GAO Commission on Civil Rights Management Could Benefit From Improved Strategic Planning and...

8/6/2019 GAO Commission on Civil Rights Management Could Benefit From Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Overs

1/55

Report to Congressional CommitteesUnited States Government Accountability Office

GAO

October 2004 U.S. COMMISSION ONCIVIL RIGHTS

Management CouldBenefit fromImproved StrategicPlanning andIncreased Oversight

GAO-05-77


2/55

What GAO Found

United States Government Accountability Of

Why GAO Did This Study

HighlightsAccountability Integrity Reliability

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77.

To view the full product, including the scopeand methodology, click on the link above.For more information, contact Bob Robertsonat (202) 512-9889 or [email protected].

Highlights of GAO-05-77, a report tocongressional committees

October 2004

U.S. COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS

Management Could Benefit fromImproved Strategic Planning andIncreased Oversight

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency thatmonitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United Stateshasnot fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this act, agenciesare required to submit strategic plans and annual performance plans thatdetail their long-term and annual goals as well as information on how they

plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires agencies to submit annualperformance reports that provide information on their progress in meetingthe goals. However, the Commission has not updated or revised its strategic

plan since 1997. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacksa firm basis on which to develop its annual goals and evaluate its

performance. In addition, its most recent annual performance plan andannual performance report contain weaknesses that limit the agencys abilitto effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance. Forexample, the performance plan does not discuss the Commissions strategieor resources for achieving its goals, does not provide budgetary informationfor its programs, and does not provide performance indicators for someannual goals. Similarly, the performance report does not account for theCommissions performance for many of the annual goals set forth in its

performance plan and does not provide plans, schedules, orrecommendations for addressing each of the Commissions unmet goals.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of PersonnelManagement (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commissionsbudgetary and human capital operations in recent years. OMBs oversighthas focused on the Commissions budget requests and GPRA plans andreports. OPM conducted two reviews of the Commissions human capitalmanagement systems in the 1990s and made recommendations forimprovement, including improvements to its grievance and performanceappraisal systems. Although the Commission has implemented some ofOPMs earlier recommendations, it has not implemented five of six broader,systemic recommendations made in 1999 for improvement to its humancapital management systems. Unlike many other executive agencies, theCommission does not have an Inspector General to provide oversight of itsoperations beyond OMB and OPM.

GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commissions managementoperations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in responseto the recommendations in GAOs 1994 and 1997 reports. However, theCommission has not implemented three of the four recommendations inGAOs October 2003 report for improving the agencys management and

procurement practices.

The Chairmen of the Senate andHouse Committees on the Judiciaryasked GAO to determine (1) theextent of the U.S. Commission onCivil Rights compliance with therequirements of the GovernmentPerformance and Results Act(GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federaloversight is provided to the

Commission, and (3) the status ofthe implementation ofrecommendations from GAOs pastreviews of the Commission.

What GAO Recommends

To enhance oversight of theCommission, the Congress shouldconsider legislation directing theCommission to obtain the servicesof an existing Inspector General.

To strengthen the Commissions

management practices, GAOrecommends that the Commission(1) update its strategic plan andensure that its performance plansand reports include all elementsrequired under GPRA; (2)implement OPMs and GAOsrecommendations; and (3) seek theservices of an existing InspectorGeneral to conduct necessaryaudits and investigations.

In responding to our draft report,the Commission did not comment

on our recommendations anddisagreed with most of our findingsand conclusions. We continue tobelieve that our findings,conclusions, and recommendationsare sound and necessary forstrengthening the Commissionsmanagement practices.
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-77


3/55

Page i GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Letter 1

Results in Brief 2Background 4The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA

Requirements 7OMB and OPM Have Provided Oversight, and the Commission Has

Made Limited Changes in Response to OPMs Recommendations 13Although the Commission Has Taken Some Actions in Response to

Recommendations in GAO Reports, Problems Persist 16Conclusion 18

Matter for Congressional Consideration 19Recommendations for Executive Action 19 Agency Comments

Appendix I Comments from the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights 22

GAOs Response to Comments 32

Appendix II Key Recommendations from OPM in 1999 and the

Commissions Response 43

Appendix III GAOs October 2003 Recommendations and the

Commissions Response 47

Appendix IV GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 50

GAO Contacts 50Staff Acknowledgments 50

Contents


4/55

Page ii GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

Abbreviations

GPRA Government Performance and Results Act of 1993HRM human resource managementOMB Office of Management and BudgetOPM Office of Personnel Management

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in theUnited States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without furtherpermission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images orother material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish toreproduce this material separately.


5/55

Page 1 GAO-05-77 U.S. Commission on Civil Rights

October 8, 2004

The Honorable Orrin G. HatchChairman, Committee on the JudiciaryUnited States Senate

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.Chairman, Committee on the JudiciaryHouse of Representatives

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights was established as an independent,bipartisan, fact-finding federal agency to monitor and report on the statusof civil rights in the United States. Since its inception in 1957, theCommission has worked on critical civil rights issues, including racialsegregation, impediments to voting rights, and the debate on federalaffirmative action programs. In recent years, the Congress has requestedthat we assess the adequacy of the Commissions management practicesand procedures. In 1994, we reported problems identified in theCommissions handling of travel activities and made recommendations forspecific actions. 1 In a 1997 study of the Commission, we found numerousmanagement and operational issues2 and, in October 2003, we found thatthe Commission lacked good project management and that its contractingprocedures were inadequate.3

Organizations with management weaknesses can learn from the practicesof high-performing organizations, which strengthen their managementpractices and focus on achieving results by setting clear goals, aligningtheir management systems with these goals, and regularly evaluating theirperformance. For federal agencies, the Government Performance andResults Act of 1993 (GPRA) incorporated these practices, requiring federalagencies to set goals and use performance measures for management andbudgetary purposes. To comply with GPRA, federal agenciesincluding

1See GAO, Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners Travel Activities,

GAO/GGD-94-130 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 1994).

2See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls,

GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997).

3See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial Oversight

Needed, GAO-04-18 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

United States Government Accountability OfficeWashington, DC 20548
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-94-130http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-94-130http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-94-130http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-94-130http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-94-130


6/55


independent commissionsmust periodically submit long-term strategicplans, annual performance plans, and annual performance reports. TheChairmen of both the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciaryasked us to determine (1) the extent of the Commissions compliance withthe planning and reporting requirements of GPRA, (2) federal oversightthat is provided to the Commission, and (3) the status of the Commissionsimplementation of recommendations from GAOs reviews in the pastdecade.

