Department of Homeland Security: Actions Taken Toward Management Integration, but a Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed
Published: 2009-11-20T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: Significant management challenges exist for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) as it continues to integrate its varied management processes, policies, and systems in areas such as financial management and information technology. These activities are primarily led by the Under Secretary for Management (USM), department management chiefs, and management chiefs in DHS's seven components. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) was asked to examine: (1) the extent to which DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration that includes the characteristics recommended in GAO's 2005 report; (2) how DHS is implementing management integration; and (3) the extent to which the USM is holding the department and component management chiefs accountable for implementing management integration through reporting relationships. GAO reviewed DHS plans and interviewed management officials in DHS's headquarters and in all components.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration as required by the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 and with the characteristics GAO recommended in a 2005 report. Although DHS stated in response to the 2005 report that it was developing an integration strategy, it has not yet done so, in part because it has focused on building operations capacity within functional management areas. In the absence of a comprehensive management integration strategy, DHS officials stated that documents such as management directives and strategic plans address aspects of a management integration strategy and can help the department to manage its integration efforts. However, they do not generally include all of the strategy characteristics GAO identified, such as identifying the critical links that must occur among management initiatives and time lines for monitoring the progress of these initiatives. In addition, DHS has increased the number of performance measures for the Management Directorate, but has not yet established measures for assessing management integration across the department, although DHS officials stated that the department intends to do so. Without these measures DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and achieving management integration. In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, DHS's Management Directorate has implemented management integration through certain initiatives and mechanisms to communicate and consolidate management policies, processes, and systems. The directorate uses councils to communicate information related to the implementation of management initiatives, among other things. The directorate has also established governance boards and processes to manage specific activities. Further, the directorate is in the process of consolidating certain management systems. However, without a documented management integration strategy, it is difficult for DHS, Congress, and other key stakeholders to understand and monitor the critical linkages and prioritization among these various efforts. The USM and department and component management chiefs are held accountable for implementing management integration through reporting relationships at three levels--between the Secretary and the USM, the USM and department chiefs, and the department and component chiefs--in which, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, USM, and department chiefs are required to provide input into performance plans and evaluations. The Deputy Secretary--through delegation from the Secretary--and the USM have provided input into the USM's and department chiefs' plans and evaluations, respectively. Although department chiefs are required by management directives to provide component chiefs with written objectives at the start of the annual performance cycle, in fiscal year 2009 only two out of six department chiefs provided such input to component chiefs. Without ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs' performance plans and evaluations as required, the directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully implementing management integration.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represented  one of the largest reorganizations and consolidations of government  agencies, personnel, programs, and operations in recent history, initially  bringing together approximately 180,000 employees from 22 originating  agencies. DHS is now the third largest federal government agency with  more than 200,000 employees and an annual budget of more than $40  billion. DHS began operations in March 2003 with missions that included  preventing terrorist attacks from occurring within the United States,  reducing U.S. vulnerability to terrorism, minimizing damages from attacks  that occur, and helping the nation recover from any attacks. The  department has initiated and continued the implementation of various  policies and programs to address these missions as well as missions that  are not directly related to securing the homeland, such as Coast Guard  search and rescue. At the same time, it is critically important that DHS  works to unify and strengthen its management functions because the  effectiveness of these functions will ultimately affect its ability to fulfill its  various missions.
In 2005, we assessed DHS efforts to integrate its various management  processes, systems, and people, both within and across areas such as  information technology, financial management, procurement, and human  capital, as well as in its administrative services—using as criteria selected  key practices we have reported are consistently found to be at the center  of successful mergers and organizational transformations. We noted that  DHS had made progress in addressing its departmentwide management  integration through the issuance of guidance and plans to assist the  integration of each individual management function within the  department. However, we observed that DHS had the opportunity to  expand those efforts by implementing a more comprehensive and  sustained approach to management integration departmentwide. In  particular, we recommended that DHS develop an overarching strategy for  management integration. In response to the 2005 report, DHS stated that it  was developing an integration strategy. We also suggested that Congress  might want to consider whether DHS’s Under Secretary for Management  (USM)—who heads the department’s Management Directorate—has the  authority to drive, implement, and ensure accountability for management  integration departmentwide.
You asked us to review the status of DHS management integration efforts  since our 2005 report. Specifically, we assessed (1) the extent to which  DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration  that includes the characteristics recommended in our 2005 report; (2) how  DHS is implementing management integration; and (3) the extent to which  the USM is holding the department and component management chiefs  accountable for implementing management integration through reporting  relationships.
To address our first objective, we considered whether DHS had developed  a strategy for departmentwide management integration, as required by  law. Specifically, we assessed whether DHS documents included the  characteristics recommended in our 2005 report for a management  integration strategy, which required that the strategy:  look across the initiatives within each of the management functional units;    clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these initiatives;   identify tradeoffs and set priorities;    set implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of these  initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and  identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved.
In order to assess these characteristics, we reviewed various departmental  documents identified by DHS as comprising its management integration  strategy, including DHS documents related to management, strategic  planning, and departmental guidance and policy. We examined legislation,  including the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the Implementing  Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which identifies  requirements and authorities relating to transition, reorganization, and  developing and implementing a management integration strategy. We also  interviewed departmental and component management officials and chiefs  to obtain information on the extent to which DHS has developed a strategy  for departmentwide management integration. Additionally, we reviewed  DHS’s performance goals and measures for fiscal years 2008 and 2009, as  reported in DHS’s Annual Performance Report for fiscal years 2008  through 2010. We assessed these goals and measures against Government  Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requirements to determine  the extent to which they provided a framework for assessing management  integration across the department.
For our third objective, we met with the USM as well as department and  component management chiefs, and reviewed DHS performance  agreements and performance management activities against requirements  set forth in law and in DHS policies. These requirements include the need  for input from senior to subordinate officials for performance agreements  and evaluations, and the alignment of goals and objectives in a “line of  sight” that shows how individual performance contributes to  organizational goals.
For all three objectives, we interviewed and gathered documents from the  USM, the USM’s Chief of Staff, the six departmental management chiefs or  acting chiefs—the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO), the Chief Financial  Officer (CFO), the Chief Human Capital Officer (CHCO), the Chief  Information Officer (CIO), the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), and the  Chief Security Officer (CSO)—and the chiefs, acting chiefs, or deputy  chiefs from DHS’s seven component agencies and one directorate—the  National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). DHS’s seven  component agencies include the Transportation Security Administration  (TSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. Immigration and  Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services  (USCIS), U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard, and the Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). We also spoke with officials  from DHS’s Office of Policy. We observed meetings of DHS’s Management  Council, Human Capital Leadership Council and CIO Council.
