that it was acting in accordance with  Merit System Principles is misleading and largely irrelevant for this  discussion. OPM’s recommendation for an accountability system  stemmed from its analysis of the Commission’s human resource  accountability and internal self-assessment efforts (an area of  weakness also identified in its 1996 review). In 1999, OPM found  that the Commission had not “developed an effective system to  hold managers accountable for HRM-related decisions.” OPM  further noted that the “Staff Director retains final approving  authority for most  decisions… leaving managers  uncertain about their own accountability when making these HRM  decisions . . . Employees see this lack of accountability too, saying  that the supervisory chain of command is unclear and that they are  unsure of where work assignments and agency work priorities  originate.  Also, employees report that their jobs do not make good  use of their skills and abilities; that they are not satisfied with their  jobs; and that they do not feel free to disclose waste, fraud, and  abuse without fear of reprisal.” OPM noted that an internal self- assessment program was “urgently needed to assure  accountability.” References to the Commission’s delegated  examining authority and general compliance with OPM’s Merit  System Principles are not pertinent to the finding that led to this  recommendation.  14.  The Commission is inaccurate in asserting that OPM “may have  made a recommendation for additional improvement of the  Commission’s personnel processes.” As we noted in our report,  OPM made 16 recommendations for improvement of the  Commission’s human resource management practices in its 1999  report. The Commission is also inaccurate in asserting that OPM  found that “those basic  processes were already sound,”  and that “there was no real need to implement this  recommendation [on using OPM’s HRM Accountability System  Guide], since Commission operations were good.” This is an  inaccurate reading of OPM’s 1999 findings and recommendations.  While OPM found overall that the Commission’s human resource  program complied with the Merit System Principles, OPM also  urged the Commission to consider its recommendations in five  broad areas of human resource management. In the executive  summary of the 1999 report, the first of 12 bullets highlighting  OPM’s findings summarizes concerns raised in its earlier 1996  report on the Commission; acknowledges that the Commission  “has improved its administration of the HRM program, particularly  in the recruitment and placement area”; and continues by saying,  “However, the other concerns we identified in 1996 continue to  require attention.”  Of the 11 remaining bulleted  findings in OPM’s summary, 7 describe problem areas, 3 are  positive, and 1 is mixed.   15.  The Commission asserts that using OPM’s guide instead of  designing its own system is appropriate because it is a small  agency. However, the Commission’s assertions reflect a  misunderstanding of OPM’s guidance to agencies and of what  constitutes an accountability system for human resources.  According to OPM, an HRM accountability system is a process and  should be seen as a continuous cycle. This systemic, continuous  process “enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the  information or data on which accountability is ultimately based.” It  includes identifying the agency’s strategic goals, including human  resource goals; developing performance measures and a baseline  to assess whether human resource goals are being met; and using  this information to make improvements. The accountability  process also requires cyclical, periodic reassessment. The  Commission has taken various actions to improve its human  resources management, including updating several administrative  instructions, conducting an employee survey in fiscal year 2000,  and developing an employee handbook. However, the Commission  has not developed an accountability system—an ongoing process  involving goal setting, evaluation, improvements, and  reassessment—to address the concerns raised in OPM’s report.  16.  We cannot agree that goals established in 1997 address and  implement OPM’s 1999 recommendation, nor do we agree that our  referring to the Commission’s strategic plan in this discussion is  unfair. The Commission’s strategic plan was developed in 1997 and  remains the Commission’s only strategic plan. In 1999, OPM  recommended that the Commission’s strategic plan include human  resources elements that OPM did not find in the Commission’s  1997 plan. In examining goal six in the Commission’s 1997 strategic  plan, OPM “did not find that a link between HRM and agency  mission accomplishment has been made apparent in the Strategic  Plan. Further, the Strategic Plan does not list specific HRM goals  and measures that could be used to assess the HRM function’s  ability to effectively and efficiently support agency mission  accomplishment. We found no evidence that key measures and/or  outcome indicators are used by  to track its  efforts to achieve HRM goals.” The Commission’s assertion that the  1997 strategic plan contains human resources goals, measures, and  indicators is therefore neither accurate nor relevant: The 1997 plan  does not include human resources measures and indicators and it  was not part of the Commission’s response to OPM’s  recommendation because it was developed 2 years before OPM  made this recommendation.    17.  