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevantstatutes and regulations; the Commissions most recent GPRA plans and

reports; guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) onthe implementation of GPRA; and guidance and reports from the Office ofPersonnel Management (OPM) on human resources management (HRM)and the Commissions HRM practices. We also reviewed GAO reports onthe Commissions management practices and our guidance on theimplementation of GPRA. In determining the federal oversight provided tothe Commission, we focused on executive branch oversight provided byOMB and OPM. We also reviewed the Commissions June 2004 response tothe recommendations we made in our October 2003 report on theCommission. Finally, we conducted interviews with the CommissionsStaff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human ResourcesDirector, and Budget Chief, as well as with officials from OPM and OMB.We conducted our work from April to August 2004 in accordance withgenerally accepted government auditing standards.

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997,and its most recent annual performance plan and report containweaknesses that limit the Commissions ability to effectively manage itsoperations and communicate its performance. Because it has not updatedits strategic plan, the Commission has not reexamined its strategic goalssince 1997 to affirm their ongoing significance to the agencys overallmission. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm

basis on which to develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance.Although the Commissions most recent annual performance plan containsannual performance goals, these goals are often not distinguished fromprogram activities. The plan also does not provide information on theresources and strategies required to meet the Commissions annual goals,nor does it provide performance measures for evaluating the achievementof these goals. Although OMB guidance now directs agencies to includebudget information in its annual performance plans, the Commissionsplan for fiscal year 2005 does not align the cost of its programs with

Results in Brief


7/55


specific annual goals. In addition, the Commissions most recentperformance report does not, in many cases, clearly indicate whether thegoals were achieved and does not include 3 years of performance data forall of its annual goals as required. In addition, the report does not providethe Commissions plans or timeframes for accomplishing its unmet goals.

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and humancapital oversight of the Commission, and, overall, the agency has made alimited number of changes in response to OPMs report recommendationsto the Commission. OMB reviewed the Commissions budget request andGPRA plans and reports in preparing the Presidents annual budget, but

has not focused on Commission management issues. According to OMBofficials, OMB does not provide the same level of oversight fororganizations with small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, asthat provided for larger organizations, such as the Securities andExchange Commission. In the 1990s, OPM conducted two evaluations ofthe Commissions human capital management systems. In 1996, OPMfound that the Commission was badly in need of managerial attention,citing, for example, a lack of credible grievance and performance appraisalsystems. In its 1999 evaluation, OPM noted that several problemsidentified in the previous evaluation had not been addressed and madefurther recommendations to improve the Commissions human capitalmanagement practices. To date, the Commission has not adopted five ofsix broader, systemic human capital recommendations from OPMs 1999review. For example, the Staff Director continues to retain final authorityfor approving all performance appraisal ratings and promotions instead ofdelegating that authority to managers, as recommended. The Commissionalso does not have an Inspector General, who can provide an additionalmeans of oversight for federal agencies and commissions, nor is it requiredto have one.

While the Commission took some actions to address the recommendationsin our earlier reports, our more recent reviews indicate that financial andmanagement problems persist. In 1994, we made recommendations to

improve the Commissions handling of travel activities for specificindividuals, and the agency indicated in 1995 that it had acted on theserecommendations. In 1997, we made recommendations to improve theagencys project management and accountability for daily operations.Although the Commission made changes in response to these 1997recommendations, in 2003 we found problems with the agencys projectmanagement similar to those found in 1997. In our October 2003 report, wemade four additional recommendations for improving the Commissionsmanagement and procurement practices. Although the Commission has


8/55


made a few changes, such as contracting with a contract and procurementspecialist, the Staff Director disagrees with the need for most of therecommendations, and the agency has not adopted them.

We are including a matter for congressional consideration to strengthenthe Commissions accountability. We are also making sixrecommendations intended to strengthen the Commissions compliancewith GPRA requirements, management practices, and oversight.

In commenting on our draft report, the Commission did not comment onour recommendations, but disagreed with most of the findings and

conclusions upon which our recommendations are based. For example,the Commission disagreed with our findings on its GPRA products andhuman capital practices, asserting that these products and processes wereappropriate and sound for an agency with a small budget and staff.Overall, we did not agree with the Commissions comments on our draftreport. We continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, andrecommendations are sound and that the implementation of ourrecommendations is needed to strengthen the Commissions managementpractices. The Commissions detailed comments and our responses tothem are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated clarifications in thereport as appropriate.

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 tostudy the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies with regard toillegal discrimination or denial of equal protection of the laws. It must alsosubmit at least one report annually to the President and the Congress thatmonitors federal civil rights enforcement efforts. Other reports may berequired or issued as considered appropriate by the Commission, thePresident, or the Congress. The Commission serves as a nationalclearinghouse for information related to its mission. In addition, itinvestigates charges by individual citizens who claim to be deprived of

their voting rights. The Commission may hold hearings and, within specificguidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and have witnessesappear at hearings. However, because it lacks enforcement powers thatwould enable it to apply remedies in individual cases, the Commission

Background


9/55


refers specific complaints to the appropriate federal, state, or localgovernment agency for action.4

The Commissions annual appropriation has averaged about $9 millionsince fiscal year 1995. It is currently directed by eight part-timeCommissioners who serve 6-year terms on a staggered basis. FourCommissioners are appointed by the President, two by the PresidentPro Tempore of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House ofRepresentatives. No more than four Commissioners can be of the samepolitical party. With the concurrence of a majority of the Commissionsmembers, 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 concurrenceof a majority of the Commissioners, oversees the daily operations of theCommission and manages the staff in six regional offices and theWashington, D.C., headquarters office. The Commission operates fourunits in its headquarters whose directors and managers report directly tothe Staff Director: the Office of Civil Rights Evaluation, Office of GeneralCounsel, Office of Management, and a Regional Programs CoordinationUnit. As of June 2004, the Commission employed approximately 70 staffmembers, including the eight Commissioners and their eight assistants.

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committeesthe minimumrequired by statuteone for each state and the District of Columbia. TheState Advisory Committees are composed of citizens familiar with localand state civil rights issues. Their members serve without compensationand assist the Commission with its fact-finding, investigative, andinformation dissemination functions.

To encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability infederal programs, the Congress passed the Government Performance andResults Act of 1993, which requires agencies to develop and issue certaindocuments to be made available to the public and used by congressional

decision-makers.5

OMB provides guidance to federal agencies on

4Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights issues. For example, the Equal

Employment Opportunity Commission is charged with enforcing specific federalemployment antidiscrimination statutes. Also, the Civil Rights Division of the Departmentof Justice enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex,disability, religion, and national origin.

5Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285(1993).

Planning and ReportingRequirements under GPRA


10/55


complying with GPRA requirements through its Circular A-11, which isupdated annually. In addition, we have published guidance and reports tofederal agencies on best practices for complying with GPRA.6

Under GPRA or OMB guidance, agencies must submit the following threedocuments to the President, Congress, and OMB:7

Strategic plan. This document, which must cover a period of no lessthan 5 years from the fiscal year in which it is submitted, should beupdated every 3 years and include the agencys mission statement andlong-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 ataccomplishing the agencys mission. In developing goals for theirstrategic plans, agencies are required to consult with the Congress andother stakeholders.