In addition, we reviewed prior GAO reports on DHS management in areas  such as information technology, financial management, procurement,  acquisition, human capital, and mergers and organizational  transformations to determine the status of DHS management integration.  We also examined reports from DHS’s Office of Inspector General (IG)  related to the status of DHS’s management initiatives.
We conducted this performance audit from September 2008 through  November 2009 in accordance with generally accepted government  auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the  audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable  basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We  believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Not since the creation of the Department of Defense in 1947 has the  federal government undertaken an organizational merger of the magnitude  of DHS. In 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of  DHS as one of the high-risk areas across the federal government because it  represented an enormous undertaking that would require time to achieve  in an effective and efficient manner. Moreover, the components that  became part of the department already faced a wide array of existing  challenges, and any failure to effectively carry out their missions would  expose the nation to potentially serious consequences. The department  has remained on our high-risk list since 2003. Most recently, in our  January 2009 high-risk update, we reported that, although DHS had made  progress in transforming into a fully functioning department, its  transformation remained high risk because it had not yet developed a  comprehensive plan to address the transformation, integration,  management, and mission challenges we identified in 2003. In  designating the implementation and transformation of DHS as high risk,  we noted that building an effective department would require consistent  and sustained leadership from top management to ensure the needed  nto an  transformation of disparate agencies, programs, and missions i integrated organization. Our prior work on mergers and orga transformations, undertaken before the creation of DHS, found that  successful transformations of large organizations can take at least 5 to 7  years to achieve.
subsections: section_title: Definition of Management Integration
paragraphs: GAO-03-669. and people—in areas such as information technology, financial  management, procurement, and human capital—as well as in its security  and administrative services, for greater efficiency and effectiveness.
On one level, management integration refers to integration of the elements  mentioned above—processes, systems, and people—within management  functions (sometimes referred to as vertical integration), from the  department level down through each of the corresponding management  functions in the component agencies. An example of this is the use of  consistent human capital management policies at the DHS CHCO level and  for each of the corresponding component agency human capital  management functions.
On another level, management integration refers to integration of the  elements mentioned across management functions (sometimes referred to  as horizontal integration), such as the integration of human capital  management and financial management activities in areas related to  payroll.
In February 2009, DHS’s Management Directorate provided us with a  definition of its approach and responsibilities for implementing  management integration in the department. According to the Management  Directorate, DHS defines management integration as including three  different levels of activities: (1) strategic integration, (2) operational  coordination, and (3) functional integration. The directorate further stated  that the first level, strategic integration, consists of efforts to ensure that  all component activities and acquisitions align with DHS mission goals  through appropriate leadership oversight and policies and procedures. The  second level, operational coordination, consists of the delivery of  management services in order to increase cross-component collaboration  and reduce costs by achieving efficiencies for managing assets such as real  property, for procuring volume discounts of supplies and services, and  acquiring common technology platforms through shared information  technology infrastructure. The third level, functional integration, consists  of, among other things, management oversight of component-level internal  controls and standard operating policies to ensure departmentwide  compliance with presidential directives, congressional mandates, and  other legal requirements and DHS policies; and consistent business  practices that support financial reporting and operational assurance  statements.
section_title: DHS Management Roles and Responsibilities
paragraphs: The Management Directorate includes the CFO, the CSO, the CHCO, the  CAO, the CPO, and the CIO. They are referred to as the departmental  management chiefs. In addition to the department’s Management  Directorate, each of the seven DHS component agencies has its own  component management chief for the procurement, financial, human  capital, information technology, administrative, and security management  areas. Figures 1 and 2 show the DHS and DHS Management Directorate’s  organizational structures.
The Homeland Security Act of 2002 gave DHS’s USM responsibility for the  management and administration of the department, including the  transition and reorganization process, among other things. The  Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11  Commission Act) enhanced the USM position by designating the USM as  the Chief Management Officer (CMO) of DHS and principal advisor to the  Secretary on matters related to the management of the department,  including management integration and transformation. DHS also defined  the USM responsibilities for integration in department management  directives following the creation of the department. For example, a DHS  management directive assigns the USM responsibility and accountability  for designing departmentwide integrated systems to improve mission  support. Within the Management Directorate, the management chiefs’  roles and responsibilities for the integration of the department are  established in DHS management directives. For example, DHS  management directives give the departmental management chiefs  responsibility to ensure the integration of their management function and  to review their programs in order to recommend program improvements  and corrective actions where appropriate. DHS management directives  also require the departmental management chiefs to annually establish  milestones for the integration of their management function’s activities.  Component management chiefs are to implement initiatives within their  respective functional areas that relate to management integration.
In 2004, the Secretary of Homeland Security issued a departmentwide  memo on DHS efforts to integrate management functions. In order to  ensure that both department and component personnel took responsibility  for supporting performance of management functions, the memo  describes the concept of dual accountability in which both the heads of  component agencies, such as TSA or CBP, and the DHS management  chiefs, such as CPO or CIO, share responsibility for implementing  management functions. For example, the TSA Administrator and DHS’s  CPO are both responsible to the DHS Secretary, through their respective  chains, for procurement performance at TSA. An accompanying memo  from the Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security in 2004 noted that  component agency heads would be responsible for accomplishing the  mission of their component agencies, and management chiefs would be  responsible for providing the support systems to help components  accomplish their mission. The memos also set out the “dotted line”  reporting relationship of the component management chiefs, such as TSA’s  CPO or CBP’s CIO, to the department management chiefs, DHS’s CPO or  DHS’s CIO. Resulting management directives were developed for each  DHS management function in 2004 as principal documents for leading,  governing, integrating, and managing the management functions  throughout DHS. These management directives require DHS management  chiefs to collaborate with component agency heads on the recruiting and  selection of key component management officials, and provide input into  component management chiefs’ performance agreement and evaluation,  among other things.
section_title: Departmental Documents Address Aspects of Management Integration, but DHS Has Not Yet Developed a Comprehensive Strategy
paragraphs: The 9/11 Commission Act requires DHS to develop a strategy for  management integration as part of the department’s integration and  transformation to create a more efficient and orderly consolidation of  functions and personnel in the department. In our 2005 report, we  recommended that DHS develop an overarching management integration  strategy for the department that would, at a minimum, have the following  characteristics:  look across the initiatives within each of the management functional units;    clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these initiatives;   identify trade-offs and set priorities;    set implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of these  initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and  identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved.