The Commission’s statement that we examined its GPRA processes  is incorrect, and its description of the processes it used in 1997 to  develop its strategic plan and first performance plan and report are  irrelevant. Our objective was to assess the Commission’s  compliance with GPRA’s requirements for agency strategic plans,  annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. We  did not focus on the agency’s process for developing these GPRA  plans and reports, nor did we analyze the Commission’s initial  performance plan for fiscal year 1999 or its initial performance  report for fiscal year 1999. As noted in our report, we analyzed the  Commission’s most recent performance plan (for fiscal year 2005)  and the most recent performance report (for fiscal year 2003). We  also compared the Commission’s plan for fiscal year 2003 to its  performance report for the same year.    18.  The Commission is incorrect in asserting that its descriptions of  completed studies in its performance report provide information  equivalent to performance indicators and that its plans and reports,  by implication, comply with GPRA standards. Under GPRA, a  performance indicator means a particular value or characteristic  used to measure output or outcome. A narrative description of a  report’s findings cannot be used for measurement purposes. See  comment 19 as well.   19.  The assertion that the Commission can use non-quantifiable  measures in its reports is misleading. GPRA allows the Director of  OMB to authorize the use of alternative, nonquantifiable  performance goals for annual performance plans if necessary.   However, Commission officials explicitly told us that the agency  did not apply for or receive authorization from OMB to submit  goals in their annual performance plan in an alternative,  nonquantifiable format. Agencies that are authorized to use  alternative formats must comply with certain other requirements,  which the Commission has not done.  20.  The Commission has not received an exemption from GPRA  reporting requirements. Although agencies with annual outlays of  $20 million or less are eligible to apply to OMB for an exemption,  as the Commission notes, Commission officials told us that the  agency has not applied for nor received such an exemption.    21.  Although the Commission has filed annual performance plans and  annual reports each year, as required under GPRA, it has not  revised and updated its strategic plan, which is also required under  GPRA.  Furthermore, we cannot agree that the Commission’s plans  and reports comply with “material requirements” of GPRA because  of the numerous shortcomings in these products, as described in  our report.   22.  As noted in our report, according to OMB officials, OMB conducts  primarily budgetary reviews and does not provide agencies that  have small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, with the  same level of scrutiny that it provides to larger agencies. OMB  officials further told us that OMB does not approve or reject  agencies’ GPRA plans and reports, but provides comments as  appropriate. Because of OMB’s focus on budgetary reviews and on  larger agencies, the absence of criticism from OMB does not  necessarily constitute approval of an agency’s GPRA plans and  reports.  23.  Contrary to the Commission’s assertion, GPRA does require  agencies to update and revise its strategic plan at least every 3  years.  The Commission has not updated and revised  its strategic plan since 1997 when it should have done so in fiscal  year 2000 and again in fiscal year 2003. The Commission further  asserts that its 1997 plan does not need updating or revision  because its authorizing statute has not changed in the interim. This  assumption is incorrect and demonstrates a misunderstanding of  GPRA’s purposes and requirements. As noted in our report,  strategic planning is not a static or occasional event. If done well, it  is dynamic, continuous, and results-oriented, and it provides the  foundation for everything the organization does.
section_title: Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response
paragraphs: Of the 16 recommendations that the Office of Personnel Management  (OPM) made to the Commission in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6  recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the  agency. We did not analyze the Commission’s response to the 10 remaining  recommendations.
OPM Recommendation: Include human resources goals, measures,  and indicators in the Commission’s Strategic Plan and involve  Commission staff in the human resource planning and  measurement process.
The Commission has not addressed this recommendation. Because the  Commission has not updated its strategic plan, it has not included  additional human capital goals and assessment measures. In addition,  although the Commission issued a Human Resources Plan in fiscal year  2000 that contains five human capital performance goals, the plan does not  link these goals to its overall strategic goals, set forth a timeframe for  achieving them, or describe how it will assess its progress. The plan also  does not describe how Commission staff will participate in human  resource planning and evaluation, as OPM recommended.
OPM Recommendation: Use OPM’s Human Resource Management  Accountability System Development Guide as a framework for  creating an accountability system that will ensure that the  Commission’s employees are used efficiently and effectively and  that personnel actions are taken in accordance with Merit Systems  Principles in support of agency mission accomplishment.
