This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-77 
entitled 'U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Management Could Benefit 
from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased Oversight' which was 
released on October 27, 2004.

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.

Report to Congressional Committees:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

October 2004:

U.S. Commission on Civil Rights:

Management Could Benefit from Improved Strategic Planning and Increased 
Oversight:

GAO-05-77:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-05-77, a report to congressional committees

Why GAO Did This Study:

The Chairmen of the Senate and House Committees on the Judiciary asked 
GAO to determine (1) the extent of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights’ 
compliance with the requirements of the Government Performance and 
Results Act (GPRA) of 1993, (2) what federal oversight is provided to 
the Commission, and (3) the status of the implementation of 
recommendations from GAO’s past reviews of the Commission.

What GAO Found:

The U.S. Commission on Civil Rights--an independent federal agency that
monitors and reports on the status of civil rights in the United 
States—has not fully complied with the requirements of GPRA. Under this 
act, agencies are required to submit strategic plans and annual 
performance plans that detail their long-term and annual goals as well 
as information on how they plan to meet these goals. GPRA also requires 
agencies to submit annual performance reports that provide information 
on their progress in meeting the goals. However, the Commission has not 
updated or revised its strategic plan since 1997. Without revisiting 
its strategic goals, the Commission lacks a firm basis on which to 
develop its annual goals and evaluate its performance. In addition, its 
most recent annual performance plan and annual performance report 
contain weaknesses that limit the agency’s ability to effectively 
manage its operations and communicate its performance. For example, the 
performance plan does not discuss the Commission’s strategies or 
resources for achieving its goals, does not provide budgetary 
information for its programs, and does not provide performance 
indicators for some annual goals. Similarly, the performance report 
does not account for the Commission’s performance for many of the 
annual goals set forth in its performance plan and does not provide 
plans, schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the 
Commission’s unmet goals.

The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Office of Personnel 
Management (OPM) have provided oversight for the Commission’s budgetary 
and human capital operations in recent years. OMB’s oversight has 
focused on the Commission’s budget requests and GPRA plans and reports. 
OPM conducted two reviews of the Commission’s human capital management 
systems in the 1990s and made recommendations for improvement, 
including improvements to its grievance and performance appraisal 
systems. Although the Commission has implemented some of OPM’s earlier 
recommendations, it has not implemented five of six broader, systemic 
recommendations made in 1999 for improvement to its human capital 
management systems. Unlike many other executive agencies, the 
Commission does not have an Inspector General to provide oversight of 
its operations beyond OMB and OPM. 

GAO has conducted several reviews of the Commission’s management 
operations in recent years. The Commission took some actions in 
response to the recommendations in GAO’s 1994 and 1997 reports. 
However, the Commission has not implemented three of the four 
recommendations in GAO’s October 2003 report for improving the agency’s 
management and procurement practices.

What GAO Recommends:

To enhance oversight of the Commission, the Congress should consider 
legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of an 
existing Inspector General.
 
To strengthen the Commission’s management practices, GAO recommends 
that the Commission (1) update its strategic plan and ensure that its 
performance plans and reports include all elements required under GPRA; 
(2) implement OPM’s and GAO’s recommendations; and (3) seek the 
services of an existing Inspector General to conduct necessary audits 
and investigations. 

In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on 
our recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and 
conclusions. We continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations are sound and necessary for strengthening the 
Commission’s management practices.

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

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Bob Robertson at (202) 
512-9889 or robertsonr@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements:

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

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

Conclusion:

Matter for Congressional Consideration:

Recommendations for Executive Action:

Agency Comments:

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

GAO's Response to Comments:

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

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

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Abbreviations:

GPRA: Government Performance and Results Act of 1993:

HRM: human resource management:

OMB: Office of Management and Budget:

OPM: Office of Personnel Management:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

October 8, 2004:

The Honorable Orrin G. Hatch: 
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary: 
United States Senate:

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.: 
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary: 
House 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 
status of civil rights in the United States. Since its inception in 
1957, the Commission has worked on critical civil rights issues, 
including racial segregation, impediments to voting rights, and the 
debate on federal affirmative action programs. In recent years, the 
Congress has requested that we assess the adequacy of the Commission's 
management practices and procedures. In 1994, we reported problems 
identified in the Commission's handling of travel activities and made 
recommendations for specific actions.[Footnote 1] In a 1997 study of 
the Commission, we found numerous management and operational 
issues[Footnote 2] and, in October 2003, we found that the Commission 
lacked good project management and that its contracting procedures were 
inadequate.[Footnote 3]

Organizations with management weaknesses can learn from the practices 
of high-performing organizations, which strengthen their management 
practices and focus on achieving results by setting clear goals, 
aligning their management systems with these goals, and regularly 
evaluating their performance. For federal agencies, the Government 
Performance and Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) incorporated these 
practices, requiring federal agencies to set goals and use performance 
measures for management and budgetary purposes. To comply with GPRA, 
federal agencies--including independent commissions--must periodically 
submit long-term strategic plans, annual performance plans, and annual 
performance reports. The Chairmen of both the Senate and House 
Committees on the Judiciary asked us to determine (1) the extent of the 
Commission's compliance with the planning and reporting requirements of 
GPRA, (2) federal oversight that is provided to the Commission, and (3) 
the status of the Commission's implementation of recommendations from 
GAO's reviews in the past decade.

To address these objectives, we reviewed documents such as relevant 
statutes and regulations; the Commission's most recent GPRA plans and 
reports; guidance from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the 
implementation of GPRA; and guidance and reports from the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) on human resources management (HRM) and the 
Commission's HRM practices. We also reviewed GAO reports on the 
Commission's management practices and our guidance on the 
implementation of GPRA. In determining the federal oversight provided 
to the Commission, we focused on executive branch oversight provided by 
OMB and OPM. We also reviewed the Commission's June 2004 response to 
the recommendations we made in our October 2003 report on the 
Commission. Finally, we conducted interviews with the Commission's 
Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff Director, Human 
Resources Director, and Budget Chief, as well as with officials from 
OPM and OMB. We conducted our work from April to August 2004 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Results in Brief:

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 
1997, and its most recent annual performance plan and report contain 
weaknesses that limit the Commission's ability to effectively manage 
its operations and communicate its performance. Because it has not 
updated its strategic plan, the Commission has not reexamined its 
strategic goals since 1997 to affirm their ongoing significance to the 
agency's overall mission. Without revisiting its strategic goals, the 
Commission lacks a firm basis on which to develop its annual goals and 
evaluate its performance. Although the Commission's most recent annual 
performance plan contains annual performance goals, these goals are 
often not distinguished from program activities. The plan also does not 
provide information on the resources and strategies required to meet 
the Commission's annual goals, nor does it provide performance measures 
for evaluating the achievement of these goals. Although OMB guidance 
now directs agencies to include budget information in its annual 
performance plans, the Commission's plan for fiscal year 2005 does not 
align the cost of its programs with specific annual goals. In addition, 
the Commission's most recent performance report does not, in many 
cases, clearly indicate whether the goals were achieved and does not 
include 3 years of performance data for all of its annual goals as 
required. In addition, the report does not provide the Commission's 
plans or timeframes for accomplishing its unmet goals.

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human capital 
oversight of the Commission, and, overall, the agency has made a 
limited number of changes in response to OPM's report recommendations 
to the Commission. OMB reviewed the Commission's budget request and 
GPRA plans and reports in preparing the President's annual budget, but 
has not focused on Commission management issues. According to OMB 
officials, OMB does not provide the same level of oversight for 
organizations with small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, as 
that provided for larger organizations, such as the Securities and 
Exchange Commission. In the 1990s, OPM conducted two evaluations of the 
Commission's human capital management systems. In 1996, OPM found that 
the Commission was "badly in need of managerial attention," citing, for 
example, a lack of credible grievance and performance appraisal 
systems. In its 1999 evaluation, OPM noted that several problems 
identified in the previous evaluation had not been addressed and made 
further recommendations to improve the Commission's human capital 
management practices. To date, the Commission has not adopted five of 
six broader, systemic human capital recommendations from OPM's 1999 
review. For example, the Staff Director continues to retain final 
authority for approving all performance appraisal ratings and 
promotions instead of delegating that authority to managers, as 
recommended. The Commission also does not have an Inspector General, 
who can provide an additional means of oversight for federal agencies 
and commissions, nor is it required to have one.

While the Commission took some actions to address the recommendations 
in our earlier reports, our more recent reviews indicate that financial 
and management problems persist. In 1994, we made recommendations to 
improve the Commission's handling of travel activities for specific 
individuals, and the agency indicated in 1995 that it had acted on 
these recommendations. In 1997, we made recommendations to improve the 
agency's project management and accountability for daily operations. 
Although the Commission made changes in response to these 1997 
recommendations, in 2003 we found problems with the agency's project 
management similar to those found in 1997. In our October 2003 report, 
we made four additional recommendations for improving the Commission's 
management and procurement practices. Although the Commission has made 
a few changes, such as contracting with a contract and procurement 
specialist, the Staff Director disagrees with the need for most of the 
recommendations, and the agency has not adopted them.

We are including a matter for congressional consideration to strengthen 
the Commission's accountability. We are also making six recommendations 
intended to strengthen the Commission's compliance with GPRA 
requirements, management practices, and oversight.

In commenting on our draft report, the Commission did not comment on 
our 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 and human 
capital practices, asserting that these products and processes were 
appropriate and sound for an agency with a small budget and staff. 
Overall, we did not agree with the Commission's comments on our draft 
report. We continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, and 
recommendations are sound and that the implementation of our 
recommendations is needed to strengthen the Commission's management 
practices. The Commission's detailed comments and our responses to them 
are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated clarifications in the 
report as appropriate.

Background:

Established by the Civil Rights Act of 1957, the Commission is a fact-
finding agency required to report on civil rights issues. It is 
required to study the impact of federal civil rights laws and policies 
with regard to illegal discrimination or denial of equal protection of 
the laws. It must also submit at least one report annually to the 
President and the Congress that monitors federal civil rights 
enforcement efforts. Other reports may be required or issued as 
considered appropriate by the Commission, the President, or the 
Congress. The Commission serves as a national clearinghouse for 
information related to its mission. In addition, it investigates 
charges by individual citizens who claim to be deprived of their voting 
rights. The Commission may hold hearings and, within specific 
guidelines, issue subpoenas to obtain certain records and have 
witnesses appear at hearings. However, because it lacks enforcement 
powers that would enable it to apply remedies in individual cases, the 
Commission refers specific complaints to the appropriate federal, 
state, or local government agency for action.[Footnote 4]

The Commission's annual appropriation has averaged about $9 million 
since fiscal year 1995. It is currently directed by eight part-time 
Commissioners who serve 6-year terms on a staggered basis. Four 
Commissioners are appointed by the President, two by the President Pro 
Tempore of the Senate, and two by the Speaker of the House of 
Representatives. No more than four Commissioners can be of the same 
political party. With the concurrence of a majority of the Commission's 
members, the President may also designate a Chairperson or Vice 
Chairperson from among the Commissioners.

A Staff Director, who is appointed by the President with the 
concurrence of a majority of the Commissioners, oversees the daily 
operations of the Commission and manages the staff in six regional 
offices and the Washington, D.C., headquarters office. The Commission 
operates four units in its headquarters whose directors and managers 
report directly to the Staff Director: the Office of Civil Rights 
Evaluation, Office of General Counsel, Office of Management, and a 
Regional Programs Coordination Unit. As of June 2004, the Commission 
employed approximately 70 staff members, including the eight 
Commissioners and their eight assistants.

The Commission also has 51 State Advisory Committees--the minimum 
required by statute--one for each state and the District of Columbia. 
The State Advisory Committees are composed of citizens familiar with 
local and state civil rights issues. Their members serve without 
compensation and assist the Commission with its fact-finding, 
investigative, and information dissemination functions.

