This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-10-318T 
entitled 'Department Of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive Strategy Is 
Still Needed to Achieve Management Integration Departmentwide' which 
was released on December 15, 2009. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Testimony: 

Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the 
Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
GAO: 

For Release on Delivery: 
Expected at 10:00 a.m. EST:
Tuesday, December 15, 2009: 

Department Of Homeland Security: 

A Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed to Achieve Management 
Integration Departmentwide: 

Statement of Bernice Steinhardt, Director: 
Strategic Issues: 

GAO-10-318T: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-10-318T, a testimony before the Subcommittee on 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 
District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, U.S. Senate. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Significant management challenges exist for the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) as it continues to integrate its varied management 
processes, policies, and systems in areas such as financial management 
and information technology. These activities are primarily led by the 
Under Secretary for Management (USM), department management chiefs, and 
management chiefs in DHS’s seven components. This testimony summarizes 
a new GAO report (GAO-10-131) that examined (1) the extent to which DHS 
has developed a comprehensive strategy for management integration that 
includes the characteristics recommended in GAO’s earlier 2005 report, 
(2) how DHS is implementing management integration, and (3) the extent 
to which the USM is holding the department and component management 
chiefs accountable for implementing management integration through 
reporting relationships. GAO reviewed DHS plans and interviewed DHS 
management officials. 

What GAO Found: 

DHS has not yet developed a comprehensive strategy for management 
integration as required by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 
Commission Act of 2007 and with the characteristics GAO recommended in 
a 2005 report. Although DHS stated at that time that it was developing 
an integration strategy it has not yet done so, in part because it has 
focused on building operations capacity within functional management 
areas. In the absence of a comprehensive management integration 
strategy, DHS officials stated that documents such as strategic plans 
and management directives address aspects of a management integration 
strategy and can help the department to manage its integration efforts. 
However, they do not generally include all of the strategy 
characteristics GAO identified, such as identifying the critical links 
that must occur among management initiatives. In addition, DHS has 
increased the number of performance measures for the Management 
Directorate, but has not yet established measures for assessing 
management integration across the department. Without these measures, 
DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and achieving management 
integration. 

In the absence of a comprehensive strategy, DHS’s Management 
Directorate has implemented management integration through certain 
initiatives and mechanisms to communicate and consolidate management 
policies, processes, and systems. For example, DHS is in the process of 
consolidating its financial management, acquisition, and asset 
management systems. The directorate has also instituted a system of 
management councils and governance boards to communicate information 
and manage specific activities related to management initiatives. 

The USM and department and component management chiefs are held 
accountable for implementing management integration through reporting 
relationships at three levels—between the Secretary and the USM, the 
USM and department chiefs, and the department and component chiefs—in 
which, among other things, the Secretary of Homeland Security, USM, and 
department chiefs are required to provide input into performance plans 
and evaluations. Performance management practices for management 
integration between DHS’s department and component management chiefs 
are not consistently in place. Department chiefs are not consistently 
providing the guidance and input required by department management 
directives and in accordance with performance management leading 
practices. Without ensuring that the management chiefs provide input 
into component chiefs’ performance plans and evaluations as required, 
the directorate cannot be sure that component chiefs are fully 
implementing management integration. 

What GAO Recommends: 

In the report, GAO recommended that once a management integration 
strategy is developed, DHS should establish performance measures for 
assessing management integration, and implement its performance 
management policies between the department and component management 
chiefs. DHS’s USM commented that DHS is taking certain actions to 
address GAO’s recommendations. 

View [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-318T] or key 
components. For more information, contact Bernice Steinhardt at (202) 
512-6543 or steinhardtb@gao.gov or David Maurer at (202)512-9627 or 
maurerd@gao.gov. 