We pointed out that a comprehensive management integration strategy  would, among other things, help the department look across initiatives  within each of the functional units to clearly identify the links that must  occur among initiatives and develop specific departmentwide goals and  milestones that would allow DHS to track critical phases and essential  activities. By including these characteristics in DHS’s management  integration strategy, we said that Congress, DHS employees, and other key  stakeholders would have access to more transparent information  regarding departmental integration goals, needed resources, critical links,  cost savings, and status documentation, thereby providing a means by  which DHS could be held accountable for its management integration  efforts. In commenting on our 2005 report, DHS discussed actions it was  taking to address our recommendation that it develop a management  integration strategy, stating that it was establishing an integrated project  plan / integration strategy that would define roles and responsibilities and  identify key deliverables and milestones.
subsections: section_title: Although DHS Identified Various Documents That Support Management Integration, These Documents Do Not Contain All the Characteristics of a Comprehensive Strategy
paragraphs: DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management  integration that is consistent with statute and that contains all of the  characteristics we identified in 2005. According to DHS’s USM, the  department has not yet developed a comprehensive management  integration strategy because, in part, the Management Directorate has  focused on building the management operations capacity within the  functional areas, such as financial management and information  technology. As a result, the Management Directorate has not yet focused  on integration across the functional areas and has not clearly or  systematically identified trade-offs and linkages among initiatives in  different functional areas.
In the absence of a comprehensive management integration strategy,  DHS’s USM, Chief of Staff, and department and component management  chiefs stated that various departmental documents collectively contribute  to the department’s strategy for implementing and achieving management  integration. In particular, DHS officials identified (1) departmentwide  documents that provide guidance that relate to management integration  across the department; and (2) documents for management of functional  areas.
With regard to the departmentwide documents, DHS officials included the  following as particularly relevant to aspects of management integration:    DHS Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management. This document  is intended to be a corrective action plan outlining the department’s  framework for its transformation efforts and methods by which the  department will seek to improve performance in high-risk areas we have  identified since 2003. For the high-risk area of DHS implementation and  transformation, the document discusses five areas of focus for the  department—utilizing a management framework to unify 22 disparate  organizations, creating joint requirements planning and risk assessment  processes, instituting an Investment Review Board, implementing a  corrective action plan, and consolidating and integrating a financial  management system.
Management Directorate Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009 through  2014. This plan sets out the Management Directorate’s vision, core values,  guiding principles, goals and objectives, as well as the organizational  structure and responsibilities of the Management Directorate and  department management chiefs. The plan provides the following four  objectives for the Management Directorate: (1) provide structure  (strengthen unified organizational governance to enhance departmentwide  communication, decision making, and oversight); (2) optimize processes  and systems (integrate functional operations to facilitate cross-component  synergies and streamline coordination ensuring reliable and efficient  support of mission objectives); (3) foster leadership (adhere to core values  and guiding principles of DHS in performing duties, effecting progress, and  leading with commitment for the mission); and (4) leverage culture  (leverage the benefits of commonalities and differences across  components to promote cooperative intra- and inter-agency networks and  implement best practices). The plan also discusses four methods that the  Management Directorate will use to achieve the plan’s objectives—provide  guidance, offer representation, deliver tools, and manage services.
Integrated Planning Guidance Fiscal Years 2011 through 2015. This  document describes the DHS Secretary’s policy and planning priorities for  the 5-year budget time frames, such as for fiscal years 2011 through 2015.  The Integrated Planning Guidance is part of the DHS strategic planning  process and, among other things, provides general risk management  guidance for prioritizing programming and budget proposals within the  department.
Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) Fiscal Years  2009 through 2013. This document provides a summary and breakdown  of DHS program resources over a 5-year period; including resource  alignment by goals, component appropriations, and component programs,  as well as program descriptions, milestones, performance measures, and  targets. In the fiscal year 2009 through 2013 FYHSP, DHS projected  funding for 65 priority programs within 13 components in support of the  five goals of the DHS Strategic Plan.
Internal Control Playbook Fiscal Year 2009. This document  comprises DHS’s plan to design and implement departmentwide internal  controls with respect to three areas: (1) internal controls over financial  reporting (which provides an overview of efforts to establish reliable  financial reporting); (2) internal controls over operations (which outlines  plans to maximize the effectiveness and efficiency of operations); and (3)  conformity with financial management system requirements (which  summarizes efforts to strengthen the internal controls over the  department’s financial systems). Specific examples of these internal  control areas include: integrating internal control assessments across  component lines of business, integrating financial system security  assessments through tests of operating effectiveness, and incorporating  results into plans of action and milestones.
With regard to functional area documents, DHS officials indicated that  both management directives and functional area strategic plans contain  elements of the department’s strategy for achieving management  integration. DHS issued management directives for each of the six  department management chiefs—the CAO, CFO, CHCO, CIO, and CPO  management directives were issued in 2004 (with updates for the CIO and  CPO in 2007 and 2008, respectively); the management directive for CSO  was issued in 2006. These directives communicate standard definitions of  the management chiefs’ respective roles and responsibilities; define the  concept of dual accountability for both mission accomplishment and  functional integration as the shared responsibility of the heads of DHS’s  individual agencies or components and the department management  chiefs; and establish the need for the department management chiefs,  along with the heads of agencies, to annually recommend and establish  integration milestones for the consolidation of the chiefs’ functions.  Functional area strategic plans generally discuss, among other things, the  missions and goals of the department management chiefs and the link  between the goals and objectives in each functional area strategic plan and  the goals and objectives in DHS’s Strategic Plan. Among the six  department chiefs, four have issued strategic plans for their functional  areas—the CAO, CIO, CHCO, and CSO.
While some of the documents DHS officials identified as contributing to  the department’s strategy for implementing and achieving management  integration address some of the characteristics we have previously  identified for such a strategy, these documents, either individually or  taken together, do not include all of the characteristics we have identified.  These documents described by DHS officials as contributing to the  department’s strategy for achieving management integration can provide  high-level guidance for integration efforts and can help the department to  manage those efforts. For example, two of the functional area strategic  plans set goals, objectives, and milestones for implementing certain  initiatives within functional areas. Moreover, the Management Directorate  Strategic Plan and other departmentwide documents, for example, set  performance goals, measures, and targets for achieving certain  management initiatives. Such elements as goals, objectives, milestones,  performance targets, and priorities documented in these plans and  strategies can help the department to manage, implement, and monitor the  specific initiatives to which these elements apply. They can also help to  guide efforts to consolidate policies, processes, and systems within each  management functional area. However, among the documents cited by  DHS officials as being part of the department’s management integration  strategy, DHS has not yet looked across the management initiatives within  management functional areas to identify the critical links that must occur  among these initiatives to integrate the department’s management  functions both within and across functional areas. Furthermore, the  documents generally do not identify the priorities, trade-offs, and potential  efficiencies among management initiatives, nor do they set  implementation goals and a time line for monitoring the progress of  initiatives to ensure the critical links occur when needed. Thus, when  considered either individually or together these documents do not  constitute a management integration strategy containing all of the  characteristics we have identified. See table 1 for more detailed  information on the plans.