Planning and Reporting Requirements under GPRA:

To encourage greater efficiency, effectiveness, and accountability in 
federal programs, the Congress passed the Government Performance and 
Results Act of 1993, which requires agencies to develop and issue 
certain documents to be made available to the public and used by 
congressional decision-makers.[Footnote 5] OMB provides guidance to 
federal agencies on complying with GPRA requirements through its 
Circular A-11, which is updated annually. In addition, we have 
published guidance and reports to federal agencies on best practices 
for complying with GPRA.[Footnote 6]

Under GPRA or OMB guidance, agencies must submit the following three 
documents to the President, Congress, and OMB:[Footnote 7]

* Strategic plan. This document, which must cover a period of no less 
than 5 years from the fiscal year in which it is submitted, should be 
updated every 3 years and include the agency's mission statement and 
long-term strategic goals. Under GPRA, strategic plans are the starting 
point and basic underpinning for results-oriented management. Strategic 
goals are long-term, outcome-oriented goals aimed at accomplishing the 
agency's mission. In developing goals for their strategic plans, 
agencies are required to consult with the Congress and other 
stakeholders.

* Annual performance plan. This document sets forth the agency's annual 
performance goals, which should be linked to its strategic goals. An 
agency's annual goals provide the intermediary steps needed to reach 
its long-term strategic goals. Annual goals should be objective, 
quantifiable, and measurable. OMB guidance now directs agencies to 
include budget information in their performance plans and encourages 
agencies to align resources with annual goals.[Footnote 8] Prior to 
their submissions for fiscal year 2005, agencies were not directed to 
associate program costs in this way.

* Annual performance report. This document provides information on an 
agency's actual performance for the previous fiscal year. This report 
should provide information on the results of its progress in meeting 
annual goals. If agencies have not met their goals, they are required 
to explain what issues are keeping them from meeting the goals and 
describe their plans for addressing these issues.

Executive Branch Oversight Responsibilities:

Several federal agencies have oversight responsibilities in relation to 
the Commission, including OMB for financial management and OPM for 
personnel management. OMB, located within the Executive Office of the 
President, is responsible for preparing and implementing the 
President's annual budget and for providing guidance to agencies on how 
to comply with GPRA.[Footnote 9] OPM is the central personnel 
management agency of the federal government charged with administering 
and enforcing federal civil service laws, regulations, and rules. OPM 
is also required to establish and maintain an oversight program to 
ensure that agencies comply with pertinent laws, regulations, and 
policies.[Footnote 10]

Oversight can also be provided by an Inspector General. The Inspector 
General Act of 1978 provides for Offices of Inspector General to serve 
as independent, objective offices within certain federal departments or 
agencies to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness as well as 
prevent and detect fraud and abuse.[Footnote 11] Agencies that do not 
have their own Office of Inspector General can obtain Inspector General 
services from other federal agencies.[Footnote 12]

The Commission Has Not Fully Complied with Key GPRA Requirements:

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 
1997, as required under GPRA, and its most recent annual performance 
plan and report contain weaknesses that limit the Commission's ability 
to effectively manage its operations and communicate its performance.

The Commission Has Not Updated Its Strategic Plan Since 1997:

The Commission has not updated or revised its strategic plan since 
fiscal year 1997 and has missed two scheduled submissions required 
under GPRA. According to GPRA and OMB guidance, the Commission should 
have submitted, updated, and revised its strategic plan in fiscal years 
2000 and 2003. The 2003 revision should have covered the period through 
at least fiscal year 2008. Commission officials told us that the agency 
is working on developing an updated strategic plan and intends to 
submit it to OMB by Fall 2004. However, while they were in the process 
of revising their strategic plan as of June 2004, critical actions, 
such as consulting with the Congress as required by the act, have not 
yet occurred, according to Commission officials.

Because it has not updated or revised its strategic plan, the 
Commission has not reexamined its strategic goals since 1997 to affirm 
their ongoing significance to the agency's overall mission. The 
Commission has not determined if changes to its strategic goals are 
warranted due to factors such as external circumstances or not meeting 
its annual goals. In addition, because the Commission has not updated 
its strategic plan, its strategic goals also are not informed by a 
current analysis of the Commission's purpose and work. Without 
revisiting its strategic goals, the Commission does not have a firm 
basis on which to develop its annual goals. The Commission continues to 
rely on strategic goals from 1997 to formulate its current annual 
goals.

Without a current strategic plan the Commission also lacks a key tool 
for communicating with the Congress, the public, and its own staff, 
including informing them of the significance of its work. In addition 
to serving as a document for external use, the strategic plan can be 
used as a management tool and, according to OMB guidance, should 
outline the process for communicating goals and strategies throughout 
the agency and for assigning accountability to managers and staff for 
achievement of the agency's goals.

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

The Commission's most recent performance plan, for fiscal year 2005, 
includes several program activities that are referred to as goals; 
however, it is unclear how these activities will help the agency 
achieve its strategic goals or accomplish its mission. For example, the 
plan lists 14 fact-finding projects, each of which has as many as 5 
annual goals.[Footnote 13] Many of these goals, however, are 
activities, such as holding a public hearing or publishing a report. 
Similarly, one of the goals in the plan is for each of the Commission's 
State Advisory Committees to focus on regular meetings in fiscal year 
2005 and on completing their projects. However, this goal is not linked 
to achieving the agency's strategic goal to enhance the Committees' 
ability to monitor civil rights in the United States.

In addition, the annual performance plan does not contain all elements 
required under GPRA. The plan does not provide information on how the 
Commission will pursue and accomplish the annual performance goals laid 
out in its plan. Performance plans must include descriptions of how an 
agency's annual goals are to be achieved, including the resources and 
strategies required to meet the goals. However, the Commission's fiscal 
year 2005 plan does not discuss the strategies or resources needed to 
achieve its goals. For example, according to the performance plan, the 
Commission will update its Civil Rights Directory, but the plan does 
not indicate which offices will be responsible or describe the 
strategies and resources needed to carry out this task.

The Commission's performance plan for fiscal year 2005 also does not 
include budgetary information in accordance with OMB guidance. Instead 
of associating the cost of its programs with specific annual goals, the 
plan includes a single amount for its total operations. The potential 
problems stemming from the Commission's failure to associate costs with 
specific annual goals or break down its budget request by goal may be 
exacerbated by the large gap between the Commission's budget requests 
and its actual appropriations. Since 1999, the Commission's 
appropriations have averaged approximately 26 percent less than the 
amount requested. For fiscal year 2004, the Commission based its annual 
performance plan on a budget request of $15.2 million, but its 
appropriation for that year totaled only $9.1 million.

In addition, the Commission has consistently not revised its annual 
performance plans to reflect its actual appropriations and illustrate 
the impact on its annual goals. Although agencies are not required to 
revise their plans to reflect actual appropriations under GPRA, the 
fact that the Commission's plans are based upon a budget that is so 
much larger than its actual appropriations limits the plans' usefulness 
in detailing how the agency will achieve its annual goals and in 
assessing the impact of appropriations decisions on its planned 
performance.

Furthermore, the Commission's annual performance plan for fiscal year 
2005 does not provide the performance indicators to be used in 
measuring achievement of each annual goal. According to GPRA, an 
agency's performance plan shall include performance indicators to be 
used in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service levels, 
and outcomes of each program activity, and provide a basis for 
comparing actual program results with annual goals. For some annual 
goals--particularly those related to promoting greater public 
awareness, assisting individuals in protecting their civil rights, and 
enhancing the capacity of the State Advisory Committees--the 
performance plan does not have any performance indicators. For example, 
the performance plan states that, in fiscal year 2005, the Commission 
will develop and implement a coordinated multimedia public service 
announcement campaign designed to educate the public about important 
civil rights matters and discourage discrimination while promoting 
tolerance. However, the plan does not describe measures that can be 
used to evaluate the attainment of this goal in terms of outputs, such 
as the number of public service announcements, or outcomes, such as 
increased awareness of civil rights matters.

In the annual performance plan, the Commission does not adequately 
describe how it will verify and validate the performance measures used 
to assess the accomplishment of its annual goals. GPRA requires 
agencies to submit information on how they plan to verify and validate 
the performance measures used to assess the accomplishment of their 
annual goals. This requirement helps to ensure that their assessments 
are valid, reliable, and credible. The Commission's fiscal year 2005 
plan includes a general description of its verification and validation 
processes, but it does not specify the evaluation methods to be used or 
identify the limitations or constraints of these methods. For example, 
the plan states that, in assessing the outcomes achieved through 
issuance of its reports, the Commission may conduct follow-up meetings 
with affected agencies, congressional committees, and other interested 
organizations. However, the plan does not describe how these groups 
will be selected, the data to be collected, how the data will be 
assessed, or who will be responsible for conducting these meetings or 
collecting and assessing the data.

The Commission's Annual Performance Report for Fiscal Year 2003 Does 
Not Fulfill Several GPRA Requirements and Overall Does Not Communicate 
the Commission's Performance:

Although the Commission's most recent annual performance report, for 
fiscal year 2003, describes the agency's achievements as well as 
reasons for not meeting certain goals, the report does not include 
several elements required under GPRA and provides little evidence and 
context for evaluating the agency's performance. Furthermore, many of 
the results are descriptive narratives that do not characterize the 
Commission's performance. Overall, these problems diminish the report's 
usefulness as a tool for managing the Commission's operations and 
holding the agency accountable for achieving its goals.

The performance report for fiscal year 2003 is incomplete because it 
does not account for all of the annual goals in the Commission's fiscal 
year 2003 performance plan--a fundamental GPRA requirement.[Footnote 
14] The report provides no account of the Commission's performance for 
many of the annual goals set forth in its fiscal year 2003 performance 
plan. In particular, the report does not account for the Commission's 
performance for 6 fact-finding projects--a core activity of the agency. 
For example, the fiscal year 2003 plan stated that the Commission's 
fact-finding project, "Media Role in Civil Rights," would accomplish 
four goals, including having a public event, yet the performance report 
provides no account of this project or any description of the agency's 
progress in meeting these goals.

Furthermore, while the report includes results for other annual goals, 
the information provided for many of these goals is incomplete or 
ambiguous. For example, the Commission's environmental justice project 
has three goals: publication of a report, report dissemination, and 
formal consideration of the recommendations of the report by affected 
agencies. However, although the performance report describes the 
purpose of the environmental justice report as well as its publication 
and dissemination, the performance report does not indicate whether the 
Commission obtained any formal response to its recommendations from 
affected agencies. Similarly, the performance plan stated that each 
State Advisory Committee Chairperson or Representative would 
participate in at least one civil rights activity per year. Although 
the performance report includes extensive narrative describing the work 
of the State Advisory Committees, it does not indicate whether this 
goal had been achieved.

The Commission's performance report also does not provide the relevant 
data needed to assess the achievement of its annual goals. Under GPRA, 
performance reports must include 3 years of actual performance data in 
describing the agency's progress in achieving its goals. While the 
performance report includes 3 years of performance data for one goal 
from its fiscal year 2003 performance plan, for the remaining goals, 
the report does not include 3 years of data, or the data are not 
relevant for assessment. For example, the performance report includes 
data describing the type and number of complaints received in fiscal 
year 2003 and for the 3 prior years. However, the report does not 
include data--such as the amount of time it took to respond to 
complaints--that could be used to assess whether the Commission met its 
goal of responding in a timely manner.

Moreover, the fiscal year 2003 performance report provides no plans, 
schedules, or recommendations for addressing each of the Commission's 
unmet goals. GPRA states that, when an annual goal is not achieved, the 
agency must describe why, outline plans or schedules for achieving the 
goal, and if the goal was determined to be impractical, describe why 
that was the case and what action is recommended. While the report 
explains why some goals were not met, it does not provide plans, 
schedules, or recommendations for addressing these unmet goals. For 
example, the performance report states that, due to limited resources, 
the Commission was unable to track its referrals to federal enforcement 
agencies to ensure that civil rights complaints were received and 
appropriately processed. However, the report does not provide any 
detail on whether it would continue to pursue this goal, how the 
Commission plans to meet this goal in the future, or what actions could 
be taken to help the Commission meet this goal, such as obtaining 
assistance from other federal agencies in maintaining accessible and 
relevant records.