Although Commission officials reported that they have developed and  implemented an accountability system, we found little evidence to support  this claim. OPM recommended that the Commission use its Human  Resource Management Accountability System Development Guide as a  framework for creating an accountability system. The Commission’s fiscal  year 2000 annual performance report noted that their managers were  provided copies of the Accountability Guide for review and that the  Commission planned to adopt or modify some of its procedures and  recommendations. According to Commission officials, they used the  Accountability Guide to develop a system similar to the one OPM outlines  in its guide. They also told us that Commission managers were presented  with a copy of the Accountability Guide and that their employees are  aware of the system. According to the Commission’s Human Resources  Manager, the accountability system the agency developed in response to  OPM’s recommendation is in the Commission’s Administrative  Instructions Manual and its fiscal year 2000 Human Resources Plan. The  Commission has taken various actions to improve its human resources  management since OPM’s 1999 review, such as conducting an employee  survey in fiscal year 2000 and developing an employee handbook.  Although the Commission has also updated several key sections of its  administrative manual, most of the manual was published in April 1999,  before OPM issued its report. Furthermore, the Commission’s most recent  annual performance plan does not refer to a human capital accountability  system, nor does it detail human capital goals or baselines to use in  evaluating such goals.
OPM Recommendation: Delegate human resources management  authorities to managers in all program areas. Hold managers  accountable for exercising the delegations through the Human  Resources Management Accountability System.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. Overall, the  Staff Director’s authority for most human resources decisions remains  essentially the same as in OPM’s 1999 report findings. According to  Commission officials, managers can recommend employees for hire,  promotion, and awards and conduct annual and mid-year reviews of their  staff. However, the Staff Director must approve all hiring and promotion  decisions as well as managers’ evaluations of employees before appraisals  are given to employees.
OPM Recommendation: Develop a system for periodically collecting  employee feedback regarding human resources services and  policies. Incorporate that feedback in the Human Resources  Management Accountability System.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. To date, the  Commission has not developed a formal system to regularly collect  employee feedback about its human capital services and policies, even  though a similar recommendation to obtain customer feedback and track  customer views was also made in OPM’s earlier 1996 review. In fiscal year  2000, the Commission administered a staff survey on human resources and  other Commission issues. According to officials, the Commission plans to  administer another staff survey in the fall of 2004. However, the  Commission has not developed plans to survey staff on a regular basis. In  addition, since the Commission was unable to locate the results of its 2000  survey, its managers cannot use earlier human capital findings to  systematically set goals and make improvements. According to OPM  officials, OPM will conduct a Web-based Human Capital Survey of  Commission staff beginning in September or October of 2004.
OPM Recommendation: Require that all managers make progress  reviews and performance appraisals in a timely manner when the  Human Resources Division notifies them they are due, and require  that the Staff Director review appraisals when they are made  without delay.
The Commission has implemented this recommendation, which was also  made in OPM’s 1996 review. According to the Commission’s Human  Resources Director, the agency is on schedule for its fiscal year 2004  performance appraisals. Commission guidance on the 2004 performance  appraisal cycle requires Commission supervisors and managers to conduct  annual and mid-year performance reviews of their staff. For non-Senior  Executive Service employees, the process is outlined in a memorandum  that the Human Resources Director sends annually to Commission  supervisors and managers.
OPM Recommendation: With employee involvement, consider  developing a new performance management system linked to  organizational and agency goals established under the  Commission’s Strategic Plan.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. The  Commission’s performance management system is described in its  Administrative Instructions Manual, most of which was issued in April  1999—6 months before OPM issued the recommendations in its October  1999 report. The Administrative Instructions do not clearly require that  employees’ performance plans link individual staff goals to broader  strategic goals. The parts of the manual that set forth the Commission’s  policies and procedures on appraisals make no reference to the  Commission’s strategic plan, nor does it specify how to link individual  staff goals to the Commission’s strategic goals or how to involve  employees in this process.
section_title: Appendix III: GAO’s October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission’s Response
paragraphs: GAO Recommendation: Monitor the adequacy and timeliness of  project cost information that the Staff Director provides to  Commissioners and make the necessary adjustments, which could  include providing information on a monthly, rather than a  quarterly, basis and as necessary.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In our 2003  review, we found that the Commission’s procedures did not provide for  the Commissioners to systematically receive project cost information—a  key element of good project management. As a result, the Commissioners  approved the majority of projects and products each year without having  any specific information on how much the project would cost, or how  much similar projects have cost in past years.