Annual performance plan. This document sets forth the agencysannual performance goals, which should be linked to its strategic goalsAn agencys annual goals provide the intermediary steps needed toreach its long-term strategic goals. Annual goals should be objective,quantifiable, and measurable. OMB guidance now directs agencies toinclude budget information in their performance plans and encourages

agencies to align resources with annual goals.8

Prior to theirsubmissions for fiscal year 2005, agencies were not directed toassociate program costs in this way.

Annual performance report. This document provides information onan agencys actual performance for the previous fiscal year. This reportshould provide information on the results of its progress in meeting

6See GAO,Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government Performance and

Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 1996);Agencies Strategic PlansUnder GPRA: Key Questions to Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16

(Washington, D.C.: May 1997); The Results Act: An Evaluators Guide to Assessing AgencyAnnual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 1998); andResults-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid Foundation for AchievingGreater Results,GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 10, 2004).

7Although, under the statute, OMB can exempt organizations with annual outlays of $20million or less from the requirements to produce a strategic plan, annual performance plan,and annual performance report, OMB has not exempted the Commission from theserequirements.

8OMB Circular A-11 pt 6, 220 (July 2003).
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.20http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.20http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.20http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.20http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-38http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.20http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-10.1.16http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/GGD-96-118


11/55


annual goals. If agencies have not met their goals, they are required toexplain what issues are keeping them from meeting the goals anddescribe their plans for addressing these issues.

Several federal agencies have oversight responsibilities in relation to theCommission, including OMB for financial management and OPM forpersonnel management. OMB, located within the Executive Office of thePresident, is responsible for preparing and implementing the Presidentsannual budget and for providing guidance to agencies on how to complywith GPRA.9 OPM is the central personnel management agency of thefederal government charged with administering and enforcing federal civil

service laws, regulations, and rules. OPM is also required to establish andmaintain an oversight program to ensure that agencies comply withpertinent laws, regulations, and policies.10

Oversight can also be provided by an Inspector General. The InspectorGeneral Act of 1978 provides for Offices of Inspector General to serve asindependent, objective offices within certain federal departments oragencies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as well asprevent and detect fraud and abuse.11 Agencies that do not have their ownOffice of Inspector General can obtain Inspector General services fromother federal agencies.12

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since1997, as required under GPRA, and its most recent annual performanceplan and report contain weaknesses that limit the Commissions ability toeffectively manage its operations and communicate its performance.

9See 31 U.S.C. 501, 503(2000).

105 U.S.C. 1104(b)(2).

11Pub. L. No. 95-452, 92 Stat. 1101(1978); 5 U.S.C. app. 3.

12Agencies can obtain the services of an Inspector General from other agencies using their

authority under the Economy Act of 1932 (31 U.S.C. 1535) or by procuring such servicesdirectly.

Executive BranchOversight Responsibilities

The Commission HasNot Fully Compliedwith Key GPRARequirements


12/55


The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since fiscalyear 1997 and has missed two scheduled submissions required underGPRA. According to GPRA and OMB guidance, the Commission shouldhave submitted, updated, and revised its strategic plan in fiscal years 2000and 2003. The 2003 revision should have covered the period through atleast fiscal year 2008. Commission officials told us that the agency isworking on developing an updated strategic plan and intends to submit itto OMB by Fall 2004. However, while they were in the process of revisingtheir strategic plan as of June 2004, critical actions, such as consultingwith the Congress as required by the act, have not yet occurred, accordingto Commission officials.

Because it has not updated or revised its strategic plan, the Commissionhas not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to affirm their ongoingsignificance to the agencys overall mission. The Commission has notdetermined if changes to its strategic goals are warranted due to factorssuch as external circumstances or not meeting its annual goals. Inaddition, because the Commission has not updated its strategic plan, itsstrategic goals also are not informed by a current analysis of theCommissions purpose and work. Without revisiting its strategic goals, theCommission does not have a firm basis on which to develop its annualgoals. The Commission continues to rely on strategic goals from 1997 toformulate its current annual goals.

Without a current strategic plan the Commission also lacks a key tool forcommunicating with the Congress, the public, and its own staff, includinginforming them of the significance of its work. In addition to serving as adocument for external use, the strategic plan can be used as amanagement tool and, according to OMB guidance, should outline theprocess for communicating goals and strategies throughout the agencyand for assigning accountability to managers and staff for achievement ofthe agencys goals.

The Commission Has NotUpdated Its Strategic PlanSince 1997


13/55


The Commissions 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 strategicgoals or accomplish its mission. For example, the plan lists 14 fact-findingprojects, each of which has as many as 5 annual goals.13 Many of thesegoals, however, are activities, such as holding a public hearing orpublishing a report. Similarly, one of the goals in the plan is for each of theCommissions State Advisory Committees to focus on regular meetings infiscal year 2005 and on completing their projects. However, this goal is notlinked to achieving the agencys strategic goal to enhance the Committeesability to monitor civil rights in the United States.

In addition, the annual performance plan does not contain all elementsrequired under GPRA. The plan does not provide information on how theCommission will pursue and accomplish the annual performance goalslaid out in its plan. Performance plans must include descriptions of how anagencys annual goals are to be achieved, including the resources andstrategies required to meet the goals. However, the Commissions fiscalyear 2005 plan does not discuss the strategies or resources needed toachieve its goals. For example, according to the performance plan, theCommission will update its Civil Rights Directory, but the plan does notindicate which offices will be responsible or describe the strategies andresources needed to carry out this task.

The Commissions performance plan for fiscal year 2005 also does notinclude budgetary information in accordance with OMB guidance. Insteadof associating the cost of its programs with specific annual goals, the planincludes a single amount for its total operations. The potential problemsstemming from the Commissions failure to associate costs with specificannual goals or break down its budget request by goal may be exacerbatedby the large gap between the Commissions budget requests and its actualappropriations. Since 1999, the Commissions appropriations haveaveraged approximately 26 percent less than the amount requested. Forfiscal year 2004, the Commission based its annual performance plan on a

13In conducting fact-finding projects, the Commission gathers and analyzes information

from a wide range of sources, including research, statistical analysis, and hearings.According to the Commissions performance report, fact-finding projects can involve fiveperformance goals, including report publication, public event, report dissemination,consideration of recommendations by agencies, and action initiated by agencies inresponse to findings.

The Commissions AnnualPerformance Plan FallsShort of Meeting GPRARequirements and OMBGuidance


14/55


budget request of $15.2 million, but its appropriation for that year totaledonly $9.1 million.

In addition, the Commission has consistently not revised its annualperformance plans to reflect its actual appropriations and illustrate theimpact on its annual goals. Although agencies are not required to revisetheir plans to reflect actual appropriations under GPRA, the fact that theCommissions plans are based upon a budget that is so much larger thanits actual appropriations limits the plans usefulness in detailing how theagency will achieve its annual goals and in assessing the impact ofappropriations decisions on its planned performance.