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

In recent years, OMB and OPM have provided budgetary and human capital 
management oversight for the Commission. OMB's oversight of the 
Commission focuses primarily on the budgetary process. In providing 
oversight of its human capital management, OPM conducted reviews and 
made recommendations to the Commission in the 1990s to improve the 
Commission's human capital management and overall management. In 
response, although the Commission implemented some of the recommended 
changes, many issues that OPM raised in 1996 continued to be of concern 
in 1999. Although an Inspector General can provide an additional means 
of oversight for agencies and independent commissions, the Commission 
does not have an Inspector General and is not required to have one.

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

OMB's oversight of the Commission is primarily budgetary, according to 
OMB officials. In the fall of each fiscal year, OMB is responsible for 
reviewing the Commission's annual performance plan, budget request, 
apportionment request, and annual performance report.[Footnote 15] 
Before the Commission's budget request is due, OMB provides the 
Commission with guidance and updated information on the submission of 
GPRA documents. With regard to the annual performance plan, OMB 
generally reviews the long-term goals and performance measures used to 
determine the Commission's performance in meeting its goals. OMB also 
reviews the Commission's budget request as part of its role in 
developing the President's budget. While OMB reviews the Commission's 
annual performance plans and budget requests, according to OMB 
officials, it does not approve or reject these documents, but 
acknowledges their receipt and sends comments back to the agency as 
appropriate. However, Commission officials said that OMB has not 
provided feedback on its annual performance plans in recent years. Each 
fall, OMB also receives the Commission's apportionment request, which 
describes how the Commission would like its appropriations distributed. 
According to OMB officials, once an apportionment agreement has been 
reached between the Commission and OMB, the Commission sends this 
agreement to the Treasury, which issues a warrant to release funds to 
the agency. Finally, OMB reviews the Commission's annual performance 
report to ensure that its funds are spent according to its performance 
plans and that its goals were met.

In addition to reviewing the Commission's annual budget submissions, 
OMB reviewed and approved the Commission's February 2004 request to 
reduce its personnel costs by offering voluntary separation incentive 
payments, or "buyouts," to encourage staff in certain job 
classifications to voluntarily leave their jobs. The Commission 
requested authority to offer buyouts to six employees. OMB officials 
discussed this request with Commission officials and approved the 
request in April. The Commission offered buyouts to all employees who 
had 3 or more years of government service in several job 
classifications. The Commission granted buyouts to three staff members, 
who accepted.

OMB also is responsible for providing oversight of agencies' 
management, including the Commission, but this oversight has been 
limited because of the small size of the agency and its budget, 
according to OMB officials. OMB officials told us that the agency does 
not provide the same level of oversight for organizations with small 
budgets and staff, such as the Commission, as that provided for larger 
organizations, such as the Securities and Exchange Commission. For 
example, even though the Commission does not have a current strategic 
plan, OMB has not requested an updated plan from the Commission, 
according to Commission officials. In addition, OMB officials told us 
that they have taken no actions in response to our October 2003 
findings that the Commission violated federal procurement regulations 
and lacked key management practices because the volume of purchasing by 
the Commission is far below the levels that concern OMB. For example, 
the Commission's largest contract is for less than $160,000.

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

According to OPM officials, OPM provides the Commission with human 
capital oversight through its audits of agencies' human capital 
management systems, which can be conducted on a cyclical basis every 4 
to 5 years or on request, as needed.[Footnote 16] In 1996 and 1999, OPM 
conducted two reviews of the Commission's human capital management 
systems and made recommendations in each report for improvements.

In analyzing the Commission's response to OPM reviews, we focused on 
six recommendations from OPM's 1999 report that involved systemic 
changes to the Commission's human capital management systems.[Footnote 
17] As of August 2004, the Commission had not implemented five of these 
six recommendations. Findings from these reviews included the 
following:

* In its November 1996 report, OPM's main finding was that the 
Commission was an agency "badly in need of managerial attention," 
citing the Commission's poor documentation practices, lack of credible 
grievance and performance management systems, and employees' highly 
negative perceptions of the Commission's organizational climate.

* In its October 1999 report, OPM found that, although the Commission's 
human capital management systems complied with Merit System Principles, 
its human resource practices continued to have weaknesses associated 
with accountability, delegation, recruitment, performance appraisals, 
and incentive awards. The report noted that these concerns were similar 
to the concerns OPM had identified in the earlier report. For example, 
as of 1999, the Commission had not established an internal self-
assessment program as OPM recommended in 1996. OPM made 16 
recommendations in 1999 to help the Commission improve its management 
of human resources. As of August 2004, we found that the Commission had 
not implemented five of six broader, systemic recommendations made by 
OPM. (See appendix II for descriptions of these six OPM recommendations 
and the Commission's responses.)

The Commission Lacks the Oversight of an Inspector General:

Although in the course of their reviews OMB, OPM, and GAO have 
identified continuing management and accountability problems at the 
Commission, it may not be sufficient to resolve such longstanding 
concerns through annual budgetary reviews and management reviews based 
on congressional requests or periodic audit cycles. An Inspector 
General can provide an additional means of oversight for federal 
agencies, including independent commissions and boards, but the 
Commission currently has no such oversight. Several small agencies have 
obtained such services for audits and investigations through 
memorandums of understanding with the General Services Administration. 
However, the Commission does not have an Inspector General of its own, 
nor does it obtain these services from another agency. The Staff 
Director told us that, although he has thought about the possibility of 
obtaining these services, he does not believe the Commission has the 
funds needed to obtain the services of an Inspector General.

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

Over the past decade, we reviewed the Commission's travel, management, 
and financial practices and made recommendations for improvement. The 
Commission took some actions in response to the recommendations in our 
1994 and 1997 reports. In addition, the Commission has not implemented 
three of the four recommendations in our October 2003 report. This most 
recent report included several recommendations to improve the 
Commission's management and procurement practices. The Staff Director 
issued a letter in June 2004 in response to this report disagreeing 
with most of the recommendations and describing the actions taken by 
the agency. We also interviewed Commission officials to clarify their 
responses to the recommendations in our October 2003 report.

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

Although the Commission took various actions to address the 
recommendations in our 1994 and 1997 reports, many similar problems 
persist. In 1994, we reported on problems identified in the 
Commission's handling of travel activities for specific individuals and 
made recommendations for improvement. For example, in response to our 
finding that Commissioners had not submitted travel vouchers in a 
timely manner, we recommended that the Commission direct the 
Commissioners to do so, as required by federal travel regulations. In 
1995, the Commission issued revised travelg procedures that 
incorporated our recommendation for timely filing of travel vouchers by 
the Commissioners. (As part of a separate assignment, we are currently 
reviewing the Commission's fiscal year 2003 financial transactions that 
include a review of travel-related transactions.) In 1997, we found 
numerous operational issues, reporting that the management of the 
Commission's operations lacked control and coordination; its projects 
lacked sufficient documentation; senior officials were unaware of how 
Commission funds were used and lacked control over key management 
functions; and records had been lost, misplaced, or were 
nonexistent.[Footnote 18] In the report, we made recommendations for 
specific changes to the Commission's administrative procedures and 
project management systems, and the agency took some actions in 
response. However, in 2003, we found that the actions taken did not 
fully address the problems identified in our 1997 report.

The Commission Has Not Implemented Most Recommendations from Our 2003 
Report:

In October 2003, we reported that, although the Commission had made 
some improvements in its project management procedures for 
Commissioners and staff, the procedures lacked certain key elements of 
good project management, such as providing Commissioners with project 
cost information and opportunities to contribute to Commission reports 
before they are issued. We also reported that the Commission lacked 
sufficient management control over its contracting procedures and that 
little, if any, external oversight of the Commission's financial 
activities had taken place, since no independent accounting firm had 
audited the Commission's financial statements in at least 12 
years.[Footnote 19] To address these issues, we recommended that the 
Commission:

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

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

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

4. take immediate steps to meet the financial statement preparation and 
audit requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for 
fiscal year 2004.

The Staff Director generally disagreed with these recommendations, and 
the Commission has not adopted three of them. In their June 2004 letter 
responding to our report recommendations, Commission officials asserted 
that the first two recommendations were a matter of internal policy to 
be decided by the Commissioners.[Footnote 20] In addition, they 
disagreed with the need for the third recommendation and asserted that 
they were taking steps to address the last recommendation. Although 
they disagreed with the third recommendation, the Commission hired a 
contracting and procurement specialist starting in December 2003 to 
provide supplemental services, and the Staff Director acknowledged that 
the Commission could improve in this area. As of September 16, 2004, 
the Commission had yet to contract with an independent auditor to 
prepare for meeting the requirements of the Accountability of Tax 
Dollars Act of 2002.[Footnote 21] (See appendix III for further details 
on the Commission's responses to these recommendations.)

Conclusion:

With its history of management problems, the Commission faces 
significant challenges. Strategic planning is not a static or 
occasional event. Instead, it is a dynamic and inclusive process that, 
if done well, is integral to an organization's entire operations. By 
not devoting the time and resources required to update its strategic 
plan, the Commission has no assurance that it is pursuing long-term 
goals that reflect the needs of its key stakeholders and that address 
the many management challenges presented by the shifting external and 
internal environments in which it operates. Furthermore, the Commission 
lacks a foundation to use in aligning its daily activities, operations, 
and resources to support its mission and achieve its goals. Without 
using the GPRA planning process to periodically reexamine its long-term 
goals and set its course, the Commission is not in a strong position to 
set relevant annual goals or develop measures for assessing whether it 
has achieved them. Given the consistent shortfall between the 
Commission's annual budget requests and its appropriations over the 
past decade, it is even more important for the Commission to chart a 
strategic course that is realistic.

Although the Commission has improved some policies and practices in 
response to recommendations from OPM and GAO, the problems that remain 
are still cause for concern, particularly given the lingering nature of 
the Commission's management difficulties. Unless the Commission 
systematically monitors its implementation of OPM's and GAO's 
recommendations, it is not likely that it will significantly improve 
its management and human capital management systems. Finally, annual 
budgetary and other reviews based on periodic cycles or specific 
requests may not be sufficient to address longstanding concerns about 
the Commission's management and accountability. Because the Commission 
does not have an Inspector General, it does not appear likely that it 
will have the additional independent oversight needed to address 
management problems that others have identified and to hold itself 
accountable for resolving them.

Matter for Congressional Consideration:

To strengthen the Commission's accountability, the Congress should 
consider legislation directing the Commission to obtain the services of 
an existing Inspector General at another agency.

Recommendations for Executive Action:

To strengthen the Commission's management practices, we recommend that 
the Commission:

* update its 5-year strategic plan according to GPRA's required 
schedule and include all elements required under GPRA and OMB guidance;

* ensure that future annual performance plans include all elements 
required under GPRA and OMB guidance, reflect funding levels requested 
in the President's Budget, and are revised if necessary to reflect 
actual appropriations;

* ensure that annual performance reports include all elements required 
under GPRA;

* implement all of the recommendations in OPM's and GAO's previous 
reports;

* include the status of the Commission's efforts to implement OPM's and 
GAO's recommendations in its GPRA plans and reports; and:

* seek the services of an existing Inspector General from another 
agency to help keep the Commission and the Congress informed of 
problems and deficiencies and to conduct and supervise necessary audits 
and investigations.

Agency Comments:

We provided a draft of this report to the Commission for comment. The 
Commission's formal comments and our responses are contained in 
appendix I.