In addition to these functional area and departmentwide documents, DHS  officials identified three other documents that are related to management  integration: (1) the DHS Strategic Plan; (2) the Quadrennial Homeland  Security Review (QHSR); and (3) the Business Operations Manual. The  DHS Strategic Plan includes, among other things, the department’s vision,  mission, core values, and guiding principles, as well as the goals and  objectives by which the department will continually assess performance.  The department’s latest strategic plan for fiscal years 2008 through 2013  includes five strategic-level goals related to the department’s mission and  management functions. Goal 5 of this plan—“Strengthen and Unify DHS  Operations and Management”—sets out the department’s goal for its  management functions; information and intelligence sharing; and policy,  planning, and coordination functions. Under this goal, the first objective  describes what the department plans to achieve for its management  functions, through the Management Directorate, and includes a reference  to achieving management integration. Specifically, Objective 5.1— “Improve Department Governance and Performance”—states that the  department will lead efforts that provide structure to enhance  departmentwide governance, decision making, and oversight, including  internal controls and performance management tracking, and optimize  processes and systems to facilitate integration and coordination. DHS’s  Strategic Plan sets out strategic-level goals and objectives for the  department’s overall mission and management functions but is not  intended to constitute a management integration strategy. As we have  previously reported, a management integration strategy goes beyond what  is contained in an agency strategic plan, as it provides the more specific  operational and tactical information to manage the integration effort. A  strategic plan contains the high-level goals and mission for an agency,  while a management integration strategy would provide the activities and  time lines needed for accomplishing the goals of the integration effort.
As required by the 9/11 Commission Act, DHS is developing its first QHSR  to conduct a comprehensive examination of the homeland security  strategy for the nation, including recommendations regarding the long- term strategy, priorities for homeland security, and guidance on the  programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and authorities of the  department. The QHSR includes five principal study areas, based on the  Secretary’s priorities for homeland security, one of which is maturing and  unifying DHS and the homeland security enterprise. DHS is also  developing a Business Operations Manual that, according to DHS officials,  will provide an overview of the key DHS processes including strategic  requirements planning, risk assessment, programming, budgeting,  acquisition, and performance assessment, and will also show how these  processes link together to ensure coordinated decision making. As the  QHSR and Business Operations Manual are still under development, it is  too soon to tell whether or how these documents will contribute to DHS’s  management integration efforts.
section_title: DHS Has Expanded Its Performance Measures for Individual Management Functions, but Has Not Yet Established Measures for Departmentwide Management Integration
paragraphs: DHS has developed some performance goals and measures to measure  management activities, but has not yet established measures for assessing  management integration across the department. For example, DHS has  increased the number of departmentwide performance measures for the  Management Directorate in support of Goal 5 of its strategic plan.  Specifically, since fiscal year 2008, DHS has added 13 new measures and  retired 3 others for the Management Directorate in support of Objective  5.1 of the strategic plan, going from 5 performance measures for the  Management Directorate in fiscal year 2008 to 15 measures in fiscal year  2009, as shown in table 2. These measures relate to activities in  functional areas but do not help to measure management integration.
The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) provides a  framework for strategic planning and reporting intended to improve  federal agencies’ performance and hold them accountable for achieving  results. Effective implementation of this framework requires agencies to,  among other things, clearly establish performance goals for which they  will be held accountable and measure progress toward those  goals. Although DHS has added measures for the Management Directorate  since fiscal year 2008, DHS has not yet clearly communicated what the  linkages, if any, are between these measures and the management  integration of the department. DHS officials told us that the department’s  current measures do not allow the department to gauge the status of  management integration and that the department has focused on the  development of measures for departmental components, offices, and  directorates—such as a measure for the attrition rate for career Senior  Executive Service (SES) personnel and a measure for the percentage of  improper payments collected. However, these performance measures do  not allow the department to assess its progress in achieving departmental  goals for management integration within and across functional areas. DHS  officials stated that the department’s goal is to develop a set of measures  that will help the department assess its management integration. Without  such a set of measures, DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing  and achieving management integration both within and across its  functional areas. A comprehensive strategy for management integration  that clearly sets implementation goals and time lines could help the  department establish measures for assessing its management integration.
section_title: DHS’s Management Directorate Has Taken Actions to Communicate and Consolidate Management Policies, Processes, and Systems
paragraphs: Through various management councils, the Management Directorate  shares information related to the implementation of management  initiatives, solicits feedback from the components, and provides a forum  for coordination between component management offices. The  Management Directorate has several councils that it uses to communicate  through the department, as shown in table 3. Each management chief  chairs a functional council to address issues pertaining to that  management function. For example, the DHS CFO leads a council that  includes component or agency CFOs across DHS and addresses and  coordinates departmentwide financial management issues, such as  financial management internal controls. Likewise, the USM chairs a  Management Council made up of the DHS management chiefs and a  representative from each component that discusses issues of  departmentwide importance, such as training and development programs.  DHS management directives give five of six functional councils  responsibility for developing and executing formal communications  programs for internal and external stakeholders. The functional councils  also have charters that generally define the role of the councils to  communicate information and provide input on goals or priorities within  their management function. The Management Council does not have a  formal charter.
We found the Management Directorate uses the councils to share  information related to management initiatives with their counterparts from  the components and solicit their input on departmentwide issues. For  example, when we observed the Human Capital Leadership Council  (HCLC) in May 2009, the DHS CHCO updated the council members on his  office’s efforts to establish an automated performance management tool.