[End of section] 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the Subcommittee to 
discuss our report, which is being released today, on the actions that 
the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has taken towards integrating 
its various management processes, systems, and people, both within and 
across areas such as information technology, financial management, 
acquisition, and human capital, as well as in its administrative 
services.[Footnote 1] These activities are primarily led by the Under 
Secretary for Management (USM), departmental management chiefs, and 
management chiefs in DHS's seven components.[Footnote 2] It is 
critically important that DHS work to unify and strengthen its 
management functions because the effectiveness of these functions will 
ultimately affect its ability to fulfill its various missions. 

After the department was first created, you asked us to assess the 
status of DHS's management integration. In our 2005 report, we noted 
that DHS had made progress in addressing its departmentwide management 
integration through the issuance of guidance and plans to assist the 
integration of each individual management function within the 
department.[Footnote 3] However, we observed that DHS had the 
opportunity to expand upon those efforts by implementing a more 
comprehensive and sustained approach to management integration 
departmentwide. In particular, we recommended that DHS develop an 
overarching strategy for management integration, and, in response, DHS 
stated that it was developing such a strategy. Subsequently, the 
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 
Commission Act) required DHS to develop a strategy for management 
integration.[Footnote 4] 

Additionally in our 2005 report, we suggested that Congress might want 
to consider whether DHS's USM has the authority to drive, implement, 
and ensure accountability for management integration departmentwide. 
More specifically, we suggested that Congress might want to continue 
monitoring whether it needed to provide additional leadership 
authorities to the USM or create a Chief Operating Officer/Chief 
Management Officer (COO/CMO) position, with provisions for a term 
appointment and performance agreement, that could help elevate, 
integrate, and institutionalize DHS's management initiatives. The 9/11 
Commission Act designated the USM as the CMO for the department and 
principal advisor on management-related matters to the Secretary. We 
have previously suggested that agencies engaged in major transformation 
efforts and those agencies experiencing particularly significant 
challenges in integrating disparate organizational cultures, such as 
DHS, could also be good candidates for having COO/CMO-type positions in 
place.[Footnote 5] 

In light of these prior recommendations and requirements, you asked us 
to revisit DHS's progress. This testimony, which summarizes our report 
to you, discusses: 

* the extent to which DHS has developed a comprehensive strategy for 
management integration that includes the characteristics recommended in 
our 2005 report; 

* how DHS is implementing management integration, and: 

* the extent to which DHS's USM is holding the department and component 
management chiefs accountable for implementing management integration 
through reporting relationships. 

In summary, in the more than 6 years since its establishment, DHS has 
taken actions that could help it transform its organization and 
integrate its management functions to establish a unified department. 
In particular, the department has developed common policies, 
procedures, and systems within individual management functions, such as 
human capital and information technology, that help to vertically 
integrate its component agencies. However, DHS has placed less emphasis 
on integrating horizontally, and bringing together these multiple 
management functions across the department. Moreover, DHS has not yet 
fully developed a comprehensive management integration strategy, as we 
have recommended and is required by law. DHS could also improve the 
extent to which it is measuring its progress on management integration, 
and holding its management chiefs accountable for implementing 
management integration. 

To conduct the work for our report, we reviewed DHS's strategies and 
plans and interviewed management officials in DHS's headquarters, seven 
components, and one directorate--the National Protection and Programs 
Directorate (NPPD).[Footnote 6] To address the extent to which DHS 
developed a management integration strategy, we assessed whether DHS 
documents and plans included the characteristics recommended in our 
2005 report for a management integration strategy, which required that 
the strategy: 

* look across the initiatives within each of the management functional 
units; 

* clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these 
initiatives; 

* identify trade-offs and set priorities; 

* set implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of 
these initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and: 

* identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved. 

We also reviewed DHS's performance goals and measures for fiscal years 
2008 and 2009, and assessed these goals and measures against Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) requirements to determine 
the extent to which they provided a framework for assessing management 
integration across the department.[Footnote 7] Additionally, we 
examined DHS performance agreements and performance management 
activities against requirements set forth in law and in DHS policies. 
These requirements include the need for input from senior to 
subordinate officials for performance agreements and evaluations, and 
the alignment of goals and objectives in a "line of sight" that shows 
how individual performance contributes to organizational goals. 