In responding to our draft report, the Commission did not comment on 
our recommendations and disagreed with most of our findings and 
conclusions. We have carefully reviewed the Commission's concerns and 
overall do not agree with its comments on our findings and conclusions. 
For example, the Commission disagreed with our GPRA findings, asserting 
that its GPRA processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its 
size. The Commission also asserted that, as a small agency, it was not 
cost-effective or efficient for it to institute its own accountability 
system for managing its human resources, as OPM had recommended. The 
Commission similarly cited its small size in asserting that it would be 
an "extreme" challenge to institute our October 2003 report 
recommendations. We disagree with these assertions. The Commission's 
size is not relevant here: Size does not mitigate the need for the 
Commission to address longstanding management and human capital 
problems identified in previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, 
instead of implying that it is acceptable for the Commission as a small 
agency to operate under diminished expectations for GPRA compliance, 
the Commission could make use of GPRA's planning and reporting 
framework to strengthen itself as an agency. For example, the 
Commission could use GPRA's planning framework to update and sharpen 
its goals, clearly identify the strategies and resources needed to 
achieve those goals, and improve its management and human capital 
practices. The Commission could then also use GPRA's reporting 
framework to demonstrate the progress it has made towards achieving 
those goals.

In addition to providing these comments, the Commission criticized our 
approach to our work, asserting that the draft report contained 
inaccurate and incomplete analyses and that we rushed to complete the 
report within an artificially constrained timeline. We strongly 
disagree. At all times, we scoped, designed, and conducted this 
engagement in accordance with applicable professional standards and our 
quality assurance requirements. Furthermore, many of the Commission's 
comments about how we conducted our work were themselves misleading and 
inaccurate. For example, we did not suddenly and drastically change our 
focus, as the Commission asserted. In our May 2004 entrance conference 
with the agency, we noted our specific focus on certain areas, 
including the Commission's GPRA products and the agency's actions in 
response to OPM and GAO recommendations. Our focus on oversight of the 
Commission and GPRA requirements remained consistent throughout the 
assignment. As we designed our work, we formulated our objectives and 
methodologies more specifically, and we shared our refocused objectives 
with the Commission when we completed the design phase of our work in 
July. We therefore continue to believe that our findings, conclusions, 
and recommendations are sound. The Commission's detailed comments and 
our responses to them are reproduced in appendix I. We incorporated 
clarifications in the report as appropriate.

Unless you publicly announce its contents earlier, we plan no further 
distribution until 30 days after the date of this letter. At that time, 
we will send copies of this report to the U.S. Commission on Civil 
Rights and other interested parties. We will also make copies available 
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no 
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

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

Signed by: 

Robert E. Robertson: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:

[End of section]

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

Note: GAO comments supplementing those in the report text appear at the 
end of this appendix.

UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS: 
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20425:

OFFICE OF STAFF DIRECTOR:

September 16, 2004:

Mr. Robert Robertson: 
Director:
Education, Workforce, and Income Security Division: 
U.S. General Accounting Office:
441 G Street, N.W., Room 5A14: 
Washington, D.C. 20548:

Dear Mr. Robertson:

This letter is in response to the draft report prepared by GAO. We 
appreciate the opportunity to respond to the report and found some of 
its suggestions helpful, which we will study more carefully in our 
ongoing efforts to ensure that Commission operations run smoothly and 
efficiently. We also appreciate the professional attitude that you and 
your team staff displayed in interacting with Commission staff.

We disagree, however, with much of the draft report. Significant parts 
are inaccurate and contain incomplete analyses. This appears to be the 
result of a lack of thoroughness in GAO's examination of the 
Commission's oversight and strategic planning. This may be the result 
of GAO rushing to complete a report-any report-by a certain date in 
September, rather than being free to take whatever time was needed to 
design and engage in thorough fact finding to ensure a quality report.

We note that at the initial entrance interview in May, your team had 
indicated it would be examining three major areas: 1) organizational 
structure and mission of the Commission; 2) management matters, 
including strategic planning approaches, criteria for setting 
priorities in research projects, means of assuring quality during 
research design, and quality assurance methods for published reports; 
and 3) oversight of the Commission, including interactions with OMB and 
OPM, as well as steps the agency has taken in response to prior GAO and 
OPM recommendations. Toward that goal, GAO identified people that it 
wanted to interview, and GAO interviewed some staff, including me 
several times. GAO also asked for various documents, which we provided 
expeditiously. At all times, we cooperated with GAO fully. After 
examining documents and information in all three areas, however, on 
July 22 GAO suddenly notified us that its scope of examination had been 
drastically reduced and split into two phases. GAO's immediate 
examination was reduced to covering only the third area and part of the 
second, regarding strategic planning. Examination of the remaining 
areas would resume in October. The one thing that did not change was 
that the report was due to the Congressional requestors by late 
September. Based on GAO's comments on July 22, it is apparent that the 
decision to split the current report into two phases was driven by a 
need to finish a report by a certain date in September, rather than by 
a sound business decision. The separation of issues is artificial, and 
neither did GAO's comments on July 22 or anything in the draft report 
provide any reference or explanation of this matter to indicate 
otherwise.

Nor does the report explain why it was imperative to conclude the 
examination and produce a report in only five months,' which caused GAO 
to rush through its examination and prevented it from being able to 
engage our staff more thoroughly and obtain follow-up answers to 
whatever questions GAO may have had. Based on the entrance interview, 
we expected GAO to talk to many additional people on the staff, as well 
as the Commissioners to ensure a thorough examination of the issues. 
However, GAO spoke to only a small number of Commission personnel. 
While, on one hand, the Commission is grateful that the disruption to 
Commission work was thus more limited than we had anticipated, this is 
small consolation when the result is a less thorough and accurate 
report.

Below are the Commission's substantive responses.

Response to Prior GAO Recommendations:

Contrary to the assertions in the draft report, the Commission has 
implemented or engaged in implementing all of the four recommendations 
contained in the 2003 report. There is no disagreement about the first 
recommendation regarding strengthening the Commission's contracts and 
procurement activities. The draft report acknowledges that the 
Commission has addressed that recommendation and that the Commission 
establish greater controls over its contracting activities.

Regarding the second recommendation that the Commission take steps in 
order to meet the financial statement preparation and audit 
requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act, the draft report 
is incorrect in stating that the Commission has not taken any action. 
On the contrary, the Commission has taken various steps to meet the 
financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the 
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004. As 
explained to GAO, the Commission had requested several months ago that 
its accounting firm and procurement specialist contractor develop a 
scope of work and auditing schedule. As the Commission is relatively 
quite small, the agency's accounting firm has advised that the 
Commission is still well within the timeframe to meet the November 15, 
2004 deadline requirement under the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act. 
The Commission is on the verge of contracting an auditor to perform the 
audit. Both our accounting firm and we remain confident that the 
auditing report will be completed on schedule as required by the Act.

[1] In the past year and a half, GAO has conducted 3 examinations of 
the Commission. In 2003, GAO took ten months to complete just one 
investigation. This year GAO is spending only five months to conduct 
two separate but concurrent examinations of the agency.

Regarding the third recommendation that the Commission adopt procedures 
that provide for increased commissioner involvement in project 
implementation and report preparation, the draft report states that I 
have not implemented this recommendation. This is not true. I explained 
in one of my interviews the steps the Commission had taken to implement 
this recommendation. When GAO staff opined at the exit interview that 
the Commission had not implemented this recommendation, I reiterated my 
explanation. At that time, GAO requested supporting documentation, and 
we responded expeditiously by providing copies of relevant Commission 
meeting transcripts and memoranda. The documents showed that subsequent 
to GAO's 2003 report, the Commissioners requested that I provide them 
with suggested changes regarding the role and relationship between 
Commissioners and staff on reports. I did so in a written memorandum 
detailing the reasoning behind my suggestions and brought this matter 
up for discussion at the February 20, 2004 Commission meeting. However, 
the Commissioner who appeared to be most engaged in this issue, opined 
without objection from the other Commissioners, that that meeting was 
not the appropriate forum to discuss this issue. Because the 
Commissioners decided not to take any action, at least for the time 
being, we have continued to follow longstanding Commission policy on 
Commissioner-staff interaction, as memorialized in memoranda dating 
back to the mid 1980s, which were previously produced to GAO.

As explained to GAO previously, under the Commission's authorizing 
statute, the ei Commissioners have the authority to set Commission 
policy, such as that on Commissioner and staff interaction. While GAO 
may make recommendations regarding Commission policies, policy decision 
responsibility and power rests legally and logically with the 
Commissioners, who have the experience and expertise in matters 
concerning the Commission. There is absolutely no requirement that the 
judgment of the Commissioners, as reflected in longstanding Commission 
policy, must be wholly substituted with the subjective judgment of GAO 
on policy decision matters. At most, the recommendation can only 
properly be viewed as one asking that the Commissioners consider 
implementing GAO's policy suggestions, which the Commissioners have 
done.

Regarding the fourth recommendation that the Commission monitor the 
adequacy and timeliness of project cost information provided to the 
commissioners, the draft report claims the Commission has not adopted 
this recommendation. Again, this is not true. We have given the 
Commissioners the project cost information that they, as a body, have 
asked for and have made efforts to monitor the adequacy and timeliness 
of the information given. As the draft report states, since the last 
quarter of fiscal year 2003, staff has been providing the Commissioners 
with project and cost center cost reports every quarter in accordance 
with procedures agreed to by the Commissioners. Since staff is occupied 
with many other duties and cost information for a quarter cannot be 
compiled immediately, the Commissioners agreed that cost information 
for one quarter would be due at the end of the following quarter. Yet 
the draft report somehow alleges as a deficiency the fact that the cost 
report for the second quarter ending March 31, 2004 of fiscal year 2004 
was not sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004. In accordance 
with agreed upon procedures, the second quarter cost reports were due 
on June 30, 2004. The implication that they were late and provided 
only upon Commissioner request is, therefore, false. In addition, the 
draft report cites that cost reports were provided for only eight of 12 
projects outlined in the Commission's fiscal year 2004 performance 
plan. However, that is because the four other projects were either 
already completed or work had not yet begun at the time of the cost 
report, which tracks only costs of ongoing projects. If GAO had been 
able to take the time to talk to or follow-up with us on these issues, 
rather than rushing to issue a draft report, these types of errors 
would have easily been avoided.

Response to Prior OPM Recommendations:

The conclusions in the draft report regarding the Commission's response 
to OPM's 1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. We 
disagree with the conclusions in part because the process of examining 
the Commission's responses to prior OPM recommendations was flawed. GAO 
engaged in only limited conversations with the Director of Human 
Resources and in only limited examination of documents. GAO did not 
engage in any follow-up with the Director of Human Resources to express 
concerns and also did not speak to anyone else other than her, although 
a number of the recommendations related to other employees. Until we 
saw the draft report, GAO had not indicated to the Director of Human 
Resources or to anyone else on the Commission that it had concerns in 
this area.

We disagree with the draft report's findings that the Commission has 
"made limited improvements" in response to previous OPM 
recommendations. As the draft report notes, OPM made 16 recommendations 
in its 1999 report to help the Commission improve its management 
resources. The draft report does not dispute that the Commission 
complied with 11 of those recommendations. For some inexplicable 
reason, however, GAO has arbitrarily decided that only six of those 16 
recommendations were "major" ones that the report should focus on. GAO 
did not ask the agency Director of Human Resources her evaluation of 
the recommendations. GAO also never raised to her its decision to 
elevate six recommendations over the others. We learned of this 
decision for the first time only when we saw the draft report.

There is no rational basis for GAO's distinction. For example, there is 
no logical basis as to why the following OPM recommendations, to name a 
few, are less "systemic" and "less important" than the six discussed by 
GAO:

Assess whether current awards practices are helping the Commission to 
improve individual and organizational effectiveness.

Provide employees with qualitative and quantitative analyses that will 
illustrate for them how awards are linked to performance.

Conduct a new assessment of employee and organizational needs for 
training and develop a strategy for planning and funding critical needs 
training.

Give careful consideration to upgrading Commission technologies. Not 
only will this create a better work environment and enable staff to 
perform the work of the agency more efficiently, effectively, and 
timely, but in the long run it will lead to improved productivity and 
morale.

By focusing on only certain judgmentally chosen recommendations, the 
overall accomplishments of the Commission are ignored and minimized. 
There is no apparent rationale for doing so other than as an attempt to 
cast the agency in a bad light.