Furthermore, the Commissions annual performance plan for fiscal year2005 does not provide the performance indicators to be used in measuringachievement of each annual goal. According to GPRA, an agencysperformance plan shall include performance indicators to be used inmeasuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, and outcomesof each program activity, and provide a basis for comparing actualprogram results with annual goals. For some annual goalsparticularlythose related to promoting greater public awareness, assisting individualsin protecting their civil rights, and enhancing the capacity of the StateAdvisory Committeesthe performance plan does not have anyperformance indicators. For example, the performance plan states that, infiscal year 2005, the Commission will develop and implement acoordinated multimedia public service announcement campaign designedto educate the public about important civil rights matters and discouragediscrimination while promoting tolerance. However, the plan does notdescribe measures that can be used to evaluate the attainment of this goalin 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 adequatelydescribe how it will verify and validate the performance measures used toassess the accomplishment of its annual goals. GPRA requires agencies to

submit information on how they plan to verify and validate theperformance measures used to assess the accomplishment of their annualgoals. This requirement helps to ensure that their assessments are valid,reliable, and credible. The Commissions fiscal year 2005 plan includes ageneral description of its verification and validation processes, but it doesnot specify the evaluation methods to be used or identify the limitations orconstraints of these methods. For example, the plan states that, inassessing the outcomes achieved through issuance of its reports, theCommission may conduct follow-up meetings with affected agencies,


15/55


congressional committees, and other interested organizations. However,the plan does not describe how these groups will be selected, the data tobe collected, how the data will be assessed, or who will be responsible forconducting these meetings or collecting and assessing the data.

Although the Commissions most recent annual performance report, forfiscal year 2003, describes the agencys achievements as well as reasonsfor not meeting certain goals, the report does not include several elementsrequired under GPRA and provides little evidence and context forevaluating the agencys performance. Furthermore, many of the results are

descriptive narratives that do not characterize the Commissionsperformance. Overall, these problems diminish the reports usefulness as atool for managing the Commissions operations and holding the agencyaccountable for achieving its goals.

The performance report for fiscal year 2003 is incomplete because it doesnot account for all of the annual goals in the Commissions fiscal year 2003performance plana fundamental GPRA requirement.14 The reportprovides no account of the Commissions performance for many of theannual goals set forth in its fiscal year 2003 performance plan. Inparticular, the report does not account for the Commissions performancefor 6 fact-finding projectsa core activity of the agency. For example, thefiscal year 2003 plan stated that the Commissions fact-finding project,Media Role in Civil Rights, would accomplish four goals, includinghaving a public event, yet the performance report provides no account ofthis project or any description of the agencys progress in meeting thesegoals.

Furthermore, while the report includes results for other annual goals, theinformation provided for many of these goals is incomplete or ambiguous.For example, the Commissions environmental justice project has threegoals: publication of a report, report dissemination, and formalconsideration of the recommendations of the report by affected agencies.

However, although the performance report describes the purpose of theenvironmental justice report as well as its publication and dissemination,the performance report does not indicate whether the Commission

14For this analysis, we compared the results reported in the Commissions fiscal year 2003

performance report with the goals described in the agencys performance plan for fiscalyear 2003.

The Commissions AnnualPerformance Report forFiscal Year 2003 Does NotFulfill Several GPRA

Requirements and OverallDoes Not Communicatethe CommissionsPerformance


16/55


obtained any formal response to its recommendations from affectedagencies. Similarly, the performance plan stated that each State AdvisoryCommittee Chairperson or Representative would participate in at leastone civil rights activity per year. Although the performance report includesextensive narrative describing the work of the State Advisory Committees,it does not indicate whether this goal had been achieved.

The Commissions performance report also does not provide the relevantdata needed to assess the achievement of its annual goals. Under GPRA,performance reports must include 3 years of actual performance data indescribing the agencys progress in achieving its goals. While the

performance report includes 3 years of performance data for one goalfrom its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, for the remaining goals, thereport does not include 3 years of data, or the data are not relevant forassessment. For example, the performance report includes data describingthe type and number of complaints received in fiscal year 2003 and for the3 prior years. However, the report does not include datasuch as theamount of time it took to respond to complaintsthat could be used toassess whether the Commission met its goal of responding in a timelymanner.

Moreover, the fiscal year 2003 performance report provides no plans,schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commissionsunmet goals. GPRA states that, when an annual goal is not achieved, theagency must describe why, outline plans or schedules for achieving thegoal, and if the goal was determined to be impractical, describe why thatwas the case and what action is recommended. While the report explainswhy some goals were not met, it does not provide plans, schedules, orrecommendations for addressing these unmet goals. For example, theperformance report states that, due to limited resources, the Commissionwas unable to track its referrals to federal enforcement agencies to ensurethat civil rights complaints were received and appropriately processed.However, the report does not provide any detail on whether it wouldcontinue 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 meetthis goal, such as obtaining assistance from other federal agencies inmaintaining accessible and relevant records.


17/55


In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and humancapital management oversight for the Commission. OMBs oversight of theCommission focuses primarily on the budgetary process. In providingoversight of its human capital management, OPM conducted reviews andmade recommendations to the Commission in the 1990s to improve theCommissions human capital management and overall management. Inresponse, although the Commission implemented some of therecommended changes, many issues that OPM raised in 1996 continued tobe of concern in 1999. Although an Inspector General can provide anadditional means of oversight for agencies and independent commissions,the Commission does not have an Inspector General and is not required to

have one.

OMBs oversight of the Commission is primarily budgetary, according toOMB officials. In the fall of each fiscal year, OMB is responsible forreviewing the Commissions annual performance plan, budget request,apportionment request, and annual performance report.15 Before theCommissions budget request is due, OMB provides the Commission withguidance and updated information on the submission of GPRA documents.With regard to the annual performance plan, OMB generally reviews thelong-term goals and performance measures used to determine theCommissions performance in meeting its goals. OMB also reviews theCommissions budget request as part of its role in developing thePresidents budget. While OMB reviews the Commissions annualperformance plans and budget requests, according to OMB officials, itdoes not approve or reject these documents, but acknowledges theirreceipt and sends comments back to the agency as appropriate. However,Commission officials said that OMB has not provided feedback on itsannual performance plans in recent years. Each fall, OMB also receives theCommissions apportionment request, which describes how theCommission would like its appropriations distributed. According to OMBofficials, once an apportionment agreement has been reached between theCommission and OMB, the Commission sends this agreement to the

Treasury, which issues a warrant to release funds to the agency. Finally,OMB reviews the Commissions annual performance report to ensure that

15Apportionment refers to the action by which OMB distributes amounts available for

obligation in an appropriation or fund account. An apportionment divides amountsavailable for obligation by specific time periods (usually quarters), activities, projects,objects, or a combination.