This statement is based on our performance audit which was conducted 
from September 2008 through November 2009 in accordance with generally 
accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we 
plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence 
to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on 
our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a 
reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit 
objectives. 

Background: 

In 2003, we designated the implementation and transformation of DHS as 
a high-risk area because it represented an enormous undertaking that 
would require time to achieve in an effective and efficient manner. 
[Footnote 8] The department has remained on our high-risk list since 
2003.[Footnote 9] Most recently, in our January 2009 high-risk update, 
we reported that, although DHS had made progress in transforming into a 
fully functioning department, its transformation remained high risk 
because it had not yet developed a comprehensive plan to address the 
transformation, integration, management, and mission challenges we 
identified since 2003.[Footnote 10] 

The Management Directorate, which is led by the USM, includes the Chief 
Financial Officer (CFO), the Chief Security Officer (CSO), the Chief 
Human Capital Officer (CHCO), the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO), 
the Chief Procurement Officer (CPO), and the Chief Information Officer 
(CIO). They are referred to as the departmental management chiefs. In 
addition to the department's Management Directorate, each of the seven 
DHS component agencies has its own component management chief for the 
procurement, financial, human capital, information technology, 
administrative, and security management areas. [Footnote 11] Figure 1 
shows the DHS Management Directorate's organizational structure. 

Figure 1: DHS Management Directorate's Organizational Structure: 

[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart] 

Top level: 
Under Secretary for Management; 
* Deputy Under Secretary; 
* Chief of Staff. 

Second level, reporting to the Under Secretary for Management: 
* Chief Financial Officer[A]; 
* Chief Security Officer; 
* Chief Human Capital Officer; 
* Chief Administrative Officer; 
* Chief Procurement Officer; 
* Chief Information Officer. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS documents. 

[A] The Department of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (§ 
3 of Pub. L. No. 108-330, 118 Stat. 1275, 1276 (Oct. 16, 2004)) made 
DHS subject to the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990 (Pub. L. No. 
101-576, 104 Stat. 2838, Nov. 15, 1990), which requires the DHS CFO to 
also report directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security. 

[End of figure] 

Departmental Plans and Documents Address Aspects of Management 
Integration, but DHS Has Not Yet Developed a Comprehensive Strategy: 

The 9/11 Commission Act requires DHS to develop a strategy for 
management integration as part of the department's integration and 
transformation to create a more efficient and orderly consolidation of 
functions and personnel in the department.[Footnote 12] In our 2005 
report, we recommended that DHS develop an overarching management 
integration strategy for the department that would, at a minimum, 
contain such characteristics as identifying the linkages among 
management initiatives, trade-offs and priorities, and potential 
efficiencies.[Footnote 13] Although DHS stated at that time that it was 
developing an integration strategy, it has not yet developed a 
comprehensive strategy for management integration that is consistent 
with statute and that contains all of the characteristics we identified 
in 2005. According to DHS's USM, the department has not yet done so 
because, in part, the Management Directorate has focused on building 
the management operations capacity within the functional areas, such as 
financial management and information technology. The Management 
Directorate has not yet focused on integration across the functional 
areas and has not clearly or systematically identified trade-offs and 
linkages among initiatives in different functional areas. 

According to DHS's USM, Chief of Staff, and department and component 
management chiefs, in the absence of a comprehensive management 
integration strategy, various departmental documents collectively 
contribute to the department's strategy for implementing and achieving 
management integration. These documents are discussed in detail in our 
report. In particular, DHS officials identified (1) departmentwide 
documents that provide guidance that relate to management integration 
across the department, such as DHS's Integrated Strategy for High Risk 
Management and Management Directorate Strategic Plan;[Footnote 14] and 
(2) documents for management of functional areas. 