Regardless, even among the five remaining recommendations, the 
Commission has implemented most of those where appropriate for an 
agency of the Commission's nature. In arriving at its conclusions that 
the Commission has not implemented recommendations, the draft report 
fails to take into account the unique nature of the Commission's small 
size, and misapprehends the significance of actions taken by the 
Commission. Thus, for example OPM recommended:

Delegate human resources management authorities to managers in all 
program areas. Hold managers accountable for exercising the delegations 
through the Human Resources Management Accountability System.

GAO states that the Commission has not implemented this recommendation. 
This is inaccurate. Personnel action decisions in larger agencies are 
rarely delegated to simply one person, even when authority is delegated 
to different offices or departments. This is because delegating such 
decisions to simply one person is often bad practices. Thus, there is 
often a system of second-line review or consultation put in place. 
Since the Commission is so small, with fewer than 70 persons, there are 
no intermediate levels of management to provide such a review within 
the Commission's various offices. As a result, the Staff Director 
serves as the second line supervisor. While the Staff Director may 
review decisions made by the managers, great deference is given to 
managers in making final human resource decisions, except when decision 
affects the balance or equities among offices.

Thus, contrary to the implication in the draft report, human resources 
management authorities have indeed been delegated to managers in most 
program areas. Managers are allowed to recruit and select candidates. 
This is the case with most human resources decisions, including within 
job classification promotions and performance ratings. Managers and 
supervisors are given OPM's HRM Accountability System Development Guide 
as a framework for personnel decisionmaking, and an internal Operating 
Manual has been issued to all them giving guidance in all areas of 
human resources, which include: recruiting, training, processing SF-
52's, creating crediting plans and job analysis, writing position 
descriptions, and many other areas. Again, had GAO not been required to 
rush to issue its report, it could have followed up with either myself 
or the Director of Human Resources to get a complete and accurate 
picture of our processes.

Another example of GAO misunderstanding the significance of OPM's 
recommendations and the Commission's responses is reflected in the 
draft report's discussion of the following OPM recommendation:

Use OPM's Human Resource Management Accountability System Development 
Guide as a framework for creating an accountability system that will 
ensure that the Commission's employees are used efficiently and 
effectively and that personnel actions are taken in accordance with 
Merit System Principles in support of agency mission accomplishment.

The draft report states that it found little evidence of the 
development and implementation of an accountability system. That is not 
true. As a preliminary matter, the draft report neglects to note that 
in its 1999 oversight report of the Commission, OPM they stated that:

delegated examining is conducted infrequently, but is done so in 
accordance with the merit system principles, the Veterans' Preference 
Act, and OPM's delegated examining requirements. Merit Promotion and 
internal placements are processed in accordance with Merit System 
Principles. Competition is fair and open.

Thus, the Commission was already taking actions in accordance with 
Merit System Principles. While OPM may have made a recommendation for 
additional improvement of the Commission's personnel processes, those 
basic processes were already sound. As a consequence, in terms of 
allocating the Commission's limited resources and attention to 
addressing any actual operational problems, there was no real need to 
implement this recommendation, since Commission operations were good. 
In addition, it is entirely appropriate to rely primarily on OPM's 
Human Resource Management Accountability System, as redesigning and 
instituting its own system is not cost-effective or efficient for such 
a small agency as the Commission. Again, had GAO not been in a rush, it 
could have gained a more accurate understanding of this issue.

As stated to GAO, Commission managers are using OPM's Guide as a 
framework for accountability. Moreover, as noted in the draft report, 
several key sections of the agency's Administrative Instructions have 
been updated since OPM's 1999 review, implementing key elements from 
the Guide. In choosing to nonetheless take steps towards building upon 
already sound processes, the Commission's response to those 
recommendations was not only entirely appropriate but should be 
commended, rather than dismissed.

The same type of misunderstanding is evidenced in the draft report's 
discussion of the following OPM recommendation:

Include human resources goals, measures, and indicators in the 
Commission Strategic Plan and involve Commission staff in the human 
resource planning and measurement process.

The draft report claims that the Commission has not addressed this 
recommendation as a result of not updating its strategic plan under 
GPRA. As stated in our 1999 response to OPM, the Commission 
incorporated appropriate human resources goals, measures, and 
indicators in the Commission's Strategic Plan under goal six "Improve 
the Management Accountability, and Productivity of the Commission." 
Objective 2 under that goal states "Provide a model work environment 
for a diverse staff that encourages productivity, equal opportunity 
and high morale." As the criticism of the Commission's implemention of 
this recommendation is based on a critique of the agency's GPRA 
processes made elsewhere in the draft report, it is redundant and 
particularly unfair. We address that critique more in-depth below, 
explaining that the Commission's GPRA plans and goals were designed and 
implemented only after consultation with OMB, Congress, stakeholders, 
and other agencies and are not deficient. As a very small agency with 
a budget of approximately only $9 million, the Commission's strategic 
plan is appropriate for the agency's size. Thus, given that human 
resources goals are indeed incorporated into the Commission's current 
strategic plan, it is inaccurate to say that the Commission has not 
addressed this recommendation.

Finally, regarding OPM recommendations:

Develop a system for periodically collecting employee feedback 
regarding human resources services and policies. Incorporate that 
feedback in the Human Resources Management Accountability System, and:

With employee involvement, consider developing a new performance 
management system linked to organizational and agency goals established 
under the Commission's Strategic Plan,

the Commission is engaged in continuing efforts to address these 
recommendations. However, we do believe these recommendations are valid 
and will initiate further efforts to institutionalize a system of 
collecting employee feedback. Since OPM will be conducting its own 
survey of the Commission this fall, we have decided to continue 
developing and refining our own survey system for later implementation. 
This will include holding discussions with the local employee union to 
gain its input in developing an appropriate system.

Also, as a small agency with limited resources, the Commission must 
prioritize improvement efforts. Because of budgetary constraints, the 
agency has not yet been able to make as much progress on these 
recommendations as it would have liked. Thus, the Commission has not 
been able to begin implementing a new performance management system. 
However, with the issuance of the new OPM standards for senior 
executive service performance, our Human Resources Division now has 
some additional guidance on linking performance to organizational 
goals. If resources are increased in the new fiscal year, this will aid 
the Commission in its intent to initiate this project.

Commission GPRA Processes:

The Commission is a firm believer in the value of GPRA and adheres to 
its spirit, as well as to its substantive requirements. However, 
because of the reduced staffing levels of such a small agency as the 
Commission, we are unable to dedicate full-time personnel and/or entire 
offices towards implementing and administering GPRA as is done in 
larger agencies. Rather, implementation and administration of GPRA 
within the Commission is the result of part-time efforts of various 
individuals who have other core responsibilities. Thus, evaluations of 
the Commission's GPRA processes must take into consideration the 
surrounding context and be approppriate to an agency of its size.

With respect to the draft report's examination of the Commission's GPRA 
processes, we believe the analysis lacks balance and context. The draft 
report cites the Commission's GPRA strategic plan, performance plan, 
and performance reports for a number of alleged deficiencies. However, 
the Commission's strategic and initial performance plans were prepared 
in accordance with consultations with the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) and Congress. At the time the GPRA requirements were first 
implemented, the Commission's Director of Congressional Affairs and 
Director of Budget and Finance had several meetings with OMB oversight 
personnel and the Commission's Congressional oversight committee to 
ensure a proper and adequate design of the agency's strategic and 
performance plans. In the process of developing its GPRA processes, the 
Commission also reviewed GPRA plans for the Department of Justice and 
the Agency for International Development. In addition, the Commission's 
GPRA plan was presented to and discussed with stakeholders, including 
the agency union AFSME Local 2478-and executive staff and regional 
directors.

The Commission's GPRA processes as they currently exist, were 
coordinated with OMB. In meetings with OMB representatives at the time 
GPRA was first enacted, they provided the Commission with specific 
guidance on the agency's GPRA initiative. These included but were not 
limited to: (a) defining the mission of the Commission, (b) mating the 
Commission's mission statement with an impact statement, (c) 
eliminating non-essential items from the Commission's GPRA processes, 
(d) relating Commission mission statements to goals, (e) developing how 
goals and objectives would be achieved, and (f) using follow-up as a 
measure of output. These guidances were eventually incorporated into 
the Commission's strategic and performance plans and reports.

Thus, while the draft report cites the Commission for not fully 
including, for example, performance indicators in the agency's plans 
and reports, some of the Commission's goals are so basic, such as 
"studying allegations of denials of civil rights and equal protection 
of the laws," the main evaluation of the goal is quite straightforward, 
i.e., whether or not the studies were performed. The Commission's GPRA 
reports clearly list what studies have been accomplished and provide a 
detailed description of each. Although the responses may not be under a 
technical heading of "performance indicators," they provide equivalent 
information.

As previously explained to GAO, the Commission, by statute, has no 
enforcement power, has no regulatory powers, and does not administer 
any programs distributing benefits to the public. The agency has only 
investigatory powers, and a large part of its work is devoted to 
producing reports resulting from its investigations, as well as 
producing and distributing other civil rights informational materials 
to the public. Thus, OMB provided guidance on eliminating nonessential 
items from the Commission's processes. During the discussion of the 
design of the Commission's performance plans and reports, OMB agreed 
with the Commission's assessment that it would be very difficult to 
design a plan and report that quantify the results and impact of the 
Commission's work. This is an issue that is mentioned in each of the 
Commission's annual reports. Thus, while it is true that the "outcome" 
of reports and projects are not quantifiable, OMB Circular A-11 clearly 
contemplates "non-quantified measures," which the Commission provides. 
The annual report describes examples of legislative, media, judicial, 
and other impacts that Commission reports and activities have made.

In addition, the Commission is a small agency with a budget of under 
$20 million dollars and is thus eligible for a waiver of GPRA reporting 
requirements, which have been extended to many other federal agencies 
with budgets under $20 million dollars. Given the nature of the 
Commission's work and its small size and budget, the Commission's GPRA 
processes do comply with the material requirements that OMB expects of 
such agencies. The Commission has faithfully compiled and filed its 
annual performance plans and reports every year under GPRA as required 
since its enactment. In reviewing the agency's GPRA plans and reports, 
OMB has never offered the Commission any criticism of its GPRA 
processes, and nor, for that matter, has Congress.

This lack of criticism extends to the Commission's strategic plan. As 
stated previously to GAO, the Commission's strategic plan is based on 
its authorizing statute, which specifically delineates the agency's 
purpose, duties, and goals. That authorizing statute has not changed 
during the entire period that GPRA has been in effect. As a result, the 
Commission has found its original GPRA strategic plan relevant and 
applicable through the current period. Despite the draft report's 
assertion that the Commission has not updated its strategic plan, there 
is no requirement under GPRA to change the agency's strategic plan if 
it continues to be appropriate. Neither OMB nor Congress has never 
indicated to us that they consider the Commission's strategic plan as 
inappropriate or in need of change.

In fact, OMB agreed with our initial overall approach and provided 
comments and markup to our strategic plan in 1997, when GPRA was first 
implemented. More specifically, OMB provided the Commission with 
individual expertise on GPRA. The OMB expert provided a full day of 
review, discussion, and guidance on strategic and performance plans, 
the results of which are:

incorporated into the agency's existing plans:

The draft report seems to imply that OMB has ignored the Commission due 
to its relatively very small size and budget and has thus been somewhat 
deficient or lacking in its oversight. We do not view OMB's role as 
such, however, but believe that OMB has taken an active role in helping 
guide and shape the Commission's GPRA processes so that they are 
appropriate for an agency of the Commission's nature and size. In fact, 
the Commission has been in recent contact with OMB to discuss further 
streamlining and modification of GPRA requirements imposed upon the 
Commission in order to eliminate further nonessential requirements, so 
as to ease reporting burdens on the agency due to the ever decreasing 
real budget and size of the Commission since GPRA was first enacted.