OMB and OPM HaveProvided Oversight,and the CommissionHas Made LimitedChanges in Responseto OPMsRecommendations

OMB Provides Oversightfor the CommissionsBudgetary Process, butHas Not Focused onManagement Issues


18/55


its funds are spent according to its performance plans and that its goalswere met.

In addition to reviewing the Commissions annual budget submissions,OMB reviewed and approved the Commissions February 2004 request toreduce its personnel costs by offering voluntary separation incentivepayments, or buyouts, to encourage staff in certain job classifications tovoluntarily leave their jobs. The Commission requested authority to offerbuyouts to six employees. OMB officials discussed this request withCommission officials and approved the request in April. The Commissionoffered buyouts to all employees who had 3 or more years of government

service in several job classifications. The Commission granted buyouts tothree staff members, who accepted.

OMB also is responsible for providing oversight of agencies management,including the Commission, but this oversight has been limited because ofthe 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 ofoversight for organizations with small budgets and staff, such as theCommission, as that provided for larger organizations, such as theSecurities and Exchange Commission. For example, even though theCommission does not have a current strategic plan, OMB has notrequested an updated plan from the Commission, according toCommission officials. In addition, OMB officials told us that they havetaken no actions in response to our October 2003 findings that theCommission violated federal procurement regulations and lacked keymanagement practices because the volume of purchasing by theCommission is far below the levels that concern OMB. For example, theCommissions largest contract is for less than $160,000.


19/55


According to OPM officials, OPM provides the Commission with humancapital oversight through its audits of agencies human capitalmanagement systems, which can be conducted on a cyclical basis every4 to 5 years or on request, as needed.16 In 1996 and 1999, OPM conductedtwo reviews of the Commissions human capital management systems andmade recommendations in each report for improvements.

In analyzing the Commissions response to OPM reviews, we focused onsix recommendations from OPMs 1999 report that involved systemicchanges to the Commissions human capital management systems.17 As ofAugust 2004, the Commission had not implemented five of these six

recommendations. Findings from these reviews included the following:

In its November 1996 report, OPMs main finding was that theCommission was an agency badly in need of managerial attention,citing the Commissions poor documentation practices, lack of crediblegrievance and performance management systems, and employeeshighly negative perceptions of the Commissions organizationalclimate.

In its October 1999 report, OPM found that, although the Commissionshuman capital management systems complied with Merit SystemPrinciples, its human resource practices continued to have weaknesses

associated with accountability, delegation, recruitment, performanceappraisals, and incentive awards. The report noted that these concernswere similar to the concerns OPM had identified in the earlier report.For example, as of 1999, the Commission had not established aninternal self-assessment program as OPM recommended in 1996. OPMmade 16 recommendations in 1999 to help the Commission improve itsmanagement of human resources. As of August 2004, we found that theCommission had not implemented five of six broader, systemic

16

These reviews are conducted to determine how well an agencys human resourcesprograms, operations, and use of personnel authorities contribute to missionaccomplishment and whether the actions taken comply with Merit Systems Principles,laws, and regulations. Merit Systems Principles constitute the framework for federalhuman resources management. See 5 U.S.C. 2301.

17Of the 16 recommendations made by OPM in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6

recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the Commission. Wedid not analyze the Commissions responses to the 10 remaining recommendations. (Fordescriptions of these six OPM recommendations and the Commissions responses, seeappendix II.)

OPM Provides Oversightfor the CommissionsHuman CapitalManagement Systems, andthe Commission Has MadeLimited Improvements inResponse to OPMsRecommendations


20/55


recommendations made by OPM. (See appendix II for descriptions ofthese six OPM recommendations and the Commissions responses.)

Although in the course of their reviews OMB, OPM, and GAO haveidentified continuing management and accountability problems at theCommission, it may not be sufficient to resolve such longstandingconcerns through annual budgetary reviews and management reviewsbased on congressional requests or periodic audit cycles. An InspectorGeneral can provide an additional means of oversight for federal agencies,including independent commissions and boards, but the Commissioncurrently has no such oversight. Several small agencies have obtained

such services for audits and investigations through memorandums ofunderstanding with the General Services Administration. However, theCommission does not have an Inspector General of its own, nor does itobtain 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 theservices of an Inspector General.

Over the past decade, we reviewed the Commissions travel, management,and financial practices and made recommendations for improvement. TheCommission took some actions in response to the recommendations inour 1994 and 1997 reports. In addition, the Commission has notimplemented three of the four recommendations in our October 2003report. This most recent report included several recommendations toimprove the Commissions management and procurement practices. TheStaff Director issued a letter in June 2004 in response to this reportdisagreeing with most of the recommendations and describing the actionstaken by the agency. We also interviewed Commission officials to clarifytheir responses to the recommendations in our October 2003 report.

Although the Commission took various actions to address the

recommendations in our 1994 and 1997 reports, many similar problemspersist. In 1994, we reported on problems identified in the Commissionshandling of travel activities for specific individuals and maderecommendations for improvement. For example, in response to ourfinding that Commissioners had not submitted travel vouchers in a timelymanner, we recommended that the Commission direct the Commissionersto do so, as required by federal travel regulations. In 1995, the Commissionissued revised travelg procedures that incorporated our recommendationfor timely filing of travel vouchers by the Commissioners. (As part of a

The Commission Lacks theOversight of an InspectorGeneral

Although theCommission HasTaken Some Actionsin Response toRecommendations inGAO Reports,Problems Persist

The Commission Took

Actions in Response to theRecommendations in Our1994 and 1997 Reports, butRelated ProblemsContinue


21/55


separate assignment, we are currently reviewing the Commissions fiscalyear 2003 financial transactions that include a review of travel-relatedtransactions.) In 1997, we found numerous operational issues, reportingthat the management of the Commissions operations lacked control andcoordination; its projects lacked sufficient documentation; senior officialswere unaware of how Commission funds were used and lacked controlover key management functions; and records had been lost, misplaced, orwere nonexistent.18 In the report, we made recommendations for specificchanges to the Commissions administrative procedures and projectmanagement 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.

In October 2003, we reported that, although the Commission had madesome improvements in its project management procedures forCommissioners and staff, the procedures lacked certain key elements ofgood project management, such as providing Commissioners with projectcost information and opportunities to contribute to Commission reportsbefore they are issued. We also reported that the Commission lackedsufficient management control over its contracting procedures and thatlittle, if any, external oversight of the Commissions financial activities hadtaken place, since no independent accounting firm had audited theCommissions financial statements in at least 12 years.19 To address theseissues, we recommended that the Commission

1. monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost informationprovided to Commissioners,

2. adopt procedures that provide for increased Commissionerinvolvement in project implementation and report preparation,

18See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls,

GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997) and U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:Agency Lacks Basic Management Controls, GAO/T-HEHS-97-177 (Washington, D.C.: July17, 1997). In 1998, we reported on the status of the Commissions progress in addressingour recommendations. See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Update on Its

Response to GAO Recommendations, GAO/HEHS-98-86R (Washington D.C.: Feb. 3, 1998).