Members of the HCLC’s Human Capital Subcommittee on Performance  Management also solicited feedback from the HCLC on whether changing  the dates of the department’s performance management cycle could be  explored by the subcommittee because it currently falls at a challenging  time during the fiscal year. The HCLC discussed the issue and raised  points, such as the relationship with the SES performance cycle and the  impact of potential continuing resolutions. Ultimately, the HCLC agreed  the subcommittee should pursue the issue. Similarly, when we observed a  Management Council meeting in April 2009, the council members shared  information on issues that affect multiple management functions, such as  the Transformation and Systems Consolidation (TASC) initiative to  consolidate and integrate its financial management, acquisition, and asset  management systems. The council meetings also provide a forum for the  component chiefs to provide input into departmentwide plans, such as the  functional area strategic plans. For example, component officials from the  information technology and human capital management functions  collaborated with their corresponding DHS management chief on the  development of their functions’ strategic plans at council meetings or  council-sponsored off-site meetings.
The councils also provide a forum for component management chiefs to  raise concerns and suggestions about departmentwide management  initiatives. For example, when we observed the CIO Council meeting in  April 2009, a component official expressed concern about the component’s  outdated financial management system, which they have not replaced  because they are waiting for the departmentwide TASC solution. The  official said that the component is repeatedly receiving negative results on  their financial systems audit while they wait. The DHS CIO responded that  if the TASC initiative experiences further delays, she will work with the  DHS CFO’s office to jointly determine a solution to allow the components  to make progress and identify areas of possible audit mitigation while  waiting for TASC to be implemented. Finally, we found that the six  functional councils provide the component management chiefs with an  opportunity to collaborate with their peers in other components and share  best practices. The FEMA Assistant Administrator for Management  explained that FEMA is in a better position today because of its  management chiefs’ participation in the councils. He said the management  chiefs have been able to better handle issues because they are able to  learn best practices from their counterparts in other components who are  dealing with the same issues and would not have the same access to the  other components without the functional councils.
subsections: section_title: DHS’s Management Directorate Has Taken Actions to Consolidate Management Policies, Processes, and Systems
paragraphs: While DHS does not have a comprehensive management strategy, its  Management Directorate is working to consolidate management policies,  processes with associated governance boards, and systems. The  Management Directorate has developed and implemented departmentwide  policies to replace policies from each of the legacy agencies that make up  DHS in all six management functions. For example, the DHS CAO’s office  completed a comprehensive review of directives that govern  departmentwide activities. According to the DHS Internal Control  Bluebook for fiscal year 2008, results of this review reduced the number of  directives by over 56 percent. The DHS CAO’s office also implemented a  new initiative to develop uniform policies and programs for radiation  safety across the department. The DHS CFO’s office launched an online  Financial Management Policy Manual tool, which serves as the single  authoritative guide on financial management and the foundation for  departmentwide financial management knowledge sharing and  standardization. According to officials from the DHS CFO’s office, the  Financial Management Policy Manual is part of its approach to integrate  within the financial management function and is critical to enable financial  management employees to carry out their duties and responsibilities  effectively and efficiently.
The Management Directorate has also taken steps toward consolidating  some management processes and established governance boards to  manage the processes in the areas of acquisition, information technology,  financial management, and resource allocation, as shown in table 4.
As we previously reported, the Management Directorate recognized  historical shortcomings in its acquisition review process and released an  interim acquisition management directive in November 2008. The interim  directive established a revised acquisition review process, including roles  and responsibilities of DHS approving authorities, threshold levels for  acquisitions, and acquisition decision events and the corresponding  documentation required. Specifically, it established the Acquisition Review  Board (ARB) as the department’s highest review body and charged it with  reviewing and approving all programs at key milestone decision points  that are above $300 million in life cycle costs. In September 2009, we  testified that DHS has also reinstated regular ARB meetings and  acquisition decision memorandums. Specifically, as of September 15,  2009, DHS’s ARB reports that it completed 14 acquisition reviews in 2008,  and has thus far completed 18 reviews in 2009, including reviews of major  acquisitions, such as SBInet, US-VISIT, and Secure Flight. DHS also  reports that 7 additional reviews are scheduled to occur by the end of the  fiscal year. We previously reported that while recent actions establishing  the ARB and an acquisition process represent progress, the department’s  previous acquisition review process was not able to effectively carry out  its oversight responsibilities and keep pace with investments since 2004.  It is too soon to tell whether DHS’s latest efforts will be sustained to  ensure investments are consistently reviewed as needed. The DHS IG has  also reported that DHS faces challenges in implementing corrective  actions for acquisition oversight.
In addition, DHS established an Enterprise Architecture Board (EAB) to  guide and approve new information technology investments. Enterprise  architecture provides systematic structural descriptions of how a given  organization operates today and how it plans to operate in the future, and  it includes a plan to transition from the current state to the future state.  The EAB reviews and approves information technology investments to  ensure they align with DHS’s enterprise architecture and transition plan.  Based on these reviews, the EAB makes recommendations to the ARB,  mentioned above, which the ARB includes in its review of information  technology acquisitions. In September 2009, we testified that since 2003,  DHS has issued annual updates to its enterprise architecture that have  improved prior versions by adding previously missing content. However,  DHS has yet to adequately address how it determines and ensures that an  investment is aligned with its enterprise architecture. Specifically, while  the Management Directorate has recently chartered its EAB and assigned  it responsibility for ensuring that each investment is architecturally  aligned throughout its life cycle, it has yet to define a methodology,  including explicit criteria, for making a risk-based alignment  determination.
The Management Directorate established a mission action plan process  and Senior Management Council (SMC) for Internal Controls to assist the  department in identifying, assessing, prioritizing, and monitoring the  progress of efforts to remediate material weaknesses. A mission action  plan presents an overall plan for correcting a control deficiency that  includes milestones with specific dates and remediation actions and is  published annually in the department’s Internal Control Playbook. In  November 2008, the Management Directorate created its first Internal  Control Bluebook, which provides the status of the department’s efforts to  design and implement departmentwide internal controls. The SMC  oversees the mission action plan process and determines when sufficient  action has been taken to correct material weakness. The Management  Directorate has faced challenges in implementing the mission action plan  process at the components. For example, the DHS IG reported that while  FEMA prepared mission action plans for the fiscal year 2009 Internal  Control Playbook that address known deficiencies, its financial reporting  mission action plan did not adequately emphasize the primary root cause  of control weaknesses. Similarly, the DHS IG reported that the TSA’s  financial reporting mission action plan in the fiscal year 2009 Internal  Control Playbook lacked specific milestones related to some root causes  and lacked clear linkage from the root cause to actions and milestones to  address the deficiencies.