Conclusion:

Contrary to the assertions in the draft report, the Commission has 
adequately responded to previous recommendations made by OPM and GAO. 
The Commission's personnel and GPRA processes are also appropriate and 
sound for an agency the size of the Commission. The draft report 
contains many inaccuracies and incomplete analyses, partly as a result 
of the rushed nature of GAO's investigation. The artificially 
constrained timeline imposed upon GAO and the Commission prevented a 
thorough and complete investigation of the Commission's processes, thus 
compromising its accuracy and limiting its usefulness.

While there is always room for improvement of operations at any agency, 
and we welcome some of the suggestions provided in the draft report, 
they would require the Commission to spend monies already marked for 
other important and core priorities in its current $9 million budget. 
As noted in our response to GAO's 2003 report on the Commission, 
Commission funding over the past years has greatly constrained the 
agency's ability to incur any additional, new expenses. Funding levels 
from 1995 to 2003 represent a loss of at least $1.3 million per year 
after adjusting for inflation using a national inflation index with a 
1995 baseline. In reality, the loss of spending power during this 
period is considerably larger, as annual cost of living adjustments for 
staff located exclusively in large urban centers is much greater than 
the national inflation average. As GAO's 2003 report recognized, the 
Commission's financial status has left it unable to reduce its high 
staff vacancy rate, which has resulted in a reduction of the workforce 
from about 90 staff members in 1997 to approximately 65 now. Under 
these circumstances, it would be an extreme, if not impossible, 
challenge to institute all of GAO's recommendations contained in its 
2003 report, this draft report, as well as the concurrent draft report 
on the Commission to be issued by GAO's financial management team, much 
less to do so and continue to produce the current quality and volume of 
products. Nevertheless, we continue to look for ways to improve every 
aspect of our operations and will consider GAO's input accordingly.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 

LES JIN: 
Staff Director: 

GAO's Response to Comments:

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

Response to Broad Assertions in Commission's Comments:

The four broad assertions in the Commission's comments on our draft 
report, as well as our responses to these assertions, are summarized 
below.

* The Commission asserted that we rushed to complete the report within 
an artificially constrained timeline and did not take the time to 
conduct thorough fact-finding or analyses to ensure a quality report. 
We disagree strongly with this assertion. To the contrary, we scoped, 
designed, and conducted this engagement in accordance with applicable 
professional standards and our quality assurance requirements. To 
further ensure the quality of our work, we included an initial design 
period, in which we built upon our considerable knowledge of the 
Commission from previous GAO reports and obtained further information 
as needed. In designing and conducting our work, we also consulted with 
our internal experts on GPRA and other issues. Far from rushing through 
the engagement, we in fact extended our design period so that we could 
perform high-quality work within a timeframe useful to our 
congressional requesters. At the end of this design period in July, we 
narrowed our scope, deferring a potential objective on the 
organizational structure of the Commission. Refining the scope of an 
engagement following a design phase is not an unusual audit practice. 
By agreement with our requesters, we did not include work on the 
Commission's organizational structure not because of any arbitrary 
decision, as the Commission alleges, but rather to enable us to 
complete our work on time and in accordance with our quality standards. 
Our focus on GPRA, oversight, and the Commission's response to our 
October 2003 report recommendations remained consistent throughout the 
assignment, from initial notification to report drafting. Furthermore, 
in our May 2004 entrance conference with the agency, we noted our focus 
on these areas, and in July 2004, at the end of our design phase, we 
shared these objectives and our approach with Commission staff in an 
interview.

* The Commission asserted that we did not follow up with its staff as 
needed to obtain answers to questions and that they expected us to 
interview more people, both staff and Commissioners, in the course of 
our work. We disagree. Our methodology called for analyzing Commission 
documents, pertinent legislation and guidance, and various reports by 
OPM and GAO. Although at the beginning of our project, we envisioned 
interviewing key managers and all of the Commissioners as part of 
possible work on the Commission's organizational structure, these 
interviews became unnecessary when we decided to focus on the 
Commission's GPRA plans and reports, oversight of the Commission, and 
the agency's response to our previous report recommendations. As noted 
in our report, to obtain information for these objectives, we conducted 
interviews with the Staff Director, Special Assistant to the Staff 
Director, Human Resources Director, and Budget Chief. We also followed 
up with e-mails and telephone calls as needed. Finally, in our exit 
conference, we presented all of our findings and provided an 
opportunity for Commission staff to comment on our findings and provide 
technical corrections. At that meeting, Commission officials provided a 
few comments, but no technical corrections; with few exceptions, they 
did not disagree with the facts or conclusions we presented.[Footnote 
22]

* The Commission asserted that it cooperated with us fully, at all 
times. However, while our working relationships were professional and 
Commission officials were usually responsive in providing documents as 
requested, we do not agree that Commission staff cooperated fully with 
us throughout our work. Obtaining interviews with the Commission and 
key staff was frequently difficult, with each one requiring a minimum 
of 3 weeks to schedule. For example, although we notified the 
Commission on April 19, 2004, about our planned work and called shortly 
thereafter to schedule an initial meeting, it took numerous calls to 
set up our entrance conference on May 20, 2004. This delay in 
scheduling the initial meeting occurred despite our reference to the 
need for a rapid response. In addition, since it was difficult for 
Commission officials to find the time to meet with us, we combined our 
entrance conference with that of another GAO team that was examining 
the Commission's financial transactions so that they would not also 
experience a delay in starting their work. We had similar difficulties 
scheduling other meetings as well.

* The Commission has repeatedly asserted that it is a small agency, 
with a budget of approximately $9 million and fewer than 70 staff--
information that we noted in the draft report. In commenting on the 
draft report, the Commission asserted that its GPRA and personnel 
processes were appropriate and sound for an agency of its size. The 
Commission also cited its size in asserting that it would be an 
"extreme" challenge to institute our October 2003 recommendations. We 
disagree with these assertions. The Commission's size is not relevant 
here: Size does not mitigate the need for the Commission to address 
longstanding management and human capital problems identified in 
previous OPM and GAO reports. Furthermore, the Commission could make 
use of GPRA's planning and reporting framework to strengthen itself as 
an agency. For example, the Commission could use GPRA's planning 
framework to update and sharpen its goals, clearly identify the 
strategies and resources needed to achieve those goals, and improve its 
management and human capital practices, as recommended. The Commission 
could then also use GPRA's reporting framework to demonstrate the 
progress it has made towards achieving those goals.

Response to Specific Comments from the Commission:

In addition to making these broad comments, the Commission disagreed 
with our findings more specifically. Our detailed responses to the 
Commission's comments follow.

We disagree that the Commission has implemented or was "engaged in 
implementing" all of the recommendations in our October 2003 report. 
See responses 2 through 6.

Although the Commission reported that it has taken various steps to 
meet the financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the 
act, we disagree that it is in a position to meet the act's 
requirements for financial statement preparation and audit this year. 
As of September 16, 2004, the Commission had not hired an independent 
auditor to conduct this work. The agency's ability to meet the act's 
requirements in the less than 2 remaining months is highly doubtful, 
since the agency has not had its fiscal activities independently 
audited in more than 12 years, and no audit work has begun.

The Commission's assertion is not accurate: The Commission has not 
implemented our recommendation to provide for increased commissioner 
involvement in project implementation and report preparation. In fact, 
as the Commission noted in its comments, the Commission has "continued 
to follow longstanding Commission policy on Commissioner-staff 
interaction." As we reported in October 2003, this policy does not 
provide for systematic Commissioner input throughout projects. Nothing 
precludes the Staff Director from providing additional information 
about projects and report status to Commissioners as a matter of good 
project management and quality assurance. Furthermore, the Staff 
Director could respond in various ways to Commissioners' concerns for 
increased input without obtaining a formal vote to change the 
Commission's procedures. For example, Commissioners could receive a 
summary of preliminary facts and findings or an outline of a planned 
report.

The Commission asserted that there is no requirement that the 
Commissioners' judgment must be substituted with our judgment on policy 
decision matters. While our recommendations are not requirements, we 
provide recommendations in our reports in accordance with our statutory 
responsibilities to investigate the use of public money, analyze agency 
expenditures, and evaluate the results of federal programs and 
activities. Our reports and recommendations provide agencies with the 
information necessary to improve their mission performance and Congress 
with the information necessary for oversight, including the development 
of legislation that will help agencies in their efforts. As the 
administrative head of the Commission, the Staff Director is authorized 
to make administrative changes that are consistent with the law and 
Commission policies. While it may be difficult at times to distinguish 
between an administrative and policy matter, we are not aware of any 
Commission policies that would prevent the Staff Director from 
implementing our recommendations nor would it be contrary to the law.

The Commission asserted that it has provided the Commissioners with 
project cost information and made efforts to monitor the adequacy and 
timeliness of the information given, as recommended in our October 2003 
report. According to Commission staff, the agency provides cost 
information on a quarterly basis to Commissioners and has done so since 
the last quarter of fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 23] However, we continue 
to believe that having regular project cost reports, such as monthly 
reports, would enhance the Commissioners' ability to plan for and 
monitor projects during their monthly meetings. Monthly reports would 
allow greater accountability for the projects by integrating cost 
information in a timely manner into project management. Since the 
Commission's Budget Chief told us that he prepares monthly project cost 
reports for the Staff Director, preparing reports for the 
Commissioners' monthly meetings should not be unduly burdensome. To 
ensure that cost reports can be best used to strengthen project 
monitoring and management, these reports should also be provided to 
Commissioners shortly after the month ends.

We believe that it is a deficiency for the Commission to provide 
quarterly cost reports to Commissioners 3 months after a quarter has 
ended. Our October 2003 recommendation called for the Commission to 
monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information 
provided to Commissioners. In our view, information provided in 3-
month-old project cost reports cannot be considered timely.

We believe that it is a deficiency for project cost reports to omit 
mention of the status of planned projects. The Commission's second 
quarter 2004 cost report for the Commissioners did not indicate the 
status of 4 of the 12 projects. To be useful for decision making and 
monitoring, the project cost report should have noted that some planned 
projects had already been completed and that some work had not yet 
begun, so that the Commissioners monitoring the projects would have 
also been aware of the status of these projects.

We disagree that our conclusions on the Commission's response to OPM's 
1999 recommendations are inaccurate and incomplete. See responses 9 
through 16 as well as our response to broad assertions in the 
Commission's comments.

The Commission asserted that we did not indicate concerns about its 
implementation of OPM's 1999 recommendations until officials received 
the draft report. However, it is not clear to us why Commission 
officials should have been unaware of the direction of our findings. 
Four Commission officials, including the Human Resources Director, 
participated in two major meetings, one of which focused extensively on 
the Commission's actions in response to six of OPM's human resources 
recommendations. The Human Resources Director also participated in our 
exit conference in which we summarized our findings, including our 
finding on the Commission's responses to oversight by OPM. We noted 
explicitly during this meeting that we had focused on certain 
recommendations and had found that the actions taken by the Commission 
were limited. The Human Resources Director did not provide any 
corrections or technical comments on the agency's human resources 
practices during this meeting, nor did any other Commission official. 
In addition to these meetings, we obtained additional documents, 
comments, and answers to questions by e-mail from the Commission during 
the course of our work and incorporated this information into our draft 
report as appropriate.

The Commission asserts that we did not dispute that it complied with 11 
of OPM's 1999 recommendations. This statement is incorrect. We selected 
6 of OPM's 16 recommendations for analysis; we did not analyze the 
Commission's response to the remaining recommendations. We noted in our 
report that the Commission had implemented 1 of the 6 recommendations 
that we analyzed. We have clarified our methodology in the final 
report. See comment 11 for more information on our methodology.

The Commission asserted that we arbitrarily decided to focus on 6 of 
the 16 recommendations OPM made in 1999. We strongly disagree. To 
follow up on the Commission's response to OPM's recommendations, we 
judgmentally selected six recommendations that had broader, more 
systemic implications for the agency. At no point, however, did we pre-
select these recommendations in order to emphasize a particular outcome 
or "cast the agency in a bad light." We have clarified the basis for 
our selection of these recommendations in the final report.