With regard to functional area documents, DHS officials indicated that 
both management directives and functional area strategic plans contain 
elements of the department's strategy for achieving management 
integration. DHS issued management directives for each of the six 
department management chiefs--the CAO, CFO, CHCO, CIO, and CPO 
management directives were issued in 2004 (with updates for the CIO and 
CPO in 2007 and 2008, respectively); the management directive for CSO 
was issued in 2006. These directives communicate standard definitions 
of the management chiefs' respective roles and responsibilities; define 
the concept of "dual accountability" for both mission accomplishment 
and functional integration as the shared responsibility of the heads of 
DHS's individual agencies or components and the department management 
chiefs; and establish the need for the department management chiefs, 
along with the heads of agencies, to annually recommend and establish 
integration milestones for the consolidation of the chiefs' functions. 
Functional area strategic plans generally discuss, among other things, 
the missions and goals of the department management chiefs and the link 
between the goals and objectives in each functional area strategic plan 
and the goals and objectives in DHS's Strategic Plan. Among the six 
department chiefs, four have issued strategic plans for their 
functional areas--the CAO, CIO, CHCO, and CSO.[Footnote 15] 

While some of the documents DHS officials identified as contributing to 
the department's strategy for implementing and achieving management 
integration address some of the characteristics we have previously 
identified for such a strategy, these documents, either individually or 
taken together, do not include all of the characteristics we have 
identified. The documents described by DHS officials as contributing to 
the department's strategy for achieving management integration can 
provide high-level guidance for integration efforts and can help the 
department to manage those efforts. Moreover, the Management 
Directorate Strategic Plan and other departmentwide documents, for 
example, set performance goals, measures, and targets for achieving 
certain management initiatives. Such elements as goals, objectives, 
milestones, performance targets, and priorities documented in these 
plans and strategies can help the department to manage, implement, and 
monitor the specific initiatives to which these elements apply. They 
can also help to guide efforts to consolidate policies, processes, and 
systems within each management functional area. However, among the 
documents cited by DHS officials as being part of the department's 
management integration strategy, DHS has not yet looked across the 
management initiatives within management functional areas to identify 
the critical links that must occur among these initiatives to integrate 
the department's management functions both within and across functional 
areas. Furthermore, the documents generally do not identify the 
priorities, trade-offs, and potential efficiencies among management 
initiatives, nor do they set implementation goals and a time line for 
monitoring the progress of initiatives to ensure the critical links 
occur when needed. Thus, when considered either individually or 
together, these documents do not constitute a management integration 
strategy containing all of the characteristics we have identified. 

In addition, although DHS has developed some performance goals and 
measures to measure management activities, it has not yet established 
measures for assessing management integration across the department. 
For example, DHS has increased the number of departmentwide performance 
measures for the Management Directorate in support of Goal 5 of DHS's 
Strategic Plan.[Footnote 16] Specifically, since fiscal year 2008, DHS 
has added 13 new measures and retired 3 others for the Management 
Directorate in support of its strategic plan, going from 5 performance 
measures for the Management Directorate in fiscal year 2008 to 15 
measures in fiscal year 2009. These measures relate to activities in 
functional areas but do not help to measure management integration. DHS 
officials told us that the department's current measures do not allow 
the department to gauge the status of management integration and that 
the department has focused on the development of measures for 
departmental components, offices, and directorates--such as a measure 
for the attrition rate for career senior executive service personnel 
and a measure for the percentage of improper payments collected. 
However, these performance measures do not allow the department to 
assess its progress in achieving departmental goals for management 
integration within and across functional areas. DHS officials stated 
that the department's goal is to develop a set of measures that will 
help the department assess its management integration. Without such a 
set of measures, DHS cannot assess its progress in implementing and 
achieving management integration both within and across its functional 
areas. A comprehensive strategy for management integration that clearly 
sets implementation goals and time lines could help the department 
establish measures for assessing its management integration. We are 
continuing to work with DHS to review and provide input on the 
department's performance measures used to assess the department's 
progress in its mission and management areas. 