In the Commission’s June 2004 letter responding to our 2003  recommendations, the Staff Director stated that this recommendation  spoke to “Commission policy on the proper level and mode of interaction  between the Commissioners and staff …  the Commissioners  have reaffirmed on numerous occasions the current policy regarding  interaction with staff.” He added that the Commission “is continuing to  monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information provided  to Commissioners.”
According to the Staff Director, his office provides the Commissioners  with cost information for each project and office on a quarterly basis, and  they began doing so during the last quarter of 2003. However, the cost  report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, ending March 31, was not  sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004, and was sent in response to  requests from the Commissioners for this information. It is also not clear  that the Commission is monitoring the adequacy and timeliness of project  cost information, as recommended. For example, the quarterly report for  the second quarter of 2004 cites costs for only 8 of the 12 projects outlined  in the Commission’s fiscal year 2004 performance plan.
GAO Recommendation: Adopt procedures that provide for  increased Commissioner involvement in project implementation  and report preparation.
The Staff Director does not agree with this recommendation and has not  implemented it. In our 2003 review, we found that Commissioners have  limited involvement in the management of projects once they have been  approved. As a result, we recommended that the Commission adopt  procedures for increasing Commissioner involvement after project  implementation by providing them with project updates and allowing them  to review the product at various stages in the drafting process, so that they  participate more actively in shaping products released to the public.
The Staff Director did not agree with this recommendation and told us that  he believes that the current procedures that govern Commissioner  involvement in the development of products are appropriate and efficient.  In his June 2004 letter responding to our recommendations, the Staff  Director wrote that the responsibility for determining policy on  Commissioners’ interaction with the staff is “delegated by statute to the  Commissioners.” According to the Staff Director, the Commissioners  requested that he assess the situation and issue recommendations on their  involvement in report preparation. The Staff Director said that involving  the Commissioners in the writing stage would “bog down” the process and  that it would be difficult to incorporate the viewpoints of the eight  Commissioners. To date, the Commission has not adopted any procedures  to increase Commissioner involvement in the report preparation stage.
GAO Recommendation: Establish greater controls over contracting  activities in order to comply with the Federal Acquisition  Regulation.
Although the Staff Director disagreed with this recommendation, the  Commission took one step towards establishing greater controls by  contracting with a contracts and procurement specialist to supplement its  operations. In 2003, we reported that the Commission lacked sufficient  management controls over its contracting procedures. We found that, in  fiscal year 2002, the Commission had not followed proper federal  procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. Moreover, we found that  the Commission failed to follow procedures that would allow it to track  vendors’ performance against objective measures and ensure that public  funds are being used effectively.
While the Staff Director disagreed in his June 2004 response letter with the  need for the actions associated with this recommendation, he later told us  that the Commission “could be stronger” in the area of procurement. Since  our 2003 report was issued, the Commission has supplemented its  contracts and procurements operations by contracting with a contracts  and procurements specialist with over 30 years of experience in  government contracting. According to Commission officials, this specialist  began providing services to the Commission in December 2003 and  generally addresses complex procurement issues.
GAO Recommendation: Take steps immediately in order to meet  the financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the  Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004.
The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In 2003, we  found that the Commission’s fiscal activities had not been independently  audited in at least 12 years. We concluded that the Commission’s limited  financial management controls and lack of external oversight makes the  Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to waste, mismanagement,  or abuse.
Although in the June 2004 response, the Commission reported working  with its accounting vendor to ensure that it would meet these  requirements, as of August 2004, the Commission had not taken the  necessary steps, such as hiring an independent auditor, to ensure that it  will meet the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act this  year.
section_title: Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Friendly M. VangJohnson and Caroline Sallee made significant  contributions to this report. In addition, Richard P. Burkard, Elizabeth H.  Curda, Julian P. Klazkin, Benjamin T. Licht, Corinna Nicolaou, and Michael  R. Volpe provided key technical and legal assistance throughout the  engagement.