We do not agree that the Commission has implemented OPM's 
recommendation to delegate HRM authority to managers. OPM's report 
stated that "the Staff Director retains final approving authority for 
most [human resources] decisions, including appointments, promotions, 
and performance ratings." Policies described in OPM's 1999 report 
remain in place at the Commission today. For example, in our interviews 
this year, Commission officials told us that the Staff Director must 
approve all hiring and promotion decisions as well as managers' 
evaluations of employees. As of February 2004, according to the 
Commission's administrative manual, "the staff director retains 
approval authority" as well for quality step increases, accomplishment 
awards, performance awards for its employees, and recommendations to 
OPM for other awards. While the Commission has taken certain actions to 
improve its human resources management practices, such as developing an 
employee handbook on human resources matters and providing managers 
with OPM's HRM Accountability System Development Guide, the Commission 
has not delegated human resource authorities to managers in all program 
areas, as OPM had recommended.

The Commission's assertion that it was acting in accordance with Merit 
System Principles is misleading and largely irrelevant for this 
discussion. OPM's recommendation for an accountability system stemmed 
from its analysis of the Commission's human resource accountability and 
internal self-assessment efforts (an area of weakness also identified 
in its 1996 review). In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not 
"developed an effective system to hold managers accountable for HRM-
related decisions." OPM further noted that the "Staff Director retains 
final approving authority for most [human resource] decisions… leaving 
managers uncertain about their own accountability when making these HRM 
decisions . . . Employees see this lack of accountability too, saying 
that the supervisory chain of command is unclear and that they are 
unsure of where work assignments and agency work priorities originate. 
Also, employees report that their jobs do not make good use of their 
skills and abilities; that they are not satisfied with their jobs; and 
that they do not feel free to disclose waste, fraud, and abuse without 
fear of reprisal." OPM noted that an internal self-assessment program 
was "urgently needed to assure accountability." References to the 
Commission's delegated examining authority and general compliance with 
OPM's Merit System Principles are not pertinent to the finding that led 
to this recommendation.

The Commission is inaccurate in asserting that OPM "may have made a 
recommendation for additional improvement of the Commission's personnel 
processes." As we noted in our report, OPM made 16 recommendations for 
improvement of the Commission's human resource management practices in 
its 1999 report. The Commission is also inaccurate in asserting that 
OPM found that "those basic [personnel] processes were already sound," 
and that "there was no real need to implement this recommendation [on 
using OPM's HRM Accountability System Guide], since Commission 
operations were good." This is an inaccurate reading of OPM's 1999 
findings and recommendations. While OPM found overall that the 
Commission's human resource program complied with the Merit System 
Principles, OPM also urged the Commission to consider its 
recommendations in five broad areas of human resource management. In 
the executive summary of the 1999 report, the first of 12 bullets 
highlighting OPM's findings summarizes concerns raised in its earlier 
1996 report on the Commission; acknowledges that the Commission "has 
improved its administration of the HRM program, particularly in the 
recruitment and placement area"; and continues by saying, "However, the 
other concerns we identified in 1996 continue to require attention." 
[Italics ours.] Of the 11 remaining bulleted findings in OPM's summary, 
7 describe problem areas, 3 are positive, and 1 is mixed.

The Commission asserts that using OPM's guide instead of designing its 
own system is appropriate because it is a small agency. However, the 
Commission's assertions reflect a misunderstanding of OPM's guidance to 
agencies and of what constitutes an accountability system for human 
resources. According to OPM, an HRM accountability system is a process 
and should be seen as a continuous cycle. This systemic, continuous 
process "enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the 
information or data on which accountability is ultimately based." It 
includes identifying the agency's strategic goals, including human 
resource goals; developing performance measures and a baseline to 
assess whether human resource goals are being met; and using this 
information to make improvements. The accountability process also 
requires cyclical, periodic reassessment. The Commission has taken 
various actions to improve its human resources management, including 
updating several administrative instructions, conducting an employee 
survey in fiscal year 2000, and developing an employee handbook. 
However, the Commission has not developed an accountability system--an 
ongoing process involving goal setting, evaluation, improvements, and 
reassessment--to address the concerns raised in OPM's report.

We cannot agree that goals established in 1997 address and implement 
OPM's 1999 recommendation, nor do we agree that our referring to the 
Commission's strategic plan in this discussion is unfair. The 
Commission's strategic plan was developed in 1997 and remains the 
Commission's only strategic plan. In 1999, OPM recommended that the 
Commission's strategic plan include human resources elements that OPM 
did not find in the Commission's 1997 plan. In examining goal six in 
the Commission's 1997 strategic plan, OPM "did not find that a link 
between HRM and agency mission accomplishment has been made apparent in 
the Strategic Plan. Further, the Strategic Plan does not list specific 
HRM goals and measures that could be used to assess the HRM function's 
ability to effectively and efficiently support agency mission 
accomplishment. We found no evidence that key measures and/or outcome 
indicators are used by [the Commission] to track its efforts to achieve 
HRM goals." The Commission's assertion that the 1997 strategic plan 
contains human resources goals, measures, and indicators is therefore 
neither accurate nor relevant: The 1997 plan does not include human 
resources measures and indicators and it was not part of the 
Commission's response to OPM's recommendation because it was developed 
2 years before OPM made this recommendation.

The Commission's statement that we examined its GPRA processes is 
incorrect, and its description of the processes it used in 1997 to 
develop its strategic plan and first performance plan and report are 
irrelevant. Our objective was to assess the Commission's compliance 
with GPRA's requirements for agency strategic plans, annual performance 
plans, and annual performance reports. We did not focus on the agency's 
process for developing these GPRA plans and reports, nor did we analyze 
the Commission's initial performance plan for fiscal year 1999 or its 
initial performance report for fiscal year 1999. As noted in our 
report, we analyzed the Commission's most recent performance plan (for 
fiscal year 2005) and the most recent performance report (for fiscal 
year 2003). We also compared the Commission's plan for fiscal year 2003 
to its performance report for the same year.

The Commission is incorrect in asserting that its descriptions of 
completed studies in its performance report provide information 
equivalent to performance indicators and that its plans and reports, by 
implication, comply with GPRA standards. Under GPRA, a performance 
indicator means a particular value or characteristic used to measure 
output or outcome. A narrative description of a report's findings 
cannot be used for measurement purposes. See comment 19 as well.

The assertion that the Commission can use non-quantifiable measures in 
its reports is misleading. GPRA allows the Director of OMB to authorize 
the use of alternative, nonquantifiable performance goals for annual 
performance plans if necessary. However, Commission officials 
explicitly told us that the agency did not apply for or receive 
authorization from OMB to submit goals in their annual performance plan 
in an alternative, nonquantifiable format. Agencies that are authorized 
to use alternative formats must comply with certain other requirements, 
which the Commission has not done.

The Commission has not received an exemption from GPRA reporting 
requirements. Although agencies with annual outlays of $20 million or 
less are eligible to apply to OMB for an exemption, as the Commission 
notes, Commission officials told us that the agency has not applied for 
nor received such an exemption.

Although the Commission has filed annual performance plans and annual 
reports each year, as required under GPRA, it has not revised and 
updated its strategic plan, which is also required under GPRA. 
Furthermore, we cannot agree that the Commission's plans and reports 
comply with "material requirements" of GPRA because of the numerous 
shortcomings in these products, as described in our report.

As noted in our report, according to OMB officials, OMB conducts 
primarily budgetary reviews and does not provide agencies that have 
small budgets and staff, such as the Commission, with the same level of 
scrutiny that it provides to larger agencies. OMB officials further 
told us that OMB does not approve or reject agencies' GPRA plans and 
reports, but provides comments as appropriate. Because of OMB's focus 
on budgetary reviews and on larger agencies, the absence of criticism 
from OMB does not necessarily constitute approval of an agency's GPRA 
plans and reports.

Contrary to the Commission's assertion, GPRA does require agencies to 
update and revise its strategic plan at least every 3 years. [Italics 
ours.] The Commission has not updated and revised its strategic plan 
since 1997 when it should have done so in fiscal year 2000 and again in 
fiscal year 2003. The Commission further asserts that its 1997 plan 
does not need updating or revision because its authorizing statute has 
not changed in the interim. This assumption is incorrect and 
demonstrates a misunderstanding of GPRA's purposes and requirements. As 
noted in our report, strategic planning is not a static or occasional 
event. If done well, it is dynamic, continuous, and results-oriented, 
and it provides the foundation for everything the organization does.

[End of section]

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

Of the 16 recommendations that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) 
made to the Commission in 1999, we judgmentally selected 6 
recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications for the 
agency. We did not analyze the Commission's response to the 10 
remaining recommendations.

OPM Recommendation: Include human resources goals, measures, and 
indicators in the Commission's Strategic Plan and involve Commission 
staff in the human resource planning and measurement process.

The Commission has not addressed this recommendation. Because the 
Commission has not updated its strategic plan, it has not included 
additional human capital goals and assessment measures. In addition, 
although the Commission issued a Human Resources Plan in fiscal year 
2000 that contains five human capital performance goals, the plan does 
not link these goals to its overall strategic goals, set forth a 
timeframe for achieving them, or describe how it will assess its 
progress.[Footnote 24] The plan also does not describe how Commission 
staff will participate in human resource planning and evaluation, as 
OPM recommended.

OPM Recommendation: Use OPM's Human Resource Management Accountability 
System Development Guide as a framework for creating an accountability 
system that will ensure that the Commission's employees are used 
efficiently and effectively and that personnel actions are taken in 
accordance with Merit Systems Principles in support of agency mission 
accomplishment.

Although Commission officials reported that they have developed and 
implemented an accountability system, we found little evidence to 
support this claim. OPM recommended that the Commission use its Human 
Resource Management Accountability System Development Guide as a 
framework for creating an accountability system.[Footnote 25] The 
Commission's fiscal year 2000 annual performance report noted that 
their managers were provided copies of the Accountability Guide for 
review and that the Commission planned to adopt or modify some of its 
procedures and recommendations. According to Commission officials, they 
used the Accountability Guide to develop a system similar to the one 
OPM outlines in its guide. They also told us that Commission managers 
were presented with a copy of the Accountability Guide and that their 
employees are aware of the system. According to the Commission's Human 
Resources Manager, the accountability system the agency developed in 
response to OPM's recommendation is in the Commission's Administrative 
Instructions Manual and its fiscal year 2000 Human Resources Plan. The 
Commission has taken various actions to improve its human resources 
management since OPM's 1999 review, such as conducting an employee 
survey in fiscal year 2000 and developing an employee handbook. 
Although the Commission has also updated several key sections of its 
administrative manual, most of the manual was published in April 1999, 
before OPM issued its report. Furthermore, the Commission's most recent 
annual performance plan does not refer to a human capital 
accountability system, nor does it detail human capital goals or 
baselines to use in evaluating such goals.

OPM Recommendation: Delegate human resources management authorities to 
managers in all program areas. Hold managers accountable for exercising 
the delegations through the Human Resources Management Accountability 
System.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. Overall, the 
Staff Director's authority for most human resources decisions remains 
essentially the same as in OPM's 1999 report findings.[Footnote 26] 
According to Commission officials, managers can recommend employees for 
hire, promotion, and awards and conduct annual and mid-year reviews of 
their staff. However, the Staff Director must approve all hiring and 
promotion decisions as well as managers' evaluations of employees 
before appraisals are given to employees.

OPM Recommendation: Develop a system for periodically collecting 
employee feedback regarding human resources services and policies. 
Incorporate that feedback in the Human Resources Management 
Accountability System.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. To date, the 
Commission has not developed a formal system to regularly collect 
employee feedback about its human capital services and policies, even 
though a similar recommendation to obtain customer feedback and track 
customer views was also made in OPM's earlier 1996 review.[Footnote 27] 
In fiscal year 2000, the Commission administered a staff survey on 
human resources and other Commission issues. According to officials, 
the Commission plans to administer another staff survey in the fall of 
2004. However, the Commission has not developed plans to survey staff 
on a regular basis. In addition, since the Commission was unable to 
locate the results of its 2000 survey, its managers cannot use earlier 
human capital findings to systematically set goals and make 
improvements. According to OPM officials, OPM will conduct a Web-based 
Human Capital Survey of Commission staff beginning in September or 
October of 2004.