The Management Directorate also participates in the Program Review  Board (PRB), which governs the department’s programming efforts as part  of the broader Planning, Programming, Budget, and Execution process.  This process is the department’s effort to ensure goals and priorities are  translated into actionable requirements, programmed and budgeted for  appropriately, and realized through execution. Specifically, the USM is a  member of the PRB. The PRB considers major multi year programmatic  issues across the department and recommends resource allocation  decisions to the deputy secretary based on priorities. These decisions  provide department approved 5-year resource profiles by component, and  provide the foundation for the next DHS budget sent to the Office of  Management and Budget. The DHS Program Analysis and Evaluation  Director told us that the USM has been instrumental in helping  components prioritize activities. The PRB gives the USM a forum for  providing input into the resource decisions from a management  perspective. However, without a management integration strategy for the  department with clear priorities, it is unclear how the management  initiatives related to integration that are considered are being prioritized,  and whether resources are being used in the most efficient and effective  manner.
Additionally, the Management Directorate has taken steps in an effort to  consolidate the department’s systems. For example, the TASC initiative is  the department’s current effort to consolidate its financial management,  acquisition, and asset management systems. DHS has been working to  consolidate its financial management systems since the department was  first created. A prior effort focused on financial management systems  integration began in January 2004, known as the Electronically Managing  Enterprise Resources for Government Effectiveness and Efficiency  (eMerge) project. This project was expected to integrate financial  management systems departmentwide and address existing financial  management weaknesses. However, DHS officially ended the eMergeprocess for a contractor to implement TASC, but DHS expects to award  the contract in early 2010. While DHS officials told us they believe  communications between the department’s CFO and the component CFOs  for TASC seem to be working well, in October 2009, we testified that the  department has not yet completely defined its financial management  strategy and plan to move forward with financial management integration  efforts.
The Management Directorate also has an initiative under way to  consolidate its information technology data centers, which are facilities  that contain electronic equipment used for data processing, data storage,  and communications networking. The Data Center consolidation initiative  is an effort to move from DHS’s 17 legacy data centers to two large-scale  enterprise data centers. According to DHS’s fiscal year 2010 Budget in  Brief report, DHS expects the reduced number of data centers to help  streamline the department’s maintenance and support contracts as well as  enhance security and improve information sharing with stakeholders.  While the Management Directorate intends to complete the relocation of  legacy data centers to the new data centers by fiscal year 2011, it is facing  challenges in the implementation of the Data Center consolidation. For  example, the DHS IG reported that the department has not established  necessary connectivity between the two data centers so they are able to  provide backup capabilities for each other because necessary  telecommunications equipment and circuits are not in place to transmit  data between the two centers.
section_title: Performance Management Practices Could Be More Consistently Applied Departmentwide to Strengthen Reporting Relationships between Department and Component Management Chiefs
paragraphs: During a transformation, strategic goals must be clear and enable  stakeholders and employees to understand what they need to do  differently to help the organization achieve success. The organization’s  performance management system can help to show how individual  performance can contribute to overall organizational results, and can help  manage and direct the transformation process. Specifically, we have  reported that several practices are critical to ensuring that the  performance management system supports change. To be successful,  transformation efforts must align individual performance expectations  with organizational goals. These practices support efforts to create a “line  of sight” showing how unit and individual performance can contribute to  overall organizational results, and in the case of transforming DHS and  integrating the department, can enable the USM and department  management chiefs to align activities of subordinate management officials  in support of the management integration strategy. A line of sight that  connects management integration goals should show how the USM,  department management chiefs, and management chiefs of DHS  components all contribute to and support DHS management integration  goals. Figure 3 provides an example of how individual goals for the USM  and department and component management chiefs support the  Management Directorate and department goals and objectives for  management integration activities related to a particular management  integration initiative—in this case, DHS Data Center consolidation. The  figure also depicts how management officials at each level provide  performance input to align the activities of subordinate levels.
subsections: section_title: The USM’s Performance Agreement and Evaluation Indicate That the USM Was Held Accountable for Management Directorate and DHS Strategic Objectives
paragraphs: As the designated CMO of the department, the USM is specifically tasked  with leading management integration at DHS, and is the first link in the  line of sight that connects organizational and individual goals and  objectives, necessary to ensure that once a management integration  strategy is developed, management leaders at each level support its  implementation. The 9/11 Commission Act requires that the USM enter  into an annual performance agreement with the Secretary, including  measurable individual and organizational goals, and be subject to an  annual performance evaluation by the Secretary, with a determination of  progress made toward achieving those goals and measures. Similarly, we  have reported that top leadership should drive the transformation, and  have previously stated that the organization’s CMO should have a clearly  defined, realistic performance agreement. To support departmentwide  goals, the USM’s performance plan should reflect the DHS Strategic Plan  and Management Directorate Strategic Plan, and when developed, the  management integration strategy. In reviewing performance management  linkages at the USM’s level, we found that the Deputy Secretary provided  input into the USM’s performance plan in October 2007, and conducted a  performance evaluation in 2008 based on this agreement. According to  DHS officials, the Deputy Secretary conducted the performance agreement  and evaluation—rather than the Secretary—based on delegated  responsibilities for the performance of management reform as the  department’s chief operating officer.
Performance objectives in the USM’s agreement and evaluation show  linkages to strategic plans, and include references to several efforts  related to management integration. Specifically, the USM’s performance  objectives included clear linkages to the fiscal year 2009 through 2014  Management Directorate Strategic Plan, and to the fiscal year 2008  through 2013 DHS Strategic Plan Goal 5—“Strengthen and Unify DHS  Operations and Management.” In terms of the content of individual  objectives, three of the performance objectives refer to projects or  initiatives specifically: (1) Designing a new acquisition review system, (2)  finalizing and implementing a plan to improve management controls, and  (3) establishing a certified SES performance system. One objective refers  generally to improving management programs and initiatives for DHS’s  headquarters. The efforts to implement a new acquisition review system  and management controls and centralize management of SES positions  involves increasing integration of management functions. The Integrated  Strategy for High Risk Management referenced in the performance plan  was mentioned by DHS as providing guidance for management integration  efforts. Other initiatives that contribute to integration, including the  consolidation of DHS data centers, are described as accomplishments in  the USM’s evaluation related to the implementing programs and initiatives  for DHS’s headquarters objective.
section_title: Department Management Chiefs’ Performance Agreements Show Linkages to Higher Level Strategies and Include Management Integration Goals and Objectives
paragraphs: The second link in the line of sight involves the USM’s relationship with  the department management chiefs. Five department chiefs report directly  to the USM, and the CFO has a dual reporting relationship to the Secretary  and the USM. Based on performance management practices mentioned  above, department management chiefs’ performance plans should support  organizational goals included in the Management Directorate Strategic  Plan. We would expect these performance plans should also support a  department management integration strategy, when one is developed.