19See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and Financial Oversight

Needed, GAO-04-18, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003).

The Commission Has NotImplemented MostRecommendations fromOur 2003 Report
http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-86Rhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-86Rhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-86Rhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-86Rhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-86Rhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-18http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-98-86Rhttp://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/T-HEHS-97-177http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/HEHS-97-125


22/55


3. establish greater controls over its contracting activities in order to bein compliance with the Federal Acquisition Regulation, and

4. take immediate steps to meet the financial statement preparation andaudit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 forfiscal year 2004.

The Staff Director generally disagreed with these recommendations, andthe Commission has not adopted three of them. In their June 2004 letterresponding to our report recommendations, Commission officials assertedthat the first two recommendations were a matter of internal policy to be

decided by the Commissioners.20

In addition, they disagreed with the needfor the third recommendation and asserted that they were taking steps toaddress the last recommendation. Although they disagreed with the thirdrecommendation, the Commission hired a contracting and procurementspecialist starting in December 2003 to provide supplemental services, andthe Staff Director acknowledged that the Commission could improve inthis area. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had yet to contractwith an independent auditor to prepare for meeting the requirements ofthe Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002.21 (See appendix III forfurther details on the Commissions responses to these recommendations.)

With its history of management problems, the Commission facessignificant challenges. Strategic planning is not a static or occasionalevent. Instead, it is a dynamic and inclusive process that, if done well, isintegral to an organizations entire operations. By not devoting the timeand resources required to update its strategic plan, the Commission has noassurance that it is pursuing long-term goals that reflect the needs of itskey stakeholders and that address the many management challengespresented by the shifting external and internal environments in which itoperates. Furthermore, the Commission lacks a foundation to use in

20

Under 31 U.S.C. 720, when the Comptroller General issues a report that includes arecommendation to the head of an agency, the head of the agency is required to submit awritten statement on the actions taken. This statement must be submitted to the SenateCommittee on Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform notlater than 60 days from the date of the report. However, the Commission did not provide astatement to the committees in response to our October 2003 report recommendationsuntil June 1, 2004, after we had asked for the status of their statements in our entranceconference on May 20, 2004. These statements were due to the committees in December2003.

21Pub. L. No. 107-289, 116 Stat. 2049(2002).

Conclusion


23/55


aligning its daily activities, operations, and resources to support itsmission and achieve its goals. Without using the GPRA planning process toperiodically reexamine its long-term goals and set its course, theCommission is not in a strong position to set relevant annual goals ordevelop measures for assessing whether it has achieved them. Given theconsistent shortfall between the Commissions annual budget requests andits appropriations over the past decade, it is even more important for theCommission to chart a strategic course that is realistic.

Although the Commission has improved some policies and practices inresponse to recommendations from OPM and GAO, the problems that

remain are still cause for concern, particularly given the lingering natureof the Commissions management difficulties. Unless the Commissionsystematically monitors its implementation of OPMs and GAOsrecommendations, it is not likely that it will significantly improve itsmanagement and human capital management systems. Finally, annualbudgetary and other reviews based on periodic cycles or specific requestsmay not be sufficient to address longstanding concerns about theCommissions management and accountability. Because the Commissiondoes not have an Inspector General, it does not appear likely that it willhave the additional independent oversight needed to address managementproblems that others have identified and to hold itself accountable forresolving them.

To strengthen the Commissions accountability, the Congress shouldconsider legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of anexisting Inspector General at another agency.

To strengthen the Commissions management practices, we recommendthat the Commission

update its 5-year strategic plan according to GPRAs required scheduleand include all elements required under GPRA and OMB guidance;

ensure that future annual performance plans include all elementsrequired under GPRA and OMB guidance, reflect funding levelsrequested in the Presidents Budget, and are revised if necessary toreflect actual appropriations;

Matter forCongressionalConsideration

Recommendations for

Executive Action


24/55


ensure that annual performance reports include all elements requiredunder GPRA;

implement all of the recommendations in OPMs and GAOs previousreports;

include the status of the Commissions efforts to implement OPMs andGAOs recommendations in its GPRA plans and reports; and

seek the services of an existing Inspector General from another agencyto help keep the Commission and the Congress informed of problems

and deficiencies and to conduct and supervise necessary audits andinvestigations.

We provided a draft of this report to the Commission for comment. TheCommissions formal comments and our responses are contained inappendix I.

In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on ourrecommendations and disagreed with most of our findings andconclusions. We have carefully reviewed the Commissions concerns andoverall 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 itssize. The Commission also asserted that, as a small agency, it was not cost-effective or efficient for it to institute its own accountability system formanaging its human resources, as OPM had recommended. TheCommission similarly cited its small size in asserting that it would be anextreme challenge to institute our October 2003 reportrecommendations. We disagree with these assertions. The Commissionssize is not relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for theCommission to address longstanding management and human capitalproblems identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore,instead of implying that it is acceptable for the Commission as a smallagency to operate under diminished expectations for GPRA compliance,

the Commission could make use of GPRAs planning and reportingframework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the Commissioncould 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. TheCommission could then also use GPRAs reporting framework todemonstrate the progress it has made towards achieving those goals.

Agency Comments


25/55


In addition to providing these comments, the Commission criticized ourapproach to our work, asserting that the draft report contained inaccurateand incomplete analyses and that we rushed to complete the report withinan artificially constrained timeline. We strongly disagree. At all times, wescoped, designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance withapplicable professional standards and our quality assurance requirements.Furthermore, many of the Commissions comments about how weconducted our work were themselves misleading and inaccurate. Forexample, we did not suddenly and drastically change our focus, as theCommission asserted. In our May 2004 entrance conference with theagency, we noted our specific focus on certain areas, including the

Commissions GPRA products and the agencys actions in response toOPM and GAO recommendations. Our focus on oversight of theCommission and GPRA requirements remained consistent throughout theassignment. As we designed our work, we formulated our objectives andmethodologies more specifically, and we shared our refocused objectiveswith the Commission when we completed the design phase of our work inJuly. We therefore continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, andrecommendations are sound. The Commissions detailed comments andour responses to them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporatedclarifications in the report as appropriate.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no furtherdistribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, we willsend copies of this report to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and otherinterested parties. We will also make copies available to others uponrequest. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on GAOsWeb site at http://www.gao.gov.

Please contact me or Revae Moran on (202) 512-7215 if you or your staffshave any questions about this report. Other contacts and staffacknowledgments are listed in appendix III.

Robert E. RobertsonDirector, Education, Workforce,

and Income Security Issues
http://www.gao.gov/http://www.gao.gov/http://www.gao.gov/


26/55

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



Note: GAO commentssupplementing those inthe report text appear atthe end of this appendix.

See response to broadassertions.

See response to broad

assertions.


27/55


28/55



See response 5.

See response 6.

See response 4.

See response 3.