DHS's Management Directorate Has Taken Actions to Communicate and 
Consolidate Management Policies, Processes, and Systems: 

While DHS does not have a comprehensive management strategy, its 
Management Directorate is working to consolidate management policies, 
processes, and systems and it has instituted a system of management 
councils and governance boards. The Management Directorate has 
developed and implemented departmentwide policies to replace policies 
from each of the legacy agencies that make up DHS in all six management 
functions. For example, the DHS CFO's office launched an online 
Financial Management Policy Manual tool, which serves as the single 
authoritative guide on financial management and the foundation for 
departmentwide financial management knowledge sharing and 
standardization. According to officials from the DHS CFO's office, the 
Financial Management Policy Manual is part of its approach to integrate 
within the financial management function and is critical to enable 
financial management employees to carry out their duties and 
responsibilities effectively and efficiently. 

The Management Directorate also has other initiatives under way to 
consolidate its management systems. For example, the Transformation and 
Systems Consolidation (TASC) initiative is the department's current 
effort to consolidate its financial management, acquisition, and asset 
management systems. DHS has been working to consolidate its financial 
management systems since the department was first created. 

Through various management councils, the Management Directorate shares 
information related to the implementation of management initiatives, 
solicits feedback from the components, and provides a forum for 
coordination between component management offices. Each management 
chief chairs a functional council to address issues pertaining to that 
management function. Likewise, the USM chairs a Management Council made 
up of the DHS management chiefs and a representative from each 
component that discusses issues of departmentwide importance, such as 
training and development programs. The Management Directorate has also 
taken steps toward consolidating some management processes and 
established governance boards to manage the processes in the areas of 
acquisition, information technology, financial management, and resource 
allocation. 

Performance Management Practices Could Be More Consistently Applied 
Departmentwide to Strengthen Reporting Relationships between Department 
and Component Management Chiefs: 

The USM and department and component management chiefs are held 
accountable for implementing management integration through reporting 
relationships at three levels--between the Secretary and the USM, the 
USM and department management chiefs, and the department and component 
management chiefs--in which, among other things, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, USM, and department chiefs are required to provide 
input into performance plans and evaluations. Our prior work has shown 
that, to be successful, transformation efforts must align individual 
performance expectations with organizational goals.[Footnote 17] In the 
case of transforming and integrating DHS, the USM, department, and 
component management chiefs must align their goals and activities 
through performance management practices in support of DHS's management 
integration goals. In our review, we found that performance management 
practices for management integration between DHS's department and 
component management chiefs are not consistently in place. Department 
chiefs are not consistently providing the guidance and input required 
by department management directives and in accordance with performance 
management leading practices. The inconsistent application of such 
guidance and practices presents challenges to institutionalizing 
individual accountability and enabling the effective exercise of 
authority at the department. Without ensuring that the management 
chiefs provide input into component chiefs' performance plans and 
evaluations as required, the Management Directorate cannot be sure that 
component chiefs are fully implementing management integration. 

For the first level of reporting relationships involving the Secretary 
and the USM, the 9/11 Commission Act requires the USM to enter into an 
annual performance agreement with the Secretary and be subject to an 
annual performance evaluation.[Footnote 18] We found that the Deputy 
Secretary provided input into the USM's performance plan in October 
2007, and conducted a performance evaluation in 2008 based on this 
agreement. According to DHS officials, the Deputy Secretary conducted 
the performance agreement and evaluation--rather than the Secretary-- 
based on delegated responsibilities for the performance of management 
reform as the department's chief operating officer. Further, the 
performance objectives in the USM's agreement and evaluation are linked 
to strategic plans, and include references to several efforts related 
to management integration. 

For the second level of reporting relationships involving the USM and 
department management chiefs, five department management chiefs report 
directly to the USM, and the CFO has a dual reporting relationship to 
the Secretary and the USM.[Footnote 19] We found that the department 
management chiefs' performance agreements supported higher level 
Management Directorate goals and objectives, and included references to 
management integration-related activities. Fiscal year 2009 was the 
first year that the USM provided a common objective to department 
management chiefs related to management support for the expansion of 
NPPD. In addition, the agreements consistently include objectives 
related to management integration. 