In reviewing department management chiefs’ performance agreements, we  found that they supported higher level Management Directorate goals and  objectives, and included references to management integration-related  activities. For example, performance agreements for the six department  management chiefs consistently include a reference to the Management  Directorate’s Strategic Plan. We also learned from DHS officials that fiscal  year 2009 was the first year that the USM provided a common objective to  department management chiefs. Specifically, the fiscal year 2009  management chiefs’ performance plans included a joint performance  objective related to management support for the expansion of NPPD. In  addition, the agreements consistently include objectives related to  management integration. The following are examples of management  integration-related objectives in performance agreements:    The CSO’s agreement included an objective to “Integrate security services  department wide through development and implementation of security  policies and practices for the department.”
The Acting CIO’s agreement included objectives for consolidating legacy  networks and consolidating component data centers (as depicted in figure  3).
The CHCO’s agreement included an objective for providing DHS-wide  policy and guidance on all major human resources matters.
The CAO’s agreement included an objective to establish a consolidated  headquarters for DHS.
Performance agreements also showed evidence of common goals. For  example, as discussed previously, each chief’s agreement includes support  for the expansion of NPPD. The performance agreements also refer to  specific actions for support from that management function, such as  providing space for the new employees, in the CAO’s case, and providing  information technology hardware and software to support the new  employees, in the CIO’s case.
section_title: Department Management Chiefs Have Not Consistently Implemented “Dotted Line” Reporting Relationships in Accordance with Management Directives
paragraphs: The third link in the line of sight involves the department management  chiefs’ relationships with the management chiefs in DHS’s component  agencies. The component management chiefs directly report to their  component agency heads, while also having a “dotted line,” or indirect,  reporting relationship to their respective department management chief.  The arrangement of component heads and department chiefs both  supporting integration of management functions is referred to as “dual  accountability.” When we reviewed DHS’s management integration  progress in 2005, the department had recently established the dual  accountability structure of reporting relationships. Management  directives define department and component management chiefs’  responsibilities, including specific ways that department management  chiefs should provide direction to component management chiefs. For  example, management directives require the department chief to establish  annual milestones for integrating the management function. The directives  also require the management chiefs to provide written performance  objectives to the component management chief at the start of each  performance cycle, feedback to the component rating official on the  component chief’s accomplishment of objectives, and input on bonus or  award recommendations, pay, and other forms of commendation. Also, in  accordance with performance management practices mentioned  previously, to ensure accountability for change, component management  chiefs’ performance agreements should reflect the department  management chiefs’ specific performance objectives for the component  chiefs’ management functions, and should also reflect the Management  Directorate and departmentwide strategic plans.
All department management chiefs except for the CSO said that they  specifically established annual priorities of some sort—either goals,  objectives, milestones, and / or expected results—for their function. In  addition, we reviewed documentation of goals, objectives, milestones, or  expected results for each of these management functions. Four  management chiefs—the CFO, CPO, CHCO, and CAO—said that the  priorities were determined through annual planning processes for the  function, either at an offsite meeting or through the management  function’s council. The CSO indicated that the management function’s  strategic plan served in place of annual milestones, although the plan  provided did not identify its applicability to any given year or distinguish  any priorities or target for implementation within a particular year.
At an individual level, however, the department chiefs did not consistently  provide individual input at the beginning of the component management  chiefs’ performance cycle—either through written goals and objectives or  via direct input into the performance agreement. Management directives  for each management function include a requirement that department  management chiefs provide the component management chief with  written objectives at the start of the annual performance cycle. In our  review we found that only two department chiefs—the CAO and CPO— said that they provided individual input with regard to component chiefs’  performance. The CAO said that he provided written objectives attached  to a memo that was sent to each component CAO, and the CPO said that  individual input and goals were provided annually in the form of a letter.  We also reviewed these objectives and goals provided to the components.
The other four management chiefs said that they did not provide individual  input, and instead pointed to collective goals or objectives developed  through planning processes and contained in strategic or operational  plans. While these collective processes and overall plans provide general  guidance for the management function, they do not meet the standard  established by the management directives of annual, individualized  performance input.
The USM told us that the functional councils have improved in their  development of common management goals for their functions, but she  agreed that they have not yet consistently followed through by putting  those goals into individual performance plans. She added that the  department’s management chiefs would be including this information in  component chiefs’ performance plans for 2010. Despite the lack of  department input in the four component management chiefs’ performance  agreements mentioned above, in reviewing the agreements we found that  some of them included a link to the Management Directorate Strategic  Plan, a management function strategy or plan, or the DHS Strategic Plan  Goal 5 for management. Some performance agreements also referred to  supporting department-level efforts, with references to activities such as  supporting department-level strategic plans and council activities and  implementing departmentwide management initiatives.
In addition to input into component chief performance agreements,  management directives require department chief feedback to the  component rating official regarding the component chiefs’  accomplishment of annual objectives. The CFO, CSO, and CAO told us  that they provided input into component chiefs’ performance appraisals,  while the CIO and CPO did not provide input. The CPO stated that he  would be providing input beginning with the fiscal year 2010 performance  appraisals. The CHCO said that, due to his limited tenure in the position,  he could not state whether input had occurred. In addition to individual  input, department chiefs have the opportunity to review the component  chiefs’ performance ratings and bonuses and / or pay adjustments at the  conclusion of the department Performance Review Boards prior to their  approval by the deputy secretary. While this assessment provides an  additional opportunity for department oversight, it does not satisfy the  management directives’ requirement for input by the department chief to  the component rating official. The USM said that departmental chiefs’  input into component chiefs’ performance appraisals would be a priority  in the future.
In summary, performance management practices to help ensure  accountability for management integration between the department and  component management chiefs are not consistently in place. While  linkages are being most clearly defined at the department chief level  within their individual management functions, department chiefs are not  consistently providing the guidance and input required by department  management directives and in accordance with performance management  leading practices. The inconsistent application of such guidance and  practices presents challenges to institutionalizing individual accountability  and enabling the effective exercise of authority at the department. Without  ensuring that the management chiefs provide input into component chiefs’  performance plans and evaluations as required, the Management  Directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully implementing  management integration.
section_title: Conclusions
paragraphs: In the more than 6 years since its establishment, DHS has taken actions  that could help it transform organizationally and integrate its management  functions to establish a unified department. In particular, the department  has taken actions to vertically integrate the component agencies by  developing common policies, procedures, and systems within individual  management functions, such as human capital and information technology  However, DHS has placed less emphasis on integrating horizontally, and  bringing together these multiple management functions across the  department.
In addition, key characteristics that are necessary to guide and ensure  successful management integration are not yet in place, such as  identification of trade-offs, priorities, and implementation goals, and the  implementation and transformation of the department remains on our  high-risk list. Current plans are a step in the right direction, but in the  absence of a comprehensive strategy for management integration as  required by the 9/11 Commission Act and meeting all of the previously  identified characteristics for such a strategy, it is unclear how  management integration will be more fully achieved across the  department. We therefore reiterate our prior recommendation, not yet  fully implemented, that DHS develop a comprehensive management  integration strategy. We continue to believe that a comprehensive strategy  for management integration is warranted, and would help the department  to ensure that its management initiatives are implemented in a coherent  way. It would also help DHS to communicate its approach for management  integration and measures for evaluating progress made. Moreover, while  DHS has been implementing management initiatives and processes across  the department, in the absence of a comprehensive management  integration strategy, it is unclear how these efforts are being prioritized  and sequenced, and trade-offs between them are being recognized. In  addition, a comprehensive strategy for management integration would  help the department establish performance measures to better gauge its  progress in integrating its various management policies, processes, and  systems across DHS. Although the department has developed certain  management measures, these measures do not allow the department to  assess the extent to which it is making progress in implementing and  achieving management integration both within and across functional  areas.
The “dotted line” reporting relationships between the department chiefs  will be particularly important once DHS develops a management  integration strategy that would involve decisions and trade-offs that are  dependent on component compliance to succeed. Implementation of  existing performance management mechanisms—such as the  departmental management chiefs’ input into component chiefs’  performance plans and evaluations, and linkages between department  goals and objectives and individual performance plans for component  management chiefs—is necessary to ensure that the Management  Directorate can exercise its authority and leadership to implement a  management integration strategy.
section_title: Recommendations for Executive Action
paragraphs: To strengthen its management integration efforts, we recommend that the  Secretary of Homeland Security direct the Under Secretary for  Management, working with others, to take the following four actions:    Once a comprehensive management integration strategy is developed,  consistent with statute and as we previously recommended, establish  performance measures to assess progress made in achieving  departmentwide management integration;    Ensure that department management chiefs provide written objectives for  component management chiefs’ performance plans at the beginning of  each performance cycle, and that the objectives are representative of  determined priorities and milestones for the management functions during  that period;    Ensure that department management chiefs provide input into component  management chiefs’ annual performance evaluations; and    Ensure that component management chiefs’ individual performance plans  are reflective of and include linkages to the goals and objectives for the  Management Directorate and relevant department management function.
section_title: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Secretary of the Department of  Homeland Security for comment. In written comments on a draft of this  report, the DHS Under Secretary for Management provided information on  steps the department was taking or planning to take to develop a strategy  for management integration, as we had recommended in our 2005 report,  and to link this strategy to SES performance appraisals for the  management chiefs. Specifically, the Under Secretary for Management said  that she is leading the process for developing a detailed, measurable plan  that will include the actions and milestones necessary to accomplish  management integration at the department. Additionally, the Under  Secretary for Management stated that the integration plan will be tied to  the SES performance appraisals for each management chief for the fiscal  year 2010 performance cycle, and that the plan will also serve as the  required annual performance agreement between the Secretary and the  Under Secretary for Management.
While DHS’s letter did not directly comment on our recommendations in  this report related to the need for performance measures for management  integration and additional steps needed to strengthen accountability for  the management chiefs, the Director of DHS’s Internal Control Program  Management Office noted in a subsequent e-mail that DHS concurred with  our report and its written comments were intended to discuss steps to  implement the recommendations in our report.
DHS’s written comments are contained in appendix I. We incorporated  technical comments provided by DHS as appropriate.
As agreed with your offices, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies to the Department of  Homeland Security and other interested parties. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any further questions about this report, please  contact me at (202) 512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov, or David Maurer,  Director, at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. Points of contact for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the   last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in  appendix II.
section_title: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security
section_title: Appendix II: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contacts
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: In addition to the contact named above Sarah Veale, Assistant Director;  Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director; S. Mike Davis; Barbara Lancaster;  Jared Hermalin; Bion Bliss; Jyoti Gupta; Tom Beall; and Karin Fangman  made significant contributions to this report.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Financial Management Systems: DHS Faces Challenges to Successfully  Consolidate its Existing Disparate Systems. GAO-10-210T. Washington,  D.C.: October 29, 2009.
Homeland Security: Despite Progress, DHS Continues to Be Challenged  in Managing Multi-Billion Dollar Annual Investment in Large-Scale  Systems. GAO-09-1002T. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2009.
High-Risk Series: An Update. GAO-09-271. Washington, D.C.: January  2009.
Department of Homeland Security: A Strategic Approach Is Needed to  Better Ensure the Acquisition Workforce Can Meet Mission Needs.  GAO-09-30. Washington, D.C.: November 19, 2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Billions Invested in Major Programs  Lack Appropriate Oversight. GAO-09-29. Washington, D.C.: November 18,  2008.
Department of Homeland Security: Progress Made in Implementation of  Management Functions, but More Work Remains. GAO-08-646T.  Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2008.
Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer  / Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies. GAO-08-322T.  Washington, D.C.: December 13, 2007.
Department of Homeland Security: Better Planning and Assessment  Needed to Improve Outcomes for Complex Service Acquisitions.  GAO-08-263. Washington, D.C.: April 22, 2008.
Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating Officer  / Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies. GAO-08-34.  Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2007.
Homeland Security: DHS Enterprise Architecture Continues to Evolve  but Improvements Needed. GAO-07-564. Washington, D.C.: May 9, 2007.
Federal Real Property: DHS Has Made Progress, but Additional Actions  Are Needed to Address Real Property Management and Security  Challenges. GAO-07-658. Washington, D.C.: June 22, 2007.
Homeland Security: Departmentwide Integrated Financial Management  Systems Remain a Challenge. GAO-07-536. Washington, D.C.: June 21,  2007.
Department of Homeland Security: Progress Report on Implementation  of Mission and Management Functions. GAO-07-454. Washington, D.C.:  August 17, 2007.
Information Technology: DHS Needs to Fully Define and Implement  Policies and Procedures for Effectively Managing Investments.  GAO-07-424. Washington, D.C.: April 27, 2007.
Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained  Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration. GAO-05-139.  Washington, D.C.: March 16, 2005.
Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist Mergers and  Organizational Transformations. GAO-03-669. Washington, D.C.: July 2,  2003.