29/55



See response 11.

See response 10.

See response 9.

See response 8.

See response 7.


30/55



See response 12.


31/55



See response 16.

See response 15.

See response 14.

See response 13.


32/55



See response 17.


33/55



See response 18.


34/55



See response 23.

See response 22.

See response 21.

See response 20.

See response 19.


35/55




36/55



In general, the U. S. Commission on Civil Rights comments on ourfindings make four broad assertions in addition to having numerousspecific points of disagreement with our findings. We address both in thefollowing sections.

The four broad assertions in the Commissions comments on our draftreport, as well as our responses to these assertions, are summarizedbelow.

The Commission asserted that we rushed to complete the report within

an artificially constrained timeline and did not take the time to conductthorough fact-finding or analyses to ensure a quality report. Wedisagree strongly with this assertion. To the contrary, we scoped,designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance withapplicable professional standards and our quality assurancerequirements. To further ensure the quality of our work, we includedan initial design period, in which we built upon our considerableknowledge of the Commission from previous GAO reports andobtained further information as needed. In designing and conductingour work, we also consulted with our internal experts on GPRA andother issues. Far from rushing through the engagement, we in factextended our design period so that we could perform high-quality work

within a timeframe useful to our congressional requesters. At the endof this design period in July, we narrowed our scope, deferring apotential objective on the organizational structure of the Commission.Refining the scope of an engagement following a design phase is not anunusual audit practice. By agreement with our requesters, we did notinclude work on the Commissions organizational structure notbecause of any arbitrary decision, as the Commission alleges, butrather to enable us to complete our work on time and in accordancewith our quality standards. Our focus on GPRA, oversight, and theCommissions response to our October 2003 report recommendationsremained consistent throughout the assignment, from initialnotification to report drafting. Furthermore, in our May 2004 entrance

conference with the agency, we noted our focus on these areas, and inJuly 2004, at the end of our design phase, we shared these objectivesand our approach with Commission staff in an interview.

The Commission asserted that we did not follow up with its staff asneeded to obtain answers to questions and that they expected us tointerview more people, both staff and Commissioners, in the course ofour work. We disagree. Our methodology called for analyzingCommission documents, pertinent legislation and guidance, and

GAOs Response toComments

Response to BroadAssertions inCommissions Comments


37/55



various reports by OPM and GAO. Although at the beginning of ourproject, we envisioned interviewing key managers and all of theCommissioners as part of possible work on the Commissionsorganizational structure, these interviews became unnecessary whenwe decided to focus on the Commissions GPRA plans and reports,oversight of the Commission, and the agencys response to ourprevious report recommendations. As noted in our report, to obtaininformation for these objectives, we conducted interviews with theStaff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, HumanResources 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 forCommission staff to comment on our findings and provide technicalcorrections. At that meeting, Commission officials provided a fewcomments, but no technical corrections; with few exceptions, they didnot disagree with the facts or conclusions we presented.1

The Commission asserted that it cooperated with us fully, at all times.However, while our working relationships were professional andCommission officials were usually responsive in providing documentsas requested, we do not agree that Commission staff cooperated fullywith us throughout our work. Obtaining interviews with theCommission and key staff was frequently difficult, with each one

requiring a minimum of 3 weeks to schedule. For example, although wenotified the Commission on April 19, 2004, about our planned work andcalled shortly thereafter to schedule an initial meeting, it tooknumerous calls to set up our entrance conference on May 20, 2004. Thisdelay in scheduling the initial meeting occurred despite our referenceto the need for a rapid response. In addition, since it was difficult forCommission officials to find the time to meet with us, we combined ourentrance conference with that of another GAO team that wasexamining the Commissions financial transactions so that they wouldnot also experience a delay in starting their work. We had similardifficulties scheduling other meetings as well.

The Commission has repeatedly asserted that it is a small agency, witha budget of approximately $9 million and fewer than 70 staffinformation that we noted in the draft report. In commenting on the

1About 10 days after our exit conference, we received a faxed letter from the Special

Assistant to the Staff Director in which he disagreed with our findings on GPRA. However,the letter did not provide any new information on the Commissions compliance with GPRArequirements.


38/55



draft report, the Commission asserted that its GPRA and personnelprocesses were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. TheCommission also cited its size in asserting that it would be anextreme challenge to institute our October 2003 recommendations.We disagree with these assertions. The Commissions size is notrelevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the Commission toaddress longstanding management and human capital problemsidentified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, theCommission could make use of GPRAs planning and reportingframework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, theCommission could use GPRA's planning framework to update and

sharpen its goals, clearly identify the strategies and resources neededto achieve those goals, and improve its management and human capitalpractices, as recommended. The Commission could then also useGPRAs reporting framework to demonstrate the progress it has madetowards achieving those goals.

In addition to making these broad comments, the Commission disagreedwith our findings more specifically. Our detailed responses to theCommissions comments follow.

1. We disagree that the Commission has implemented or was

engaged in implementing all of the recommendations in ourOctober 2003 report. See responses 2 through 6.

2. Although the Commission reported that it has taken various stepsto meet the financial statement preparation and audit requirementsof the act, we disagree that it is in a position to meet the actsrequirements for financial statement preparation and audit thisyear. As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had not hired anindependent auditor to conduct this work. The agencys ability tomeet the acts requirements in the less than 2 remaining months ishighly doubtful, since the agency has not had its fiscal activitiesindependently audited in more than 12 years, and no audit work

has begun.

3. The Commissions assertion is not accurate: The Commission hasnot implemented our recommendation to provide for increasedcommissioner involvement in project implementation and reportpreparation. In fact, as the Commission noted in its comments, theCommission has continued to follow longstanding Commissionpolicy on Commissioner-staff interaction. As we reported in

Response to SpecificComments from theCommission


39/55



October 2003, this policy does not provide for systematicCommissioner input throughout projects. Nothing precludes theStaff Director from providing additional information about projectsand report status to Commissioners as a matter of good projectmanagement and quality assurance. Furthermore, the StaffDirector could respond in various ways to Commissionersconcerns for increased input without obtaining a formal vote tochange the Commissions procedures. For example,Commissioners could receive a summary of preliminary facts andfindings or an outline of a planned report.

4. The Commission asserted that there is no requirement that theCommissioners judgment must be substituted with our judgmenton policy decision matters. While our recommendations are notrequirements, we provide recommendations in our reports inaccordance with our statutory responsibilities to investigate theuse of public money, analyze agency expenditures, and evaluatethe results of federal programs and activities. Our reports andrecommendations provide agencies with the information necessaryto improve their mission performance and Congress with theinformation necessary for oversight, including the development oflegislation that will help agencies in their efforts. As theadministrative head of the Commission, the Staff Director isauthorized to make administrative changes that are consistent withthe law and Commission policies. While it may be difficult at timesto distinguish between an administrative and policy matter, we arenot aware of any Commission policies that would prevent the StaffDirector from implementing our recommendations nor would it becontrary to the law.