OPM Recommendation: Require that all managers make progress reviews and 
performance appraisals in a timely manner when the Human Resources 
Division notifies them they are due, and require that the Staff 
Director review appraisals when they are made without delay.

The Commission has implemented this recommendation, which was also made 
in OPM's 1996 review.[Footnote 28] According to the Commission's Human 
Resources Director, the agency is on schedule for its fiscal year 2004 
performance appraisals. Commission guidance on the 2004 performance 
appraisal cycle requires Commission supervisors and managers to conduct 
annual and mid-year performance reviews of their staff. For non-Senior 
Executive Service employees, the process is outlined in a memorandum 
that the Human Resources Director sends annually to Commission 
supervisors and managers.

OPM Recommendation: With employee involvement, consider developing a 
new performance management system linked to organizational and agency 
goals established under the Commission's Strategic Plan.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. The 
Commission's performance management system is described in its 
Administrative Instructions Manual, most of which was issued in April 
1999--6 months before OPM issued the recommendations in its October 
1999 report. The Administrative Instructions do not clearly require 
that employees' performance plans link individual staff goals to 
broader strategic goals. The parts of the manual that set forth the 
Commission's policies and procedures on appraisals make no reference to 
the Commission's strategic plan, nor does it specify how to link 
individual staff goals to the Commission's strategic goals or how to 
involve employees in this process.

[End of section]

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

GAO Recommendation: Monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost 
information that the Staff Director provides to Commissioners and make 
the necessary adjustments, which could include providing information on 
a monthly, rather than a quarterly, basis and as necessary.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In our 2003 
review, we found that the Commission's procedures did not provide for 
the Commissioners to systematically receive project cost information--
a key element of good project management. As a result, the 
Commissioners approved the majority of projects and products each year 
without having any specific information on how much the project would 
cost, or how much similar projects have cost in past years.

In the Commission's June 2004 letter responding to our 2003 
recommendations, the Staff Director stated that this recommendation 
spoke to "Commission policy on the proper level and mode of interaction 
between the Commissioners and staff … [and that] the Commissioners have 
reaffirmed on numerous occasions the current policy regarding 
interaction with staff." He added that the Commission "is continuing to 
monitor the adequacy and timeliness of project cost information 
provided to Commissioners."

According to the Staff Director, his office provides the Commissioners 
with cost information for each project and office on a quarterly basis, 
and they began doing so during the last quarter of 2003. However, the 
cost report for the second quarter of fiscal year 2004, ending March 
31, was not sent to the Commissioners until June 30, 2004, and was sent 
in response to requests from the Commissioners for this information. It 
is also not clear that the Commission is monitoring the adequacy and 
timeliness of project cost information, as recommended. For example, 
the quarterly report for the second quarter of 2004 cites costs for 
only 8 of the 12 projects outlined in the Commission's fiscal year 2004 
performance plan.

GAO Recommendation: Adopt procedures that provide for increased 
Commissioner involvement in project implementation and report 
preparation.

The Staff Director does not agree with this recommendation and has not 
implemented it. In our 2003 review, we found that Commissioners have 
limited involvement in the management of projects once they have been 
approved. As a result, we recommended that the Commission adopt 
procedures for increasing Commissioner involvement after project 
implementation by providing them with project updates and allowing them 
to review the product at various stages in the drafting process, so 
that they participate more actively in shaping products released to the 
public.

The Staff Director did not agree with this recommendation and told us 
that he believes that the current procedures that govern Commissioner 
involvement in the development of products are appropriate and 
efficient. In his June 2004 letter responding to our recommendations, 
the Staff Director wrote that the responsibility for determining policy 
on Commissioners' interaction with the staff is "delegated by statute 
to the Commissioners." According to the Staff Director, the 
Commissioners requested that he assess the situation and issue 
recommendations on their involvement in report preparation. The Staff 
Director said that involving the Commissioners in the writing stage 
would "bog down" the process and that it would be difficult to 
incorporate the viewpoints of the eight Commissioners. To date, the 
Commission has not adopted any procedures to increase Commissioner 
involvement in the report preparation stage.

GAO Recommendation: Establish greater controls over contracting 
activities in order to comply with the Federal Acquisition Regulation.

Although the Staff Director disagreed with this recommendation, the 
Commission took one step towards establishing greater controls by 
contracting with a contracts and procurement specialist to supplement 
its operations. In 2003, we reported that the Commission lacked 
sufficient management controls over its contracting procedures. We 
found that, in fiscal year 2002, the Commission had not followed proper 
federal procedures in awarding most of its 11 contracts. Moreover, we 
found that the Commission failed to follow procedures that would allow 
it to track vendors' performance against objective measures and ensure 
that public funds are being used effectively.

While the Staff Director disagreed in his June 2004 response letter 
with the need for the actions associated with this recommendation, he 
later told us that the Commission "could be stronger" in the area of 
procurement. Since our 2003 report was issued, the Commission has 
supplemented its contracts and procurements operations by contracting 
with a contracts and procurements specialist with over 30 years of 
experience in government contracting. According to Commission 
officials, this specialist began providing services to the Commission 
in December 2003 and generally addresses complex procurement issues.

GAO Recommendation: Take steps immediately in order to meet the 
financial statement preparation and audit requirements of the 
Accountability of Tax Dollars Act of 2002 for fiscal year 2004.

The Commission has not implemented this recommendation. In 2003, we 
found that the Commission's fiscal activities had not been 
independently audited in at least 12 years. We concluded that the 
Commission's limited financial management controls and lack of external 
oversight makes the Commission vulnerable to resource losses due to 
waste, mismanagement, or abuse.

Although in the June 2004 response, the Commission reported working 
with its accounting vendor to ensure that it would meet these 
requirements, as of August 2004, the Commission had not taken the 
necessary steps, such as hiring an independent auditor, to ensure that 
it will meet the requirements of the Accountability of Tax Dollars Act 
this year.

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Revae E. Moran, (202) 512-3863 
Deborah A. Signer, (202) 512-7158:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Friendly M. VangJohnson and Caroline Sallee made significant 
contributions to this report. In addition, Richard P. Burkard, 
Elizabeth H. Curda, Julian P. Klazkin, Benjamin T. Licht, Corinna 
Nicolaou, and Michael R. Volpe provided key technical and legal 
assistance throughout the engagement.

FOOTNOTES

[1] See GAO, Commission on Civil Rights: Commissioners' Travel 
Activities, GAO/GGD-94-130 (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 8, 1994). 

[2] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: Agency Lacks Basic 
Management Controls, GAO/HEHS-97-125 (Washington, D.C.: July 8, 1997). 

[3] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and 
Financial Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18 (Washington D.C.: Oct. 31, 2003). 


[4] Several agencies have enforcement authority for civil rights 
issues. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission is 
charged with enforcing specific federal employment antidiscrimination 
statutes. Also, the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice 
enforces federal statutes prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 
race, sex, disability, religion, and national origin. 

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

[6] See GAO, Executive Guide: Effectively Implementing the Government 
Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118 (Washington, D.C.: June 
1996); Agencies' Strategic Plans Under GPRA: Key Questions to 
Facilitate Congressional Review, GAO/GGD-10.1.16 (Washington, D.C.: 
May 1997); The Results Act: An Evaluator's Guide to Assessing Agency 
Annual Performance Plans, GAO/GGD-10.1.20 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 
1998); and Results-Oriented Government: GPRA Has Established a Solid 
Foundation for Achieving Greater Results, GAO-04-38 (Washington, D.C.: 
Mar. 10, 2004).

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

[8] OMB Circular A-11 pt 6, § 220 (July 2003).

[9] See 31 U.S.C. §§ 501, 503(2000).

[10] 5 U.S.C. § 1104(b)(2).

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

[12] Agencies 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 services directly.

[13] In 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 Commission's 
performance report, fact-finding projects can involve five performance 
goals, including report publication, public event, report 
dissemination, consideration of recommendations by agencies, and action 
initiated by agencies in response to findings.

[14] For this analysis, we compared the results reported in the 
Commission's fiscal year 2003 performance report with the goals 
described in the agency's performance plan for fiscal year 2003.

[15] Apportionment refers to the action by which OMB distributes 
amounts available for obligation in an appropriation or fund account. 
An apportionment divides amounts available for obligation by specific 
time periods (usually quarters), activities, projects, objects, or a 
combination. 

[16] These reviews are conducted to determine how well an agency's 
human resources programs, operations, and use of personnel authorities 
contribute to mission accomplishment and whether the actions taken 
comply with Merit Systems Principles, laws, and regulations. Merit 
Systems Principles constitute the framework for federal human resources 
management. See 5 U.S.C. § 2301. 

[17] Of the 16 recommendations made by OPM in 1999, we judgmentally 
selected 6 recommendations that had broader, more systemic implications 
for the Commission. We did not analyze the Commission's responses to 
the 10 remaining recommendations. (For descriptions of these six OPM 
recommendations and the Commission's responses, see appendix II.)

[18] See 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.: July 17, 1997). In 1998, 
we reported on the status of the Commission's progress in addressing 
our 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).

[19] See GAO, U.S. Commission on Civil Rights: More Operational and 
Financial Oversight Needed, GAO-04-18, (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 31, 
2003).

[20] Under 31 U.S.C. 720, when the Comptroller General issues a report 
that includes a recommendation to the head of an agency, the head of 
the agency is required to submit a written statement on the actions 
taken. This statement must be submitted to the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs and the House Committee on Government Reform not 
later than 60 days from the date of the report. However, the Commission 
did not provide a statement to the committees in response to our 
October 2003 report recommendations until June 1, 2004, after we had 
asked for the status of their statements in our entrance conference on 
May 20, 2004. These statements were due to the committees in December 
2003. 

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

[22] About 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 Commission's compliance with GPRA 
requirements. 

[23] In April 2003, the Commissioners passed a motion to receive 
quarterly cost information on its projects, by project and by office. 

[24] The performance goals in the Commission's fiscal year 2000 Human 
Resources Plan were (1) refine performance measurement systems to 
establish usable measures, (2) provide all employees with training 
opportunities to improve their job skills, (3) ensure that the 
Commission workforce reflects the diversity of their clientele, (4) 
make family-friendly programs that can complement the Commission, and 
(5) provide all Commission employees access to the Internet.

[25] OPM's Accountability Guide, issued in 1998, describes a model for 
establishing and maintaining an HRM accountability system within an 
organization, with particular emphasis of human resource goals and 
measures in support of an agency's mission. According to the 
Accountability Guide, human resources management accountability starts 
with identifying the agency's strategic goals. The agency should then 
develop human resources goals in support of these goals. From there, 
performance measures should be developed and a baseline established to 
permit assessment of whether the goals are being met. According to OPM, 
an HRM accountability system should be seen as a continuous, systemic, 
process that "enables an agency to identify, collect, and use the 
information or data on which accountability is ultimately based."

[26] In 1999, OPM found that the Commission had not yet developed an 
effective system for holding managers accountable for HRM decisions. 
OPM's report stated that "the Staff Director retains final approval 
authority for most human resources decisions, including appointments, 
promotions, and performance ratings, leaving managers uncertain about 
their own accountability when making human resources management 
decisions." 

[27] In 1996, OPM's review called for the Commission to "establish a 
self-assessment program to include a review of program compliance and 
customer feedback on the quality of services provided. In particular, 
the personnel office should track customer views on the timeliness and 
accuracy of services provided."

[28] In 1996, OPM made several recommendations on the Commission's 
performance management, noting in particular that the Commission should 
"monitor whether managers are conducting progress reviews," and "create 
a more timely process for handling performance appraisal ratings."

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone:

 

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

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

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: