U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight
Released: 2004-10-27T00:00:00

Letter

Background

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.

Planning and Reporting Requirements under GPRA

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.

Executive Branch Oversight Responsibilities

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.

The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements

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.

The Commission Has Not Updated Its Strategic Plan Since 1997

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.

The Commission’s Annual Performance Plan Falls Short of Meeting GPRA Requirements and OMB Guidance

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.

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

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.

OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has Made Limited Changes in Response to OPM’s Recommendations

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.

OMB Provides Oversight for the Commission’s Budgetary Process, but Has Not Focused on Management Issues

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.

OPM Provides Oversight for the Commission’s Human Capital Management Systems, and the Commission Has Made Limited Improvements in Response to OPM’s Recommendations

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.)

The Commission Lacks the Oversight of an Inspector General

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.

Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist

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.

The Commission Took Actions in Response to the Recommendations in Our 1994 and 1997 Reports, but Related Problems Continue

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.

The Commission Has Not Implemented Most Recommendations from Our 2003 Report

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.)

Conclusion

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.

Matter for Congressional Consideration

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.

Recommendations for Executive Action

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.

Agency Comments

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.

Appendix I: Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights

GAO’s Response to Comments

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.

Response to Broad Assertions in Commission’s Comments

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.

Response to Specific Comments from the Commission

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.

Appendix II: Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the Commission’s Response

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.

Appendix III: GAO’s October 2003 Recommendations and the Commission’s Response

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.

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contacts

Staff Acknowledgments

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.