5. The Commission asserted that it has provided the Commissionerswith project cost information and made efforts to monitor theadequacy and timeliness of the information given, as recommendedin our October 2003 report. According to Commission staff, the

agency provides cost information on a quarterly basis toCommissioners and has done so since the last quarter of fiscal year2003.2 However, we continue to believe that having regular projectcost reports, such as monthly reports, would enhance the

2In April 2003, the Commissioners passed a motion to receive quarterly cost information on

its projects, by project and by office.


40/55



Commissioners ability to plan for and monitor projects duringtheir monthly meetings. Monthly reports would allow greateraccountability for the projects by integrating cost information in atimely manner into project management. Since the CommissionsBudget Chief told us that he prepares monthly project cost reportsfor the Staff Director, preparing reports for the Commissionersmonthly meetings should not be unduly burdensome. To ensurethat cost reports can be best used to strengthen project monitoringand management, these reports should also be provided toCommissioners shortly after the month ends.

6. We believe that it is a deficiency for the Commission to providequarterly cost reports to Commissioners 3 months after a quarterhas ended. Our October 2003 recommendation called for theCommission to monitor the adequacy and timeliness of projectcost information provided to Commissioners. In our view,information provided in 3-month-old project cost reports cannot beconsidered timely.

7. We believe that it is a deficiency for project cost reports to omitmention of the status of planned projects. The Commissionssecond quarter 2004 cost report for the Commissioners did notindicate the status of 4 of the 12 projects. To be useful for decisionmaking and monitoring, the project cost report should have notedthat some planned projects had already been completed and thatsome work had not yet begun, so that the Commissionersmonitoring the projects would have also been aware of the statusof these projects.

8. We disagree that our conclusions on the Commissions response toOPMs 1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. Seeresponses 9 through 16 as well as our response to broad assertionsin the Commissions comments.

9. The Commission asserted that we did not indicate concerns aboutits implementation of OPMs 1999 recommendations until officialsreceived the draft report. However, it is not clear to us whyCommission officials should have been unaware of the direction ofour findings. Four Commission officials, including the HumanResources Director, participated in two major meetings, one ofwhich focused extensively on the Commissions actions inresponse to six of OPMs human resources recommendations. TheHuman Resources Director also participated in our exit conference


41/55



in which we summarized our findings, including our finding on theCommissions responses to oversight by OPM. We noted explicitlyduring this meeting that we had focused on certainrecommendations and had found that the actions taken by theCommission were limited. The Human Resources Director did notprovide any corrections or technical comments on the agencyshuman resources practices during this meeting, nor did any otherCommission official. In addition to these meetings, we obtainedadditional documents, comments, and answers to questions bye-mail from the Commission during the course of our work andincorporated this information into our draft report as appropriate.

10. The Commission asserts that we did not dispute that it compliedwith 11 of OPMs 1999 recommendations. This statement isincorrect. We selected 6 of OPMs 16 recommendations foranalysis; we did not analyze the Commissions response to theremaining recommendations. We noted in our report that theCommission had implemented 1 of the 6 recommendations that weanalyzed. 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 6of the 16 recommendations OPM made in 1999. We stronglydisagree. To follow up on the Commissions response to OPMsrecommendations, we judgmentally selected six recommendationsthat had broader, more systemic implications for the agency. At nopoint, however, did we pre-select these recommendations in orderto emphasize a particular outcome or cast the agency in a badlight. We have clarified the basis for our selection of theserecommendations in the final report.

12. We do not agree that the Commission has implemented OPMsrecommendation to delegate HRM authority to managers. OPMsreport stated that the Staff Director retains final approving

authority for most [human resources] decisions, includingappointments, promotions, and performance ratings. Policiesdescribed in OPMs 1999 report remain in place at the Commissiontoday. For example, in our interviews this year, Commissionofficials told us that the Staff Director must approve all hiring andpromotion decisions as well as managers evaluations ofemployees. As of February 2004, according to the Commissionsadministrative manual, the staff director retains approvalauthority as well for quality step increases, accomplishment


42/55



awards, performance awards for its employees, andrecommendations to OPM for other awards. While the Commissionhas taken certain actions to improve its human resourcesmanagement practices, such as developing an employee handbookon human resources matters and providing managers with OPMsHRM Accountability System Development Guide, the Commissionhas not delegated human resource authorities to managers in allprogram areas, as OPM had recommended.

13. The Commissions assertion that it was acting in accordance withMerit System Principles is misleading and largely irrelevant for this

discussion. OPMs recommendation for an accountability systemstemmed from its analysis of the Commissions human resourceaccountability and internal self-assessment efforts (an area ofweakness also identified in its 1996 review). In 1999, OPM foundthat the Commission had not developed an effective system tohold managers accountable for HRM-related decisions. OPMfurther noted that the Staff Director retains final approvingauthority for most [human resource] decisions leaving managersuncertain about their own accountability when making these HRMdecisions . . . Employees see this lack of accountability too, sayingthat the supervisory chain of command is unclear and that they areunsure of where work assignments and agency work prioritiesoriginate. Also, employees report that their jobs do not make gooduse of their skills and abilities; that they are not satisfied with theirjobs; and that they do not feel free to disclose waste, fraud, andabuse without fear of reprisal. OPM noted that an internal self-assessment program was urgently needed to assureaccountability. References to the Commissions delegatedexamining authority and general compliance with OPMs MeritSystem Principles are not pertinent to the finding that led to thisrecommendation.

14. The Commission is inaccurate in asserting that OPM may have

made a recommendation for additional improvement of theCommissions personnel processes. As we noted in our report,OPM made 16 recommendations for improvement of theCommissions human resource management practices in its 1999report. The Commission is also inaccurate in asserting that OPMfound that those basic [personnel] processes were already sound,and that there was no real need to implement thisrecommendation [on using OPMs HRM Accountability SystemGuide], since Commission operations were good. This is an


43/55



inaccurate reading of OPMs 1999 findings and recommendations.While OPM found overall that the Commissions human resourceprogram complied with the Merit System Principles, OPM alsourged the Commission to consider its recommendations in fivebroad areas of human resource management. In the executivesummary of the 1999 report, the first of 12 bullets highlightingOPMs findings summarizes concerns raised in its earlier 1996report on the Commission; acknowledges that the Commissionhas improved its administration of the HRM program, particularlyin the recruitment and placement area; and continues by saying,However, the other concerns we identified in 1996 continue to

require attention. [Italics ours.] Of the 11 remaining bulletedfindings in OPMs summary, 7 describe problem areas, 3 arepositive, and 1 is mixed.

15. The Commission asserts that using OPMs guide instead ofdesigning its own system is

GAO Commission on Civil Rights Management Could Benefit From Improved Strategic Planning and...

Documents

Transcript of GAO Commission on Civil Rights Management Could Benefit From Improved Strategic Planning and...