For the third level of reporting relationships involving the department 
and component management chiefs, the component management chiefs report 
directly to their component agency heads, while also having a "dotted 
line," or indirect, reporting relationship to their respective 
department management chief.[Footnote 20] The arrangement of component 
heads and department chiefs both supporting integration of management 
functions is referred to as "dual accountability." Under the dual 
accountability system, management directives require the department 
management chiefs to provide written performance objectives to the 
component management chiefs at the start of each performance cycle and 
feedback to the component rating official on the component chief's 
accomplishment of objectives. We found that all the department 
management chiefs except for the CSO said that they specifically 
established annual priorities for their function. At an individual 
level, however, we found that only two department chiefs--the CAO and 
CPO--said that they provided individual input to their component chiefs 
at the beginning of their performance cycle. The USM told us the 
functional councils have improved their development of common 
management goals for their functions, but have not yet consistently 
followed through by putting those goals into individual performance 
plans. She stated the department's management chiefs would be including 
this information in component chiefs' performance plans for 2010. With 
regard to the department chiefs providing feedback to the component 
rating official, the CFO, CSO, and CAO told us that they provided input 
into component chiefs' performance appraisals, while the CIO and CPO 
did not provide input. The CHCO said that, due to his limited tenure in 
the position, he could not state whether input had occurred. The CPO 
stated that he would be providing input beginning with the fiscal year 
2010 performance appraisals. The USM said that departmental chiefs' 
input into component chiefs' performance appraisals would be a priority 
in the future. 

GAO Recommendations: 

In our new report, we reiterated our 2005 recommendation, not yet fully 
implemented, that DHS develop a comprehensive management integration 
strategy. We recommended that once the strategy is developed, DHS's USM 
should establish performance measures to assess progress made in 
achieving departmentwide management integration. We also recommended 
that the Under Secretary take several actions to implement existing 
performance management mechanisms--such as having the departmental 
management chiefs provide written input into component chiefs' 
performance plans and evaluations, and strengthening linkages between 
department goals and objectives in individual performance plans for 
component management chiefs--to ensure that the Management Directorate 
can exercise its authority and leadership to implement a management 
integration strategy. 

A DHS official said the department concurred with our report. In 
addition, DHS's USM provided information on steps the department was 
taking or planning to take to develop a strategy for management 
integration, as we had recommended in our 2005 report, and to link this 
strategy to the Senior Executive Service (SES) performance appraisals 
for the management chiefs. Specifically, the USM said that she is 
leading the process for developing a detailed, measurable plan that 
will include the actions and milestones necessary to accomplish 
management integration at the department. Additionally, the USM stated 
that the integration plan will be tied to the SES performance 
appraisals for each management chief for the fiscal year 2010 
performance cycle, and that the plan will also serve as the required 
annual performance agreement between the Secretary and the USM. 

Chairman Akaka, Senator Voinovich, and Members of the Subcommittee, 
this concludes my prepared statement. I would be happy to respond to 
any questions you may have. 

Contacts and Staff Acknowledgements: 

For further information regarding this statement, please contact 
Bernice Steinhardt, Director, Strategic Issues, at (202) 512-6543 or 
steinhardtb@gao.gov or David Maurer, Director, at (202) 512-9627 or 
maurerd@gao.gov. Points of contact for our Offices of Congressional 
Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this 
report. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony include 
Sarah Veale, Assistant Director; Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director; 
S. Mike Davis; Barbara Lancaster; Jared Hermalin; Susan Sato; and David 
Fox. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes: 

[1] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Taken Toward 
Management Integration, but A Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-131] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 20, 2009). 

[2] DHS's seven component agencies include the Transportation Security 
Administration (TSA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), U.S. Citizenship and 
Immigration Services (USCIS), U.S. Secret Service, U.S. Coast Guard, 
and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 

[3] GAO, Department of Homeland Security: A Comprehensive and Sustained 
Approach Needed to Achieve Management Integration, GAO-05-139 
(Washington, D.C.: Mar. 16, 2005). 

[4] Section 2405 of Pub. L. No. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266 (Aug. 3, 2007). 

[5] GAO, Organizational Transformation: Implementing Chief Operating 
Officer/Chief Management Officer Positions in Federal Agencies, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-08-34] (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 1, 2007). 

[6] We selected NPPD because it (1) had the largest budget in fiscal 
year 2008 among all of the DHS directorates and offices, (2) has a 
structure of management chiefs similar to DHS's component agencies, and 
(3) has a unique relationship to the Management Directorate because the 
directorate directly provides management services to NPPD that normally 
occur within component agencies, such as hiring and acquisition 
support. 

[7] Pub. L. No. 103-62, 107 Stat. 285 (Aug. 3, 1993). 

[8] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-119] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2003). The high-risk areas we have identified include (1) implementing 
and transforming DHS, (2) the National Flood Insurance Program, (3) 
managing federal real property, (4) strategic human capital management, 
(5) information-sharing mechanisms to improve homeland security, and 
(6) protecting the federal government's information systems and 
critical infrastructure. 

[9] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-05-207] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2005); and GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-310] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2007). 

[10] GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-09-271] (Washington, D.C.: January 
2009). 

[11] Management chiefs in the component agencies for the acquisition 
and procurement function are referred to as Component Acquisition 
Executives (CAE) and Heads of Contracting Authority (HCA), 
respectively. The CAE is the senior acquisition official within the 
component, responsible for management and oversight of all component 
acquisition functions (excluding contracting). The HCA is the senior 
contracting official within the component, responsible for management 
and oversight of all component contracting functions, under the 
authority delegated by the CPO. 

[12] Pub.L. No. 110-53, § 2405. 

[13] As previously mentioned, the characteristics include: (1) look 
across the initiatives within each of the management functional units; 
(2) clearly identify the critical links that must occur among these 
initiatives; (3) identify trade-offs and set priorities; (4) set 
implementation goals and a time line to monitor the progress of these 
initiatives to ensure the necessary links occur when needed; and (5) 
identify potential efficiencies, and ensure that they are achieved. 

[14] DHS Integrated Strategy for High Risk Management is intended to be 
a corrective action plan outlining the department's framework for its 
transformation efforts and methods by which the department will seek to 
improve performance in high-risk areas we have identified since 2003. 
DHS's Management Directorate Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2009 through 
2014 sets out the Management Directorate's vision, core values, guiding 
principles, goals and objectives, as well as the organizational 
structure and responsibilities of the Management Directorate and 
department management chiefs. 

[15] The CAO strategic plan is for fiscal years 2008-2012, the CIO 
strategic plan is for fiscal years 2009-2013, and the CHCO strategic 
plan is for fiscal years 2009-2013. The CSO strategic plan does not 
include any dates. 

[16] DHS, One Team, One Mission, Securing Our Homeland: U.S. Department 
of Homeland Security Strategic Plan, Fiscal Years 2008 - 2013 
(Washington, D.C.: 2008). 

[17] GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps to Assist 
Mergers and Organizational Transformations, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-03-669] (Washington, D.C.: July 2, 
2003). 

[18] Section 2405 of Pub. L. No. 110-53, 6 U.S.C.§ 341 (c). 

[19] Although the USM conducts the DHS CFO's performance evaluation, 
the CFO reports to both the Secretary of Homeland Security and the USM, 
as established by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107- 
296, 116 Stat. 2135, Nov. 25, 2002 (6 U.S.C. § 342) and the Department 
of Homeland Security Financial Accountability Act (31 U.S.C. § 901 
(b)(1)(G)). 

[20] Responsibilities of the component management chiefs may not 
correspond directly with responsibilities of the department chiefs in 
all management functions. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and 
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting 
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance 
and accountability of the federal government for the American people. 
GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and 
policies; and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance 
to help Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding 
decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is reflected in its core 
values of accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through GAO's Web site [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence on its Web site. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly 
posted products every afternoon, go to [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov] 
and select "E-mail Updates." 

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Ralph Dawn, Managing Director, dawnr@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: